Talk:World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation

message: After 24 hours have passed, I'd like to archive the present talk page and start anew. The new focus will be on article content, not contributors and lengthy comments will be discouraged. Instead, editors will propose the exact text they want to see in the article (with sources).  We will start with the opening sentence. --NeilN talk to me 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Peter Lee (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and also offer my services as a go-between for the two "main editors" Peter and Mario. My research has uncovered very little information in English with regards to the federation. I am currently working on 4 other projects, so my time will not be unlimited, but I do believe this to be a worthy cause. - 4twenty42o (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry Neil, I was thinking a few things over, plus I have the kid (16 months old boy! D'ya know what kind of stress that is?! ;-) ) all alone (since the wife is in Japan at the moment), so I can't be busy with this ALL the time... I already have spent way too much time on it... You'll understand... To the point: I see Peter has again written a loooooong story down here. My congratulations to his suddenly changed attitude, but I am not gonna react to anything he writes any more. It all comes down to the same: he keeps disagreeing and referring to some "documents" that proof nothing. He keeps claiming that I contradict myself, which is NOT true. Okay, I will react to that one, to explain: the book Shukumine wrote is indeed called "Shin Karatedō Kyōhan" that translates into something like "The Teaching Methods of the New Karatedō". Indeed, he doesn't mention the name of the style, Genseiryu... I say now, do you know Gichin Funakoshi? The founder of Shotokan? He also wrote a book about "his" style. Do you know what it is called? "Karatedō Kyōhan" ("The teaching methods of Karatedo")! This book also doesn't contain the name of the style of Shotokan! Also his other four books, they all talk about "karate" in a general way, without mentioning the name of the style. That was common at the time. Japanese karate masters didn't care about the name of the style they created. They only wanted it to be good and they wanted to pass it on. The name is not important. Not convinced? Check the books that were written by Chōjun Miyagi, the creator of Gōjū-ryū. Check the books of Ōyama Masutatsu, the founder of Kyokushin kaikan. Four of his five books don't mention the name of the style, they just talk about "karate". I have a book on the shelf called "Karate", by Marcel Meeus, 1987 (ISBN9002158815). Nowhere in the book, the name of the style is mentioned. Only by the tribute page for Gichin Funakoshi (page 14) people can understand it's about SHOTOKAN, but only if they understand that Funakoshi was the creator of it... Oh, and I tried to explain before: Koryū (古流) is NOT a name, it only means "old school", and that is exactly what Shukumine did: combine old techniques (Koryū) with new ones, to come to Genseiryū. So what if he called his kata "Koryū" kata? That doesn't make any difference to Genseiryū... So, I was NOT contradicting myself AT ALL... Now, back to Seiken Shukumine: no matter what he called the kata, the kata are in the book and they were then and they are now considered Genseiryu kata. What's in a name? That's all I want to say about Peter's reaction down here. The rest I leave as it is (which does NOT mean I agree with it). However, if you (or anybody else) have any specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them. WGKF is what it is. The sources are what they are. I mentioned 2 books, I mentioned the agreement of the WGKF itself, I mentioned the website of the official Genseiryu headquarters and I mentioned a Taidō site (a different martial art that is not connected to WGKF). That should be enough. I see numerous articles on Wikipedia with a lot less references. Now it's up to some Japanese speaking editor to check the Japanese references, but I did my utmost to create a NPOV article. I would like to add more, but I can't find the right references. So, I will refrain from adding that. If anybody still would like to dispute the whole article, I think it should be done by a sentence by sentence breakdown of the article, just like Neil suggested above... Oh, and if you want to archive this talk page, that is totally fine with me... Hopefully everybody will from then on focus on the content and nothing else but the current content... Now, back to life. Hey, somebody's gotta cook tonight... -- MarioR 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez if Wikipedia paid by the word you guys would clean up :-) I've parsed through Peter's and your response and don't think I found anything about the organization's notability. Am I wrong? --NeilN talk to me 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree! I wouldn't mind being paid at all, then I can quit my job as a pilot... ;-) But, seriously, if somebody claims that I am contradicting myself where I am not, I have to say something about it. And with Peter, you have to explain it as detailed as possible and come up with many, many examples, otherwise... Oh, what the heck, who am I kidding? Even then he will still say the opposite... Now that is exactly why I will now refrain from reacting to Peter Lee's comments. Let's keep it to the subject and let's do some good to the article from now on! MarioR 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, now THAT is the right approach of a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of the article! Hear hear!!! (Seriously, I am not even gonna read those blocks of texts anymore!) MarioR 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how rational or lack thereof it may be. Your approach of no communation is for sure the least productive one. My points are very well documented in the text, and thus you should take this task seriously. Peter Lee (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fresh Start" Proposal 

message: Folks, I disagree that the notability/references issue has been adequately dealt with. How many of the current references are third party references as opposed to references that are connected with the subject itself? How much of the coverage in those sources is significant coverage? WP:RS anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I already stated above in the section "Regarding the References in this article", that all the references are from the WGKF, hence none of them are from any third party. Thanks for your comment. Peter Lee (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Mario Roering. I do not entirely disagree with you on some of your views, but I think you miss the point here. Nobody is contesting links provided in the article included for further reading on the federation. The sort of information posted on these external websites, is beyond the realm of Wikipedia. It is our job to write an article, which has a place in an encyclopedia, not using Wikipedia as yet another place for advertising, propaganda or personal views. Using the links as a reference to things included in the article is not valid in this regard, as they are written by pro-WGKF individuals etc. They need to be third party references such as written by people without any connection to the WGKF. As I have mentioned earlier, this is not possible, which you indirectly agree to yourself. Such third party documentation does not exist or is extremely rare. If it exist, it may only exist in Japanese anyway. I have included links above to such third party documentation written by the Japan Karate-do Federation (JKF), as the official national karate federation of Japan. But the WGKF is not recognized in Japan, and thus only references written by pro-WGKF individuals exist. THAT is also why I have said earlier, that it will not be possible to find the needed documentation to ensure the validation of facts in an article here about the WGKF. The WGKF is a very new organization, so that makes it even harder. You talk about more research, reading and translating Japanese texts with the help of your wife. Fine, please do so, but that will never produce anything else that will even come near to a third party reference. I have done exactly that sort of research in Japan using interviews and having access to even 50 years or older documents translated just to accommodate me in my research. I have not seen much third party documentation. And the one I have seen all is of newer date. Such as the ones already mentioned above. But please keep it up, maybe you get lucky. Who knows. Well, this article is about an organization. I have myself put it forward for deletion, that was done once more by another party. You have wished to keep it here. Even though I may understand your grounds for wishing that, I do not agree with you. The article have no grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that is another discussion. The references used as documentation for the so-called facts included in this article are not valid, as they are not third party references. Thus the reference itself should not be included or even mentioned, and the facts, which was supposed to "stand on" that reference thus fails to have any meaning. Well, that is my honest opinion and interpretation of the basis for writing any article here at Wikipedia. You kind of contradict yourself a bit there too (no offense). The Shin Karate-do Kyohan was written by Seiken Shukumine, whom is the founder of Genseiryu. The WGKF says, that this is what they consider to be the original Genseiryū. Fine, peace to the WGKF, as everyone in this world is entitled to have an opinion. Even though the GKIF agree, that this book is written by the founder of Genseiryū and published by himself (Shukumine), we do not agree that this book is representative of Genseiryū. Neither does Shukumine himself, simply by leaving out the name Genseiryū in the book. He referred to all of the kata in the book as Ko-ryu. The book represents karate as it was taught by his masters and what he learned before he created Genseiryū and Taido. Shukumine endorsed Mr. Tosa's book in 1984, the Japan Karate-do Federation only recognizes the GKIF as representative of Genseiryū and permits only the versions of kata as described in Mr. Tosa's book and the way these kata are practiced and taught by the GKIF. I know you would say a lot about a roundabout membership of WGKF to the JKF, but this is just your opinion, which has no weight in the JKF. Only the GKIF is recognized and that must be the most important argument in regard to a third party reference. Now, we certainly have disagreed on this many times in the past, I am sure, but hope that I will be surprised, that you will not agree with me now either. But what I have just mentioned here, is what is documented by the JKF, a third party reference. The links to some of this documentation has been listed above. Last but definitely not least, I have tried to be as civil as possible in this response to you, and no offense whatsoever was intended. Thus I hope none was taken? Peter Lee (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and notability redux 

message: Nonwithstanding the heat and light above, I still don't see references to third party sources to establish notability. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would suggest, that this page be cleaned up, exept the LATEST discussion and replies. Peter Lee (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Part III 

message: May I suggest that all those closely involved in editing this article take a break for a few days? It is in danger of becoming an unpleasant edit war. Maybe after a few days off, folks can begin to work a little more collaboratively. There is no deadline so the article will be here when you get back, and I promise not to send it to Afd for at least a week. Sound like a plan? – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree with your suggestion, but I do not see what the break is supposed to accomplish. We had a break since 2005/2006 until 2009, and that did not change anything. Not that I am not willing to try whatever suggestion you may come up with, but I believe a more specific aim and procedure for reaching that aim is necessary. Peter Lee (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion