Talk:Toyama-ryū: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:14, 7 January 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toyama-ryū article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Martial arts Start‑class

	Martial arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

standing position

Only being yonkyu I won't edit the page, but the claim that "all techniques are practised from a standing position", repeated both here and in the mention of Toyama-ryu under Iaido, does not match my experience. (other user that did not sign post...)

I read that paperback book many years ago describing the style, and applied it to other prior training. From the book, and military application, upright position or standing could be said to be emphasized? Maybe thats the right word. The explanation of the motion and angle of attack of the blade really helped me a lot. Rwwff 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct to say that all Toyama-ryu (Nakamura-ryu Batto-do specifically) techniques are executed from a standing position.Dsunlin (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit concerning Japan China war history

The use of "why .... is allowed" seems more than just a little wierd. Maybe "it is fair to question why the perpetuation and celebration of the traditions of the Toyama Military academy are allowed" should rather say something like "...academy are popular." or maybe "...academy are socially acceptable." I'm certainly sensitive to the feelings of the one who added the line, but I think your point gets lost on most English speakers, drawing the focus not to the immoral practice that occured, but rather on the immoral implication that someone might have the authority to disallow something like this.

Honestly speaking, I think that last sentence badly hurts your cause no matter how you glue it together. Tell some untold number of English speakers they shouldn't be allowed to do something, they'll find a way to go do it as soon as possible, and in the most public and obnoxious way possible. It should probably be deleted, leaving your reference link, and the Although popular sales literature for the schools that teach Toyama Ryu often cite the style as a type of kenjutsu, the flat footed cutting of targets calls to mind the tied up and defeated nature of the intended targets of the Toyama Ryu. part. Maybe expand it a bit to "...Toyama-Ryu's application of tameshigiri" since the style does teach how to meet an incoming blade without damaging your own edge. Obviously a bound prisoner about to be killed would not be swinging a sword. Rwwff 07:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article has serious lack-of-NPOV issues. It verges on saying "This martial art is exclusively for dismembering helpless victims." My limited understanding is that it is, more or less, a simplified, brisk form of iai taught to ensure that officers could actually use their swords if need be. If there's a serious body of literature that suggests it really was taught just so they'd know how to cut up prisoners for show, a subsection should be added to explain this theory. I've never studied Toyama-ryu, so I won't presume to edit the article, but this really should be taken care of. --GenkiNeko 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I removed the tag after cleaning out the offending sentences. None of them were based on fact. Toyama-ryu was originally designed to teach military officers to use the swords they were to carry. It is less complicated as some forms of kenjutsu and generally speaking it tends to be minimilist reflecting the time expected to be used for practice. The fact that some officers went on to use the knowledge in carrying out unspeakable acts is really besides the point. These acts reflected the time and society rather than the school itself. Hey even aikido, judo and kendo count war-criminals in their ranks.Peter Rehse 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Peter. You know, I might back away from my earlier reservations; I'll look up some info from, say, Shinkendo sites and see if I can contribute a bit. --GenkiNeko 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for fixing this thing up. Its gone from a usenet quality rant and ramble to something useful to someone asking the question "what is.,." Rwwff 09:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed non-NPOV statement by user 144.15.13.228. There are a number of individuals who resent Toyama-ryu for reasons unknown who may attempt to post derogatory statements. This article and related topics should be watched for future attempts at slander. B. Frieman 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkendo?

Should there not be a link to the article on Shinkendo, since this is AFAIK a modification of Toyama-ryu?Dsunlin (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 Removed non-NPOV statement by user 144.15.13.228. There are a number of individuals who resent Toyama-ryu  for reasons unknown who may attempt to post derogatory statements. This article and related topics should be watched for future attempts at slander. [[User:B. Frieman|B. Frieman]] 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
+== Shinkendo? ==
+Should there not be a link to the article on Shinkendo, since this is AFAIK a modification of Toyama-ryu?[[User:Dsunlin|Dsunlin]] ([[User talk:Dsunlin|talk]]) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)