Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū

There are no "unauthorized" dojo of Sosuishiryu in existence. If one wanted to start up another entry, listing the true name of that "Unauthorized" and recently created style, that would be fine. Otherwise please do not associated it with Sosuishiryu as it exists in Japan or at the shibu dojo overseas- simply because there is no longer any connection (by their own admission and doing). Thanks! -Russ

Mekugi 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Please do not use original research or second-hand information as per Wikipedia general editing rules.

Kogusoku 04:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Basic Guidelines

Hi!

Please make sure to follow these basic guidelines when editing this article!! It simplifies the editing workflow and creates a harmonious, problem free environment in which to expand the content!! Also, although it hasn't happened yet this is preventative maintanence: Please make sure to keep all talk outside the improvement of this article out of this discussion area.

• No Original Research
• Reliable Resources
• Verifiability
• Biographies of living persons
• Neutral point of view
• NPOV tutorial
• List of policies

Thanks and happy editing! Truly, Mekugi 14:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Futagami-ryu merged

I just merged the Futagami-ryu article to this page. I feel that the content on the original Futagami-ryu article was rather bleak and the content on the SSR article is more detailed, so there was really nothing it could add to the page. If anyone feels otherwise, please feel free to add it into the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars....

No one wants to be involved in an edit war. They need to be talked out....that means discussed here....as per Wikipedia guidelines - as a matter of Wiki public record.

All the best and thanks!

Mekugi 08:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Koshi no mawari" refers to swordsmanship?

Can someone check this against the sources used in the article? I don't have any information about Sosuishi-ryu, but I do have at least one good source stating that "kumiuchi koshi no mawari" is a term that refers to grappling (armed and unarmed). "Kumiuchi" and "koshi no mawari" were also used separately to refer to grappling skills. Obviously, "koshi no mawari" just means "around the waist", so I suppose that Sosuishi-ryu could be using the term in a unique way; I'm just urging someone to double-check it, and if the article is currently accurate, perhaps a note could be added that "koshi no mawari" historically refers to grappling. Bradford44 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This source is probably from Draeger's book on classical martial arts about Takeuchi ryu. There is a slight error in what Mr. Draeger is writing because I suspect he wasn't that familiar with it (it happens). The truth is that it is not "really" grappling at all, but the use of the short sword and other items around the waist. In Takenouchi ryu it implies the use of the kogusoku/yoroi doshi, so it is not linked to grappling entirely, but to the use of weapons. This is how it is used in Sosuishi ryu because it also implies the use of the kodachi. The Makimono of Sosuishi ryu dated about 200 ago list the techniques under two categories, one being hte Kumi Uchi and the Other being Koshi no Mawari. This is also found in the book published by the Sekiryukan which shows some of the scrolls. :)

Mekugi 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one very good source available online: http://www.geocities.jp/minamoto_hitotsugu/kogusoku.htm

"The oldest known book on the bugei ryuha of Japan, the Honcho Bugei Shouden (Vol.9 1914) states: "Kogusoku has been transmitted since ancient times. Takenouchi, one of the oldest bujutsu schools, is a great example of this because of its famous techniques with the Kogusoku (which are now called Koshinomawari.)"

Takenouchi Hisamori, after being enlightened by the god Atago, created the base of the ryu in 25 omote kata, which are known as the koshinomawari. Therefore, one cannot say they learned Takenouchi ryu without mastering the Kogusoku Koshinomawari.

Legend recounts that Atago, disguised as a Yamabushi, broke Hisamori's 2-shaku 4-sun bokuto in two and said "The long sword is no good for fighting" and taught him the kata of the kogusoku (short sword). The kata has remained in the ryu since the year 1532.

In the Kogusoku Koshinomawari kata, both opponents use 1-shaku 2-sun Kodachi. They first start in the "zaai" (seated) posture then go to kumiuchi, techniques designed around attacking– the opponent with the kodachi.

Kumiuchi generally referes to armor, but there are kata for dealing with bare-handed and tachi (long sword) wielding opponents."

Hope that helps!! Mekugi 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Founder's name

Someone also needs to double check the founder's name, which I think should be Futagami Hanosuke Masanori, and not Futagami Hannosuke Masaaki. Bradford44 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Masanori is a mis-reading/mis-pronunciation of the name Masaaki. The founder's name appears in several other Japanese documents which concur this plus it matches the phonetic patterns of speech at that time (the edo era) just as one can trace words back to the times of Shakespeare and his pronunciations. The name was misread, it found its way into print and for lack of any type of research, it stuck. Mekugi 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Area Below Reserved for Attacks on Russ Ebert, Not on the Content of the Article

I went ahead and created this section since personal attacks will not cease. Anyone having content or ways to make the article better, please post above this area, to keep things organized. Go ahead and lambast me on the bottom-half, if you feel so inclined...

-)

Mekugi (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ISN"T THIS THE SPOT YOU HAVE DESIGNATED RUSS? I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES.

KEEP DELETING AND I’LL KEEP POSTING THE TRUTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toobills (talk • contribs)

Toobills: Mekugi did not delete it, I did. The reason is because I cannot follow your post whatsoever. Apparently you copy-and-pasted several kilobytes of material from various other talk pages on Wikipedia and other correspondence, and have interleaved your own comments. Interleaving of comments is contraindicated on Wikipedia, because it makes it very difficult to tell who is saying what. And in any case, your comments are so, so, so very long that, well, nobody is going to read them. Please state your case more succinctly. A couple paragraphs would be ideal.

Also, on a side note, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (e.g. ~~~~). That way, it will make it easy to see which username was used to make the comments and at what time. Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

My previous reply was to every point that Russ/mekugi made. I attempted to make this as clear for you as possible. I am relatively new to this forum. I started every reponse with your name before stating my point of view after Russ' posts. Regardless, here is my case, and I'll try and explain it to someone not familiar with an ancient japanese martial discipline.

Manzo Shitama Sensei (teacher) is the 16th inheritor of this Japanese school of Jujutsu that has been passed from "father to son" since 1650. The name of the school is Sosuishi ryu. This is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own web site. When asked directly about this issue Shitama Sensei has stated the name is Sosuishi ryu, and no other derivation, as the name Russ is claiming to have "uncovered" by his research has components of the school incorportaed in the name. Russ is incorrect, again as is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own website.

As Russ's senior, and a direct student of Shitama Sensei for well over a decade, I attempted to correct Russ on this matter on numerous occassions. In addition, Russ is a junior student, and it is far from appropriate behavior to publicly contradict Shitama Sensei, as his authority and position on this matter is without question. If manzo Shitama Sensei states the name of his familial school is Sosuishi ryu, then that's the end of the debate. He is Sosuishi ryu. It would be bad maners for any of us to question or contradict his wishes, especially publicly on this forum.

Russ has based his research conclusions on several ancient documents he has read. Would we assume Shitama Sensei has never read them? Since that is not the case, Russ is speculating the intent, context, and texture of what those past headmasters wrote. Russ hasn't spoken to them, (obviously), nor has he read every document that has been written on the subject. His conclusions are less than academic, and are speculative. Shitama Sensei is alive and leading Sosuishi ryu. He has spoken to at least one former headmaster, his father, who Russ has incidently quoted after reading a document he wrote. Wouldn't Manzo Shitama Sensei better know, and understand his father's intent? He is a direct student of his father. Russ is not. Again, Manzo Shitama Sensei uses the name Sosuishi ryu. It is inappropriate for Russ or anyone else to challenge the 16th headmasters position.

I have suggested on more than one occassion that we can have Shitama Sensei's senior representative, Dennis Fink Sensei, who is graded as highly as possible in the discipline, (Menkyo Kaiden)arbitrate this dispute.He is fluent in english and has discussed this matter with Manzo Shitama Sensei. My suggestion has been ignored. I suspect it is because Russ may have to concede he is incorrect in this matter. For future academic integrity, I believe collaborating with Dennis Fink Sensei for accuracy is the best course of action to take regarding this article. This would solve this debate between Russ and I, and assure academic integrity from someone considered an expert in Sosuishi ryu by Manzo Shitama Sensei in Sosuishi ryu

I hope I have concisely made my point.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this more concise description of the problem. I think I have a better understanding now. First, a number of points I want to address:

1. Who the heck is Jeff? My name is Jay... heh...
2. The fact that one editor may or may not be a "junior student" and another "his senior" outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. Whether it is true or not, I don't particularly want to hear about it. On Wikipedia, all of you are equals.
3. I am very disturbed by this comment: ..it is far from appropriate behavior to publicly contradict Shitama Sensei... The issue of whether your organization allows junior members to contradict senior members in public is not a Wikipedia issue. If you want to yell at him outside of Wikipedia, go ahead. But here, these titles have no meaning and so there is no particular reason why Russ should not contradict Shitama Sensei.

Now, that said, I think perhaps the policy you are looking for is the policy against original research on Wikipedia. If Meguki has done original research showing a different pronunciation of the jujitsu school, that has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only recognizes reliable sources. In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu would be considered a primary source and could probably be reliably used for this.

It seems you may have a point after all, and I commend you for condensing the argument so that I can understand it and follow it.

Meguki, could you please point me to the sources you are using to support your position regarding the pronunciation? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Sorry about not catching you correct name.

We will leave "our organizations" internal parameters outside of the debate as you have requested. As you have pointed out Mekugi/Russ has absolutely done original research that contradicts the 16th headmasters own web site. Even outside of our organizations parameters, and hierarchy, surely you can agree that the 16th Headmaster knows significantly more than the students know about his familial discipline? I agree that Shitama Sensei's own web site which is published in Japanese and in English is a reliable source for academic consistency. Interpreting ancient scrolls and documents are speculative and are easy to take out of context as we don't know the writers intentions. I believe using Shitama Sensei's web site as a reliable source should resolve this dispute.

Thank you for sifting through all of this.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Toobills previous post of which I can make neither heads nor tails

I do not want to censor Toobills, but I can't figure out what the heck he is saying. I have preserved his addition below for posterity. It contains comments from me and Mekugi which have been copy-and-pasted from other pages, so be aware that only some of what is below are Toobills' words. Best of luck to anyone who wants to sort through this. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

All of my responses begin with your name. Good luck readers.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, You have been requested as a moderator for Russ's complaint. I believe this is just more evidence of his initiating the first punch in the deterioration of this discussion. When he's punched in return, he counters with sarcasm, and runs and "complains to the teacher", as is evidenced by his complaing to you. Below is my response to Russ's allegations. His charachter does matter as he is using false credentials and contrived expertise to support his speculative conclusions and flawed research. I hope this helps.

[edit] HELP!!!!! user:Toobills and user:RC&RB incivility, libel and harassment Both have continually been uncivil, have posted libel/defamation of others (and myself) on Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Please look in the Revision history of Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Here:diff1; Here: diff2; Here:diff3 Here:diff4; Here: diff5 Here: diff6 And there are a few more that I am leaving out. I've tried to be as civil as possible, to no avail. This has led to continued insults and threats and it seems to be escalating. This has continued from e-mails sent to me personally at a prior date, threatening me from post user:Toobills and user:RC&RB stating that that any "posts I make at Wikipedia have to be approved by user:Toobills first". Now on here at Wikipedia, they are attempting to follow through with harassment, namecalling and general incivility. I fear it will turn into vandalism.

Jeff, I hope I am posting, and responding in the correct place.

The incivility began when Russ Ebert posted a response to me that he himself admittedly deleted. He later admits to you: "he is responsible for a lot of what went on there, and I would have prevented it and I regret it", In addition his scolding, public post, to someone who is significantly his senior, warning them to "behave themselves" is rude, and absolutely began the deterioration of this debate. Even I was surprised at his inappropriate, and disrespectful behavior. It seems now that he realizes that he has behaved inappropriately, as evidenced by his explanation of his lazines, and censorship of the "debate". My only regret is stating outright that he is a Blowhard, and a coward. It was wrong and admittedly, I allowed my anger and frustration at his unwillingness to abide by the parameters of the discussion page. owever, my frustration began and continued because Russ is refusing to debate this topic, and acknowledge any other view contrary to his own speculative research. If he did he may have to admit he's incorrect. I apologize for my frustrations, however I believe from your initial response to this you can understand where it came from. A scholarly debate should not be edited, and the discussion shouldn't be monopolized, and deleted. I will absolutely refrain from name calling and personal attacks.

I have never threatened Russ, nor has anyone else. If you would like have him provide you evidence of my threats. His claims are outright lies. If he chooses to make these allegations he should back them up with proven facts.-Bill

Mekugi (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi -- where are the personal attacks and insults? In the diffs you have provided, all I see is that the other users have written a very long discussion of the points in contention (which I don't understand at all, so you'll have to bear with me), and you reverted their changes. I think your reversion was inappropriate, unless there are personal attacks I did not see. The users in question did say several times that they thought you were incorrect, but I do not see the personal attacks. Could you help me out by saying what "insults" and "threats" you are specifically objecting to? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) The first post, DIF1 & DIFF2 is about libel/defamation aimed at me.Namely incivil statements like: "Or do you speak for a small faction in Tokyo, headed by a former low graded "student" of Shitama Sensei?" The low graded student is my teacher in the martial art. I dunno, but calling someone low-graded when they are of a higher grade than the person posting is rather rude, and continually calling me that throughout the article has no point. How does that better the article? It seems wholly as an attack on me. Or that is to say, it is clearly an attack on me and my group in Tokyo, not about the content of the article. Nothing in [:diff1 is about the article itself, but about me being low graded, not understanding anything he's saying. I am not sure how that contributes to civility either.

Jeff,

How is that question libel or defammatory? He made a condescending statement about "this not being an issue over here", (meaning Japan). I'm stating first hand, (then and now) that he is incorrect. His position makes an incorrect assumption based on spaeculative research conclusions. Again, he was the first to throw out the sarcasm, which I addressed in my response. rather than accept or discuss athe difference, he condescendingly chose to "assure me" that he knows better. I believe that Russ likes to attack without being attacked in return. The second part of the statement about "a group headed by a former low graded student of Shitama Sensei", is again a fact. Usuki is no longer a student of Shitama Sensei. His web page link in fact has been deleted from Shitama Sensei's web site for cause. The truth is, Russ's teacher is in fact the same grade as I am. He is not my senior, and I in fact consider myself and his teacher low graded students, however I am significantly senior, and more experienced than Russ. I'm sorry but credibility matters to a debate. Russ's speculative conclusions are inappropriate and his behavior is rude coming from a self proclaimed expert, and someone in his position as a very junior graded student. This again is NOT a personal attack but stating what should be obvious.

It's tough to sort through, I know, but if you look back it's a tyraid responses to this post: diff7 where I simply outlined the information, the rest is just an attack on my character. This was followed by a tyraid of other posts and really I am trying to be polite about it because really, this is defamation to me, my group and character. IMHO, there is no reason to get personal or make rude, incivil statements over something so small.

Jeff,

Again Russ assumes that an incorrect speculative conclusion is a small thing. he is just wrong. It's difficult for him to accept it. But more importantly it's his behavior that is inappropriate. I just stated facts that I can substantiate. he won't address them because it's has become part of his con.

Also there are statements regarding my research (pulling test out of books and authentic ancient documents and not limited to his "original research"- which is not allowed here) and arguing his points with personal research, creating a hostile environment. I am going to try to just post a few of the incivility diffs here:

diff8

"This is consistent with the behavior of your low graded group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

Russ is not the only person making these contributions that are inappropriate from such a low graded student. So in fact, his not accepting someone who is significantly his senios advice to behave appropriately is consisitent with his group in Tokyo. thier are countless other examples that have no place in your attemt to mediate.

This is why your web site has been removed from the Sekiryukan web page for cause.

Jeff,

This is a fact.

Furthermore, I'm not surprised, as I have a collection of incorrect online statements, and outright lies you have posted over the years."

Jeff,

I have numerous statements that I can present as evidence. I asked Russ if he would like to debate them. He never replied and just deleted the discussion as you know. For example, in another online forum hruss and fellow low graded student of his, who claims a higher grade than he was awarded, (that doesn't even exist in Sosuishi ryu), claim that Shitama Sense conducted Senbondori, (a ritual test of 1000 throws) in Tokyo of which they participated in and one was even injured. This never happened, as the ONLY place Senbondori has been conducted outside of Shitama Sensei's dojo in Fukuoka was in New York. I never brought it up. Russ knows it's an outright lie, I just eluded to it and many others. Again, this is another outright lie by a low graded group in Tokyo. I'm sorry, but that' not an attack, just a fact. You can see this evidenced on Shitama Sensei's web site if you doubt my correction to his lies. I'm sorry credibility, and the truth matter.

as for calling me a liar, low graded and in making false statements, etc. I am stumped to see where any of it applies to the article in question or how it betters the article, but in fact is an attack on me and my group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

It does matter because my assertion from the beginning is that his innaproppriate, speculative conclusions contradict Shitama Sensei's position on this matter. Shitama Sensei is the 16th inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. He IS Sosuishi ryu, and the discussion is about the name. Shitama Sensei has stated first hand when asked directly this question and about what Russ claims, His response was the name of the ryu is Sosuishi ryu, not any other derivation, as those are components of the ryu. My position as a higher graded student, and direct student of Shitama Sensei is to reiterate Shitama Sensei's position. How can that be disputed? His assertions are speculative, and incorrectly assume former headmasters intent as he attemts to uncover some "hidden treasure" that just isn't there. How can he correctly interpret someones intent and the context and texture of thier writings? Shitama Sensei is the only person that knows first hand his fathers intent. Shitama Sensei speaks Japanese. Why would his position be challenged by a low non- japanese graded practitioner? Without knowing anything about the discipline, doesn't this strike you as being innappropriate? I'm sure by your initial response it does, however I can assure you that his actions in this entire manner are childlike to say the least. Again, not an attack, but children brag and behave like experts in an unhumble manner. This is what russ is doing.

This stands out:

You are a fraud, and just another blow-hard coward behind a keyboard. Being called a fraud, blow hard. I seriously fail to see how that relates to the article.

Jeff

This was my last post, (of many) after Russ deleted not only my discussion with him numerous times, he deleted the post of another studentt who is also his senior. Conveniently he left his own post on the board. My frustration led to my violating the rules, and more importantly inappropriate name calling. I apologize for letting my frustrations get the best of my own manners. I will not make the same mistake twice.

And this, from the same Diff:

This is what happens when low graded students are left on their own, without correct guidance from a qualified Sensei. He's talking about me.

It’s endemic in the martial arts, and it’s reflective in your inappropriate behavior. I am not sure how my behavior is inappropriate, since he is not talking about the removal of the psosts, but to posting on Wikipedia at all.

We have allowed you to continue your childish, inappropriate, behavior to continue for years. You sit and pontificate as if you have some hidden knowledge, or expertise. I'm childish....get the feeling that this is focused on my character, and not the article?

Jeff,

Russ's behavior here has been childish. He doesn't want to hear another side, the correct side by those who challenge his self created expertise, and he throws a tantrum and deletes the discussion, except his own post. I stated the facts in this manner. I tried, as his senior to correct him and mentor him as is my place. If children are left on thier own without proper guidance, they do the wrong thing. I believe this is the case with Russ. It's not an attack, it's a conclusion that has been evidenced by his behavior and refusal to accept another opinion. If he accepted my opinion, he would have to assume his conclusion is incorrect. I don't think Russ can admit that there is a possibility he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does. His behavior is relevant to the article. The article is innacurate in several places. His character won't allow him to discuss a contrary opinion. I'm sorry, again the truth, and character and credibility matter in research.

You post video demonstrations of yourself that look ridiculous, and display the waza consistent with a beginner, while trying to pass yourself off as some sort of highly graded expert. We have attempted to correct you privately on numerous occasions. Again, this is about me, not the article.

Jeff,

This is the truth. he is a beginner as is evidenced by his physical technique, his grade, and the speculative conclusions his biased research has resulted in. He is trying to pass himself off as an expert, of which I can assure you he is not.

Sorry to sound like a broken record here(skipping DVD nowadays) but I am unceratin of how any of this pertains to the article in question. They are talking specifically about me, my character and re-iterating threats/demands sent to me in private emails just keep me from writing here. This is all because I have information they do not, resources they do not, all from third or second party sources (as per wiki guidelines).

Jeff,

Again I am merely stating Shitama Sensei's position, the 16th Headmaster. Does he assert that he's such an expert that he knows more than Shitam Sensei? I think he is. In addition where are the threats we are making?

So, I this is the gist of it: I try to post a response to the wording of the name, with reasoning. I then get a tyraid aimed at my legitimacy, not the legitimacy of the argument, but aimed at me.

Jeff,

Incorrect, as he refuses to accept it is not his place as a low graded student to be claiming anything. That is a huge part of this debate. Thier is no argument as he continues to delete any other view, and never addresses any contrary points when they are made.

Most of the prepositions in the first DIFFS are directed at me, thus the conclusion that I come to is that I am the subject of the arguement, not the material I am posting. Then, I try to keep it civil by removing the post, which was aimed at me. Then, I re-post with more information, citing a docuemnt. Another tyraid is aimed at my character (I'm too low, I am not high enough, I need to be something special to write here).

Jeff,

Again, another incorrect conclusion. They are intertwined as it is not his place to challenge Shitama Sensei, and despite his archeological finds, he is no position to interpret context and intent of headmasters that are deceased. Does he know more than the 16th inheritor, Shitama Sensei does? I am only asserting his position on the matter as is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own web site.

I remove it and post some guidelines to help smooth things out. Then, another post is made calling me a fraud, attacking my character AGAIN. So my conlcusion is that it seems like the posts are not about the article, or the material, by a hostile attack on my character and the belittling of my ability to research.

Jeff,

The guidleines he posted he violated first!!! This was after he altered or omitted any other view contrary to his own.

BTW Jay, thanks for you patience with me here....just learning the ropes. :) Mekugi (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate you posting the diffs originally, but they were so long I didn't see the personal attacks. The "fraud" and "blow-hard" comments are highly inappropriate. Many of the other comments are really pushing it. I will warn the user(s) in question, and we'll go from there. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

Again, if you look back he began the vitriol and the sarcasm. He wants to attack without being challenged or attacked in return. This is what promted my comment about his cowardly behavior. Again, I apologize, and will not resort to name calling again, regardless of my frustrations with his behavior.

Mekugi -- one concern I have is that you have been completely reverting comments made by these other users. I recognize that part of this is because of what you perceive as personal attacks. However, blanking the entire comment, particularly when it is several paragraphs along, is a pretty drastic measure, and may serve to stifle debate. From reading Bill's comments in more detail, it appears that while a number of his comments have been in regards to you, he also had a number of points (the area is too specialized to know if they are legitimate or not) regarding the actual article content. You guys need to find some way to work those out... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I do realize that and will be more careful in the future, for sure. I realize that I am responsible for a lot that went on there and I would have prevented it and I regret it. That, to me is against the ideals of Wikipedia IMHO- to make the articles better for everyone. I'm starting to get the gist of debate on here on the discussion pages, so it's part of my acumen I intend to better while editing here. I originally went in with some caution and started to edit his intitial comment, but there was just so much stuff there it was impossible to sort. Without any explanation other than a "please behave yourself" comment, I erased it. On thinking about it I thought that was too rough and removed my response. Instead of re-vamping the whole thing I let laziness take over, and I just thought it would be better if I posted my info on the subject in hopes that he would rethink his position, thus start over (he did in a way, but it made him angry). I should have known better to do that but I went ahead anyway. I need to be more careful as these types of issues are touchy, and it's not right to censor anyone (I don't want that, I would not want anyone to do that to me). With the final user:RC&RB post, it was small enough to edit out the personal comments and get to the question, so I did that. But, it was too late by that point. Anyway, thanks for your help. I appreciate your time and effort.

Jeff,

My suggestion is this. Dennis Fink Sensei is Menkyo Kaiden, and Shitama Sensei's senior representative in Sosuishi ryu. He is also fluent in english and has discussed this matter directly with Shitama Sensei. I submit that he is an expert on Sosuishi ryu and can assit you in mediating this debate since you are having a difficult time sifting through the specialized information here regarding the discipline.

Again, i apologize for reverting to the name calling when I was censored and attacked. My frustration led to bad manners and it won't happen again on this forum.

Sincerely,

Bill Williams

---

Sadly, their is no scholarly discussion on this "discussion page". The online conversation, (for anyone seeking the truth), can be viewed in the history section. The discussion is attempting to be monopolized by one person, Russ Ebert, who posts as Mekugi, and who continues to delete any contrary view to his speculative research and conclusions. This includes the view and position of the headmaster Shitama, Manzo Sensei.

This discussion has deteriorated into the gutter on more than one occassion. Again, the vitriol has been initially initiated by Russ Ebert, (check the history of the discussion). I believe it is my responsibility as a direct student of Shitama Sensei, and Fink Sensei, to attempt to set the record straight. Their are, and have been numerous innacuracies, and deceptions in this article. They serve an agenda, rather than state the truth.

Shitama Sensei is the 16th Inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. He IS Sosuishi ryu. Sosuishi ryu is a living art, and it's current and future course is in Shitama Sensei's rightful hands.

We as students have no place on a self serving, speculative, "archeological quest" to interpret the intent, context, and texture of previous headmasters when reading what they wrote on "ancient scrolls". It's innapropriate and ill-mannered.

Again I state an old adage that is relative to this discussion: "a student of Budo should strive to remain humble and readily admit their lack of knowledge. Children brag, and behave like experts."

Again, my position is this: Shitama Sensei, as the 16th Dai Menkyo has clearly stated that the name of his familial ryu is Sosuishi ryu, not any other derivation.

I don't expect this post to be disputed, I expect it to be deleted in an attempt to stifle, and control the debate. Again, I submit that we have Fink Sensei mediate this dispute for accuracy. he is Shitama Sensei's senior representative, and is fluent in english. He has also discussed this matter directly with Shitama Sensei. I expect my suggestion of mediation will be ignored again

Bill Williams

---

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dsuishi-ry%C5%AB" Categories: B-Class Martial arts articles

Recently I made the comment below:

Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question. He disagrees with you.

As students of Sosuishi-ryu, we are Shitama Sensei’s guests. We should act that way. Randy Cantonwine

Mekugi deleted it, then restored it, edited down to: "Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. RC&RB (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

and Mekugi added this comment "RC&RB" :-) Okay...let me get this straight. You are saying that the name "Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu" is one that Shitama chooses to use today, in the present, correct? Does the article not reflect that? "

No.... I am saying that Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms)and the book that he commissioned. He does not need anyone to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period.

Randy Cantonwine RC&RB (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit to see how the argument has changed and where it is headed now and how it is easily confused:diff

Please notice that this has now gone from "Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu" to simply "Sosuishi-ryu" without any type of interim. "Sōsuishi-ryū" is in fact the name of the article, and the first name used on the page. Everything is else is listed under that. There is no reason for any of this to be happening, from what I can see. Otherwise, we are discussing things we cannot verify for a Wikipedia article.

Regarding this issue, my hopes are that this might help to clear things up :

No Original Research

As well as this: Verifiability

Please be so kind as to notice this statement:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

So hands are tied here, as we're limited to what we can verify through secondary and tertiary documents. Mekugi (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Russ,

Here's a shock, I disagree. I don't think "hands are tied here" at all. As I have stated in a follow up below: "In addition to your incorrect and speculative conclusions, I believe your research is academically flawed. In addition you have violated guidlines by citing original, albeit flawed original research, (a document you have read and incorrectly interpreted). In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu can be considered a primary source of verifiable reference. The only unpublished, unreliable sources of reference are those that you cite to substantiate your incorrect research conclusions.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the sources collected here, no excessive commentary please

I apologize for being so late to the party here, but I am not going to read through the pages and pages of previous debate. Let me see, listed here succinctly, the sources that support each side. If they are in Japanese, let me know the exact characters I need to look for... I know just enough Japanese to follow the grammar, and have a Kanji-English dictionary, but it takes me about 5 to 15 minutes to translate a single sentence, so I can't really skim a web page :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi's source(s)

1. first source
2. second source, etc.

Toobill & co's source(s)

1. first source
2. second source, etc.

Jay,

I will reiterate my position in this discussion as succinctly as I can. Manzo Shitama Sensei is the 16th inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. On his own web site he states the name of the school is Sosuishi ryu…period. Ref: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/index.html

In addition to Shitama Sensei, two of the most experienced practitioners of this discipline, on separate links to his own site, use the name Sosuishi ryu. I submit that Manzo Shitama Sensei’s web site, and those he has directly linked to, can be cited as a reliable sources in an academic forum.

Russ/mekugi has submitted a contrary position that is admittedly based on his own original research. His speculative conclusions are based on a few documents that were written by previous Headmasters, all of whom are deceased. There is no way to interpret the context, texture, or intent of these writings. In addition, we can rely on Shitama Sensei’s’ position, as he has trained, and has spoken directly with his father who was the 15th headmaster, and the author of one of Russ/mekugi’s sources. This “new” information Russ/mekugi has claimed to discover would have us believe that Shitama Sensei has never seen or read his familial documents that support Russ/mekugi’s flawed “research” conclusions.

In addition to his incorrect and speculative conclusions, I believe his research is academically flawed. I submit, as you have previously stated: “Now, that said, I think perhaps the policy you are looking for is the policy against original research on Wikipedia. If Meguki has done original research showing a different pronunciation of the jujitsu school, that has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only recognizes reliable sources. In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu would be considered a primary source and could probably be reliably used for this.

Your conclusion is one that I have maintained all along. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Once on the Sekiryukan (http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/) homepage, click on English. You will see the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Honbu (or Hombu). Sosuishi-ryu is the name of the style and it is a form of jujutsu. Honbu or Hombu means headquarters. It does not say Sekiryukan Sosuishi-ryu as Russ (Mekugi) purports, but just plain Sosuishi-ryu, as it is the headquarters for all of Sosuishi-ryu.

It also lists Manzo Shitama as “Director.” Furthermore, if you scroll down just below the Sekiryukan you will see “Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Seibukan, New York” and “Director” Dennis Fink, as he is the International Director.

Scroll down again and you will see Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Australia and “Representative” Patricia Harrington, as she is the representative of Sosuishi-ryu in Australia. Please note that Russ Ebert’s group in Tokyo is not even mentioned on this site, as they are not affiliated and they have distorted, inaccurate, self-serving information as provided by Russ (Mekugi) Ebert himself on their website. Hence, Russ (Mekugi) Ebert's “original” research.

If you click on the New York Seibukan (www.nyseibukan.com) link you will come to the New York Seibukan website. Scroll down a little and you will see that is the International Headquarters of the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai. Kai means association. If you click on the link it will bring you to the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai homepage. Dennis Fink’s bio, etc appears on these sites. I submit that these two sites are credible and reliable souces. The Sekiryukan, because it is the headquarters of all Sosuishi-ryu and the New York Seibukan/ Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai homepages as they are linked directly from the Sekiryukan’s homepage.

Furthermore, the Sekiryukan is owned by the government of Fukuoka, Japan, with its chairman being appointed by the government. Hence this is an “official” governmental site. If you scroll down the Sekiryukan page you will see the chairman, Shingu Matsuhiko, former chairman of the Fukuoka Prefecture Assembly and current assemblyman. I believe this further strengthens my position for this being a credible and reliable site.

I hope this helps resolve this discrepency.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill,

Thanks for the sources. This shows, at least, that the official organization uses this name. That is good. I would like to see what Mekugi comes up with. If there are reliable secondary sources showing there is contention over the name, that might belong in a later section in the article (definitely not in the intro). If the contention over the name is Mekugi's original research, then we will leave it out. Thanks for your time! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Not synthesized, not original research.

It was erased from earlier posts diff:

The book "双水ノ流" or "Sosuishi no ryu" was hand-written by Shitama Shusaku (Shuzo)in Showa 16 (1941) as an archive of densho the Sekiryukan had collected over the ages. The original is, in fact, still kept at the Sekiryukan today. The formal name "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari" appears in there on at least three occasions as the name of the school.

On the first line of page two of "Sosuishi no Ryu", the title is "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari lineage".

Then, on the last line of that page, the text reads as follows

"Futagami changed the name of Futagami-ryu to Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari".

Another instance of the exact name occuring in "Sosuishi no Ryu" is in the Densho lists of the 11th inheritor, Shitama Yagoro Munetsuna. In this section several of his menkyo from a variety of ryu are listed, the final one is entitled "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari," given to him by Shitama Muneaki (the 10th inheritor).

Then, as an outside source of where this name is used (again), the famous book published by the Takeuchi-ryu (the formal name of that the ryu being Take<no>uchi-ryu Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari <竹内流小具足腰之廻>) you have "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari" clearly printed as the formal name of the Ryu on page 278.

See here:
page 278 If you want to take a look at the hand-written book, I have scans I can send you personally. I will not put them in public.

Also, I would like to add I showed both Bill and Randy the page which lists the name Sosuishi ryu, which is here: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/jindex.html in this post, which was also deleted diff

Let me try to get you to reason this out and see if you can understand where I am coming from on this. The name of the School, in a simple, spoken manner, is Sosuishi ryu. See here: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/jdouzyou.html It's the first set of Kanji in brackets under the pictures. Now look a little further down and see this: 柔術（組打）と居合術（腰之廻）Jujutsu (Kumi Uchi) to Iaijutsu (Koshi no Mawari) (the "to" means "and"). So, you are right, the compenents are Kumi Uchi and Koshi no Mawari. However, there is something being drastically missed here. Allow me to point out that these same compenents are usually listed as part of the old school name on the scrolls found in Fukuoka and in Tokyo. In the modern-era, the full group name of the Sekiryukan Hombu is Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu Kai, which dates from the mid 20th century (during the 1960's, as you know). So, this is really about old vs. new. They are the same thing, right? So it really doesn't matter as long as it is explained. It's not something to put yourself through a ringer for.

Mekugi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)