Talk:Genseiryū

message: This has been protected for weeks and weeks over a petty revert war.  I'm unprotecting but I'll be watching closely and I am warning in advance that my threshold for disruptive behavior on this article is low with respect to those two editors, who have apparently spread the edit war to other articles. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Since somebody (anonymous user with different ip addresses) keeps deleting information or changing information in the article without a proper foundation, I will add some notes about those changes, to ground my reasons for keep reverting the changes as 'vandalism':
# "...but the year 1950 is seen as the beginning of Genseiryu." There is no dispute possible. Genseiryu Netherlands (including me) was in January 2005 invited to the celebration of 55 years of Genseiryu in Tokyo, Japan. Pictures to proof this can be found here: . 
# "...1962 [...] From that point on, sensei Shukumine was mainly involved with Taido and many of his pupils started to train Taido as well. [...] ...and sensei Shukumine was occasionally involved in Genseiryu Karate. [...] ...gave lessons to high rank Genseiryu instructors." Also here there is no discussion possible that he at least occasionally was involved in Genseiryu karate after 1962. Several people that claim to have been given a higher rank in Genseiryu from Shukumine sensei personally, were also invited to the mentioned celebration. If they would have been lying about that, they would not have been invited for sure! Pictures of one of those occasional lessons in Genseiryu can be found here: see pictures 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4.
# "Some people claim (this is still being investigated by a legal translator though) that the book is mentioning Koryu...". This sentence has been added for more neutrality, to show that it's disputed, but also to show that it is being investigated by a legal translator. As soon as this has been confirmed, the sentence will be adapted.
# "...where he describes Genseiryu karate techniques". Shukumine sensei invented Genseiryu. He had been developing it since the end of WWII. He did this in solitude. For years and years he trained himself in his own style Genseiryu. Then he taught people in Genseiryu for many years in many dojo. Then he writes a book. WHY would he write about another karate style than the one he had been doing for over 15 years? Besides the fact that he mentioned the name Genseiryu in the book, he does not 'just' show some karate techniques, but Genseiryu karate! It's false propaganda to say this book is not about Genseiryu, and in my opinion this is probably because of the 'promotion' of 'the other' Genseiryu book which was NOT written by Shukumine! I like to point out that this is MY opinion and is not written in the name of WGKF. But I don't think I am wrong, since the anonymous user is again pointing out on Splashes talk page, that this 'other' book is the 'only' book on Genseiryu...
# "Genseikan" was added by the anonymous user to text several times. This is a different story, but to be short: Genseikan = Genseiryu. The school holding the right to use the name "Genseikan" trains the style "Genseiryu", a bit in the same way as many Wadokai schools train Wadoryu (but I don't want to touch that any further than that, just see Wadokai!). In the context where it was added, it absolutely does not make any sense!
# "Japan Karate-do and Martial Arts Association". This is a translation of Nippon Karatedo Budo Kyokai... This is NOT the name of a certain karate style, as the writer keeps implying, but to my best knowledge it's an organization that (amongst others???) trains the traditional Genseiryu (old style). I am still doing research on that subject, but placing this name in the same context as Genwakai, Ryounkai, Kenekai makes no sense!
# "So two years after his death, he appointed a Head Instructor to do this for him". This added remark by the anonymous user shows how uncareful he is with his remarks. HOW CAN A DEAD MAN APPOINT ANYBODY!?! Of course he can NOT! He appointed a head instructor already LONG before he died! The first head instructor (sensei Yamada) was even already dead before HE died! The anonymous user likes to think that all this is not true... Then again, I think that he deliberately added this remark, to make ME look stupid, since on that same talk page of Splash, he accuses ME of saying this myself, where he is the one who put it there himself! Just compare it in the history! Gladly I found this little trick out in time!
#"Sensei Tosa's organization: Genseiryu-Butokukai". The anonymous user keeps deleting this part of text totally. This is pure vandalism! Stop deleting this! You don't agree? Start a discussion on the discussion page, that's what they are here for!
-- MarioR 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the article because many items added or deleted incorrectly from the version of Mario Roering. Many comments are already mentioned by Mario above--TenChiJin 07:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort TenChiJin! (Nice name, btw!) I have corrected some (minor) errors and added some information. I know you are also WGKF member and therefore think you are okay with the additionals. Otherwise we can discuss it here or on my talk page? Regards, MarioR 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinformation

message: Whilst I am prepared to invest time in this, I would also note that User:JeremyA has also tried counselling both parties, but neither responded to the suggestion that you take this to RfC or RfAr — this gives the impression you prefer to continue the fight. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a resolution via talk pages, and that the situation has largely degenerated to sterile reverting. Let me present to you the alternatives available, in order of preference:
#Come to an agreement via the talk pages, or your user talk pages;
#Try informal mediation;
#Take the matter to an article-based RfC;
#Take the matter to a user-behaviour RfC;
#Request formal mediation at RfM;
#Take the matter to the Arbitration Committee at RfAr.
Options 1 and 2 show little sign of working. I suspect that, due to the specialist nature of the subject, option 3 would be unlikely to produce much other than alternative forum to fight in. However, it must surely be worth a try. Why not go list the article at RfC for a week or so and see what happens?
Option 2 remains open to you all however. If you can present evidence, externally verifiable, on this talk page to back your claims I would be interested to read it. It sounds as if there must be some way to present both sides of the argument in the same article.
Option 4 is on the way to an Arbitration. It will probably produce comments positive and negative on the behaviour of all parties involved. Reqeusts for Mediation presently have a considerable backlog, but one suppose that, if all the earlier options have failed that it would not be unreasonable to skip that part out. That leaves Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) generally takes a dim view of edit warring on any article for any reason. It takes a generally dimmer view when all other avenues of cooperation have been exhausted without result. It does not usually determine content issues. So one possible outcome is that both of you are banned from editing either article (under any IP address or account) for a lengthy period; you will probably also be cautioned against making attacks in summaries or edit pages with the threat of blocks if you do. The ArbCom rarely decides completely one way or the other. I would advise that Arbitration be avoided if at all possible.
If you cannot proffer good, referenced evidence in pursuit of option 2, can I invite you to file an article RfC first, give it a week to see if comments are incoming, and take it from there? -Splash 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we try to fix this? 

message: Wikipedia aims to incoroprate all opinions into its articles. However, this is done through constructive debate aimed at reaching a consensus on the wording of the article. Attempting to force an article to your own version through constant reverting is an overtly aggressive tactic that stifles all debate. All those who attempt constructive debate on this talk page will have their opinions heard. However, those who continue pointless revertion will be treated as petty vandals. I have started, and I intend to continue, blocking such vandals: the only way that you are going to get your voice heard is to enter debate here.   JeremyA (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An open letter to the reverting IPs 

message: I've protected this article and WGKF again: I got tired of seeing the endless stream reverts and personal attacks on my watchlist.  I don't care who is right or wrong in this; I just want the fighting stopped.  Probably what would be best is if both sides were to simply leave the articles alone, and let neutral third parties work on it. --Carnildo 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I've re-protected this page due to the persistent blind reverting by anon editor(s).    JeremyA (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-protected

message: This is to let you know that a Request for Comments has been filed which concerns the conduct of the two principal editors of this article, Peter Lee and Mario Roering. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter Lee and Mario Roering. It having now been certified by the two relevant editors and having had the relevant evidence supplied, it is now open for comments.
Please provide a response as you feel appropriate in the assigned section of the article. Please keep discussion to the talk page. Please keep things civil, and be aware that any member of the community is entitled to comment as they see fit. -Splash 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: "Genseiryu has its roots in an old karate style called Shuri-Te. Some sources speak of Tomari-Te being the source, but the differences were minimal since both styles were derived from Shorin-Ryu."
This bit of the article is inaccurate in that Shorin-Ryu was derived from Shuri-Te and Tomari-Te rather than the other way around.
216.68.35.45 18:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight error in sequencing 

message: An article of this size needs more that two citations. jmcw (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations needed 

message: Peter Lee and 87.61.137.32, rather than reverting each others text, could you look for reliable sources for the text please? jmcw (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What would in your opinion be reliable sources? I am an eyewitnes to most if not all of these things. I don't think you can get closer to the facts than this. Peter Lee (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of the Wikipedia community is expressed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The two main points are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If your eye-witness experiences have been published in a third-party journal reviewed by peers, you are welcome to include the information and the citation. If your eye-witness experiences are the Wikipedia:Truth, we must find reliably third-party references. jmcw (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not possible to my knowledge, as I have stated on numerous occasions both in the past and recently. I have even expressed clear views on the fact, that this page has no place in being included in Wikipedia. Its contents are mainly about an organization or person and the information here is not possible to obtain unless verification can be done by people inside the Genseiryu organization. 99.9% of all information here are written by people who have an official status inside Genseiryu (as myself being president of the GKIF-Europe/Denmark), or eyewitnesses or people who experienced these things personally. I have conducted a nearly 20 years thorough research of Genseiryu and related topics. If this is not enough, Wikipedia could not exist. Thus I have recently set this article up for deletion, but that did not happen. My opinion in that regard still stands. Peter Lee (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not even going to bother about your accusations. They may rest in peace, and you can swallow them or choke on them as you please. Back to the issue at hand. You are editing the article in a way that has no chance of being verified, but has on many earlier occasions been disputed and disproved by people of the GKIF. The information you put into the article is thus already verified as wrong, and as such have no place here. You also link to pictures on Mario's homepage, which is a disputed site in more ways than one. The information you keep putting into the article, is not objective, but put there to promote the WGKF. The pictures you link to shows only, that Nobuaki Konno's followers visited the founder Seiken Shukumine and had an introductory seminar on Taido. You also state, that there was a joint celebration of Genseiryu in 2005. This is incorrect, as the GKIF was not there. The celebration was between those of Taido and the WGKF only. So if you want to talk about joint celebrations, you should indeed specify who joined and you should specify the reasons for this celebration. Further you should include the information also presenting that of the other party (GKIF). WGKF was established in 2003, which means that in 2005 when the celebration took place, the WGKF was only two years old. Although it is commended that you celebrate Genseiryu together with Taido, there exist only one official Genseiryu organization in the world approved by the Japanese Karate-do Federation. Adding to this, there is no doubt whatsoever about who is the successor of Genseiryu in the karate-world today. The successor is Kunihiko Tosa of the GKIF. Nobuaki Konno and many others have promoted that exact fact for many years prior to them being rejected by the GKIF (Konno in 1996). The ways of the WGKF and their entire organization shows time and time again, both in the past and at present, that the information provided by them are mere propaganda to hide the truth (past) in order to promote a lost cause. I have deleted some parts from the article for the above reasons, and not including any contrary information from the GKIF, thus in no way REPLACING your statements, but simply removing the information all together. If you keep putting it in there, we will have an edit war, which is in no way desirable for anyone. And I am sure that the sysops of Wikipedia will have a fit. So you should try to write the article in a contributing manner, instead of simply commencing in your ever lasting edit war. It sure is funny, that your IP resides in Holland. I would not be surprised at all, if Mario Roering is hiding behind that IP. In any case, your edits and reverts, undoing etc. are in no way beneficial to this article. On the contrary. Peter Lee (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I forgot to mention, that on the issue of removing this article completely from Wikipedia I concur. It has no place here. But other people have a different opinion. My reasons for wanting to remove this article may differ from yours, but I too are wishing for a complete removal. Peter Lee (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow Edit War