This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genseiryū article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
In 1962 Shukumine sensei introduced a further development of Genseiryu which he named Taido. Taido is not to be regarded as Karate, but as a new martial art. This new Budo has a lot of acrobatic movements such as sommersaults and flips. Since leaving Genseiryu in 1962, Shukumine sensei only held a friendly relation with his former students/masters of Genseiryu, but he never took actual part in neither teaching nor examinations.
This is also stated by a Taido-ka, I have contacted. "Officially, Taido was started in 1965 and that is also when he definately left Genseiryu." This is a part of what he wrote te me.
Between the period 1962 and 1965 he completed the five basic principels of Taido, especially the TEN en NEN movements." In the World Taido Championships in Okinawa in 2001, Saiko Shihan asked to the highest Genseiryu senseis (Tosa and others) to convert to Taido." This is also what the Taido-ka wrote to me! So please, for those who are writing untrue stories, back those stories up with true arguments. -- Zzaroc 17:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not intending to edit this, knowing nothing about the subject, but the article should be moved to Genseiryu to keep the case consistent. DJ Clayworth 01:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did this. Maybe the preferred spelling is Gensei-Ryu, Gensei Ryu or Gensei-ryu, but GENSEIRYU is not. DJ Clayworth 01:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<<Whole discussion here moved to Peter Lee's Talk page since most of it was copied there already anyway and the discussion has gone way beyond the subject Genseiryu! >>
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 Sidaway Talk 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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':
-- MarioR 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I've re-protected this page due to the persistent blind reverting by anon editor(s). JeremyA (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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)Cliff
An article of this size needs more that two citations. jmcw ( talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
87.61.137.32: There is two big organisations in the world that practices Genseiryu Karate in different forms, so both of the organisations should be mentioned in this article, and the edits of this article where started by Peter Lee, if you check your files you can see that this has happen before by the same man. He is trying to write out the other organisation from this article, while i'm trying to keep both organisations in this article. His rewriting this to his own organisations advantage... Just like the last time, when he had an edit war with Mario Roering in this article.... If there can't be a writing from a neutral point of view about this style and a link to a writing about the different masters and organisations like it was before. Then there shouldn't be one.... Stop this "Edit War" mister Lee.... But that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.137.32 ( talk) 15:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am totally baffled here. Haven't been on this wiki for a while, and what do I see??? Little shihan Peter Larsen from Denmark, who exchanged his air miles for a black belt in Butokukai Karate, is again ranting, ranting and ranting. Please, DON'T make any false accusations about "hiding behind ip's". There are over 16 million people in Holland. So, now you find ONE ip address from Holland in the history section and it just GOT to be me?!? A little shortsighted, isn't it??? Anyway, I have nothing to hide for!! You on the other hand, Peter LARSEN, are again talking a bunch of BS here, that you could never defend with any proof! I am NOT going into any discussion with you anymore, I am just saying, KEEP ME and MY TEACHERS out of it, unless you can finally cough up some proof for all your false accusations! You recently deleted your whole account here on Wikipedia. Why I don't know. Probably because there's a lot of sensitive material on it that is speaking against you. Now, since you have deleted your account, do everyone a big favour, S T A Y AWAY!!! MarioR 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genseiryū article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
In 1962 Shukumine sensei introduced a further development of Genseiryu which he named Taido. Taido is not to be regarded as Karate, but as a new martial art. This new Budo has a lot of acrobatic movements such as sommersaults and flips. Since leaving Genseiryu in 1962, Shukumine sensei only held a friendly relation with his former students/masters of Genseiryu, but he never took actual part in neither teaching nor examinations.
This is also stated by a Taido-ka, I have contacted. "Officially, Taido was started in 1965 and that is also when he definately left Genseiryu." This is a part of what he wrote te me.
Between the period 1962 and 1965 he completed the five basic principels of Taido, especially the TEN en NEN movements." In the World Taido Championships in Okinawa in 2001, Saiko Shihan asked to the highest Genseiryu senseis (Tosa and others) to convert to Taido." This is also what the Taido-ka wrote to me! So please, for those who are writing untrue stories, back those stories up with true arguments. -- Zzaroc 17:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not intending to edit this, knowing nothing about the subject, but the article should be moved to Genseiryu to keep the case consistent. DJ Clayworth 01:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I did this. Maybe the preferred spelling is Gensei-Ryu, Gensei Ryu or Gensei-ryu, but GENSEIRYU is not. DJ Clayworth 01:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
<<Whole discussion here moved to Peter Lee's Talk page since most of it was copied there already anyway and the discussion has gone way beyond the subject Genseiryu! >>
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 Sidaway Talk 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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':
-- MarioR 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
I've re-protected this page due to the persistent blind reverting by anon editor(s). JeremyA (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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)Cliff
An article of this size needs more that two citations. jmcw ( talk) 12:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
87.61.137.32: There is two big organisations in the world that practices Genseiryu Karate in different forms, so both of the organisations should be mentioned in this article, and the edits of this article where started by Peter Lee, if you check your files you can see that this has happen before by the same man. He is trying to write out the other organisation from this article, while i'm trying to keep both organisations in this article. His rewriting this to his own organisations advantage... Just like the last time, when he had an edit war with Mario Roering in this article.... If there can't be a writing from a neutral point of view about this style and a link to a writing about the different masters and organisations like it was before. Then there shouldn't be one.... Stop this "Edit War" mister Lee.... But that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.137.32 ( talk) 15:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am totally baffled here. Haven't been on this wiki for a while, and what do I see??? Little shihan Peter Larsen from Denmark, who exchanged his air miles for a black belt in Butokukai Karate, is again ranting, ranting and ranting. Please, DON'T make any false accusations about "hiding behind ip's". There are over 16 million people in Holland. So, now you find ONE ip address from Holland in the history section and it just GOT to be me?!? A little shortsighted, isn't it??? Anyway, I have nothing to hide for!! You on the other hand, Peter LARSEN, are again talking a bunch of BS here, that you could never defend with any proof! I am NOT going into any discussion with you anymore, I am just saying, KEEP ME and MY TEACHERS out of it, unless you can finally cough up some proof for all your false accusations! You recently deleted your whole account here on Wikipedia. Why I don't know. Probably because there's a lot of sensitive material on it that is speaking against you. Now, since you have deleted your account, do everyone a big favour, S T A Y AWAY!!! MarioR 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)