Talk:Budō

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Budō article.
Article policies
Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I was under the impression that budo referred specifically to the modern martial arts, while the traditional ones were bujutsu and the "way of the warrior" was bushido. — Gwalla | Talk 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gendai budo is the term for the modern budo arts. Some people stress that the old arts are "jutsu" and the modern "do" but others see the distinction as fairly newly invented and exaggerated.Habj 13:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thinking about it, we could alter "koryu" to "koryu bujutsu". Habj 13:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And thinking again, these two sentenses sounds more like bushido than budo to me: 'Budo more correctly represents a discipline and way of life specific to the idealized Japanese warrior. It is distinguished by many terms from the actual technical skills and techniques of the warrior, such as Bujutsu ("Warrior's Artistry" or "Warrior's Skill") Kyudo ("The Way of the Bow"), Kendo and Kenjutsu ("Way of the Sword" and "Sword Artistry" or "Sword Skill").'
As far as I know, there is indeed a distinction between budo and bushido; to define budo as the Japanese term for 'martial arts' is, I think, not correct. Budo is more about the ethics and morals, the way of life of the Japanese warrior class. Kars 21:07, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT+1)
Not sure what I would like to replace them with, though. Habj 22:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the problem. Still feels a bit clumsy to me.Peter Rehse 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that aikido or judo was an attempt to synthesize all jujutsu, nor was kendo doing that with kenjutusu. Karate being dominant - not in this country. I realy do think it was better the way it was.Peter Rehse 07:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


The new version is very well done - good job. I would like to mention how Draeger popularized the difference but not sure how to work that in.Peter Rehse 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I appreciate the compliment. As far as incorporating Draeger's work, I think that's an excellent idea, but, while I'm familiar with his work (and the controversies surrounding it's accuracy), I haven't actually read any of it, or have access to copies. It would be great if you could add something. Maybe as a new paragraph under the Budo vs. Bujutsu heading, or the old vs. new heading, that goes something like: "A significant contributor to the development of this distinction was the prioneering work of martial artist and author Donn Draeger. As one of the first Westerners able to fully immerse himself in the martial arts community in Japan in the 1960s (50s?), his books first began to popularize this distinction between traditional and modern martial arts." Of course, a cite to an actual book would be necessary, and maybe a note about how the accuracy of his work is disputed etc...Bradford44 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately I don't have access to the book either. Let me think about it - its not absolutely necessary.Peter Rehse 00:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this article could be classed as B but it needs some sources. The article Kiai is a good example of what's needed.Peter Rehse 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

The more I think about it, the more this article bothers me. For a week or two (ever since I revised it to its present state) I have been considering what exactly I don't like about it. The difficulty lies in the fact that I think what exists now is an interesting article, is reasonably articulate, and somewhat decently organized. So I haven't been able to put my finger on exactly what's been bugging me about it. I've now figured it out - the page isn't actually about budo. All it's really about is how budo may or may not be something different from bujutsu. It's interesting, and a worthwhile inquiry, but the article's present state is problematic where currently linking to Japanese martial arts takes you here, to budo, where the reader learns nothing whatsoever about Japanese martial arts except for an esoteric series of points about the possible difference between how different people interpret two Japanese words.

To conclude, here, I wanted to open up for discussion the following questions:

  1. Is this the information that should be included in an article about "Japanese martial arts"?
  2. Should "budo" and "Japanese martial arts" be different articles, or interchangable (as they are now)?
  3. If the current content does not belong here, where does it belong?

If no one is interested in this discussion, I'll start implementing some possible revsions once I have some more time.Bradford44 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought about this a tad. Leave Budo as is for the moment. I started a Japanese martial arts which I think can act as a central hub to several well written articles concerning martial arts in general and also specific martial arts. If we need to merge a few articles later so be it but we do need an article such as Chinese martial arts. The terms budo and bujutsu covers alot within Japanese martial arts but not the whole gammit. I was a bit swamped today so the initial attempt at the new article is a bit haphazard.Peter Rehse 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you need to start by defining what a Martial Art is and is not. This however may not be an easy task as opinions vary. The page itself, being about Budo should define Budo and then summarize related information. If that information becomes of sufficeint depth, then it warrants it's own page. Kyoshinko 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology...

"Specifically, dō is derived from the Buddhist Sanskrit mārga (meaning the 'path' to enlightenment)." I know there is a source cited, but at present I have no access to it. However, my study would indicate that dō is in fact the Japanese term for the Chinese Dào, which in terms of both etymology and philosophy is a concept indigenous to China, and largely predates Indian influence. Wouldn't this fact void the statement made in the article at the moment? elvenscout742 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)