Talk:Bushido

"Bushidō" as historical fiction

There is criticism of Nitobe's work as a fabrication, cobbled together from disparate half-truths. See also Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit (https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/, December 8, 2014). How much of our article reflects history, and how much reflects mythology? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The tofugu article you quoted here is absolute boomer rage bait… Not sure how this opinion piece offers deeper, qualitative historical insight other than a “BUSHIDO IS FAKE NEWS!!!” sentiment… 7cyn (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

To add onto this:

Nitobe's work is generally accepted as historical fabrication within Japan. His writings have no basis in reality, with the writer himself believing he had invented the word "武士道" (bushido), due to a complete lack of research done on his part. His writings were criticised heavily by Inoue Tetsujiro, Uemura Masahisa, and Tsuda Sōkichi. All of whom were significantly more prominent historical writers at the time.

He states this in his own writings:

Inazō Nitobe. Bushido: The Soul of Japan "It is not a written code; at best it consists of a few maxims handed down from mouth to mouth or coming from the pen of some well-known warrior or savant."

He provides no evidence or supporting work to support this quote, and doubles down later in life.

"Some thirty years ago, when I first wrote an essay on the moral code of the Japanese and called it“Bushido”, there was raised a question both in Japan and among some scholars abroad as to the legitimacy of such a term. They had heard of Shido or Budo but never of “Bushido”. Some of them went even further and doubted the existence of such a code. … But the more I think of it, the stronger grows my conviction that we have been under the sway of ideas and opinions unformulated but none the less potent, whose guiding principle was Honor. And as it came to existence during the days of feudalism, it partook the coloring and taste of the period. Since it was made a class morality of the knights, samurai, it laid particular stress on honor; and because it was primarily meant for observance by that class, we may call it Bushido, the Way of the Fighting Knights.”58 

Ōta,Yūzō, Taiheiyō no hashi toshite no Nitobe Inazō, 20-21

Nitobe Inazō. Lectures on Japan, 124-125.

Oleg Benesch, Bushido : the creation of a martial ethic in late Meiji Japan

Oleg Benesch, Inventing the Way of the Samurai: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushido in Modern Japan, First edition

These assertiosn fall into direct conflict with the existence of the following works:

Hishikawa Moronobu " kokon bushido ezukushi"  菱川師宣の「古今武士道絵つくし」（1684）

Ogyū Sorai "Sorai Sensei Tōmonsho"  荻生徂徠『徂来先生答問書』(1725)

「世上に武士道と申習し申候一筋、古之書に之れ有り候。君子の道にもかなひ、人を治むる道にも成り申すべきやの由、御尋ね候。」

Constalation (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Genuine follow-up. Is that why it’s considered “purported” samurai moral code? The wording through me off so I wanted to check if the talk pages refuted the wording… 7cyn (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Clearly my English is terrible and no editing is permitted—-I meant “threw.” English homophones 🙄 7cyn (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Multiple Types of Bushido

The page has improved significantly to explain the multiple Bushido types through history. Such as: Ancient Bushido (Heian-Kamakura, 794-1333), Sengoku Bushido (Sengoku period, 1336-1603), Edo Bushido (Early to late Edo (1603–1868), Meiji Bushido (1868-1945) and Contemporary Bushido (1950–Present): it is still used in various forms such as business, communication, martial arts and a way of life. Each type has distinct features. Bushido was originally focused on valor and later gained morals for attitude and behaviour. "Bushidō (武士道, "the way of the warrior") are regulations for samurai attitudes, behavior and lifestyle." Bushido is best used as an overarching term for all the codes, practices, philosophies and principles of samurai culture. Bushido is by extension the Japanese way of the warrior. Thus Nitobe Inazō's popular book "Bushido: The Soul of Japan (1900)" must not be used as the primary interpretation, because it does not represent all bushido types and interpretations by samurai and important figures. There are earlier works which describe bushido long before Nitobe. The historical development was put in chronological order with additional references. Etymology was expanded with important terminology. Additionally, valuable images were added about Bushido such as: Koyo Gunkan by Kosaka Masanobu (1616), Kashoki (Amusing Notes) by Saito Chikamori (1642) and Book cover of Kokon Bushido Ezukushi (Bushido Through The Ages) by artist Hishikawa Moronobu (1685). Images of the Hagakure and Musashi's Book of Five Rings could be included. - Artanisen (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Ancient Bushido" section includes vague information that is uncited and doesn't really make sense: "The old samurai didn't discuss morals of the modern samurai. The exception is feelings of mercy and natural feelings. The focus was overwhelming others by force, governing and protecting the land. The substantive aspect was important. The samurai of this time were terrifying and pure fighters." It is unclear who the "old samurai" or "modern samurai" are, how/why they would be discussing each others' morals in ancient times, what "the exception" is for "mercy and natural feelings" (and what those things even are), what "focus" is being discussed, what "the substantive aspect" means and how it was important, etc. The statement that they were "terrifying and pure fighters" is both extremely vague and a value judgment unsupported by a citation; terrifying according to whom? Pure in what way? This just sounds like someone's opinion that isn't clearly related to any source. 65.144.88.134 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 65.144.88.134 (talk · contribs), the "Ancient bushido" section was poorly presented and not backed up by the references. I have been bold and removed that section. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Last Paragraph in the Historical Development Section

That paragraph makes it seem like Nitobe Inazō is speaking about that the Japanese infantry during the Second World War and should be phrased differently as of course that quote of his must be about some other battle as he died in 1933 RaffieFaffie (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

"Eight virtues of bushido (as defined by Nitobe Inazō)" seemingly quotes a source that is not Nitobe Inazō

Foreword: I searched Nitobe Inazō's book, "Bushido, the soul of Japan" according to the version cited in the first paragraph, and could not find the specific passages seemingly quoted.

This first came to me when I was served this section of the page to edit by Wikipedia's bot that flags flowery language. Reading the text over, it seemed to be a quote, but looking into it, I could find no source.

As I'm new here, I'm hesitant to simply ripping it out, as I think the text is actually helpful. However, if it is a quote as it appears to be -- it ought to be cited accordingly, and I cannot find the source.

There is the genuine possibility that I am a fool, and that the definitions provided are not sourced from the author or someone else, but are rather someone's definitions. This ought to be made clear, and perhaps edited accordingly. Pedantry^2 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Lowering Importance assessments

I lowered many of these. Previously, EVERY category in the header was assessed as Top importance. Including Feminism.

Feel free to re-assess the ones I changed, but please post your reasoning here. Not all of these could possibly be Top importance. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2026 (UTC)