User talk:Stvfetterly/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Stvfetterly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ncix 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatsumi Credentials

Regarding Masaaki Hatsumi: on the Stephen Hayes page you added the "who claims to be" in front of the 34th Grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu sentence.

Why did you do that? Are there reputable claims that he is not? There is extensive discussion of this on both on Masaaki_Hatsumi and Toshitsugu_Takamatsu pages. My understanding was that the consensus of literature accepts the lineage. As far as the Black Belt Hall of Fame, several US Presidents, the Vatican, and several world leaders are concerned, Hatsumi is the Grandmaster. There are some complaints by the some curators of ninja museums, but other than those specific individuals, my understanding is this matter is not up for debate.Greenshinobi (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got nothing against Hatsumi, but have merely rewritten the article to match the sources available. I have not seen any reputable 3rd party sources to indicate that Masaaki Hatsumi has any kind of historical lineage, or that he belongs to any ancient Koryu. He seems to teach a popular modern martial art derived from various things that he learned in Japan. The reason that I added "who claims to be" in front of "the 34th Grandmaster of Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu" statement is that the sources provided in the article to support this claim are all poor:

They're either from Mr. Hayes (who has a personal interest in inflating historical claims of his teacher)
Many are reprinted from news or magazine articles which either use Mr. Hayes as a primary source, or are written by Mr. Hayes (or written by someone else who is a member of the Bujinkan organization)
They're from a Bunjinkan offshoot website (and have a personal interest in inflating historical claims of an important member in their organization)

US Presidents, the Vatican, and world leaders are not historical scholars specializing in feudal japan. They are likely to believe what is told to them for a quick photo op rather than delve into old manuscripts and records written in a different language to verify claims of lineage. Being a black belt hall of fame member doesn't mean that your historical claims are true, just that you have been recognized for the martial arts that you practice. Either way, the onus of proof in Wikipedia is on the person making the unsupported claim, not on the person disputing it. Until a valid third party source can be found, Hatsumi's claims of history are just that . . . his claims. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to be an issue for so many martial arts pages. We have X people claiming a title that was passed down verbally or without scrolls that date back to the era they represent.

With respect to Hatsumi, what's the problem? Is it (A) that Toshitsugu_Takamatsu did NOT pass the title down to Hatsumi or is it (I've seen that argument) (B) that Toshitsugu_Takamatsu was NOT the 33rd Grandmaster of the styles? (I've seen that argument) What's the issue? Because I don't mind researching more if I can focus on what the concern is. Thanks.Greenshinobi (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My issue is that Takamatsu doesn't appear to have been the 33rd Grandmaster of the style (other than in Bujinkan/Bujinkan related publications), thereby making Hatsumi's claim as the 34th Grandmaster shaky at best.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"A friend of Takamatsu wrote that his ninjutsu was made up from childhood ninja games, " This is hearsay. "A friend says" is _not_an_encyclopedic source!!! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that's hearsay. It should be replaced with a quote from the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten that directly shows that Takamatsu embellished his history. Please let me know what article this is in and I'll fix it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of Category:Mixed Martial Arts Styles?

The point is that there a number of traditional styles that form the base of mixed martial arts training. While people may claim that their styles are ninjitsu, kung fu, thugjitsu, etc. people don't have belts or traditional training in those disciplines. People are, however, black belts in ju-jitsu, karate, judo or have competed in collegiate or Olympic level-wrestling. Most of the styles that are currently listed in this category come directly from the mixed martial arts page. I don't see any reason for this category to be populated by many more styles than are listed there now. Feel free to keep this discussion going on the category talk page if you wish, but I see no reason why the current categorization scheme is inappropriate. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sumo is already listed. You are welcome to add other styles if you wish. Certainly, criteria for inclusion could be developed so that a single fighter who uses a style wouldn't necessarily get it added to the list. Hardee Merritt and Rik Ellis don't have their own pages, so I'm not sure how notable their styles would be for this category. Kyokushin kaikan karate is currently included, so one possibility would be to include karate more generally rather than listing its sub-forms. Cung Lee is primarily noted for being a Sanshou kickboxer, which is why Sanshou is already listed. Kung fu doesn't even have its own page, see Chinese martial arts and wushu might be a better way to describe his background, though I know of no other wushu competitors in MMA. Perhaps you want to take a stab a writing the lede for the page so that you feel like it is appropriately narrow. I still think that there aren't too many more styles that should be listed unless consensus is to list multiple forms of a broader discipline (like karate). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Togakure-ryū

On 10 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Togakure-ryū, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that training in Togakure-ryū, an original style of Ninjutsu, is similar to that for judo and aikido? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Togakure-ryū.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Defense soap

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Defense soap requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Defense Soap for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Defense Soap is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Soap until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Template:Z81 Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Template:Z81 Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DRN Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Ninjutsu topic area". Thank you. --Silverseren^C 00:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Genbukan

Hi: regarding the "citation needed" for Genbukan I added a link to the website where the claims are made. The thing is these are claims that I do not know (or believe) that are or have been substantiated against any Koryu body, yet they are made in the page. In Koryu Karate's page on Genbukan it is stated "Grandmaster Tanemura refers to the art as Koryu (classical or literally "old school") Karate (literally "China hand", not the "empty hand" as in Okinawan Karate-do) " So it seems that these claims are unsubstantianted (at least until somebody does provide documentation). I did add the link to the web site but did not remove the citation needed: Rewording might be necesary in order to make it clear that Tanemura Shoto _refers_ to tyis as Koryu but does not seem to be backed up by a Koryu organization (as happens with Ninpo/Ninjutsu and Koryu documentation too). Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way I did the edit's since I thought that it was kind of messy as it was. I think a good source to understand basics about Ninjutsu/Ninpo is:

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2

Edited by. Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth

pp. 162-172.

It can be read in Google Books: http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&sa=X&ei=xIEET5LLNNTqgQfDhNCfAg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false

Of course this is not to be the only or most important source: but it is an interesting summary. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding that reference for now, and agree that the 'cite needed' should still stand. I know that the Genbukan's a large organization, but historical claims should really be verified by third parties . . . not the people who stands to make or lose money for their dojo based on these claims.

Regarding the naming of Karate (空手), I think you have your facts a little confused on this issue. The older naming of the Okinawan karate meaning 'Chinese hand' (唐手) was pronounced more like 'dote', distinctly different from Karate. Either way, the Japanese were meticulous record keepers, if the style of martial art taught is indeed a Koryu art then there should be no difficulty finding records of this. Honestly calling something 'Koryu Karate' rather than the full name typical of most japanese martial arts (like Shotokan Karate, Isshin-Ryu Karate, Goju-Ryu Karate) does make me a little suspicious about the origins of the style.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not sure that 'Martial Arts of the World' works as a secondary source of information. They list Masaaki Hatsumi and Stephen Hayes as references for their article (p. 361 in the 1st edition on Google Books), which would mean that the information contained should really be considered to be from a primary source.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the thing: read the quote from the page, it says that Tanemura "refers" to this art as "Koryu". So it seems to be an _unsubstantiated claim by Tanemura: he "refers" to his art as Koryu and identifies it to this "China Hand". So it should be written as in order to make clear that this are _claims_ of Tanemura, regarding these different arts his system is teaching, not verifiable Koryu stuff. Now I did not write this Karate stuff, it is like that as an "unsubstantianted claim", if you will, by Genbukan. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

D. Draeger

Regarding a quote by D. Draeger on the "last living ninja subject" this is what the text in "Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts" says: "The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja, having served in assignments for the Imperial Government during the Taisho and Showa eras. No ninja exist today. Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on ninjutsu"

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes? I'm not sure that I see the point you're trying to make. There's a similar quote in the encyclopedia that you referred me to:

"Yet there are no ninja today, only practitioners of some of the techniques and students of the tradition. Achievement of some rank in a school teaching ninjitsu cannot make one a ninja any more than learning techniques with a sword can qualify one as a samurai" - G. Cameron Hurst III, Martial arts of the world: an encyclopedia, 1st edition, p. 361 --Stvfetterly (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just sharing some bibliographic researh with you since you seem to be interested (by your edits) in trying to figure out NPOV ways to deal in Wikipedia with this Ninpo/Ninjutsu thing and claims made by schools and challenges to them, and seem active in Martial Arts projects (much more than me) Just hope the references are helpful. I might be able to get my hands on some of these books but I'm not sure I will. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In another light Takamatsu's claims, I believe, _are_ to say the least, shaded in legend and verbal accounts and that should be clear from the articles (that there is no historic documentation that sustain most claims, or something, that there is a legendary element here, that does not sustain scientific, archeological, historical, veracity, or something). But I have not figured out how to put that into paper... --Crio de la Paz (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ninjatō (Katana statement)

Talk:Ninjatō (Katana statement)Care to add your thoughts.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mixed martial arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEEP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ninpo

Regarding this whole issue about Ninpo/Ninjutsu: what I have come to think is that, basically, there are some people doing some training into some Taijutsu and some Kenjustsu some Bojutsu and some other things: a construction somewhat based on some modern concepts of how "ninjas" and "samurai" might have done some of these things and with a reinterpretation of what Ninpo "means",a transformation similar to Jujitsu->Judo Aikijutsu-Aikido from "technique" to "path", here Ninjutsu->Ninpo from "technique" to "philosphy". But reconstructing the usage from some "ninja" techiques and tools _will_not_ transform anybody into a "ninja" anymore than doing Kendo or Judo or Aikido transforms you into a "samurai" or exploring how a long sword might have been used would transform you into a medieval knight. These teachers also claim that their teachers and families come from long lines of martial artist but these claims are "word of mouth" more than anything else and seem "legendary": an NPOV Wiki article should make this clear and not go in depth in these claims "so ando so _claims_ he comes from a long line... these claims are nor verified by third party, nor substantiated by verifiable documentation... " or something like that... I guess. Another POV regarding so called "ninjas" is that if you like to see a modern "ninja" go see some Special Ops. field agents or some spies or something (those would be filling in the same needs in a modern world, more or less)... jeje... I mean I _do_ train in Genbukan, with a teacher that _is_ a 3rd Dan in Judo and something like that in Jujitsu since _the_ages_ that trained with one of the most renowned Shihans of Judo and Jujitsu in this country, he has done some Shotokan Karate and Tang Soo Do and has some higher dan in Kendo. Right know he is 4th Dan in Genbukan in Taijutsu and Jujitsu, Renshi and Special Instructor and I can tell he is the real thing: a real martial artist (not a ninja! and he does not claim to be one! and the Soke Shoto Tanemura neihter!) But, at least in Genbukan (I've been to some seminars with Soke), nobody seems to be saying anybody is becoming "a ninja" or something anymore than a practioner of Kendo or Judo or Aikido says he is becoming a "samurai". But personal experience aside it is clear that, i.e., Drager clarified and Hatsumi has also (somewhere, need to find that) and also Tanemura, all have said that "the last ninja was..." and that modern researchers or practitioners of some reconstructions of some Ryu's _are_not_ "ninja" or anything like it! that would be crazy! Regarding Martial Arts, there are different classifications, some seem to deal with which are employed as "Self Defense Systems" which "Contact Sports" which "Physical Health Systems" and which "Spiritual Refinment" and the like. Even if it can demand a lot (depending on what you put into it) and it could help with Self Defense I would tend to think Ninpo deals with "Spiritual Refinment". In Genbukan there is "Goshinjitsu" where techniques focused in some self defense are practised and there is a lot of physical activity but there is no "sport". Sorry for the long comment trying to explain to you a bit the reasoning behind my edits. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)