Talk:Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation

message: Please, write only facts, in a NEUTRAL way, not opions. Write in an encyclopedic way. 
To prevent a new edit war: People of WGKF are kindly requested to write any contradicting information in the article about WGKF. People from GKIF are requested not to touch that article and people from WGKF are requested not to touch this article about GKIF to prevent another EDIT WAR and keep the whole story as neutral and honest as possible. Also a link to the main article Genseiryu should be kept in both articles at all times, since they are a continuation of that article... Thank you for your co-operation!  -- MarioR 21:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the Neutral Point of View of the article

message: Jmcw37 claims that this article is an orphan. Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria says the following:
===Criteria===
An article is orphaned if fewer than three other articles link to it. However, this is a strict definition of the term and there is still discussion regarding whether to have a more relaxed definition in order to clear the backlog of orphans. Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all, and it is recommended to only place the  tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant.
So, since there is a link from Genseiryū, this article is not really an orphan. I suggest that the  tag be removed. --MarioR 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria evolves . jmcw (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan?

message: An article is orphaned if fewer than three other articles link to it. However, this is a strict definition of the term and there is still discussion regarding whether to have a more relaxed definition in order to clear the backlog of orphans. Currently our priority is to focus on orphans with NO incoming links at all, and it is recommended to only place the  tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. One or two incoming links may be sufficient as long as they're relevant.
</blockquote>
So, since there is a link from Genseiryū, this article is not really an orphan. I suggest that the  tag be removed. --MarioR 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --NeilN talk to me 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria evolves . jmcw (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria

message: I took it upon me to remove some sentences in the article. Here an explanation. First I removed "A short history of each kata can also be read at the before mentioned site. These are translations from the book and are of course copyrighted material and should be treated as such at all times." The link was already removed in a previous edit, because it was an external site with no info about the claim made. So the reference was not valid. The fact that a book is "copyrighted material" is of course logical and unnecessary to mention in an article. Sounds kind of threatening ("do not copy this, or else...")... 
Furthermore I removed "Any other versions or interpretations of these kata are not to be considered as Genseiryū.". This is a claim made by Peter Lee. The organization of the original Genseiryū claims otherwise and in various documents and books other kata that Seiken Shukumine (founder of Genseiryū) taught are mentioned... MarioR 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true, Mario Roering, and you know that VERY well. I have presented you with the evidence, the links etc. the documents from the Japan Karate-do Federation are official and is a third party reference. The way you keep putting this issue on my shoulders is manipulative and incorrect. The claim is a valid one, as has been explained, shown etc. according to the evidence. If you dispute the reference, fine, but then please present another reference. Your aim in this or any other article in regard to Genseiryu is not a noble one. Your aim here is to manipulate your way in and to delete and confuse everybody. You should be stopped from editing, period. Stop vandalizing and sabotaging the articles here. Peter Lee (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote Mario took out needs a source before it can be put back in and perhaps should be followed by "according to the Japan Karate-do Federation" (or re-worked into the previous sentence). --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, but that evidence has been provided numerously on so many occasions that I can no longer remember how many times I have put it here. So here it is again, just for Mario Roering, once again. Official Documents from the Japan Karate-do Federation in Japanese with English translations. Peter Lee (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Even IF it would be true, that the JKF acknowledged the mentioned kata (for now, I will leave in the middle what is true or not about that), just even IF it is true, then the sentence Peter Lee wants in the article is "Any other versions or interpretations of these kata are not to be considered as Genseiryū". That holds no ground with the reference, for even if the kata trained  by WGKF Genseiryū (e.i. Ten-i, Chi-i and Jin-i no kata) are not excepted by the JKF, it can not be said that it is NOT Genseiryū! Especially since they ARE excepted in for example in Holland, by the Dutch Karate Federation (KBN). Saying that these kata are not considered Genseiryū is, to say it softly, humbug! To Peter: STOP removing my edits and call it "vandalism" in the summaries! Check Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what is really considered vandalism! Then you will see that what YOU are doing comes much closer to that definition! You have called me a vandal one time too often now! I do not accept it any longer!!! MarioR 11:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted Peter Lee's "edits" to my last input in the article, because of this. My edits were thoroughly explained above and even agreed by NeilN. Peter reverted my edits anyway... MarioR 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed some sentences

message: Peter, I clicked on the first three interwiki links you added and none of the articles exist. Why are you adding links to non-existent articles? --NeilN talk to me 02:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was a mistake. A simple copy and paste error from my original file. I have corrected the matter. Peter Lee (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input. Peter Lee (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: User:Mario_Roering and User_talk:Peter_Lee are reverting each other at Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation. This could be interpeted as Edit warring. Could I invite you both to a friendly discussion on the talk page to attempt to resolve the two views? jmcw (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War December 2009 

message: I think that the part about the grading system should be removed. Not that I care much about it, but the system of ranking in karate is different from country to country. If it is left in the article, then it should at least be clearly mentioned where this system is used (Japan, USA, Denmark?). For example in Holland there is a different system, also for GKIF (Peter, correct me if I am wrong (and I will accept!), 'coz I don't walk into Mr. Varenkamp's school that often): white (8th kyu, sometimes also 9th kyu), yellow (7th kyu), orange (6th kyu), green (5th kyu), blue (4th kyu), brown 1 (3rd kyu), brown 2 (2nd kyu), brown 3 (1st kyu), black (1st to 10th dan). -- MarioR 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (as a reaction to jmcw comment above here in the thread "Quality of Sources", where he says (quote)"the statement about belt colors, I would not challenge"(unquote):) Why wouldn't you challenge the statement about belt colors? That shows me you are/have never been involved in a budō sport. Am I right? (No offence!!) I clarified down here that the belt system differs from country to country. I am not saying that the belt system in the article is incorrect, it's just not complete. It only goes for Japan, maybe for Denmark and USA also, but not for Holland, Germany, France, etc.... Need references as proof? Okay, here you go: Kyū, de:Kyū#Karate, nl:Kyu, fr:Kyū, , ,  --MarioR 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: <G> If I walked into a dojo, I would see people with different colored belts. But that different colors are used in other countries, I could not see in a dojo. (Note that this is not an official wiki standard<g>). It would be much better with a reliable source for each country. Reliable sources eliminate grounds for arguing. jmcw (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But yes, on a more serious note, removing un-clear, un-referenced material improves an article. jmcw (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you walk in a dojo, you see different colored belts, yes. But a BLUE belt in Holland is a different level as the same coloured belt in the USA or Denmark. In Holland you will also find orange and yellow belts, where you won't see those colors in the USA, Japan or Denmark, or they are of a different level. Over there on the other hand, you might see purple belts or red belts, belt colours that are not found in Holland... That is why martial artists don't ask each other about their "belt color", they ask about which kyū (or dan) they have. Saying you have the "3rd kyū" says much more than saying you have the "blue belt"... Anyway, I don't see why the grading system should be mentioned in the article in the first place. It's about GKIF, not about ranking. Thereby, there is already enough said about ranking systems on kyū and dan. So... Shall I remove it, or will you? MarioR 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to invite you to make the changes - I will be away (training aikido) for a few days. Seasons Greetings to everyone working on this article! jmcw (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ow, you do train in a budō? But as far as I know, the belt system in Aikido is totally different from e.g. karate and judo (which was what I meant). Wasn't it just white and black, nothing in between? I love Aikido, it is beautiful, a very nice martial art to watch! Are you at a high level? I still don't really know what to do with that grading system in the article. It seems that lots of schools of GKIF do use that system (Japan, India, Denmark), but I now know that the (only) GKIF school in Holland doesn't use that system. In that dojo I see also people with yellow and orange belts for example... So, I think, unless there will be a good reference shown very soon, that will show that GKIF prescribes the use of that particular system throughout the world (which would then mean that the Dutch school is going into GKIF regulations or they are not attached to GKIF any longer), I will remove that part... Have a good training and happy holidays! --MarioR 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Genseiryū_Karate-do_International_Federation#Grading|Grading]]