The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Schools of Ninjutsu.  Sandstein  06:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genbukan[edit]

Genbukan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Modern martial art without reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Schools of Ninjutsu retains mention of this MA. jmcw (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Schools of Ninjutsu, but it may need tidying up and the unsourced bits stripping out, there's not enough independent info to do a standalone article 5/10 of the sources are to the Genbukan site.--Nate^t/_c 11:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The talk page for the article in question has a lot of complaints from people trying to add references to magazines like Black Belt et al, with issues of the page being semi-protected or people deleting the references or some nonsense. There don't seem to be any real world-famous top-tier Ninjitsu organizations--possibly because Ninja are really an elaborate joke (the reference art fell out of use and there is no direct lineage from any original practitioner to any current practitioner)--which may mean any such "Ninja School" is either completely non-notable (due to worthlessness) or automatically notable (due to uniqueness). Encyclopedic is a different argument from general notability, though. --John Moser (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been to the talk page and I do not see any arguments regarding the deletion of references. There are arguments related to the inability to add references to:

Black Belt Magazine Article "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" on the issue of 1985. BLITZ Australasian Martial Arts magazine Black Belt Journeys Inside Black Belt Gradings: Genbukan Ninjustu. Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 edited by Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer Journal of Asian martial arts, Volume 17

Besides this is a martial art though in over 100 dojo's in thirty countries and twenty states of the USA: that goes to notability.

Regarding lineage of the teachings of ninpo one only has to follow Shoto Tanemura's and Masaaki Hatsumi's training with Toshitsugu Takamatsu. What I do find interesting is this POV interest in destroying Genbukans and Shoto Tanemuras pages time and time again while maintaining Bujinkans, and Masaaki Hatsumi's. This is interesting since Tanemura trainned with Hatsumi until he left to found Genbukan so there seems to be people trying to discredit one and not the other (Tanemura's article has been removed more than once but Hatsumi's hasn't, etc.)

One has only to check the background of Hatsumi, Tanemura, Takamatsu and Bujinkan and Genbukan in order to wonder what is wrong here: especially since Jmcw37, prime promoter of this removal is quite intersted in promoting certain martial arts and not others, as one can find out just by following him.

As for wether Takamatsu's story is real or not: that is POV, the only encyclopedic thing to do is to document not to speculate (POV) wether the art died or it passed on, that is Bluefoxicy opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, Bujinkan and Genbukan do exist, are notable and are referenced with enough sources. What Jmcw37 Et. Al. have is a a Vendetta against certain martial arts and if it is this why they choose to be editors (to impose their POV on the Wiki) the Wiki should reconsider who has what editor powers: just that Jmcw37 and friends do not "like" something does not make it uncyclopedic, or non-notable. It is wise to question what Genbukan and Bujinkan acert about themselves and what is written about Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, but Hatsumi himself has been consultant in serious historic events that try to reconstruct as the Shinobi no Mono series of movies.

Just that Jmcw37 Et.al. do not like the existence of this schools does not erase them from the world.

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I read and reread and I do not see what article is Bluefoxicy reading: The Genbukan is a world wide martial arts system that includes a Ninpo Taijutsu Curriculum, trainning in the use of some weapons such as Hanbo, Rokushaku Bo, japanese sword techniques (Bikkenjutsu), Jujitsu, Goshinjutsu (self defense), Koryu Karate, Chugoku Kenpo, Shuriken, Kyudo, and else founded in the 1980's when Shoto Tanemura escinded himself from Haatsumi's Bujinkan. They do claim to have trainned (and it seems they did train) with Toshitsugu Takamatsu whose training in ninpo tecniques is quite referenced to in martial arts sources (i.e. Black Belt Magazine article The Roots and Reality of Ninjutsu of OCT82). So this schools do exist, people do train on these arts, it _is_ questioned what relation there is between this schools and the traditional martial arts of the ancient past if any, some say they are based on ancient tradition, some say this is bogus, they are referenced by reliable third parties...

Do we erase all Judo info because most of it's references are related to Kanō Jigorō and followers? Do we erase all Aikido info because most of it's references are related to Morihei Ueshiba and followers? Do we remove all catholic faith related articles because papal infalibility is not provable? Do we remove all religous faith's articles because some people believe stuff that is not provable but they claim it (is it wrong to say that Shoto Tanemura claims he is "Meyko Kaiden" in these arts and this is questioned here[] and there[]

And I want to clarify something: there were some tags in these articles that I myself, in good faith, removed when I added independent sources since it was argued y the talk page that there weren't enough independent sources. Jmcw37 put them back without explanation in the talk page so I removed them again. Since this was happening some editors protected the artice so I could not edit it. Then _finally_ it was explained by Jmcw37 that he did not consider those references reliable. I added new sources in the talk page, from the magazines and reference that _he_ told me to search from, he himself, as a "wiki editor" requested Black Belt Mag articles as verifiable references: I complied but I cannot edit the article because it is protected so I cannot edit it so Jmcw37 can still claim that it is not "notable" or not "verifiable" no matter if there are 100 independent references it seems he will go on asking for more. This is a vendetta on these organizations so they do not appear on the Wiki, or so it seems to me, not a real concern for notability or reliabily or wether the articles have encyclopedic value. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Edit I read the Wikipedia:WPMA/N and the sources cited above _do_ seem to comply: I move for the article to be edited based also on this information. I could do the job myself but the article is protected so I can´t.

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now, since there are some POV comments I would like to clarify that the vision of The Genbukan is _not_ the vision of "Ninja" of the Hollywood movies and else. Since there are some POV comments here: I myself trained TaeKownDo when I was in High School and as a younger man, both WTF and ITF at different times earning a black belt in WTF. I've takken some classes in Hapkido and Aikido at different times, before entering the Genbukan and having my kids train on it and it is not what people might imagine from unscrupulous people dealing on the subject. My Sensei here in Costa Rica was one of the important figures in the devolpment of Judo and Jujutsu in the country with higher degree Dan in both and in Kendo from before entering the Genbukan and achieving higher degree Dan in Ninpo Taijutsu and Jujutsu in the system started by Soke Shoto Tanemura. I also have been to a seminar in Milwaukee from Genbukan, hosted by Kioshi Michael Colemann and taught by Soke Tanemura himself: some people might not believe what goes on there but the art is quite legitimate and quite effective as both, a martial art and a defense system.

The Tanemura, Haatsumi, Takamatsu connection could be questioned as a line of uninterrumped ninjutsu techniques since ancient times: they claim it is like this and it can be questioned. That does not mean there is no notability: Genbukan has been featured in top rank martial arts litterature, and is being taught in more than a hundred dojo's in thirty countries and and twenty USA states. Claiming that all dojo's that train in Genbukan are afiliated primary as to asses notabilty is like claiming that anybody that has something to do with Judo or with Aikido or Jujitsu is affilaited with the subject and all those articles would then need to be deleted too, on the same grounds. Efforts have been made and are being made (and blocked) to add more and more independent and verifiable sources to the Genbukan article, and Tanemura's role. That some people in the martial arts world do not _like_ certain martial arts and prefer others is not new and not news to me (wether it is a debate between WTF and ITF TaeKwonDo, Aikijutsu, Aikido, Jujitsu, Judo, and variations different Karate styles and the like). But that some people do not like the Genbukan, Bujinkan and like schools existence does not erase them from the planet, nor makes them less notable, nor unreliable: it does not diminish their importance and it does not make content related to them "uncyclopedic". --186.176.107.45 (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment i.e. I do not see any basic difference of interpretation that would not warrant the deletion of the Shintō Musō-ryu article, or why Takaji Shimizu would be "considered" 25thd headmaster. Most references appear to be linked with Takaji Shimizu's Shintō Musō-ryu, there isn't any way to garantee continuity since the 16 hunreds, etc. Same for To Shin Do, Tamiya-ryū, and many of the modern practice of ancient ryu ha, but _they_ are notable and encyclopedic and, if same standards apply as to primary references then I do not see the difference that motivates Jmcw37 to try to "get rid" of Genbukan from the Wiki. Most japanase (and chinese and korean, etc.) martial arts article would have to bee erased by the same standards. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Nate1481 claims that "5/10 of the sources are to the Genbukan site" I have tried also adding sources to other Dojo's around the globe that teach the same art but they were questioned as affiliated because they teach Genbukan's form of Taijutsu, Jujitsu, Karate, Bujutsu, Bikkenjutsu, Ghoshinjutsu, and other martial arts: http://www.ninjutsumexico.com.mx/ http://genbukan.es/ http://genbukan.idomyweb.com/ http://www.bushikaicr.com/ http://www.genbukan-barcelona.com/ http://www.seikadojo.co.uk/genbukan.htm http://www.genbukan-ninpo.org/ http://www.ninpo.org/ http://www.taiyodojo.com.ar/index1.htm http://genbukan.tripod.com/GENBUKAN.html http://www.genbukansa.com/ http://www.genbukan.be/ http://www.genbukan.com.br/ http://www.genbukanmorelia.com/inicio.html http://genbukanbajio.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/resena-del-seminario-genbukan-en-celaya-noviembre-del-2010/ http://www.genbukan.de/Content-pa-showpage-pid-44.html http://cnargentina.com.ar/tienda/productos/499/120357-verme/amatsu-tatara-bumon-genbukan-ninpo-bugei http://www.genbukan.co.uk/splash.php http://kohakudojo.co.uk/taikai/ --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)--186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to Schools of Ninjutsu I looked at the sources mentioned on the article's talk page. The ones for Black Belt magazine generally led to ads for videos and the mentions in books tended to be one line passing mentions. I did not find significant independent coverage of this art. The numerous links to related sites do not convince me of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

Black Belt Magazine Article "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" on the issue of 1985 is an article centered on Genbukan and Bujinkan. (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=39sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=genbukan&hl=es&ei=nGx2TofzDcnGgAfn4dHiAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=genbukan&f=false) In Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 editado por Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth, in page 170, "Ninpo in the Modern Era". It is centered _completely_ on Tamatsu's students including the founding of Genbukan and Bujinkan. (http://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=KEBmToD3BczAtgeKteH-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false) In Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts ... Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer, Takagi Roshin Ryu is referenced as an art taught in this day and age by Tanemura (Genbukan) and Masaaki (Bujinkan). Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts ... Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer There is an article in Metropolis about doctoral candidate in medieval studies Roy Ron, who has lived in Japan for 12 years and trained in Genbukan since the middle of the 1980's where he explains the art (http://archive.metropolis.co.jp/lifeinjapan/303/lifeinjapaninc.htm) There is an aritcle in Blitz Black Belt Journeys Magazine about Gebukan's grading siystem. (http://www.blitzmag.net/people/ninjutsu/166-black-belt-journeys) Of course there are _also_ adds in Black Belt Magazine for Genbukan. Another article in Black Belt Mag can be found in the issue of OCT96 "Stick fighting techniques of the Ninja" by Joe Svaral, a student of Shoto Tanemura (it says so in the article). (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=S9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=%22amatsu+tatara%22&hl=es&ei=FXF2Tv_BPIvrgQex8v3lDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22amatsu%20tatara%22&f=false) Of course I am new at this wikipedia martial arts editing thing and I might have made mistakes about how to use the talk page when the page was blocked as a place to store references but I still hold that there are numerous references by third party magazines regarding the art and numerous dojo's training in the art: so it is notable. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of course there are other articles (In Black Belt Magazine) that refer to Tanemura's time under Haatsumi's Bujinkan and Stephen K. Hayes visit and transformation from TaeKwonDo instructor to Ninjutsu instructor. At this time Tanemura hand't changed his name to Shoto yet and still went by his birthname Tsunehisa. Hayes trained mostly under Tanemura.

(http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=_9QDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=KnN2Tq60MNOtgQfXtLXuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false) "Atlanta's Store front Ninjutsu Dojo" where Black Belt claims that Hayes ran the "only certified ninjutsu dojo" of USA back in JUL76: certified because he went to Japan to train in Bujinkan under Masaaki and Tanemura. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reply This is an article by Andrew Adams interviewing Steve Hayes. Repeating Steve Hayes words in an article makes it primary source material. jmcw

Or http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=GtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=XXh2TuWDFsudgQfh7NnZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false "Ninjutsu a Martial art of Mistique" by Hayes. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reply This is an article by Steve Hayes. Steve Hayes is not established as a reliable source, just a prolific source.

That Black Belt Magazine is considered a reliable source is a 'line in the sand' for the Wikipedia MA Project: it is not peer-reviewed but is has a good general reputation. It is however popular press: I assert that there are articles about ninja because it sells the magazine - not because BB Mag has researched and checked the credentials of the ninja authors. The only reliable source about ninja (that I know) is Donn Draeger: there is no mention of Genbukan. jmcw (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reply I just checked the wiki article for Donn F. Dragger. "Draeger wrote many books on the martial arts. The books he wrote came to be recognized as some of the most reliable sources available in the English language.[citation needed]" cleary not neutral point of view without any sources. _all_ the sources of the article _come_ either from articles from Black Belt Mag _or_ primary sources affiliated to the subject!!! Should I add the tags at the top then that the Genbukan article has?

--186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reply I do not understand: Is Hayes to be considered a a primary source affiliated to Genbukan? That does not make sense at all. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• reply Wether Hayes is a reliable source or not is a matter of opinion, not fact. If anybody that does research on Genbukan or Bujinkan or these schools is automatically considereded unreliable because some people do not "like" these schools (wether they admit it or not) is another matter. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• replyNow, Jmcw37, please _read_ the Genbukan article and tell _where_ in the _article_ it is stated that the Genbukan is a school that teaches "true ancient ninpo" or something like that. We are not trying to stablish wether Shoto Tanemura's and Masaaki Hatsumi's claims that their trainning with Takamatsu Sensei consists in training in some ancient ninpo techniques or some modern reinterpretation of these techniques and how much of the trainning is in ancient techniques and how much in modern derivatives. At point in time it has been sated that Shoto Tanemura or Genbukan _claim_ this, which is true, and that it is questioned wether it is true, which is true too. We are assessing notability based on certain sources (i.e. Black Belt Magazine, other publications on the subject and encyclopedias in the subject, such as have been mentioned above and that you fail to address). The reference to primary sources affilated with the subject issue has been addressed by the standards of this project, or, by the same standards, the whole project must be shutted down.

I find it OK that you should question the validity of these claims made by this or that martial artist to teach these or that school in a traditional way: that does not imply that the martial artist is not notable. I sustain that enough people are practicing Genbukan's Ninpo Taijutsu, KJJR Jujitsu, and it's versions of Goshinjutsu, Karate, Bikkenjutsu, Bojutsu and the like to take notice and do an article based on proper sources. You, Jmcw37, clearly have a problem with certain claims of Genbukan, Soke Shoto Tanemura, Bujinkan, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, and Takamatsu Sensei, and these claims _are_ questionable, but that does not make these schools "not notable" or "not worthy of their own article". It is quite clear, from your interventions, that you have your doubts about _these_ claims but you are confusing your doubts about these claims with criteria for notability in order to have a Genbukan article on wikipedia, and you are going in circles questioning the sources that sustain the articles of people you claim to be notable. You yourself asked for articles from Black Belt Mag: so they were provided in detail, articles about Hayes, Tanemura, Hatsumi, Takamatsu, Genbukan, Bujinkan, that go as far back as the 70's. Notability has been questioned yet there are more that a hunred dojo's in 30 countries and 20 USA states training on the subject with notable martial artist of countries all over the world trainning on Genbukan (here in Costa Rica the main Dojo's Sensei has been a major figure in Judo and Jujutsu). Apart from the Black Belt Mag sources I have found at least two martial arts encyclopedias that reference Genbukan and other magazines from life in Japan and from the martial arts circuit in different countries and associations that reference it such as in Macedonia. And my research on third party references on this subject has been quite brief and on the side: only when Jmcw37 asked for extra references did I start, when you questioned them and asked specifically for Black Belt Mag articles I provided them and provided more info including encyclopedias in the subject that I found on Google Books. I think the place for Jmcw37 doubts on the degrees that Shoto Tanemura might hold or how much of Genbukan is modern and how much is really ancient are on the article itself _with_appropiate_sources_ not trying to delete the page or trying to subliminate his doubts on readers misusing the wikis tags. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From your citation above [1]: The Japanese Consulate said "Only legends of ninja remain". Ninja were a historical fact - I do not critique these articles. I see a group of modern martial artists who created a business out of a myth. Modern ninjutsu does not have reliable sources: Wikipedia:Exceptional claims#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. jmcw (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Schools of Ninjutsu. What I found was lots of 1 line mentions in books saying Tanemura founded Genbukan as well as ads in Black Belt magazine (plus an article of questionable independence). I didn't find enough good independent sources for an article, but I found enough that I don't think there should be no mention of it in Wikipedia. Therefore, my vote is a compromise. I don't believe in any of the ninjutsu claims of going back to real ninjas, but that's irrelevant. If some more reliable independent sources can be found than this article can be recreated without prejudice, at least on my part. Astudent0 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Repply There aren't only the references to _multiple_ (listed above) black belt mag articles: I found at least two references in encyclopedias of Martial Arts in my small effort to find sources.

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 edited by Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux Escrito por Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer. Both can references can be read in Google Books links provided _above_ --186.176.170.99 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• References This is a list of the references I found that should be checked before making a vote:

Black Belt Article: "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" of DIC 1985 http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=39sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=genbukan&hl=es&ei=4Jx7TtLKMNORgQfKj7GkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=genbukan&f=false

Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux, Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer. p703. Takagi Soshin Ryu. http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=mqTP18US1asC&pg=PA703&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=4j5mTpnxNcmhtweTirWHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth. Ninpo in the Modern Era. pp 170-172. http://books.google.com/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=shoto+tanemura&hl=es&ei=KEBmToD3BczAtgeKteH-CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=shoto%20tanemura&f=false

"Stick fighting techniques of the Ninja" by Joe Svaral, a student of Shoto Tanemura (it says so in the article). (http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=S9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=%22amatsu+tatara%22&hl=es&ei=FXF2Tv_BPIvrgQex8v3lDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22amatsu%20tatara%22&f=false)

Black Belt Articles: "Atlanta's Store front Ninjutsu Dojo" JUL76 http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=_9QDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA24&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=KnN2Tq60MNOtgQfXtLXuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false "Ninjutsu a Martial art of Mistique" http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=GtQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA82&dq=tanemura&hl=es&ei=XXh2TuWDFsudgQfh7NnZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDge#v=onepage&q=tanemura&f=false

Just this, plus the original sources of the article, plus the sources from material from dojo's where Genbukan is taught is quite enough to prove notability and to backup that these ats exist and these schools teach them, and there is quite enough "third party material, more than required in the rest of the martial arts articles of the Wiki. --186.176.170.99 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

I mean: just check the references for the Shintō Musō-ryū article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shint%C5%8D_Mus%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB and you will see that all are affiliated in some way with Jodo or the aritcle for Jōdō http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodo and you will find the same thing, or the aritcle for Donn F. Draeger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donn_Draeger. I would even bet that most sources on the Aikido article could be thought of as to be affiliated in some way to Aikido, or the same with Judo or Jujitsu. Pretending that, because a Dojo and Gym in, i.e., Costa Rica, teaches Genbukan it does not stablish notabilty would not make sense: actually it does make the art notable. Aikido, Judo, Jujitsu are notable because they are being taugth all over the world, even more so than Genbukan, altough Genbukan is also being taught in over 30 countries and over 20 US states in over 100 dojo's, so it is a notable organization with third party primary sources not affiliated to Genbukan. That Jmcw37 does not like the art or some of the assertions made by it's founder (I might not buy the religous system of Morihei Ueshiba and its impact on Aikido, i.e.) does not mean the art is not notable, or that primary sources not affiliated with the subject are not to be found or not reliable, or that the article can't be "encyclopedic"... If he does not believe the assertions as to the Ninpo, Jujitsu, Karate, Goshinjitsu, etc. taught been fundamented in Koryū that is his personal POV not basis for tagging and retagging and trying to remove the article. --186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when one defines Koryū in certain specific ways, it might be quite suspect the claims to long lost traditions been preserved through doubtful lineages an that _does_ belong in an article about these schools, but, as I've read in articles and institutions dealing in Koryū: this does not mean that these schools are without value or that all that they train is meaningless or without value (or without notability or veryfiabibilty). One thing is that the claims to be the 30 something Soke of this or that school is quite questionable, another is wether the whole system (Bujinkan, Genbukan) is without merit. Just that some of the religious or philosophical believes of Ueshiba are not "verifiable" as "truth" does not mean Aikido is without merit, or is not verifiable or notable or encyclopedic material... So an article where claims stated by soke's and kancho's that are not verifiable and dubious by historic standards are clarified as such is _desirable_ that is why I vote to KEEP and EDIT the article in proper fashion with proper sources, but without tags that do not belong there. And remember this is a wiki and is not a democracy and is supposed to be NPOV and all that... cheers!--186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC) --186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.