Talk:Shotokan/Archive 1

message: listen...logic is simple...
if one is lookin for ucb...i don think he'd like to see the heading UCB ??..
u got the point ??...heading MUST be descriptive...
--Arvind Singh 
Well, does Shotokan always have "Karate" followed afterwards? You may be right, but we want to be sure. UCB is not the common name and is an acronym, so it would be against the Naming conventions.--Jiang 00:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: heading MUST be descriptive

message: The article on Taikyoku nidan was recently proposed for deletion.  As a result of that discussion, there was a strong recommendation to merge each of the very short articles back into this list until such time as this article grows so large that they must be split out.  As individual articles, they were felt to lack the context to easily understand them.  As part of a single list, they are more likely to be understood.  Rossami (talk) 00:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Ken and Ryu (of Street Fighter) also practice Shotokan? At this point there is only mention of some kid from SF3.
:: Ken and Ryu seem to practice Ansatsuken
Can some1 give a list of illegal techniques in shotokan,example:gouges,chin breaking punch...
I think 1 is called eitoji or something.
Also,there is a double punch attack right.
Batzarro 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia addition 

message: I think that the kata should not be listed in the "beginer, intermideate, advanced" listing, but instead listed all together. This is because of the variation of what is an advanced kata from dojo to dojo. For example, I am accustomed to Bassai-dai, Jion, Jitte, Kanku-dai, Hangetsu, and Empi being brown belt (3rd-1st kyu) katas. However, according to our sensei, some of the black belt katas, such as Gankaku and Tekki-Nidan, are at a brown belt level of difficulty. Because of the differences between styles, I don't think we should specify the levels of katas any farther than 4th kyu. NeoChrono Ryu 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kata

message: Things to do: 
*The header should be changed to Rank System.
*Explain Kyu and Dan. (include Kano and first Shotokan black belts)
*Remove example belt system.  This can be covered in Kyu/Dan explaination
*Remove "This was most likely so that western beginners could feel more of a sense of progression over time."  This is not true.
ron Southwick 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt Colors 

message: Things to do:
*The meditation info is not common practice.  Mokuso is but the rest is not.
*This should have the Dojo Kun but not the other explaination.
*Rename section Dojo and include etiquette.
ron Southwick 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meditation 

message: I am writing the kanji for the terms and adding the standard Shotokan terms.  I will include the definitions as well in a table format.  Also, to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, I am using many of the same definitions and linking them to those pages.
*The “i.e. unarmed combat” is not the definition of Karate, that is just implied.  
*Osu is not used primarily in bowing.  I will put the “real” translation as well. See osu
**SIDE NOTE – Osu is used improperly by most non-Japanese schools.  More about that later.
*I used remaining mind, which is the proper translation of the term, see zanshin
* Sensei “the one who has gone before” is correct, if we transliterate the kanji.  Teacher is the common Japanese meaning. See sensei
I will add back the definitions when I finish the table.
Organize, Verify and Edit  ron Southwick 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most readers will not be interested in the breakdown of the kanji of every word in an article that is not about the Japanese language. The reader of this article wants to know about Shotokan. The glossary lists and tables are already so large as to dominate the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Terms 

message: :My advice is to not discuss each other. Instead, discuss the article. When you criticize other editors, you make a poor impression on more experienced editors. You are implying that other editors cannot see when someone is behaving badly without your help. Moreover, you should be aware that some people seek to provoke others. By remaining unflappable, you discourage them.If you cannot agree options include:
* include both versions of the disputed section. Use words like "Most people think "A"; Others think "B". See Global warming controversy for how this has been done. 
* take a break from editing the article for a week or two. When you come back to it, you may find that the dispute has calmed. 
* is the whole article in dispute? If not, move the pov tag to the disputed section and ignore it for awhile. 
* you can post on {{WP:RFC]], but posting on Talk:Karate seems to me to be more likely to reach interested editors.
* you can poll the editors on the talk page, but with at most four voters, one of which edits anonymously, it may not be very conclusively. Still, it would be helpful to someone like me to understand who is who.
* it would be helpful to refactor the talk page. As it stands, it isn't easy to see what the dispute is about or what the arguments are. Maybe you could clearly indicate the two versions and list the arguments pro and con for each. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I don't see how this information holds any real relevance to shotokan. If the community insists that the information should stay in the article, I at least ask that it be slightly revised so that it flows together with the rest of the writing better. NeoChrono Ryu 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cap_j is correct in commenting on the importance of leaving accurate and informative edit summaries in his 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll remove it. It isn't a POV dispute, in my opinion, but rather an content dispute. I was not a party to the dispute and don't claim to understand it in detail, but my summary follows in case it is helpful to someone trying to understand the history of this article.I think the source for the "pine waves" content does not meet the criteria of WP:RS since I was not able to find it in the University of Chicago or University of California library catalogs. This is important because it suggests that the source is not vetted by a university librarian and it is not readily available to other editors that wish to verify it. On the other hand, the "short sword" content had no published source (as required by WP:RS). In the meantime, a number of editors have allowed the  "pine waves"  content to remain thereby providing some assurance that it is not broadly disputed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I looked it up on the Library of Congress Online Catalog.  I figured if it was anywhere, it'd be there.  Just do a basic title search for "Karate-do: My way of life".  It should be the first result.  Of course, I haven't read the book, so I don't know if those guys are right, but the book does exist. -Waterboy matt 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that it exists. But, it would be helpful to have a source from the scholarly literature, or even from a national monthly publication or a reputable newspaper that provides editorial review of the content and provide some assurance of accuracy. BTW, I did another search, this time on the name of the author (instead of the ISBN), and the University of California Library does list the Funakoshi, Gichin title. The University of Chicago Library lists no titles by this author. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the English version of Wikipedia, so the kanji is not helpful to most editors here. It is important that information be verifiable by other editors. I'm not quite so concerned about the Funakoshi, Gichin source now that I've located it in one major university library, but another published source would go a long way to putting this issue behind us. By the way, web sources are a potential maintenance problem (since links change) and it's hard to evaluate their accuracy (see WP:RS). Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pine Waves