Talk:Iaido

Edit for readability

2016 and still using sans-serif. Now really, how foolish is that. It should be obviously capital "aie". But on the page? reads like an "el".
I've been doing tech since 1968. You folk win. We are doomed. --BenTrem (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of two person kata photograph

I am opposing the removal of a photograph illustrating two person kata (under the guise that "this is not iaido!"), since both of the most widely practiced schools of Iaido (Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu and Muso Shinden Ryu) have two person kata (Tachi Uchi no Kurai, Tsumi Ai no Kurai, etc) as part of the curriculum (Other schools might also have two person kata, however I don't practice them, so I don't know).

Further more, the distinction because iaijitsu and iaido is a slim one (if it exists at all), and is arbitrary. Point is, that two person kata are there to teach the timing, the distance, the relationship between the person performing the kata, and what are, in one person kata, imaginary opponents (I can bore you with Japanese terms, kassou teki, etc, but it's irrelevant). There is a reason why in majority of Japanese books on iaido (Mitani Yoshisato, "Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido Kyohan", Mitani and Mitani "Shokai Iai", Danzaki Tomoaki "Sono Riai to Shinzui" off the top of my head.) there is at least some coverage of the two person kata.

Here is an interview with late Iwata Norikaze sensei, where he clearly states that Tachi Uchi no Kurai is part of MJER curriculum: http://ejmas.com/tin/tinart_hellsten_1002.htm

Here are some other descriptions of the two person kata: http://www.kampaibudokai.org/MSRTachi.htm , http://www.yaegaki-kai.be/kumitachi/ plus, of course, the wikipedia page for Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu.

All of this is to make a point that two person kata, whether you call them iaido or iaijitsu, are very much part of the curriculum of prominent traditional schools, which are known as iaido schools, and should not be discarded.

I would agree, however, that the use of two person kata within context of iaido curriculum would need to be clarified in the article.

24.114.82.23 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that iaido is not the same as iaijutsu therefore it is wrong to illustrating two person from an iaijutsu ryu if the article is about iaido. - Kontoreg (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Kontoreg on this. I checked the picture, checked the style, and... Yes, that is not what is known as iaido. It's iaijutsu. The terms iaido and iaijutsu are sometimes used interchangeably in Japan, but Iaido and Iaijutsu make the distinction.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how the reality is refusing to be neatly classified and labeled? In my experience, Japanese people do not feel that there is a difference between iaido and iaijitsu (and the term iaido is something that got into general use after WW2, to highlight that the emphasis is the development of character and to beat the American ban on traditional arts).

Traditional schools have both iaido and iaijitsu kata as part of their curriculum, sometimes as part of the same set of kata. And here we are splitting hairs.

Now, would a different photograph, perhaps of a school different then Sui Ryu, of two person kata being used as a tool for furthering solo practice, be suitable for inclusion in the article? Or are you dead set on the distinction that "one person == iaido, two people == iaijitsu"? (BTW, I'd sooner argue that two people == kenjitsu, precisely because the distinction between iaido and iaijitsu is kokoro no kamae, and not something tangible).

Oh, and if you can give me a link on the wikipedia discussion, where the distinction between iaido and iaijitsu is defined, I'd be very grateful.

198.84.233.162 (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Some Japanese people don't feel that there is a difference between iaido and iaijutsu. That doesn't mean that none do. The mere fact that the two words exist, and the fact that people still feel the need to use both terms, suggests that there is a difference. None of that really matters, however. This is the English wikipedia. We are supposed to deal with the English usage. Besides, as this is an encyclopaedia, we must clarify. Not mix two concepts up. Thus classifying, labelling and separating different concepts is both necessary and useful.

As to your claim that traditional schools have both iaido and iaijitsu kata as part of their curriculum... There may be some schools that have both iaido and iaijitsu kata as part of their curriculum, but that does not mean that all do. Traditional schools with iai training, generally only have iaido or iaijutsu. Any school that trains both, would be an exception, not the rule. Thus it is simply wrong, to make a blanket statement, claiming that traditional schools have both iaido and iaijutsu kata. Besides, if the difference between iaido and iaijutsu were just kokoro-gamae (here is no "no" in it. Translates as "mental preparedness". It's essentially the mental attitude), then there would be no such thing as iaido or iaijutsu kata. If it were really true that it's just the attitude that differs, then you'd just have iai kata, that can be iaido or iaijutsu, depending on the attitude they are preformed with. I do not agree that kokoro-gamae is the only difference, however. It is certainly one of the differences, but not the only one.

A photograph of a two person kata, from a school that unambiguously only practices iaido, would be perfectly fine. Of course it would.

As to where the difference between iaido and iaijutsu is defined, on wikipedia... Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It describes what the facts are, it doesn't decide the fact, research them or anything like that. The definition is not from Wikipedia. It's from what the reliable sources say.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen: Re: 'kokoro no kamae' vs 'kokoro gamae': Considering that there are 3.5 million google matches for 心の構え and 9.5 million matches for 心構え, both are accepted usages (feel free to compare with 体の構え vs 体構え), no matter what Kenkyusya DaiWaEi (or whatever you use) says. And while one possible English translation is 'mental preparedness' (another is 'self-awareness', for example), there is no English word that exactly matches all of the Japanese use cases, and in budo context more common English translation is 'mental attitude' (context dependent, of course). Just for future reference, of course (and if you have any questions regarding Japanese language, especially in budo context, feel free to use my talk page to ask them).

Since you do not agree that iaido and iaijitsu are one and the same, please summarize key differences. I, too, would like to be able to tell them apart.

Would you consider Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu an unambiguously iaido school? If not, why not?

198.84.233.162 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Using the amount of results from a google search, can be problematic ...especially as a lot of the results for 心の構え didn't actually contain the term 心の構え, but just 構え (in whatever context). Still, some of the results did contain 心の構え, and it's not all that important anyway. I'll just take your word for it. As to the meaning: Yes, I gathered that the meaning was a bit more complicated that just "preparedness" which dictionaries mentioned (that is generally the way it is with languages, when they are not very closely related), and I do know a bit of Japanese, so frankly I kinda understood what it meant, even before looking it up.

As for the difference between iaido and iaijutsu... Why not just check the sources? Basically, from what I understand, iaido is a philosophy. It's basically meditation while holding a sword (thus making the precise kata, and their efficacy, fairly irrelevant), while iaijutsu is about how to use a sword in a fight. Much like how kendo is a sport, where you learn how to fight with a shinai, under certain rules ...whereas kenjutsu is about learning how to fight with a katana.

As to Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū... The Wikipedia article on the style is problematic (and lists under "Arts taught": "Iaido/iaijutsu", rather than one or the other, which is very unusual). Also, while it claims to be koryuu, the evidence for it's long history is problematic. Googleing for it, I get a lot of sites that call it iaijutsu ...and a lot of mentions of it being the oldest/most practised iaido style. It is about as far from unambiguous as you can get, in several different ways.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to begin replying to your statements. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are not a iaido or iaijitsu practitioner, right? Which is why you are referring me to the "sources" without actually yourself stating what the sources are, or what your own take on the matter is. Well, here is one source for you, ZNKR Iaido manual, 2009 edition (picked this edition instead of 2006 or 2004 because the first google link is a link to full PDF of it, http://google.com/?q=znkr iaido manual ), page 33, last paragraph. "How to perform ENBU (Performance). It is important to perform the Enbu in full spirit, with correct handling of the sword and posture. Make efforts to show harmonization of spirit, sword and body. Devote yourself to perform earnestly, as if you were in a real sword battle."

Rest assured that other editions of ZNKR Iaido manual all contain similar paragraphs, with at least one translation explicitly stating that "iaido MUST be effective as budo". Furthermore, there exists a pretty well known essay, written by a prominent Japanese Iaido hanshi, who specifically states that Iaido is 演武 (martial arts demonstration), not 演舞 (dance performance) (Essay by Kawaguchi Toshihiko Hanshi in book 'Iaido Shinzain no Me', ) How do you reconcile this thought amongst the prominent Japanese Iaido practitioners, or explicit instructions in standard Iaido reference manual with your talk about meditation?

Next, is MJER Iaido or Iaijitsu? Pick one. If you can't, then maybe Iaido and Iaijitsu are much more the same then different, and the difference is only the mental attitude, to which I referred earlier?

I can take photographs of MJER two person kata. It's trivial, just a matter of taking a camera to the dojo, and asking someone to take a photo of me and my sempai practicing. However, based on your response above, I wonder if there is a point, considering that your response would likely be "This is not iaido", while it is very obvious that it is.

Basically, as a practitioner of Iai, I see a problem with attempting to categorize Iai as Iaido or Iaijitsu. Even categorizing it along the lines of 'one man kata is Iai' vs 'two people is Kendo/Kenjitsu ' is problematic. You can make a valid argument that if a kata begins with the sword in the saya, then it's Iai, if you start with the sword out of the saya, then obviously it's no-longer Iai, since you are in a sword fight. And then it's Kenjitsu (mostly because Kendo is universally known as one particular thing now) . But one thing is certain: Same kata, same movements can be performed with the martial and meditative attitudes depending on the mindset of the practitioner at the time.

P.S. In some ways I regret that Drager died before refuting his silly statement about do vs jitsu, that leads to so much confusion amongst non-practitioners.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ofcourse, while we are arguing about prominence of a single photo and maybe a sentence or two, I just noticed that the article on Iaido got severely mangled by about 80, mostly pointless, edits. *sigh* Why bother?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll read and reply to your comments, after I've gotten the time/energy to go through the edits to the article, and fixed it. I should mention that this is fairly common behaviour, coming from Kontoreg ...which is but one of the reasons, why there is now a proposal for a topic ban, to ban Kontoreg from pages concerning martial arts.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I've essentially replied to your concerns here, in my reply in the "Article Cleanup" section below ...but to point out two issues with what you write above, that I haven't addressed there:

• It's jutsu, not jitsu.
• You regret that Drager died before refuting his silly statement? Why do you assume that he would, were he alive? It is fairly arrogant of you, to assume to know what his opinion would be.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's jutsu, not jitsu. Ok.

Two points. First of all, I feel that a black and white statement that Draeger made is silly. I believe that that's a sentiment of many a senior practitioner of pretty much any martial art. It's great for starry eyed folks who want to learn a deadliest Japanese to beat other kids up, it's great for "my school is better then yours" debates on internet amongst folks who had two or three classes, but in reality, division based on the criteria that Draeger presented is simplistic, and only a handful of schools would be 100%-do (maybe Aikido?) or 100%-jutsu (Maybe Jugen Ryu?). And heck, thanks to Draeger, ZNKR Seitei Iai is -jitsu. I'll tell Kishimoto sensei (former head of ZNKR Iaido section) next time I see him, we will have a good laugh (at people trying to classify iai)

Secondly, I was told (having never met him) that Draeger was a smart man. He was a pioneer, that had the fortune of being in Japan at an opportune time. However, now a days, Japan is more accessible, then 30 years ago (Heck, a few thousand white boys and girls go to teach English to Japanese schools every year, and then come back to their home countries with stories about real Japan), and thanks to internet, thanks to more colleges teaching Japanese language, etc, much more information about Japan is available to non-Japanese, including information about the realities of practice, technique, and mental attitude (somehow Japanese never have the do vs jutsu debates). That's precisely why I don't feel that Draeger is really a suitable authority, since more and more information percolated from Japan since, information that he had no access to while writing his books, and in some fields it contradicts what he wrote. Iai is one of such fields (Which is not to say that he is not an authority on Katori or SMR. But would I take his word over word of Namitome or Kaminoda sensei, when talking about SMR? Or over word of Sugino or Otake sensei when talking about KSR? Then why would I take his word over the word of various Iaido greats?)

Him being smart, I have no doubts, that he would have amended and clarified his statement to fit with reality. Heck, were he living today, he would not have achieved the sort of notoriety that he did, if only because he would have to compete with many other researchers.

Lastly, I don't think that he needs you to stand up for him. After all, 30 years after his death, he is still influencing this article, and this debate.

Cheers! Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Him being smart, I have no doubts, that he would have amended and clarified his statement to fit with reality." Perhaps, but why assume that he would reject, rather than modify/clarify the do/jutsu divide?

"Lastly, I don't think that he needs you to stand up for him." I'm not. You are the one who brought him up, in the discussion. I never did.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

References

ZNKR, sport, and regulation of members

Kontoreg, since you insist that since ZNKR Iaido sections has competitions, Iaido is a competitive sport, please show evidence that there are other groups in Japan that hold competitions in Iaido. As it is, since only ZNKR holds competitions, only Iaido practiced by ZNKR members is a competitve sport, and thus only ZNKR regulates Iaido as competitive sport. Reverting until shown evidence otherwise. Urokugaeshi (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that reverting once is fine, but if you start re-reverting, you are essentially edit warring. Reverting is something that should be done sparingly.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

All Japan Kendo Federation (ZNKR) is member of International Kendo Federation (FIK) and in this way join the arrangements and competitions held by FIK. Why is that difficult to understand? - Kontoreg (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, Kontoreg, you are not answering the question. In Japan, are there any other organizations besides ZNKR, that hold iaido (not iaijitsu, not battodo, iaido) competitions? Note, that we are not talking about AUSKF holding a competition in US, and RKF holding a competition in Russia. In Japan, are there any other organization besides ZNKR, that hosts competitions in competitive sport of iaido? Credible source please.

If there are no other organizations in Japan, that host Iaido competitions, then ZNKR regulates Iaido in Japan in as competitive sport. See? It's called logic.

(I am not sure if ZNIR hosts Iaido competitions, or if Toho is for grading only, so your findings will be new to me)

Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to references of Iaido competitions not under the purview of ZNKR Takeji Itoh Instructor Profile - if you scroll down to "Taikai History" you can see there are indeed many different styles which still have Iaido competitions. "1st year of Reiwa (2019) 43rd Hokuriku Eishin Ryu Iaido Taikai, Shichidan no Bu, 1st Place" Not sure if it's sufficient or not Euxneks (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've cleaned the article somewhat, I believe making it clearer and more readable, so feedback is welcome.

At this point, I am intending to merge the Origins of Name and History sections together (lots of overlapping information), and aiming to merge the Organizations section at the bottom with the Standardized Kata section (again, overlapping info and better flow).

Also plan to rewrite/extend the section on what Iaido kata actually is. Have plenty of MJER/MSR Koryu and ZNKR material, that breaks kata down into nukitsuke, kuritsuke, chuburi and noto as the four major parts of the kata (I can break it into more details, sayabanari, nukitsuke, furikaburi, kirioroshi, chiburi, noto, zanshin, etc, but the breakdown into four is relatively simple and easy to explain), however solicit information from other styles (from my talks with Rennis, I know that Hoki ryu is very different). So if you have any reference material on Hoki Ryu, Mugai Ruy, etc, especially the ones that contradict the MJER centric view of the kata, please share.

Any way, feedback welcome. 24.114.80.247 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about iaido and NOT iaijutsu...Why discuss koryu schools (iaijutsu) when this article is about iaido?... This article must contains specific information about what iaido is. Why not describe more about Seitei Iaido and why the kata within this style was created? Why not describe more about the etiquette within iaido? Why not describe why the Kamidana does not exists in public sport halls in Japan where iaido also takes place. Why not describe about the connection between iaido and etiquette and Japanese religion within iaido? Why not include more information about competition within iaido? Why not video-clips about competition within iaido , etc.? All these aspect are about iaido but why can I not find these information in the article? - Kontoreg (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Kontoreg, please stop dividing the article on the feudal and modern Japan era. It has been established and referenced that term "Iaido" started to be used in 1932, about 45 years after Meiji restoration. Neither iaido did not magically appear, nor iaijitsu magically disappeared with emperor coming to power in Japan, so division by eras is meaningless, misleading, and makes no sense. The article clearly referenced iaijitsu as a parent art prior to your changes.

Next, regarding koryu schools. Please provide clear criteria, as to what is iaido and what is iaijitsu. Same request goes to ZarlanTheGreen, BTW.

Are you sure that all what you call koryu schools are considering themselves iaijitsu? Regardless of what Draeger wrote, I have a shelf full of Japanese books on MJER and MSR, that refer to themselves as iaido, and I will use them as references to refute your claim. If your criteria is that iaido is meditation, etc, please be aware that there is a counterexample from page 33 of ZNKR Seitei iai manual, that explicitly states that iaido must be performed as if one is fighting actual enemies, and I will use that to prove that ZNKR Seitei Iai is not meeting that definition.

Since MJER, MSR, Mugai Ryu, etc, are all iai, I see no reason why they should not be mentioned, if only as stub paragraphs, with links to their specific articles. If you think otherwise, please justify why.

Next, you contradict yourself. First you mention that kamidana does not exist in iaido practice halls, yet then you talk about religion in iaido. What religion are you talking about, especially since kamiza are not present? Please explain.

Motivation for creation of ZNKR Seitei kata was clearly stated in the article - to provide uniform set of kata for grading and for introducing kendo practitioners to using a real sword. That information is (or should be) on the ZNKR Seitei Iai page.

As for competitions, there is no competition "within iaido", there is competition between individuals within some organizations. Competitions are organized by some organizations, and each organization has their own rules. Any such information about competitions, if applicable, should probably be on the relevant pages (ie: FIK Iaido competitions should be described on ZNKR Seitei Iai page, ZNIR Iaido competitions on ZNIR page, etc, if appropriate), and not clutter page on Iaido, especially since competitions are not a primary aspect of iaido or iaijitsu practice, and are not mandatory.

The only connection between iai and etiquette that I can think of, would be the connection between Ura-senka and Oomori ryu, which, if relevant (and I have my doubts and would want to see credible sources), should be in article on Oomori ryu. Otherwise, I am really confused what you mean by connection. Please explain.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not writing about iaido you prefer to write about iaijutsu. Why do you not write an article where you include the answers on my questions? Why are you not writing about the connection between iaido and the Japanese religions, etc? Is it difficult or what? - Kontoreg (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What Draeger wrote may not be really true, of the usage of the terms in the Japanese language, but it is a very useful distinction, for differentiating two different things. It is also a very wide spread and widely adopted distinction. You want clear criteria for what is iaido and what is iaijutsu? Well what about Draeger's distinction? Admittedly, this means that the do/jutsu in the name of a school/style, doesn't really define whether or not it's "do" or "jutsu".

As to the ZNKR Seitei iai manual explicitly stating that iaido must be performed as if one is fighting actual enemies... Is that really adhered to? Would iaido teachers even notice? Aikido claims to be about self defence, yet they only teach how to defend against ridiculously telegraphed attacks, that often wouldn't even land, had they not been defended against ...and this is true even at the top elite levels, AFAIK.

On the point about competitions... You are completely incoherent. How can it not be said that there are no competitions in iaido, if there are "competition between individuals within some organizations. Competitions are organized by some organizations, and each organization has their own rules"? After all, the same exact thing (along with the non-manditory nature of competitions) can be said of kendo, archery (any and all kinds), downhill mountain biking, horse racing, golf, racing and many other activities, where I am sure that you would agree that it would be ludicrous to say that they don't have competitions.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Kontoreg, I am not an expert on Japanese religions as connected to Iaido. If you are, please write a section, and provide credible sources. As it is, you haven't answered a single one of my questions. Please answer those, starting with the clear criteria, as to what is iaido, and what is iaijitsu, an how to tell the two apart. Until you do so, any talk about the differences between the two will be useless, since no one else besides you knows how to tell the two apart.

Also, please justify the division on Pre- and post- Meiji in an article, with respect to a term that was coined in 1932. If you do not, I will have to merge those two sections, and remove the distinction.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, excellent, I feel like we are making some progress here. Thank you for replying in depth.

Now, you write: Well what about Draeger's distinction? Admittedly, this means that the do/jutsu in the name of a school/style, doesn't really define whether or not it's "do" or "jutsu".

Ok, excellent, let's use Draeger. And let's disregard the names, and look at actual techniques and the feeling, with which they are performed.

Keeping that in mind, next you write As to the ZNKR Seitei iai manual explicitly stating that iaido must be performed as if one is fighting actual enemies... Is that really adhered to? Would iaido teachers even notice?

So what you are, in essence saying, is one of two things:

1) Either you do not believe ZNKR official documentation, and flat out disregard it. Do you? Care to go on record on the Iaido page, with a statement that "I, ZarlanTheGreen, feel that all of ZNKR sensei are stupid wrong, and their books tell lies, and in my ZarlanTheGreen's opinion, ZNKR people are not performing ZNKR Seitei Iai with fighting mindset, and thus ZNKR Seitei Iai is -do"? I think that a statement like that, while potentially true (in that you might feel that way), is definitely counter to the spirit of wikipedia.

2) Otherwise, if we accept that what ZNKR Iaido manual says as truth, you are saying that a single technique can be performed as if one is not fighting actual enemies (that would be Draeger's -do), or as if one is fighting actual enemies (that would be Draeger's -jitsu), and that teachers (now, remember that one has to demonstrate these techniques during grading, and standard grading practice is a panel of 6 or 7 senior judges, not just people from your own dojo) can not tell. So in essence, you are saying that one technique can be done as Draeger's -do or -jitsu depending on the mindset of the iaidoka, and experienced judges could not tell it apart, right?

Sure. I'll remind you, that this also means that part of national Kendo federation Iaido sections' members perform ZNKR Seitei iaijitsu, and part perform ZNKR Seitei Iaido. Name doesn't matter, you said so yourself (And maybe there is a reason why Japanese call this ZenKenRen Seitei Iai). So what you just said is that There is no difference between iaido and iaijitsu except mental attitude (kokorogamae), with which the kata is performed. I am glad that we finally think alike. Let's merge iaido and iaijitsu, and point out that any iai technique can be done as meditation or combat technique. Agree?

Next, you write regarding competitions the following: How can it not be said that there are no competitions in iaido, if there are "competition between individuals within some organizations. Competitions are organized by some organizations, and each organization has their own rules"?.

Let me explain. There are different groups, that perform different kata. There is no competition between ZNKR Seitei Iai (as a set of kata), and ZNIR Toho Iai (as a set of kata). You are unlikely to see people say that one is better then the other. Further, there are no competitions between FIK Iaidoka, and ZNIR Iaidoka, if only because the rules and kata are different. Thus I maintain, that there exist some organizations, such as ZNKR, and within organizations there are optional competitions. And these competitions are performed using the rules set by these organizations. But if you are not a member of organization, you don't know the rules or the kata, and if you know the rules and the kata, you are a member of those organizations.

Further, let's use Draeger's definition, since you insist. Now, what are the competitions consist of? Meditation? "I can meditate while swinging a sword better then you." You don't find this ridiculous? In fact, the fact that competitions exist, competitions use grading key points to decide who is better, and that points for grading often say things like "did he hit the actual opponent?" or "is he hitting the correct target?" (It's in ZNKR manual, at the end, there is a section on grading points), already should indicate that we are dealing with a -jitsu.

So, based on the facts above, we established the following: Either ZNKR Seitei Iai is a -do and -jitsu, and difference between two is not seen by naked eye (and consequentially iaijitsu and iaido should be merged), or ZNKR Seitei Iai is iaijitsu, and should not be in the article on iaido, or that ZNKR lies in their publications, ZNKR teachers (and members) are all morons, and you know what ZNKR members do better then ZNKR members. Which one is it? I insist that you choose. Urokugaeshi (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You take a statement of mine, and extrapolate wildly from it, drawing all sorts of conclusions that do not necessarily follow from my statement. That is called "making baseless assumptions". It's not advisable. Your ridiculous straw man of my position is not worthy of reply, beyond identifying it as such.

What I am questioning, is whether or not iaidoka, experienced or not, actually know what would work ...thus meaning that I am doubting that any of them are doing anything that could be called "justu", as the kata would not work, in a martial context. Ones kokorogamae doesn't matter, if the technique is martially invalid. To be a "jutsu", it needs to be dedicated to training that which would work in a fight, in such a way as to learn how to do it in a fight. If the techniques don't work in a fight, it doesn't matter in what attitude you train or perform them. It'll either be meditation, sport (like kendo) or bullshido, but it most certainly won't be "jutsu", as far as I'm concerned. It won't be anything I would call a martial art, as it isn't martial. (note: Such arts as, for example, iaido, aikido, kendo and kyudo, are not what I would call martial arts. I respect kendo as a sport and kyudo and iaido as meditation, but I cannot see how they could, coherently, be classified as martial arts)

There is no competition between ZNKR Seitei Iai, and ZNIR Toho Iai?

So what!?

Competitions are generally between people, not organizations or sets of techniques/rules!

Competitions in bowling are not competitions between two different rule-sets, or two different techniques of bowling. They are competitions between different individuals/teams, using the same rule-set. There doesn't exist any competitions between regular tennis (one person against another) and doubles (two teams of two, against each other), but that doesn't mean that there is not competitions in tennis!

There are competitions between individuals, within the kata-/rule-sets ...and competitions between individuals in many places outside of Japan (using either ZNKR Seitei Iai, ZNIR Toho Iai or some other set of their own. I don't really know) ...just like in every other sport. Not all Ice Hockey competitions, have the exact same rules. Would you therefore say that there are no competitions in Ice Hockey?

"Thus I maintain, that there exist some organizations, such as ZNKR, and within organizations there are optional competitions." ...and the same can be said of every other sport in existence.

"Now, what are the competitions consist of?" Scoring points. Nothing more, nothing less. That makes it a sport. Not a "jutsu". Not a martial art. Also asking "did he hit the opponent?", in a solo kata... that's very much in the eye of the beholder. It's not something that can be accurately answered. Frankly I don't see how it makes any sense.

"I insist that you choose." What, between your opinion, or your ridiculous strawman, which bears no resemblance, whatsoever, to my actual position? No thanks. I refuse to choose either of those. You might as well ask me the classic question "have you stopped beating your wife?" (if you say "yes", you'd admit that you've been beating your wife. If you say "no", you're saying that you're still beating her. This denies the possibility that you've never beaten your wife, or that you don't have one).

You say "You must chose either black or white!". I say "purple".--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see what part of the confusion is. First of all, lets talk about competition. Ok, I agree, as far as it is clear in the article that competition is between the people who are doing the same thing under the same ruleset. Not between two people who are each following their own ruleset. Your argument about hockey is not really relevant, because as far as I know, there is only one hockey. If I (or my team) were playing using NHL rules, using NHL equipment, and you (or your team) were playing using shimmey (sp?) rules in your work coat, would we be on equal basis?

Now, as far as: I am doubting that any of them are doing anything that could be called "justu", as the kata would not work, in a martial context. Ones kokorogamae doesn't matter, if the technique is martially invalid.

Ok, fair enough. I buy the argument that it's been over a hundred years since Meiji restoration, and since then noone had to kill anyone using a sword (and I will ignore the fact that there was sword fighting in the Pacific during WW2). But again, why do you feel iaijitsu kata will work, while ZNKR Seitei Iai (which is a bunch of kata pulled from different styles and a bunch of made-up kata), or ZNIR Toho Iai (which is a bunch of kata, each pulled from one koryu without modification) would not work? Or do you feel that iaijitsu kata will not work either?

I will point out, that people who designed ZNKR kata (committee members) were all koryu folks, who had alot of experience in what you'd call iaijitsu. I will also point out that not only is it is trivial to check for validity of a kata by using partners (which is going back to the removal of two person photograph), but this is something that people do on regular basis. Or do you feel that people would do one thing when having a partner, and another when doing a kata solo? Well, again, that argument should then equally apply to iaijitsu then, no?

So to summarize: Our first hand knowledge about martial validity of iaido techniques is no lesser or greater then our first hand knowledge about martial validity of iaijitsu techniques. So why do you treat them differently?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Our first hand knowledge about martial validity of iaido techniques is no lesser or greater then our first hand knowledge about martial validity of iaijitsu techniques. So why do you treat them differently?" That is a very good argument. However:

• Old koryuu iaijutsu may be reliable, if they are well preserved. How well preserved they are, is questionable, but at least they have something reliable at the start.
• Iaijutsu is trained with a sense of keeping it martially effective. Iaido, on the other hand, isn't neccesarily as reliable in its root source, and it's trained with less focus/care, as to the martial efficacy and more concentration on the philosophical or meditative aspects.

Thus iaido is far more likely to stray from its origins ...and has less reliable origins, to begin with.

As to checking the validity with two person katas... That is good (it's still far removed from sparring, but at least it's something), but hardly common, AFAIK. Still, it would affect the top level judgements, I guess.

Well, there is no doubt that the distinction between iaido and iaijutsu isn't as clear as that between kendo and kenjutsu and I'm certainly not saying that all iai is either 100% do or 100% jutsu ...but I do maintain that there is a distinction, that it is used and that it is useful.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So let's use ZNIR Toho Iai as an example. ZNIR Toho Iai set is a set of five kata, each borrowed from its respected koryu without changes (and you can look at the relevant section of Iaido to find out from which koryu which kata was taken.

Additionally, you yourself admit, that part of the problem of martial effectiveness is the quality of kata preservation. Do you have any evidence, that iaido kata are not martially effective, and iaijitsu kata are, especially, if they are the same kata?

Using ZNIR Toho Iai as an example, it seems to me, that you are saying that a kata, when performed as koryu, is martially effective, yet the same kata, when performed as part of Toho Iai is not martially effective. Is that what you are saying? Do I understand you correctly? If that's not what you are saying, how do you reconcile this dilemma?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to think that I accept any koryu as being martially sound (as long as it's well preserved, at least). This is not true. The Tokugawa/Edo Period, which falls under koryu, was a (relatively) peaceful time without battles, which meant martial effectiveness could go astray ...though to be fair, iai/batto wouldn't be useful in battle anyway, as it's only really useful for surprise attacks, something which would probably be a more common use for the katana in that period, than in pre-Tokugawa times. If, for example, you used a katana 5 times in surprise attacks, 20 times in duels and 10,000 times in battle (I don't really know how realistic these numbers are, but...) pre-Tokugawa, and 5 times in surprise attacks, 30 times in duels and 0 times in battles during the Tokugawa Era, you'd not use it more for surprise attacks, but surprise attacks would go from 0.05% to 14%.

Also, the problem of martial effectiveness is not only the quality of kata preservation, though that is a big factor. Also, I've never claimed that all kata in iaido must be martial ineffective. I only say that they are unreliable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ZarlanTheGreen, so you agree that both iaido and iaijutsu are not martially sound (and is there a way to test that?). It is demonstrable that at least some iaido and iaijitsu kata are identical (ZNIR Toho Iai, for example). Earlier on you were questioning that one can see the difference between a kata being performed with a martial intent or not (As to the ZNKR Seitei iai manual explicitly stating that iaido must be performed as if one is fighting actual enemies... Is that really adhered to? Would iaido teachers even notice?)....

So, what's the difference between iaido and iaijutsu, according to you, then?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"so you agree that both iaido and iaijutsu are not martially sound"

No, I never said that. Though iai/battou has limited usefulness, I never said that iaijutsu was (neccesarily) martially unsound. It may be, depending on the style/dojo, but that can be said of any martial art.

"(and is there a way to test that?)."

Not perfectly, but... essentially: yes.

"So, what's the difference between iaido and iaijutsu, according to you, then?"

I'd say that I have explained my view, rather clearly: One is performed as training to fight with a sword. The other is, more or less, meditation with a sword in hand. (naturally, a mixture of the two can occur ...and all "do" come from the art slowly sliding away from "jutsu" and becoming more and more "do", thus being a mixture, during the process and possibly still being a mixture today)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and wouldn't your world view (that koryu kata are not martially effective, since they were developed during peace times, you demonstrating that with the numbers, validity of which I can't verify) contradict the point of view of Draeger, who felt that koryu techniques are effective? So was Draeger wrong?

Urokugaeshi (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

World view!? I think you are rather exagerating the role of martial arts, just a little bit...

As to the numbers I mentioned, I said that those are completely made up and unreliable, in the very comment where I mentioned them, so to criticize them as unreliable, seems rather silly.

As to the fact that my view that Tokugawa/Edo Period koryu isn't neccesarily as reliable, contradicting Draeger... I guess it does. So what?

I don't see why you have such a problem with that. Are you saying that I have to either accept everything that Draeger says as true, or reject every word he's ever said, as false? Do you know how much of Draeger's works I've read? None. Not a single word. I've heard that he's the one to come up with the "do"/"justu" division. That's pretty much it.

Although admittedly, my lower view of Tokugawa/Edo Period koryu, might be unwarranted for iai arts, for the reason I stated above.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The division on Pre- and post- Meiji

In the paragraph above (Article cleanup) Urokugaeshi written: "Also, please justify the division on Pre- and post- Meiji in an article, with respect to a term that was coined in 1932. If you do not, I will have to merge those two sections, and remove the distinction.".

I am agree, all matters about koryu swordsmanship (post Meiji - prior to 1868) will be deleted because iaido did not exist in the feudal period of Japan. Iaido is a modern invention. - Kontoreg (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

While I would agree that iaido is a (relatively) modern invention, I do not see any support for the notion that it didn't exist until after the Meiji restoration.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur, that Iaido, perhaps under a different name, existed Pre-Meiji. But again, I see no relevance of Meiji to Iaido, at least not in the way it is used in the article. One way to look at this, that, in my mind would be more correct, is to say something along the lines of: there always was a percentage of people in Japan, who did not need to use sword for self-defense, such as priests, high ranking officials, etc, yet who felt that using a sword is part of their identity (or basically "neighbors would not understand if I don't know how to use a sword"). Those people performed techniques with the Draeger -do mindset. With Meiji restoration, and subsequent modernization and raise of nationalism of the nation, percentage of people, who did not have to use a sword techniques for self-defense or offense, yet felt it's part of their cultural identity, increased.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I can not use the argumentation 'perhaps' I will like to see references to literature. - Kontoreg (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference between -do and -jutsu and pre-meiji and post-meiji are interrelated. Put simply (for once!) X-jutsu means "practising for X" and X-do means "study of X". So, it is not X that is different, it is the context of X. Imagine 17C samurai doing his daily exercises to help him with the sword he carries and must be able to use. Now imagine me in a sports hall physically doing the same movements. Are we doing the same thing? The answer depends on context of the question. So if you say "iaido did not exist in the feudal period", you could be correct if you mean that collections of sword kata were not regarded as a subject for study. On the other hand, the actual kata did exist. Over-explaining and over-emphasising this point has led to much needless confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Humble Suggestion

Since this jutsu/do stuff is still unresolved, can it please be given its own page called something like '-jutsu and -do in Japanese Martial Arts'? This page could include a linguistic definition from somebody who actually speaks Japanese, some history about pre and post meiji, Dreager's definition and other opinions.

Then this page can just be about the study of Japanese sword kata generally known in English as Iaido. Which certainly includes paired forms and even ancillary weapons and grab defences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Relevance and credibility of Draeger

This article needs more and better sources.

Since Donn Dreager was an expert in Katori Shinto Ryu and Shito Muso Ryu Jodo, and, furthermore passed away 20 years ago, I am not convinced that his writings

• have comprehensive coverage of iaido, iaijitsu, and batto sufficient to use him as an authority on anything, but the broad terms * cover correct and complete teaching methodology of iaido in all, or even in major schools or organizations (and besides, teaching methodologies change. Example: ZNKR policy (and consequentially policies of many national Kendo federations) right now, is that after 4th dan one should use shinken for day to day practice, and for fifth dan grading one must use shinken. Since there are many 5th dans out there, usage of shinken is much less uncommon then the article makes it sound)
• his writings are authoritative and representative regarding organization or methodology of various organizations (he never was a member of ZNKR or ZNIR, so how can we use him to explain what ZNIR or ZNKR did or planned, while discarding ZNKR or ZNIR published materials?)

Article right now is littered with references to Draeger's writings. Draeger was a human, with his own, non-neutral point of view, and by using him as a references so much, the article is in danger of being non-neutral. Urokugaeshi (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Urokugaeshi, you are welcome to supplement the article with more literature. - Kontoreg (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Kontoreg's statement. If you don't like the current sources... mention others. As to the claim that Draeger has his own (non-neutral) point of view... that is true of all sources. It is impossible to find a source which is completely objective, with no subjectivity whatsoever. You could not possibly claim that FIK, ZNKR or ZNIR, for example, have any less of a (non-neutral) point of view. Given that they are the organizing bodies, they are in fact more subjective, by their very nature.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

This is more to the -do vs -jitsu debate (and thank you to Kontoreg for digging this out)

Kontoreg's edit in section "Purpose of Iaido" says Iaido emcompasses hundreds of styles of swordsmanship, all of which subscribe to non-combative aims and purposes. At the same time, earlier in the article he uses a reference, that says:

Iaido can be a “moving meditation,” but its operative idea is deadly, explained Noboru Kataoka, one of its leading masters and a martial arts film actor. “The moment you draw the sword, you have to kill your opponent,” he said. Each of its swordsmanship routines, called kata, evokes a specific peril, like fighting in a low-ceilinged tunnel, sparring in the dark, or being jumped from two sides.

All this killing opponents stuff, as opposed to meditating. Sounds like they do the wrong type of Iaido in New York, and instead they do Iaijitsu. Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? I have not used the reference above: reference (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/fashion/16physicalculture.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0) ? Concerning the purpose of iaido I have wrote following: "Purpose of iaido. Iaido emcompasses hundreds of styles of swordsmanship, all of which subscribe to non-combative aims and purposes. Iaido is an intrinsic form of japanese modern budo. Iaido is a reflection of the morals of the classical warrior and to build a spiritually harmonious person possessed of high intellect, sensitivity, and resolute will." (See the article). - Kontoreg (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The nomination was withdrawn but the emerging consensus was not to merge. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Iaido vs Iaijutsu

If you haven't followed my discussion with ZarlanTheGreen in Talk:Iaido, please read it fully before replying.

At this point, I would like to source opinions of contributors other then ZarlanTheGreen (since his opinion is pretty much well known at this point) on the following matter:

• Do you have, or know of a reliable and quantifiable externally applicable test, that can differentiate between iaido and iaijutsu?

• • If such a test exists, please outline it, and show how it will fare with respect to ZNKR Seitei Iai, ZNIR Toho Iai, and MSR or MJER Iai as performed in a ZNKR affiliated dojo. Or provide counter-examples.

• • If such a test doesn't exist, do you agree or disagree to the statement, that the same gross techniques can be performed as iaido and iaijutsu, and the differentiating factors are individual ability, individual's mental state at the time the technique is performed, and other, externally not observable factors?

Basically, I am leaning towards an opinion that with respect to iai, the division between iaido and iaijutsu is artificial, and doesn't adequately reflect true situation. In my opinion Iaido and Iaijutsu should be merged, and re-written to reflect this (and in event we reach consensus, I will be willing to take a shot at rewriting the pages, by creating a draft in my personal space).

Urokugaeshi (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I greatly approve of this challenge/request (though I fear it may not get much attention), but I'd like to just make one comment on the bit about "externally applicable". What does that mean, and why should it be a necessary part?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification By externally applicable I mean, that anyone, not member of the style/school (thus external) could apply the test, and be able to decide, if it's do or jutsu. Urokugaeshi (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, that makes sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Forcing different arts into Do vs Jutsu, especially among the lines of Koryu vs. Gendai Budo is a bit false. Jutsu are the techniques whilst Do equates to the Path and yes Draeger has a lot to answer for. He took Kano's attempt to differentiate his creation and over applied it - that unfortunately appealed to our inner need for organization. When there are clear distinct entities separate articles make sense (Kendo vs Kenjutsu and Judo vs Jujutsu) but Iaido vs Iaijutsu is less clear. However with regard to merging both articles are relatively long standing and therefore merging should be given a chance to reach a broader consensus. Also depending on how this goes Battojutsu may also need to be merged into Iaido.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to find out, what the rationale for the original division was? Do we know, if any of the logs of the original discussion were preserved? Urokugaeshi (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this - both articles were originally one line entries done in 2002. Most telling the Iaijutsu line was Same as Iaido. The articles evolved from there. There was no real rational.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

...but only a few edits later, that had completely changed. The initial page had no intent of dividing iaido and iaijutsu, but during 2007, that changed completely.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment To answer the questions: no, none, agree (joining you in commiting WP:OR).

My impression of Draeger was that he wanted to resolve the conflicts of 'Do vs Jutsu', 'Koryu vs Gendai' into 'martial art' and 'civilian art' : arts used in warfare vs arts used in civilian life for development. He did not live long enough to convince the world of this structure.

If Meik Skoss, Dave Lowry and Diane Skoss were to discuss 'Is there a difference between Iaido vs Iaijutsu' or 'Is there a reliable and quantifiable externally applicable test that can differentiate between iaido and iaijutsu?', we could record here the results. Most material I read has this division of 'Do vs Jutsu'. If we !vote to 'solve' this problem, it seems that it is WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. jmcw (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please clarify your comment?

You say "no, none, agree" That makes no grammatical sense, and I can't really understand what it is supposed to mean. Do you mean no one agrees? Are you saying there is no such test, and that you agree that iaido and iaijutsu share the same gross techniques? What does this mean?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have, or know of a reliable and quantifiable externally applicable test, that can differentiate between iaido and iaijutsu? No

• If such a test exists, please outline it, and show how it will fare with respect to ZNKR Seitei Iai, ZNIR Toho Iai, and MSR or MJER Iai as performed in a ZNKR affiliated dojo. Or provide counter-examples. None

• If such a test doesn't exist, do you agree or disagree to the statement, that the same gross techniques can be performed as iaido and iaijutsu, and the differentiating factors are individual ability, individual's mental state at the time the technique is performed, and other, externally not observable factors? agree (joining you in commiting WP:OR jmcw (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As to the rest:

• You say that Draeger was seeking to resolve the conflicts of 'Do vs Jutsu' and 'Koryu vs Gendai'. This suggests that this conflict/divide existed before him (and I'd be shocked if it didn't). Could you give any evidence of this being so? It'd be nice if there was clear evidence, to show that the do/jutsu divide isn't just the fault of one man.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the bibliography and references in the book "Japanese Swordsmanship: Technique and Practice" by Gordon Warner, Donn F. Draeger as a starting place. jmcw (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• You say that most material you've read has the division of 'Do vs Jutsu'. Could you please point to some of that material? Such material would count as WP:Reliable sources, which state a division. It would clearly mean that the articles on iaido and iaijutsu need to be separate and that information on iaido and iaijutsu needs to be differentiated.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

[1] as an example. I think many articles in the list [2] show this concept. jmcw (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your point about WP:Original research/WP:Synthesis is very good. We are not here to research, we are here to explain what the sources are saying. While I have approved of this challenge/request for information of Urokugaeshi, I must admit that it's not quit proper (or at least, that it's not proper to use it, to direct the changes that are suggested). Still, there is the issue of how we are supposed to differentiate what counts as iaido and what counts as iaijutsu, so as to know what goes where, so Urokugaeshi's questions are not completely inappropriate.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If our reliable source calls it Iaido, we put the information in the iaido article. If our reliable source calls it Iaijutsu, we put the information in the Iaijutsu article. I recommend not to merge these two articles. jmcw (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what about the cases where reliable source refer to the same thing, but some call it iaido, while others call it iaijutsu?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV as usual when the reliable sources do not agree. jmcw (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Of course.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but Draeger doesn't provide a method to tell iaido and iaijutsu apart. And if we apply his test (based on intent) to, say, ZNKR Seitei Iai, where the techniques are clearly taught (again, if we trust ZNKR documentation) to be done as a jutsu, we get a dilemma, where Draeger's writings tell that it's iaijutsu, yet common name is iaido.

If we use self-name, we run into another dilemma. A trivial example would be Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido and Muso Jikien Eishin Ryu Iaijitsu, both with legitimate koryu lines of transmission (there might be a group calling themselves MJER Iai Heiho as well, I believe I've came across that too). Plus, if we use the self-name (and then MJER would have to be in both articles, no?), we open another can of worms, by potentially implying an opinion on legitimacy of transmission of the school ("Oh, these guys are jutsu, so they must be legitimate koryu guys, while these guys are do, so they must be god knows what")

Now, I've just finished reading [3]. Lowry talks about koryu bujutsi, but I don't see anything that is directly applicable to iaido vs iaijutsu discussion, I don't think. I can see how this would be different in jujutsu vs judo, or kenjutsu vs kendo, or aiki(ju)jutsu vs aikido, where techniques are actually modified, however, for example, ZNIR Toho Iai (allegedly Iaido, since created by a Iaido Renmei) uses the same techniques as their koryu (koryu, in turn, would, allegedly be iaijutsu).

After all, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the core of iaijutsu and iaido, (namely: drawing a sword from scabbard, making a move in the air as if one is cutting an opponent, and then re-sheathing the sword) is not the same. Heck, TSKSR Iaijutsu has all the common elements as well (Well, my experience is with Sugino line, but I'd imagine that mainline is the same)

So would it not be more objective (and would not have anything to do with WP:OR), to have an article on Iai, where difficulties of division and classification (together with core characteristics of Iai, and other relevant information, of course) would be pointed out? That would, of course, allow us to clean up the existing inconsistent classification mess and be more objective in categorizing Iai.

(BTW, existence or non-existence of headmaster or iemoto is probably not a valid criteria either, since, for example, Hoki Ryu has none [[4]] (which I will treat as authoritative, since coming from a well known and well respecting member of ryu-ha), yet I don't think there is any contention that it's not a legitimate school of iai (That chooses to call itself iaijutsu)

Urokugaeshi (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

ZNKR Seitei Iai is iaido.

As to Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu being koryu... It seems it was founded in the 20th century. How could it then possibly count as koryu? (as to Muso Jikien Eishin Ryu... That's just MJER, without the "d". I assume you meant to write something else?) ...but what's important for the wikipedia articles isn't koryu/gendai, but iaido/iaijutsu.

"Plus, if we use the self-name (and then MJER would have to be in both articles, no?)," I guess. So what?

"however, for example, ZNIR Toho Iai (allegedly Iaido, since created by a Iaido Renmei) uses the same techniques as their koryu (koryu, in turn, would, allegedly be iaijutsu)."

...and ZNIR Toho Iai (and, of course, ZNKR Seitei Iai) would thus be in the iaido article, and count as iaido, while the koryu would be labeled as iaijutsu, and be in the iaijutsu article.

It's very simple. I don't see how there are any complications here.

Also, please note that while ZNIR Toho Iai takes some kata from certain koryu iaijutsu arts, it only takes some of them, and it also only takes the kata. There is more to an art, than just the kata, and there is more to the kata of an art, than just a selection of them. Even if they do not modify the kata themselves, they have, nevertheless, chosen just a certain bit ...and they do not necessarily leave the non-kata parts unmodified. Taking just certain kata from an art, however unmodified, you can make it into a completely different thing. When you add to that, that you may modify the non-kata bits...

To claim that ZNIR Toho Iai should count as iaijutsu, because it takes certain kata from iaijutsu, even if it truly hasn't modified them, is not valid.

"(BTW, existence or non-existence of headmaster or iemoto is probably not a valid criteria either, since, for example, Hoki Ryu has none"

Your own source, invalidates your claim. To quote the source (with emphasis added by me):

"The traditional “ryuha” is in shambles when it comes to Hoki-ryu these days. Really the situation is not much different from arts like Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu or Muso Shinden-ryu under the ZNKR. There is no centralized authority anymore, traditional licensing has almost entirely disappeared/.../"

In other words: Hoki Ryu had the iemoto system (and thus confirms the notion of koryu always having an iemoto system). It's just that it's fallen to pieces, nowadays.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the claim about iemoto invalidates anything, since at one point MJER had a headmaster as well. Yet you point out that "It seems it was founded in the 20th century". So what? We are not breaking anything down along koryu/gendi budo, we are trying to differentiate between iaido and iaijutsu, so for that purpose iemoto is irrelevant. And not having iemoto doesn't magically turn a koryu into gendai budo. Or iaijutus into iaido.

All iemoto tells us, is that an art was koryu at one point (I can't even say "is koryu" because MJER had iemoto (Oe Masamichi), yet, again "It seems it was founded in the 20th century"). It doesn't tell anything about it being iaido or iaijutsu.

It's pretty much established, that word iaido got in general use in 1930s, and before then everything was iaijutsu or batto or hyoho, so realistically I can make an argument, that since MJER appeared before 1930s (Oe Masamichi passed away in 1927), it's iaijutsu, period. But there are many examples of practitioners calling it iaido.

With regards to There is more to an art, than just the kata, well, what is it? And how is this relevant to iaido vs iaijutsu? Riyu of the kata? Kata's internal reasoning? I'd imagine it is still taught. Oral tradition? Are you sure it's still taught in koryu schools? And again, would that not be a property of a koryu school, as opposed to being a do vs jutsu differentiator?

Also, do you have any evidence, that ZNIR modifies koryu kata for the purpose of Toho Iai?

So Zarlan, please elaborate, since it seems that right now you are freely mixing up the concepts of iaido vs iaijutsu and koryu vs gendai budo. And that's similar to confusing soft and warm. Both feel nice, but they are fundamentally two different things.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say, Urokugaeshi, that our discussion has been interesting and educational (which I am grateful to you for), but you haven't been able to refute any of the points jmcw pointed out. Any problem they would have, I had already asked about, with jmcw giving a clear and simple answer ...which you have not been able to refute or show any flaw in. These are issues of simple, uncomplicated, wikipedia policy.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have extensively replied to Zarlan's comments on my talk page, and I do feel that those comments are relevant to my argument with Zarlan. Once again, I am looking for evidence that iaido and iaijutsu are fundamentally different from each other in such a way, that an outside observer could tell them apart. jmcw, could you please, once again concisely summarize the points that you made, since I am not sure what it is that I should be refuting? Thank you

Urokugaeshi (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are relevant to our discussion, but is it relevant to the iaido and/or iaijutsu article, or how they should be edited? No.

As to jmcw's points... I'm not jmcw, but:

• If the sources call it iaido, call it iaido and put it in the iaido article. If the sources call it iaijutsu, call it iaijutsu and put it in the iaijutsu article. Simple.
• If the sources don't seem to agree, simply deal with that, as is outlined in WP:NPOV (a wikipedia policy). Again: simple.
• For us to try to decide what is or isn't iaido or iaijutsu, or if they are one and the same, would be WP:Original research (the prohibition of which, is one of the three core content policies, of wikipedia). Yet again: simple.

On wikipedia, we are supposed to explain what reliable sources say about the subjects. We are not supposed to (or, indeed, allowed to) try to figure out what is true ourselves (well we can, just not on Wikipedia). Nor is it allowed to come to conclusions, by putting together what is said in multiple sources, as this is a form of original research (as per WP:SYNTHESIS). Wikipedia requires WP:Verifiability, not truth. (this may sound crazy, but there are very good reasons for it)

What you are proposing here, is original research and thus not allowed.

The "test" you ask for may be interesting and valuable in figuring out more about Japanese martial arts and it'd be a great topic on a martial arts forum ...but it has no place on any wikipedia article or their talk pages (user talk pages, however, are a different story). Not unless there is a reliable source (preferably a secondary one), which talks about it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Zarlan! jmcw (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how do you deal with extremely common (especially in Japanese) situation, when it is simply called "Iai"?

Just to give you an example, Zen Nippon Kendo Renmei Iaido has a passage "These kata are officially known as the "All Japan Kendo Federation Iai" (全日本剣道連盟居合 Zen Nippon Kendō Renmei Iai), or Zen Ken Ren Iai (全剣連居合)", which is substantiated by the title and foreword of the official ZNKR book (both Japanese and English).

Urokugaeshi (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you give an example of where that would be an issue? In the example you cite, the use of iai, doesn't affect how we need to deal with it, in any way whatsoever. So the kata of the Zen Nippon Kendo Renmei Iaido are called Zen Nippon Kendō Renmei Iai? It's clearly iaido.

Besides: Iai is an act, not an art. They are not in the same category. I don't see how this would ever be a problem.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Zaraln, knowing how good your Japanese is, and how extensively you've read Draeger, please provide references for the following two statements, that you just made:

• Zen Nippon Kendō Renmei Iai? It's clearly iaido.
• Iai is an act, not an art.

Thank you.

I gave you an example, where using self-name would be an issue. Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iai calls itself Iai, so it fails your test of If the sources call it iaido, call it iaido and put it in the iaido article. If the sources call it iaijutsu, call it iaijutsu and put it in the iaijutsu article.

Earlier, I've provided reference to ZNKR Iai Manual, that specifically points out that kata should be done as if fighting, so it fails Draeger test as a "do" as well.

You keep on changing the definition on me, and I keep on pointing out that the definition that you use is incorrect to real world usage, and keep on suggesting that a more broad definition will solve the inconsistency. If we merge Iaido and Iaijutsu and call it Iai, there will not be pages and pages of discussion (especially if the two are the same, and can't be told apart). Simple.

But OK, suppose ZNKR Iai is Iaido (I still want you to prove it, since it's my opinion, and I could be wrong). Such change would also deal with ZNIR Toho Iai, which calls itself Iai (another example, in case you missed it), and which is a collection of koryu kata, that are, [unlike ZNKR Iai, not modified from their koryu origins].

Actually, in the interest of compromise, I'll be willing to go with the same definitions that the Japanese wikipedia uses, where they have a page for [Iaido] referring only to ZNKR Iai, and a page for [Battojutsu], to which "Iai" and "Iaijutsu" redirect. After all, using the term "Iaido" to refer to ZNKR Iai is common and established usage.

I'd also like to point out, that so far only you seem to be a major (and only) opponent, and it is obvious that your opinion diametrically opposes mine. And that's fine. But I'd like an opinion of third party or three on this matter as well.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Zaraln, knowing how good your Japanese is, and how extensively you've read Draeger, please provide references for the following two statements, that you just made:"

While I accept your complementing of my Japanese, I would like to remind you that I have stated exactly how much of Draeger's works that I have read: Nothing whatsoever.

"Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iai calls itself Iai"

No. It neither can, nor does, call itself anything.

The Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iai is not an individual or group, and thus cannot say anything.

Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iai are a set of kata (not the art, style, school or group). It is the set of kata, of Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iaido. The name that the set of kata has, is irrelevant.

"Earlier, I've provided reference to ZNKR Iai Manual, that specifically points out that kata should be done as if fighting, so it fails Draeger test as a "do" as well."

Wether or not it qualifies as what Draeger would call "do" or "jutsu", is besides the point (and for us to try to figure it out, is original research).

Does the ZNKR call what they do iaido? Yes. Well then it is (on Wikipedia) iaido! Pure and simple.

If it's "do" or "jutsu", in more of a Draeger sense, may be an interesting topic of discussion, but it has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You may discuss this on a martial arts forum or a user talk page, but not here. As can be read at the top of this Talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

"You keep on changing the definition on me"

How so?

The only change that has occurred, is when jmcw corrected us, and pointed out that we were engaged in original research. Thus the definition became what it should be: Use the term used by the sources. I certainly never change it. You changed it from what it should be and I accepted it, though I should have known better. Then jmcw pointed out that this was wrong, and I instantly realised my mistake, while you still haven't grasped the proper definition on Wikipedia:

Just use the term used in the sources.

"and I keep on pointing out that the definition that you use is incorrect to real world usage"

Just because it is not 100% exact or precise, doesn't necessarily make it incorrect.

Besides, as I've pointed out before: Wikipedia is about what the sources say, not what is true.

"If we merge Iaido and Iaijutsu and call it Iai, there will not be pages and pages of discussion (especially if the two are the same, and can't be told apart). Simple."

Not really. There would still be an issue of what you call iaido and what you call iaijutsu, within the page. If you call it all iai, in every instance, that goes straight against Wikipedia principles. It would be highly unusual and strange language use. Wikipedia is supposed to mainly use common language and common terms. (see WP:JARGON, WP:CRYPTIC and WP:COMMONNAME)

I would therefore object to merging the articles into one called iai.

"Such change would also deal with ZNIR Toho Iai, which calls itself Iai (another example, in case you missed it)/.../"

That's the same as with the Zen Nihon Kendo Renmei Iai.

If you take my reply about that, but change "ZNKR Iai" to "ZNIR Toho Iai" and "ZNKR" to "ZNIR", and you'll have my reply for this.

"Actually, in the interest of compromise, I'll be willing to go with the same definitions that the Japanese wikipedia uses"

That is not valid. You cannot use another wikipedia article to argue for what should be used in this one, much less a foreign language wikipedia article. Besides Japanese Wikipedia works from different sources and does not follow the same rules (the rules of the various langauge Wikipedias are similar, but not identical).

"I'd also like to point out, that so far only you seem to be a major (and only) opponent"

Major, sure ...but only? jmcw37 opposes you on all points that are of any relevance to this discussion. He/she does agree with you on some points, but none of those are relevant to how the Iaido, Iaijustu or Battojutsu articles should be edited.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose the merger proposition.--Kendo 66 09:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose the merger. There is an awful a lot of text with some good discussion but where I was a bit ambivalent before I now feel that a merger would not be useful. Iaijutsu predates the term Iaido significantly and that Iaido has evolved as a distinct entity much like Kenjutsu//Kendo. My ambivalence was mostly based on how the two appear (pretty much the same) but Iaido does have a distinctly different purpose - which has meaning to those who practice the art. I think a merger is to drastic a change to justify.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Iaido vs Iaijutsu, continued

To Urokugaeshi, let us look at your example above: "I've provided reference to ZNKR Iai Manual, that specifically points out that kata should be done as if fighting, so it fails Draeger test as a "do" as well."

I see here two reliable sources that appear to conflict with each other. The short answer is that with multiple POV, we source both statements to obtain a NPOV and we are finished.

The longer answer is to consider as intelligent editors why there appears to be a conflict. The structure that Peter Rehse supplies give us a hint that the statements might be being made in very different contexts: the ZNKR source gives a definition for the future context and Draeger makes us aware of the past context. I suspect that they use the word 'fighting' quite differently. We have no reliable proof for this conjecture but as editors, it makes sense. As long as we have no reliable source explaining ZNKRs and Draegers different views, anything we add would be OR. We finish with the two articles un-merged. jmcw (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since the consensus is not to merge the two articles, I withdraw my proposal.

Urokugaeshi (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Website

I'm Curious about why the FIK is chosen as the "Official Homepage" for something so widely distributed among organizations? Euxneks (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Role of Iaido in Kendo... what??

I'm sorry, the whole section devoted to the Role of Iaido in Kendo is simply unintelligible. It likely was written by someone knowledgeable about iaido, but less knowledgeable about writing an article in English about it. Almost every sentence is a non-sequitur, at least to someone unfamiliar with this martial art. Example: "Iaido aides guarantee that body developments are legitimate and compelling in light of the fact that they are regular, precise, and spry." Uh... what? I cannot fix this myself because I know very little about Iaido. 190.194.216.151 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iaido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420225016/http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm to http://www.dnbk.org/history.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719150631/http://www.dnbk.org/ to http://www.dnbk.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iaidō. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eicejc2008.kendo.ch/download/EIC Rules 2008.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605164006/http://www.nichiiren.or.jp/english/iaido.html to http://www.nichiiren.or.jp/english/iaido.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

DNBK is not the only org to practice Iaido..?

There is a statement in "History" where it says: "However, in 1950, the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai was reestablished and the practice of the Japanese martial disciplines began again.[21]". While this is not inaccurate, the DNBK of today is a separate org from the DNBK pre-WWII. The mantle of Iaido, Kendo, and Judo (among others) was taken up by their respective organisations. Of particular interest to this article is the Zen Nippon Iaido Renmei, founded in 1948. This sentence also presumes that people stopped practicing any martial arts while there were no organizations to oversee it, which is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euxneks (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)