Talk:Nihontō/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

European comparison sections badly needs revamping

This entire section is far too long (being longer than any other part of the article despite being about what boils down to a style quibble) and inaccurate, full of speculation (especially the recent additions of a few paragraphs (!) near the end), and showing a heavy reconstructed WMA bias. It should be cut severely and any assertions that it makes backed up heavily, given the weight of the subject matter being described.

If comparing the swords of the world is that important, a seperate page should be created. As it stands, I have seen this discussion go around too many times and nothing worth mentioning ever comes of it besides a new record for weasel words per word count. Kensai Max 03:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


The comparison with European swords is quite valid, the Katana has achieved a position as a kind of “über sword” which is well documented, even among Japanese, but not realistic and so deserves to be countered to achieve a truly Neutral POV. This is not necessary for other swords since they are not continually portrayed in this way. http://listserv.tamu.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0401&L=arch-l&D=0&P=4689 -(This article referees only to “gunto swords” in other words industrially mass produced swords produced in a western method to save time and money and considered to be greatly inferior to a traditionally forged shinken as a result gunto are not a good representative of a nihonto katana seeing as they were not even forged in the traditional manner but masse produced.) European swords are regularly portrayed as blunt metal clubs lacking the fine edge of a Japanese sword; again this is a myth which needs debunking. The wounds catalogued from the battle of Wisby clearly show that European swords were capable of cutting multiple limbs with ease. The assertion that the article shows a strong WMA bias is also untrue; it merely states that European swords are not as bad as they are often portrayed in popular media. LiamMJohnson 14:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the katana doesn’t just cut metal but can even survive multiple bullet shots from a M2 heavy machine gun to my knowledge no european sword is capable of a similar feat of resiliance.

[1] [2]

- A bullet is generally made of fairly soft metal. Cutting one isn't as impressive a feat as it might seem at first, and in either case, it isn't relevant to the section of the article.


however it must be remembered that the M2 has a Muzzle velocity of over 3,050ft/s and it's .50 BMG bullets are also used for sniping and are ment to punch through armored targets

Irrelevant. The section is gigantic and full of meaningless, unencyclopedic speculation. If the katana's "reputation" as an "uber sword" is what is under discussion, a paragraph-sized note could be added discussing it. The source you gave is by far the most negative portrayal of the katana that I have ever encountered - yes, I've read it earlier, and it's not accurate, representative or NPOV.
Stating that European swords are consistently badly portrayed and that the article of another type of a sword needs to have a specific comparison of that type with European weapons is evidence of systematic, massive WMA bias. It's unacceptable in an otherwise very good article. As I said earlier, if a comparison of the swords of the world is necessary, it should be done elsewhere, not in the katana article and not specifically comparing Japanese and European swords.
In any event, despite some recent positive edits the section still has problems, especially with regards to weasel words, and is simply too large. As I have said, if it's that important it should be moved elsewhere to preserve the katana article soley for Japanese swords.
Also, it might just be me, but the "famous katana users" section is a little... redundant. A list of famous "katana users" is the same as a list of famous Japanese swordsmen. Should it really be in the article, especially under the current title, which is a little on the amateurish side? Kensai Max 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I did my best to shorten the section and remove some of the European bias.

Are the third and fourth paragraphs neccessary? I shortened the third and took out the fourth entirely at one point, but they've been brought back now.

"Are the third and fourth paragraphs neccessary?": Yes so long as they are properly documented, sourced and supported by facts.Both of the paragraphs are acceptably relevant to the topic, either dealing with an alleged katana myth, (machinegun) or dealing with the usage of blades (armor). Therefore it would be best to leave the facts in place seeing as they already have sources and citations.


- Couldn't the katana's performance against armour be moved to some other section of the article? And since no comparable bullet-splitting tests have ever been performed with other swords to my knowledge, I don't see how the gunshot tests are relevant to the comparison.


- There are several instances recorded in the Napoleonic wars and American civil war of cavalry sabers shattering after being struck by gun fire,(with much lower Muzzle velocities than a modern day gun), and even further back there were many instances in the crusades where the Saracens scimitars were well known for shattering large European broadswords. (Incidentally the scimitar’s Damascus steel is believed to have been made in a similar manner to Japanese forging.)

The paragraphs in question should not be removed but instead abridged and shortened they still contain some useful facts but are to long. Either way this is starting to look like one of those Lame edit wars.


- Presumably lower-quality military issue weapons breaking under battlefield conditions (when hit from different angles, for example) is different from a controlled situation where a different (admittedly heavier and faster) bullet is fired directly at the sword's edge. I'd love to see real historical documentation regarding Muslim weapons shattering European swords, btw.


It seems someone saw fit to split up my earlier reply with a lengthy rebuttal, namely, "::Sorry but the only bias here seems to be yours Kensai Max! As to the source - did you actually read it and understand(Apparently he did) it???(You only needed to use one) The comments in the article were from a trained swordsmith (LiamM’s article only refers to Gunto the industrially mass produced swords to make it’s point provides no sourced facts and only anecdotes. That seems like a clear form of bias to me.)about how even the Japanese Offices (Officers?) (wrongly) belived their swords to have incredible cutting powers! (see [3] [4]seems pretty incredible to me.)Are you actually prepared to accept that a katana is made of steel( it's actualy made of a Martensite/ Pearlite mix, not stainless steel.) and can be bent or broken in combat,(Gunto used as the only evidence). or are you going to rest on the position that anybody who claims a katana is not "the best sword in the world" must be some sort of (Try to avoid personal attacks, this is a discussion not a mudslinging match.) WMA freak. Yes I agree that the current section is large and badly written, but that does not mean that it should be thrown out completely (Agreed just make sure that every statement is factual and verified by a acceptable document. But unlike [this] make sure the documents are from a good source and use more than anecdotes and Gunto to support their claims.) or that it is in any way biased because to portrays a katana in more realistic terms.~~"
I don't appreciate unsigned users splitting up my posts, so I've moved it here.
To adress the concerns raised, the article in question is BY FAR the most negative portrayal of Japanese swords I have ever read. Period. Highly selective and highly POV, regardless of who it's quoting from. As such it should be treated on the same level as an article claiming that the US navy is badly vulnerable to Shkval torpedoes or any other scathing article trying to attack a long-standing institution. You want a good view from real swordsmen of the WWII era, go read some interviews with Nakamura Taizaburo.
On a more cheerful note I'd suggest doing a serious review on "However, the greater availability of iron made it practical to also produce low-cost, fair-quality weapons in large quantities. Where Europeans had the choice between expensive swords and cheap swords, Japanese had the choice between expensive swords, somewhat less expensive swords, or none at all." This seems to be highly dubious information to me, given the mass-production of swords to arm ashigaru in the Sengoku and the general high availability of weapons in Japan throughout history, to the point that Hideyoshi thought it worthwhile to disarm the -peasantry-. If swords were as expensive as is written in the article, the peasants wouldn't have been able to afford them - let's not forget that many samurai of the Sengoku were farmers most of the time. Unfortunately to confirm this either way would require some pretty specialized sources. Definite citation needed.
IIRC, this, "It is a commonly-encountered article of faith that katanas are intrinsically superior to the swords of other cultures. This belief is frequently bolstered by roleplaying games that assign superior statistics to katanas, and also by many movies. However, these claims are largely based on misunderstandings about the manufacture and role of swords in other cultures, and comparing the schools on their worst examples instead of their best." has been distilled from various WMA sources. I've seen these claims before.
So? Are you disputing the claim? Do you think it is a really good point - that is why you pick it out? My problem with your comments here is that on the one hand you claim to have a NPOV on the issue but denounce such comments with statements like “has been distilled from various WMA sources” as if that is some sort of definition of a poor source. If you feel the claim is not supportable by easily obtainable evidence then please be kind enough to support your position with something more concrete. The first sentence of the above is fully supportable – there are many examples of games and films which portray katana as better than other swords (AD&D springs to mind). The only way to counter that is to provide a larger number (with statistics) of games or films which show the katana as worse. The second sentence is less specific since most of these games and films provide no justification for why they hold this view. Those which do specify a reason, suggest - as does the above - that Japanese swords are better made but they do not support their view with examples. So the only part of the above which is questionable is:- “comparing the schools on their worst examples instead of their best”, which I grant you is unsupported opinion.
--LiamMJohnson 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem could be adressed better in the opening paragraph so as to not start out on an agressive, iconoclastic note, like, "The Japanese sword has, over its millenium of usage, developed a fearsome reputation and has been praised widely for its sharpness and effect on the battlefield. However, over the years and especially during the 20th century its reputation as a superior weapon has given rise to a number of inaccurate myths about its actual capabilities." After this could follow much of the rest of the section. I don't think it's actually necessary or desirable to make a head-to-head comparison of European, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, whatever swords in the article - explaining the sword's real capabilities and the myths surrounding it, with a tag on the end to the effect that, "The katana is a sword like any other sword, and has been equalled or bettered in its various aspects by swords of other cultures. Perhaps the greatest praise that can be given it is that for every negative comparison that could be made, a positive one could also be made against the same weapon. Japan being a small island in a large world, many very capable weapons were made elsewhere, see European Swords, Chinese Swords, etc." Of course, this shows a little of my own POV. Kensai Max 03:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Apologies for no completing my signature, this keyboard seems to have an odd repeat delay and occasionally misses multiple characters. But back to the discussion.

I am familiar with some of the writings of Nakamura Taizaburo 10th dan hanshi, his skill as a swordsman is well known but that is not under discussion. The report by Sekitsugu Naruse on the swords used by Japanese Officers is what I was referring to. The original report does not seem to be available online, at least not in English, so I resorted to the quotes in the Japan Times article which is available. The two swords specifically mentioned in the article are also NOT gunto but antique blades, for instance the quote “They say the Tadamitsu is a superb sword, but this one was no good. It merely cut an iron plate by one inch, and chipped like this. It also bent. Do you think this is a fake?” This sums up my point exactly. The Japanese sword is not a mystical magical item, regardless of the number of Shinto prayers said during its creation – it is a sword made of steel and can break. It is a good weapon, but it is not a 100% solution – reference the number of additional weapons used in Japan or the variations in weight and size of blades depending on the era. If the katana were the perfect sword, there would be no need to change its size depending on whether armed combat or street duals were the predominant usage. Unfortunately the general populace are not familiar with the writings of Nakamura Sensei and believe, just like the officer with the Tadamitsu, that the katana has incredible properties. Unless the point is clarified, they will continue in this false perception.

Incidentally Damascus steel is not made like Japanese steel, it is made of wootz. The resulting layering looks superficially similar but it is made by a different process. (Wootz:Wootz, is a steel alloy having a pattern of bands or sheets of micro carbides within a tempered martensite or pearlite matrix.) sounds like the structure of the katana. There is a story from one of the crusades which has Richard displaying the quality of his sword to Saladin by cutting though an iron bar. Saladin responds by dropping a fine silk scarf over his blade, which is sliced through as it falls. It is again the recurring theme that East achieves with subtlety what westerners achieve through brute force. And yet the Vikings, popularly considered to be some of Europe’s most brutal races, were creating sword with a laminated construction with hard steel edges around a pattern welded steel and iron body. (the vikings did not use the quenching or folding method, and as a result their sword's volume stayed the same and the edge never developed the martensite blade.) Further reading. [[5]]

(Regardles of the story regarding Richard it is well documented that the Damascus steel blades were known for shatering the crusaders larger but more britle swords.)

The point of these comments is not to detract from the beauty and quality of the katana, but simply to show that it is not alone in the world. It is better in my opinion to draw comparisons between cultures so as to better understand the motivations for each. Unfortunately it is not possible to consider the similarities on skills and techniques between the smiths who produced European laminated blades and Japanese laminated blades if one doesn’t bother looking because one is of the opinion that Japanese blades are the pinnacle of smith craft.


The section under discussion is neither well written nor wholly factual, but those are not under discussion here, the question is whether it is neutral or not. It is not uncommon for Encyclopaedic articles to contain “in context” sections which provide references for the reader to follow up questions they may have. There is a popular issue with European vs Japanese swords, so the section is justified and since there is a popular misconception that the “Samurai Sword” can slice through “guns”, “tanks”, “legions of men” (as opposed to sacked corpses) it is worth making some comment to clarify this for the reader. Obviously some comment made to show that a Katana is not magically better than a European sword is going to result is saying positive words about European swords, what is mystifying is the assertion that such statements are trashed as showing a strong WMA bias. A WMA bias would be indicated by saying that a European sword is “better than” a katana which is not stated here at all! --LiamMJohnson 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Europeans never used the quenching method that resulted in a diferential hardening and created a martensite edge.

The story of the Tadamitsu used nothing more than a anedote, due to the lack of documentation it can't be considered any more valid than the story about the scimitar shatering the broadsword.

Europeans did not coat the blade in clay, that is true, they hardened the whole blade and the differentially tempered it using blocks of heated copper. This book has an example, unfortunately just for knives, but then it was written in the early 20th century. [6] Or they tempered the whole blade to a spring temper.
Duh - if I had documented evidence in English of the "Tadamitsu Incident" I would add it to the main page and not the discussion. The whole point of these discussion pages is as a repository for information which needs more research. The documentation probably exists but would require a Japanese speaker to track it down - perhaps someone reading will have the necessary skill to do that? The Japan Times (the source to the article) is a "Serious Newspaper" and according to the Wikipedia rules [7] can be quoted as a source.
--LiamMJohnson 07:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


- Many swords of the Viking Age were also constructed so that a harder edge was forge-welded to a softer core.

Point being that we should take a good hard look at our sources here. One article written explicitly to debunk myths surrounding the Japanese sword should be looked at in the context of many, extremely positive sources from better material. Shall I cite tests with a Muramasa blade cutting through two bodies and a foot of sand under them? Gravesite digs? Helmets with rents through them? The truly damning fact about that article is that it has nothing to say about Japanese swords besides some quibbles about hilt construction - it has everything to say about stupid end-users destroying their weapons. This does not invite a comparison with European weapons - the same could be said for stupid European sword users!

Explaining the real capabilities is enough - negative debunking creates a perception of inferiority. By making clear the real capabilities of the Japanese sword we debunk all the myths surrounding it while at the same time not opening the door for biased comparisons. It's getting the exact same message across as originally - that Japanese swords are not weapons that can reliably cleave tanks, city buses, and machine gun barrels in twain - while not dealing with extremely prickly qualitative issues regarding other cultures' swords.

A WMA bias can be indicated in other, subtler ways than simply saying that European swords are better than Japanese ones. Simply directly comparing Japanese swords with European ones in the Japanese sword article invites the conclusion that European swords are superior, and that is exactly what many WMA practitoners imply when they are singing the praises of Western swords. The familiar WMA phraseology used in the original article implies Japanese inferiority, as does going into exhaustive and lengthy detail about the quality of European swords in the Japanese sword article. It's unnecessary and can create perceptions that should be avoided.

However, this applies to the old article. The one in place now is much more palatable, though there is room for improvement as far as the structure and information included goes.

Cross-cultural comparison is interesting and a worthy enough subject, but it should not be in the Japanese sword article, any more than it should be in the European sword article. If it's that important, move it elsewhere - the subject is certainly large enough. I'd even be willing to help. Kensai Max 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Agreed.

If I can just add my own two cents, I've seen documentaries on medieval times, and apparently the swords were blunt in the middle and sharp on the end, with the rear pommel able to be used as a club. the fighting technique still looked quite impressive. I've also seen that celtics swords were very carefully constructed with chevron patterns and construction similar to that of shiho-zume-gitae, whilst viking swords appear to be very poorly crafted. The gladius has also earned praise from at least on historian describing it as one of the best weapon designs. Dessydes 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


While the Gladius may have been the best sword of it’s time, it’s relatively primitive construction of iron make it to brittle and dull to be used effectively as a cutting weapon. As for the European weapons while it is true that some European weapons were of truly remarkable quality most weren’t, because a major emphasis in Europe was producing weapons as quickly as possible quality usually came second.

On the other hand the katana (especially late Koto blades) is a very well balanced blade that can both cut and thrust. With the exception of the Muromachi period, quality was always the top priority. It’s metallic construction is unique to Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. And Results in a blade with a highly durable Martensite edge (a material not documented in Europe until the 1890s.) with a highly flexible perealite core. Giving the sword exeptional resilience. And alowing a much thiner and lighter blade the same strength as a claymore and greater cuting efeciency due to it’s curved design. In terms of quality Japanees blades are on a par with the famous Damascus, and Toledo blades.--72.145.156.69 03:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)






K. I edited the section that needed revamping. Everyone wanted more refernces. So I deleted all sections of that area that didn't have them, and only put in referenced material. 67.191.213.162 08:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the Deleted references were suported just check the related reading section, and the links to reference sites. while the sections you aded are either unsuported and of dubious acuracy(the links you put up don't say a thing to suport your claims). or almost totaly unrelated. You're actions are begening to border on vandalisim.--Freepsbane 16:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah. You won't accept anything that doesn't meet up with your veiw of the Kat as an Uber sword. I provide refernces, and you call them dubious, and you provide none of your own. And why are you so fond of that silly stunt with the machine gun? I'm not vandal, you are a katana bigot. 67.191.213.162 16:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Katana bigot!?....no I simply oppose you're aditions because besides the lack of source and dubious verasity, they cary a strong WMA bias. (there was a reason the last editors came to the concensus to make the comparison page what it was before you hit it.)--Freepsbane 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so basically you are saying any source that is from a group that actually pays attention to swords other then your choosen one 'are dubious.' Gotcha. So basically I have to go find Musashi, get a voodoo priest to raise him as a zombie, let him swing a viking sword, and if he likes it, then you'll 'sort of consider' it a valid source? This is your brain on Katana bigotry.

Musashi's zombie! if you can bring him back from the dead count me in! . the vidio ( i've seen it before) is of a mass produceed katana replica breaking one of the sword like objects produced in a western type factory. not a Nihonto in any way That's why this page only deals with Shinken.

Very true, but it's about as valid in a serious study as a TV show shooting at a Katana, or a abject refusual to look at sources. you're missing the point it is not a katana just looks like it.(the above judgment is what spoils you're updates)--Freepsbane 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Btw you need to learn the difference between a Gunto type(psudokatana) and a true nihonto shinken

You are missing the point, it's a commentary on your behavior, not an actual refernce. *Rolls eyes.* You are working really hard at misunderstanding, aren't you?


Split off European Vs Japanese swords.

This subject is a neverending debate on online sword forums. The constant argument detracts from this article, and also adds unnecessary length. Therfore i propose spliting off the section into an article of its own (I havent figured out a good title yet). Please vote below.--Knife Knut 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Support voting for my own proposal. --Knife Knut 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

oppose it's still salvegable. just force everyone to back up sources in the section, if we move it the new article page will simply become the site of editwaring.--Freepsbane 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(aditionaly if you check the history log you will see that the version was quite stable until recently. when user 67.191.213.162 inserted several unsourced aditions and deleted several parts of the article. except for the fact he sourced none of it. Aditonaly. 67.191.213.162 has a history of valdalisim[8][9],blanking user page warnings from admins[10], and I belive that he has violated several wikipedia rules. I would like a administrator to look into this) --Freepsbane 16:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose it being a seperate article. I would prefer to salvage it in some way, perhaps even mentioning that the debate exists and simply providing references to who says what. I seem to remember the Arma website has plenty to say on the subject. It's amazing how worked up English speaking people get about the Katana; the Japanese Katana page is remarkably concise and stable by comparison... --M.J.Stanham 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry this proposal has been dead for ages.Freepsbane 00:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope that remains the case.--M.J.Stanham 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Further disputes.

User Freepsbane contenously refuses to look at any sources, yet insists they be used. He is being abusive. (wrong I have read you're sources and almost without exeption they don't directly or indirectly suport you're claims)--Freepsbane 16:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. If you don't think so, you should read what I wrote before you throw a tantrum.

they don't just like the above incident with the Sword like object you totaly misinterpret the facts and post eronious conclusions

You mean the one where I compared your ability to see through your bigotry to the SOL and you thought I was pointing at a real sword? Gee... I guess my only responce to this comments is POT KETTLE BLACK.

Remember to folow wikiquette and avoid personal atacks.--Freepsbane 16:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then your should follow the same and stop call my sources 'dubious' when they are extremely solid, and you should stop complaining if I remove something with no references, which is most of this page, and is speicicially allowed in the rules. 67.191.213.162 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't do this to atack you, just because the sources and interpretations are actualy.....dubious. more importantly all your updates have been done without consulting the other editors a clear violation of wikiquette despite our request for you to use talk.--Freepsbane 17:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

their for it may be best if you would use the talk page for presenting the ideas. thank you for reading--Freepsbane 05:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

67.191.213.162: I'll consider it. Probley not. ;) full discusion can be found here [[11]]--Freepsbane 17:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So basically you give no credence to the Wiki rule that anyone can edit.... uh huh. You sure are selective about the things you pay attention to. Not to mention the fact that you see some of the most repected books and sites on the web in relation to the subject in question as 'dubious.'

Anyone can edit if they are going to edit correctly, but an editor that constantly and willfully refuses to deal with his peers wont get very far. aditionaly the books listed a sources are written by professionals and generally analyzed by some Japanese group for veracity such as the Kendo Federation.--Freepsbane 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the point. The books I list, in the part I edited, (comapricent) are all respected sources on what I'm comparing it too. So again we are back to you only accepting your own sources. Second, Kendo is a sport, not a martial art. Your should be looking for the Kenjutsu federation, or some such. Kendo has moved as far from it's martial roots as sport fencing has from it's, but the flick is a whole'nother arguement.

Exactly! I'm using western sword sources to support statments about western swords, and you say they are dubious or biased. You claim I have to get a Japanese expert to comment on western swords. That's just silly. 67.191.213.162 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (you used the sources to suport flawed claims about the katana not western blades.)--Freepsbane 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

of cource if we deal with a Japanese article we will use more Japanese experts than western experts! basically a western military expert won't be particularly knowledgeable about far eastern military. so it would be something of an oximoron to have someone unknowledgeable in Japanese martial history provide the citation.--Freepsbane 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) You don't see Hindu theologians as the primary citation sources in the Catholicism page do you?--Freepsbane 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the links you give are not generaly endorced by a large federation, they are tipicaly from smaler web pages, and generaly the links you cite in no way suport you're conclusions.--Freepsbane 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when do you need a huge federation? And they support my conclusions perfectly. I say that other swords are soft here and hard there, and I show a photo of historically made swords by a highly respected maker, that have been cut to show the inside. You can actually see the the lines where the soft meets hard. And you say this doesn't support the conclusion? 67.191.213.162 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(nope don't see the martensite, that does not look to me at all like a diferential hardening, just the simple pattern welding.) --Freepsbane 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't say it was. Said it was the same effect achieved through seperate means. Soft behind hard. 67.191.213.162 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You claim that these belong to respected authority figures but provide no evidence aditionaly. pictures by themselves dont tell much, for all I know it could be oil tempered. and worst of all you use them for suporting you're unrelated claims about the katana.

And for all I know your federation could be the federation of planets sourcebook. Hell, for all you know oil tempering is a historical method. So what? Oh, for the record, if you HAD looked at the rest of the sources, you'd know these are water tempered, so I have cought you in not actually looking. (For the record I still think it looks like an oill tempered blade. Aditionaly It's actually The Kendo Federation that encompasses both Iaido and kendo) not the U.F.P but I you're interested I could bring Mr.Worf to ceate a comparison with kilingon weapons section.--Freepsbane 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

...Yes. Do. This I want to see. (And it's as valid as the machinegun!) 67.191.213.162 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (You've got it! Just let me get my subspace transmiter and.....)--Freepsbane 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm betting he'll say the dk'tahg is not superior to the kat, but that the mekleth is.... 67.191.213.162 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

then I will have to cross check with judan(10th dan) Nakamura Taizaburo. --Freepsbane 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)oh well few swords can compare to the Klingon Mekleth. it just trumps all the best human blades, Damascus Toledo or Japanese, it edges them all out.

Ongoing work in the intro

I'm going to try to cut the intro down a bit. It's pretty long as intro go and contains a lot of information which is later duplicated. This is part of my ongoing work to reduce the length of the article without omitting anything. Chris Cunningham 12:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No strength?

I've heard it said that the folding method created a mesh effect, which in turn added strength to the blade. Article also makes no mention of Masamune, whom contributed to the shape and structure of the katana. Dessydes 03:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


The folding itself, along with the quenching method was what created the katana’s dual martensite/perlite structure (what gives the sword it’s “strength”.) Furthermore The martensite and other metallurgical topics have already been thoroughly covered in the article. --Freepsbane 14:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

and Masamune is mentioned among the great katana makers, bottom of the article. He was the greatest, but there is no evidence he invented anything really new in katana manufacture, just made the most perfect blades ever. --Svartalf 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard he converted the tachi from a cavalry sword into the modern katana by shortening it and moving the curvature from near the hilt (kushizori) to nearer the center of the blade (torizori). If you compare the pictures of a tachi and a katana, you'll find the curvature on a tachi is more pronounced. Dessydes 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are completely correct in the above statement; besides converting the tachi design into the katana Masamune also perfected the tempering process.Freepsbane 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)