Talk:Shotokan/Archive 1

heading MUST be descriptive

listen...logic is simple...

if one is lookin for ucb...i don think he'd like to see the heading UCB ??..

u got the point ??...heading MUST be descriptive... --Arvind Singh

Well, does Shotokan always have "Karate" followed afterwards? You may be right, but we want to be sure. UCB is not the common name and is an acronym, so it would be against the Naming conventions.--Jiang 00:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

from VfD

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

Removed "Sensei litterally means 'previous birth'" 先生 literally means "teacher" in Japanese. You can read the seperate kanji as 'previous birth' but in the same way people interpret カラオケ to mean 'tone deaf' it is a misnomer. And literally was spelled wrong OkashinaSakana 09:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Trivia addition

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Ken and Ryu (of Street Fighter) also practice Shotokan? At this point there is only mention of some kid from SF3.

Ken and Ryu seem to practice Ansatsuken

Can some1 give a list of illegal techniques in shotokan,example:gouges,chin breaking punch... I think 1 is called eitoji or something. Also,there is a double punch attack right. Batzarro 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

> 'Illegal' techniques are anything that get you disqualified in competition kumite such as an elbow strike (empi uchi). Excessive force also gets you disqualified. Most of the techniques in Shotokan can be used to do things like chin breaking such as the palm-heal strike.

Ching

Kata

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

I agree with this. I am currently doing a project on comparing the differences in kata, and I notice that many katas that some dojos practice are completely left out of others. Many karate students I have talked to believe that certain katas are well above black belt level, while others from different dojos believe they are relatively beginner-level. This is due to the practice of the specific dojos, and it is inaccurate to rank katas based on skill. JoshRG 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am including any relevant kanji and putting all the kata together. I think we should add an alternate kata name section. ron Southwick 03:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the kata in the order given in [Sugiyama, S.-25 Shoto-kan Kata (2005) ISBN 0-9669048-0-X ron Southwick 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the kata in a table and added [Funakoshi, Ginchin, "Karate-do Kyohan", Kodansha International Ltd., Tokyo, ISBN 0-87011-190-6.]as a ref.

That table is great, good Idea to display the Kanji with the name. I have a question though, all of the Kata that I know to be Shotokan are there, however, where is Ji'in? I can't see it on the list... T.scales

Thanks- Oops, I will look into that. ron Southwick 19:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shotokan Today

This section was from the point of view of one organization of many. It is limited in scope and HEAVILY biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.161.7.230 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 February 2006.

This section requires a thoughtful summary of the formation and history of the JKA in Japan up unil the death of Masatoshi Nakayama and then people have to take responsibility for writing about the subsquent splits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KaratekaKWF (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 February 2006.

Belt Colors

Things to do:

• The header should be changed to Rank System.
• Explain Kyu and Dan. (include Kano and first Shotokan black belts)
• Remove example belt system. This can be covered in Kyu/Dan explaination
• Remove "This was most likely so that western beginners could feel more of a sense of progression over time." This is not true.

ron Southwick 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Meditation

Things to do:

• The meditation info is not common practice. Mokuso is but the rest is not.
• This should have the Dojo Kun but not the other explaination.
• Rename section Dojo and include etiquette.

ron Southwick 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Common Terms

I am writing the kanji for the terms and adding the standard Shotokan terms. I will include the definitions as well in a table format. Also, to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, I am using many of the same definitions and linking them to those pages.

• The “i.e. unarmed combat” is not the definition of Karate, that is just implied.
• Osu is not used primarily in bowing. I will put the “real” translation as well. See osu
  • SIDE NOTE – Osu is used improperly by most non-Japanese schools. More about that later.
• I used remaining mind, which is the proper translation of the term, see zanshin
• Sensei “the one who has gone before” is correct, if we transliterate the kanji. Teacher is the common Japanese meaning. See sensei

I will add back the definitions when I finish the table.

Organize, Verify and Edit ron Southwick 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• >The “i.e. unarmed combat” is not the definition of Karate, that is just implied.

Nothing wrong with it then, if we label it that way.

• I used remaining mind, which is the proper translation of the term, see zanshin

There shouldn't be anything wrong with adding "continuing" as amplification.

• Sensei “the one who has gone before” is correct, if we transliterate the kanji. Teacher is the common Japanese meaning. See sensei

If it's correct, don't delete it. Cap j 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From above: "I will include the definitions as well in a table format." ron Southwick 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On translations: Japanese 101. It is very useful for those involved in the study of martial arts to learn to interpret Chinese characters. Without this knowledge it is not possible to understand the concepts fully. While I could breakdown the kanji of every word, I believe this would detract from the purpose of the page. Unless any of you think it is valid. Again, these terms have already been defined in Wikipedia, with accurate and verifiable translations and information. ron Southwick 18:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because an addition is "correct" doesn't mean that it should be included. Especially if it's barely relevant. 207.161.41.240 05:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

Most readers will not be interested in the breakdown of the kanji of every word in an article that is not about the Japanese language. The reader of this article wants to know about Shotokan. The glossary lists and tables are already so large as to dominate the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree, as stated above. As for terminology, using the short definition should be fine too ron Southwick 23:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My answering points are gathered together in one place at the end of "Pine Waves" Cap j 02:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kata instruction

It'd be a good idea to merge all the separate kata pages into one, and crop the instructions for each. Wikipedia isn't a manual, and it's a lot easier to maintain one (albeit larger) page than twenty. It's a big project that's easily mistaken for vandalism, so a heads-up is called for. - JustSomeKid 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

When I first considered your idea it sounded really good, but I do have one large problem; katas aren't specific to individual styles, and it doesn't make sense for every style that uses a particular kata to post info about it. I think this is a very important point that can benefit from discussion either way. 207.161.3.212 06:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

Matt is right. You do have a point JustSomeKid and we could sure use the help around here. Did someone from this page make all those separate kata pages? What we need to do is remove the POV dispute and carry on. Whatever you think Kid and Matt, I would really like to do some serious work here. ron Southwick 14:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who went and did a page for each kata. Whoever it was, their enthusiasm is appreciated even if it is unwiki (it's better to have too much information needing pruned than to have too little information needing inflated, right?). I see a few possible solutions for the shared kata.

1: Shared kata could be kept as their own article and we use an even more abbreviated synopsis for the Shotokan kata article.

2: Continue on, and deal with the problem at a later time.

3: Use the kata's pages as a disambiguation of sorts, pointing between the two different kata articles for their respective martial art.

4: Delete all the kata pages entirely.

The fourth is the most drastic. If this was one or two articles, it'd be a more reasonable. The second is lazy. The first strikes me as unnecessarily redundant, and there'd be little difference between the wikified kata articles and their descriptions in the Shotokan kata article. I'm partial to number 3. - JustSomeKid 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment JustSomeKid, but let me make a fifth suggestion. This is the most ambitious and difficult one I feel. Make a kata page. One page devoted to all of the katas in karate. Each kata would have a section featuring the different styles that incorporate it and the different names it goes by. We could have descriptions of each one and the links at the bottom would be to sites featuring more in depth kata descriptions and videos. Then each page on a style of karate would merely list the ones used in it and would link to the kata page. Please tell me what you think. 207.161.7.147 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

You're right, that would be the toughest. I don't I have a shadow of the knowledge required for such an ambitious project, and I'm not sure wikipedia's martial artists are organized enough for it (there isn't even a portal). Difficulty aside, there'd be problems with article length. We could settle for just having a list without the descriptions, but then we'd have problems with vandalism and citation. Kata from fictional arts would undoubtedly pop up, which may lead to wars over their worthiness of inclusion (just look at this talk page - a lengthy conflict over a particular translation). It just doesn't seem feasible to me. -JustSomeKid 13:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts (if you have not done so)? It seems that you have a community of shared interests here and a WikiProject is a good way to share knowledge, solve problems, and standardize presentation. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My brain is starting to drift towards #1. I was not aware how prevalent the shared kata were. During a google search, I found several katas are practiced by Shorinjiryu.

On a related note, another thing that's been bugging me is how list-heavy this article is. -JustSomeKid 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of lists here, too many in my opinion. As for #1, the problem is that ALL the katas are shared. Not a single one is unique to Shotokan, even though most go under different names. 207.161.32.155 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

Really? I guess I'm showing my ignorance then, eh? I've been getting ahead of myself, and your idea seems more feasible to me now than it did initially. I've moved Shotokan kata to Karate kata. I'm going to revert all my redirects and work on the katas... I've been awfully busy as of late, though, and don't know when I'll get around to it. -JustSomeKid 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I really like that page now. I think what you should probably communicate (I'm not sure what the best way to do with would be, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia) is that if someone wishes to add info about a kata concerning its inclusion in another style, they should simply add the name at the top eg. Bassai/Passai and then add another paragraph or a sentence pointing out main differences. 142.161.183.113 02:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

JustSomeKid's approach #1 is clearly the right one. Individual kata (old ones, practiced in multiple arts) are notable. Some kata are not; I understand that in some styles people make up kata. In some cases, ordinary black belts do it, in the case of Kokondo, there are several kata unique to the style, created by the founder. But the truth is, I can tell you, virtually every one of the kata that are in Shotokan are also in Kokondo; I know Kokondo isn't as major a style as Shotokan, but this indicates to me that they are probably all shared. In Kokondo, we're taught which kata are unique to it; the rest are descended from other arts that influenced Kokondo, so I know they're much older. Most of the articles on individual kata are crummy, because they're written from the perspective that the kata in question is a Shotokan kata and this is how it is done and so on. Not all are like that; see Passai for a good example of what a kata article SHOULD be like. The thing is, we were closer to achieving #1 before all those articles were redirected. Kata articles need a lot of attention.. I plan to take a pass through them and deemphasize Shotokan so that they'll be incomplete but neutral. But there's too much information about kata to ultimately have only a list. Far too many of them. Mangojuice 13:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Shoto" means "Short Sword" and "karate" means "empty hand". "Sensei" means "the one who has gone before"

That is the way I heard it from my 4th Dan wado karate teacher, who knows enough Japanese that he can understand it as long as the talk is about Karate. It makes sense, since the previous version (before 10:08PM EST (-0500) Feb 16, 2006) did acknowledge that "Shoto" trained his students. How could "Shoto" train his students if that was his name for his poetry, as the previous version had it? That doesn't make sense. "Karate" does not mean "open hand"; I was told it means "empty hand"; i.e., unarmed combat. "open hand" may come from the popular misconception that Karate is usually done with the classic "Karate chop", whereas if you take some Karate it will quickly become obvious to you that closed fists are used most of the time, which (not so obviously) protects the fingers -- my teacher remarked that every time he jams his fingers, he renews his vow to keep his fists closed.

Version dated 18:44, 23 February 2006 137.207.80.130, description: "Added back info removed to conform to a POV, without even the courtesy of a note in the talk page -- marked as POV. See the talk page, please.": It's only right in Wikipedia to present all the possible information.

Translation clarifications

Shoto does NOT mean short sword. It means something along the line of "pine waves". I don't know what sensei directly translates as, but the common usage is simply "teacher". Also, while the name karate does translate as "empty hand" this does not refer to a lack of weapons at all. Karate has always had a number of weapons used in it, and while they are of secondary importance today, this was not always the case. The first meaning of "empty hand" was actually to signify that you were without a sword, since this was the martial art taught to the common people, those who were by law prohibited from carrying a sword. This was actually a secondary meaning, the primary meaning of the term "empty hand" was derived from the Buddhist concept of acting without though, with an "empty" mind. So when in karate we train our hands (and the rest of our bodies) to act without though, we are using "empty hands".

>Shoto does NOT mean short sword. It means something along the line of "pine waves".

-What is your source on that? My source is a karateka who speaks Japanese so well that he can understand it as long as the talk is about Karate. Please supply some kind of justification; it's not right to be removing information otherwise.

"I am often asked how I happened to choose the pen name of Shoto, which became the name of the new Dojo. The word shoto in Japanese means literally "pine waves" and so has no great arcane significance, but I should like to tell why I selected it." Karate-do: My Way of Life by Gichin Funakoshi page 85

-You might check the Wikipedia entry here on "shoto", which confirms that it means "The short sword." A samurai carried two swords, a long one and a short one. In the meantime, I'll ask a Japanese speaker who I see around the office here next time I see him. I ask you to please stop deleting information.

I quoted Funakoshi, what else do you want? Just because those kanji can mean both pine waves and short sword doesn't mean that's what Funakoshi intended. In fact you haven't supplied any evidence at all for your point of view, while I quoted Funakoshi directly. So now it's your turn to corroberate your statement before you start posting it. A kanji can have numerous different meaning. You need to provide evidence that this is what Funakoshi intended. Until then your opinion has no place in a Wikipedia article and I will remove it. Oh and Shoto wasn't the name FOR his poetry, it was the name he used for himself when writing poetry.

-You categorically stated that (copy and paste:) "Shoto does NOT mean short sword", but that turned out to be an alternate meaning. I don't suppose you can mistake the direct quote that you supplied above, however, assuming that you copied it correctly. I checked Amazon and the book does exist; in fact I may order it for my own interest and to check your quote -- and context. Accepting your quote on good faith (but pending verification), I've removed the POV marker and added a note and the book as a reference -- I hope I have copied the reference details correctly.

Fine, that works for me. But I stand by what I said. The "Shoto" in Shotokan does NOT mean short sword. Just because "short sword" and "pine waves" may be homonyms in Japanese doesn't mean that can pick and choose your definitions without considering context.

>The first meaning of "empty hand" was actually to signify that you were without a sword

Makes sense in terms of "unarmed combat".

No, you weren't necessarily unarmed, in fact most of the time you would use whatever weapon was available.

-Yes, due to the sense that if you didn't have a sword, you weren't considered armed.

Armed doesn't mean "having a sword", it means "having a weapon"

-It's a very valid sense that one would be considered unarmed if one wasn't allowed to carry weapons by the government, as during the Okinawan occupation, and had to make do with farming implements or whatever one could grab that was handy -- the presence of which could not be guaranteed.

No, I said you weren't allowed to carry a sword. I did not say you weren't allowed to carry a weapon.

This is rubbish. Before you post a “story from a guy who learned some Japanese” learn to read Hanzi, Kanji or Hanja. Also check the dictionary for the word “homonym”. The Kanji for Shoto is the answer to the story (松涛). The first character is (松). It means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The kanji for Shoto, short sword is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small. The second character is (刀), meaning blade. No Japanese speaking person would make that mistake. Remove that unnecessary story because there is absolutely no basis for it.

ron southwick

Finally. Thank you ron for finally putting an end to this "short sword" nonsense. But I did use the word homonym correctly. Homonym - One of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling. As in "shoto - pine waves" and "shoto - short sword"

I do not know if It was you who put that story in. Did not mean to sound nasty. - ron southwick

No, my posts are the ones without a dash or bracket to start them off. With the exception of your post. - Matt

-I thought I would sign in with my user name to avoid further confusion. I do think it's very useful to put that story in, in order to debunk it, taking you people at your word, since I don't read Kanji and haven't read the Funakoshi book yet. But there are a lot of inaccurate stories going around about Karate, and it's important to flag and correct them. I'm putting it back in, clarifying it further to indicate that it is something that needs to be said, in order to be debunked. I don't think there should be any complaint about that.

-I'm glad you didn't mean to sound nasty; you could have fooled me.

Cap j 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To even NOTE that story is wrong. That is like saying, "My Grandma say's TaiChi is better than MMA, so we should note it." This is not even a Karate "urban legend" hence is does not belong in a, hopefully, scholarly document. If it is a classic myth story, like Pinan/Heian means “peaceful mind”, which it does not, then it should be included. I think we should remove it all together. I do like the rewrite at the top, good job on that.-ron southwick Southwick 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So far I know of ONE person who thought that Shoto meant "short sword" and that doesn't justify it being mentioned, especially since it now seems certain that this is incorrect. On another note, what does Heian mean? I also was under the impression that it meant peaceful mind. - Matt

-Just because you haven't heard the story, doesn't mean it's not a Karate urban legend that is out there. I got it from my (3rd Dan at the time) Karate teacher, for whom I have a lot of respect, due to his technical excellence and great personality. Partly due to those reasons, he had helped create about a dozen or more black belts under his instruction by the time he was a 4th Dan (probably more by now), and I am sure there are up to that many people repeating his story, and more repeating the repetitions. The story seems to make a lot of sense, so much that the "Pine waves" story sounds totally out of left field without the documentation. It is stories that seem very believable that make the most persistant urban legends. You may find other people changing the introduction in astonished disbelief of the "pine waves" story. A little repetition never hurt, especially since it gives a chance to add your information about the different Kanji pictograms.

-It should be agreeable to everybody that possibly useful information (correction of popular misconceptions) should not be removed from a public encyclopedia. Doing that might be considered vandalism and I may have to complain to more senior Wikipedians.

-At least try to keep your edits clean if you must continue reversing my additions. This last time you left off the period in the introduction and left the "Notes" header unused, in addition to your first reversal -- that makes your changes look more like vandalism. You'll note that I look back at my edits and correct typos.

First, this is not a “flame war”. This is about the facts. The facts are that Funakoshi, himself, in Karate-Do: My Way of Life, p. 85 sets the record straight. If you have not read that book, then you should not post here. Second, if you cannot speak/read/write the language then how do you really know? I have shown you what the Kanji says. I understand your respect for your friend, that does you credit, but the burden of proof is on you. If you can show “one” piece of documented evidence, from a reputable source of this story, then including it might be appropriate. If not, then it is hearsay. If you read the instructions on what you should post here then you would know hearsay is NOT evidence and is frowned upon. I think you should inform the higher ups because they would not allow it posted. I will continue to remove it until you show evidence. That is not anything against you. This is a knowledge base, not a rumor mill. Debate is encouraged. - ron Southwick 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

-I was not claiming that hearsay is evidence. If you will read the note carefully you will see that it says quite clearly that the story is hearsay. How can you mistake that? It is a useful function of a public encyclopedia to correct "urban legends", and this is so specialized that you won't find it on Snopes. It would help if you would quote the help page that you are referring to (use two pairs of '[' brackets), although it is not relevant to this because I made no claim that hearsay is evidence. You might read the page Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot -- see point 7. at the top. Also, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette, "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette", second last point, it says "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". You will find advice liberally located throughout the Wikipedia help documentation saying not to "edit-war". Not only was my contribution placed in this article first, it was built up from information provided by you and others. Edit-warring and repeated deletion is very much frowned upon. If you think something is *so* objectionable, then you can put a "POV" stamp at the top or elsewhere in the article (use two pairs of '{' braces around it) and the article will be flagged as under dispute. But please do not delete my content and then do that -- my contribution was there first before you came along and the correct thing to do is dispute it, not edit-war over it. Even Matt said (above) he didn't really have a problem with it after I changed it to correction of an urban legend (he put "Fine, that works for me", above). I am not creating a "rumor mill"; I am *correcting* the rumor using information supplied. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be laying down conditions under which I can post here -- you continue to mistake my note as being an assertion rather than a debunking of the "short sword" story when you say "if you cannot speak/read/write the language then how do you really know?".Cap j 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (The following note was added while I was writing this long paragraph).

CapJ – I would remind you of the protocol here. I refer you to the following information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability If you cannot back-up your story, how is it of any use to anyone? If your friend is a ranked Karate person and does not know this information then you as a student should be worried. I am willing to listen if you can simply give some proof. ron Southwick 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

-once again you are failing to understand that I am helping to *clear up* the story, not perpetuate it. Cap j 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

ron Southwick 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ron, your sanity is now in question. Once again you are failing to understand that I am helping to *clear up* the story, not perpetuate it.

-it is useful to those who heard the story and need some additional information. Since even my reasonable explanation of this is being ignored, I am once again disputing this article. Please do not delete contributions without going through the protocol and getting all input. I have flagged this to the Wikipedia community and I am contacting my source (although that is actually beside the point, since I don't need *support* for a story that I am helping to *debunk*). User:Cap_j 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RULE NUMBER 2 - 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. Can you verify your story? No? It does not belong here. ron Southwick 01:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-You are shouting, which I find rather rude, as well as your initiation of an edit war, and the way you are ranting and being short and rude with me. Once again you are failing to understand that I am helping to *clear up* the story, not perpetuate it. However, perhaps a reason for having contacted my source is that maybe I need support that the "short sword" story is a story that is out there. Cap j 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-once again, please stop the edit war while the page is under dispute. You shouldn't be deleting peoples' contributions. Take another look at the article about keeping a cool head when the editing heats up. Cap j 01:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ, Sorry if you think I am shouting. That was just an edit problem. I am trying to show that this information has nothing to do with Shotokan Karate. When you first entered that info you stated that it was true. After others have pointed out, which you argued about, that you were wrong you now still want your invalid information on this page. Why? You have changed you view? I am not attacking you personally but this is just due to the fact that you and your friend do not know about Shotokan Karate. If you were to do a bit of research you would have found the answer to this very quickly, even without my kanji explanations. I am not saying that you did not hear this. I find it unfortunate that your instructor would say this when it is so widely know. An edit war is not what I wanted. I, as any editor should, just ask for documentation. If you can supply it, according to the rules, then it might be interesting. Let me suggest another option, why don’t you start a Karate Urban Legends topic. I would be more that happy to help you compile and debunk these myths and misinformation. If we work together we might do some damage out there. What do you think? ron Southwick 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-But you still re-deleted the whole note for about the sixth time today instead of first discussing it and working on it as noted in Wikipedia:Wikiquette, "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette", second last point, as well as the "Keeping cool article" point mentioned above. How am I or others supposed to do research on it when information that might clear it up keeps getting deleted from the first place I would look: Wikipedia?

>When you first entered that info you stated that it was true. After others have pointed out, which you argued about, that you were wrong you now still want your invalid information on this page. Why? You have changed you view?

FOR GOD'S SAKE, MAN, I ACCEPTED YOU PEOPLES' KANJI AFTER YOU SHOWED IT TO ME, WITH ONLY ONE PROTEST THAT THERE *HAD* BEEN AN ALTERNATE MEANING TO "SHOTO". FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS (since Wed. March 1st) I HAVE JUST BEEN TRYING TO ADD A CLARIFYING NOTE TO PREVENT FURTHER CONFUSION. And yes, *I* am now shouting. Congratulations. (Mon March 6th, AM).

>There is no story to clear up, it is ignorance. First debate is encouraged. YOU have to show evidence that there is something here. Show me a reference that backs up your story. Will you answer that? This is the debate. Leave the page alone until you show your point. I am listening. ron Southwick 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your arrogance, which I go over on your User talk:Southwick page (it is ludicrous to start an edit war and then lecture *me* that "First debate is encouraged" -- there is a note on the Alerts page that both of us have violated Wikipedia policy), you admit that there is ignorance out there, but you start by saying "There is no story". Your second phrase may not actually contradict your first, but if you admit that there is ignorance out there, why not let the debunking stand? There's nothing wrong with preemptively correcting something that looks threatening, and the "shoto"-"short sword/pine waves" homonym is confusion waiting to happen, even if you haven't heard that it has already happened. Cap j 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) -- furthermore, you have to admit that the "short sword" story seems to make an awful lot of sense, and it seems to be backed up by a valid meaning of "shoto", whereas the "pine waves" story seems to be extremely far out "in left field". The most persistent rumors are based on a grain of truth, which is why a clarifying note would be so useful.

As an example of where this preemptive clearing up of possible confusion is useful, back in early September 2005 last year, I was prompted to again wonder what a "chaise lounge" was, when I noticed it mentioned in news articles about New Orleans. Was "chaise" a decorative pattern, like paisley? Wikipedia cleared it up by explaining that the correct term was "Chaise longue" and that the "lounge" use by many English speakers was due to ignorance. From my knowledge of French, I immediately slapped my forehead, and went "Of course!" -- "chaise" means "chair", and "longue", of course, is "long" (although one has to watch that assumption between French and English that words that seem the same mean the same -- famously, "sensible" in French means "sensitive" in English, and francophone people who seem to speak English perfectly can really throw one for a loop by saying "sensible" when they mean "sensitive".)

I suggest that the note in question be shortened to simply say:

"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword"; confusion about the derivation of "Shotokan" may occur otherwise. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

Note that I'm even saying "may occur", not "*is* occurring" (for which you insist on documentation), because it is too early and I have not yet heard back from my Karate teacher as to the origin of the story. I don't suppose you can object to the inclusion of *this* note, can you? If so, how? I think it's useful to repeat the Kanji here even though it's at the top of the article and in the shoto article; it's a good idea to bring them close together for comparison.

I'm glad to see that you are making some useful additions. Perhaps you might consider the writing *I* could have been doing instead of all this back-and-forth defending one little miserable note that I wanted to add. Cap j 05:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Even adding a clarification as you wanted to Cap j would not be appropriate. You and the person that told you are the only ones to be confused. That's like an encyclopedia getting a letter from a confused non-english speaking person, then quickly printing: "Ate - past tense of the verb to eat. Not to be confused with the number eight like this one non-english speaking person did." The two "shoto's" don't use the same kanji (you could say they aren't spelled the same) and you and the person that told you appear to be the only one's who have ever heard of this. It deserves absolutely no mention at all in my opinion. - Matt

-This *is* an English encyclopedia, not a Japanese one; at least we *are* in the English area here; we *are* on the ".en" pages here. It is certainly appropriate; I have noticed a book, for example, going over the "false friends" problem between French and English for French speakers learning English, pointing out that "sensible" in French means "sensitive" in English, for example. This is about people speaking a certain language *in* that language, making notes *for the benefit* of those *in the same language* about a *different language*, not writing to an encyclopedia in the *different language* asking for help for *English speakers*. Your logic doesn't match. After giving my example of how useful the "chaise lounge" correction was, I am somewhat at a loss as to what logic would convince you. Well? What would??

>The two "shoto's" don't use the same kanji (you could say they aren't spelled the same)

How do we know that unless we are shown the kanji as I want to do in the little note that I suggest above? (I am very tempted to start shouting here -- you can consider that the previous sentence is written "full caps"). And I was finally actually reduced to shouting -- scroll up to see the "full caps."

How am I or others supposed to do research on it to learn the truth when information that might clear it up keeps getting deleted by you people from the first place we would look: Wikipedia?

How can you deny that the homonym constitutes confusion waiting to happen? Why isn't that logic enough to justify a clarifying note??

Ron said he wanted word from *one* other person. Now *you* are saying that would not be enough. What *would* be enough for you, if logic isn't enough?? I have explained that this is a good 4th-Dan karate teacher (by now) who has helped to create about fifteen black belts (and I have even attempted to contact him as of yesterday, for that matter). Do you need confirmation from every student at his dojo? Do I have to contact every black belt he has created, most of whom have long since moved away, possibly starting their own dojos, and repeating the false story to *their* students, to whom the story has been told?? Once again, why do I need further documentation to make a note preempting obvious *possible* confusion??

I repeat, perhaps you might consider the writing *I* could have been doing instead of all this back-and-forth defending one little miserable note that I wanted to add, containing clarifying information that *you people* provided. See the huge section above that is grown out of this. Aren't you being just a little petty about one miserable little clarifying note? Cap j 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you're just coming up with any silly excuse you can to continue the pettiness. Is this the honorable way you people are taught to behave in your respective styles of Karate? Cap j 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go over to the Chaise longue article and delete the clarifying note there, on the grounds that it is a clarification for English speakers? Why don't you go over to the library and rip pages out of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Cap j 09:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (I was restraining myself from asking that last one for the past day or two, but the last bit of pettiness from "Matt", there, did it).

I'm commenting as a result of a post on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts by User:Cap_j.

• Please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~.
• I see an number of violations of WP:CIVIL above. Being uncivil will not lead to a resolution of a dispute and will not make a good impression on more experienced editors. You will not succeed in justifying incivility by citing provocation.
• Please use edit summaries (fill in the little box below the edit box that is labeled "Edit summary". That will help other editors follow the discussion. Remember to summarize *your* edit. Don't comment on other editors or their edits.
• Cap_j and Southwick should both take a break from editing this article. This will allow emotions to subside and will give other editors a chance to contribute. They both have 6 or more edits per article. A number larger than 3 suggests too much attachment to a small number of articles. Some of the other million articles need your attention. [1][2]
• All editors should review WP:DR and they *must* follow that policy.
• All editors should edit in accordance with WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Please note that unpublished sources may not be used in Wikipedia articles because they cannot be verified by other editors.

Following these suggestions should help you resolve this dispute. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, User:Wsiegmund. I took a break for a couple of days before rejoining the discussion and I will continue to leave a couple of days between replies in this discussion, now. I am attempting to simmer down. Cap j 22:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• POV DISPUTE

The POV should be removed. The dispute is over non-verifiable information. The definition of “Shotokan” is verified by the reference.

According to Wikipedia:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This viewpoint fits into the last point and thus does not belong in this article. ron Southwick 05:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• I moved the foregoing down to here so as not to disrupt the flow of the discussion, as I moved my ""Shoto" means "Short Sword"..." section to just preceed this one. However I am glad to see that you just mitigated yourself, Ron, and already moved it to the bottom. I'm just now moving it *up* a little, to return it to the flow.

The clarifying note in the Chaise Longue article is not cited either. Did you go and remove that, as An Editor, Ron? If every little rule had to be strictly followed, progress would grind to a halt. "Work to rule" is not cooperation; it is obstruction.

It would have been much better if you could have just edited my addition to remove any statement that "the story is out there" rather than to delete the entire (by now little) note (suggested note is on my user talk page). As it said in pt 7 of the above-cited "Keeping cool" article, it is better to edit someone's work so that you will like it better, than to delete it outright.

If you'll look back in the history of my edits which began about Feb 17 or 20th, 2006, you'll see that I didn't delete anybody else's work, but added a phrase in the introduction saying "but another story said...". I would have been willing to edit that if you objected to the placement. Once you showed me the Kanji, I took you people at your word, with only one protest that Matt had categorically stated that "Shoto" did NOT mean short sword when it in fact turned out to be a homonym, and was willing to change my note to a clarifying note. It seems remarkably ungenerous of you, Ron, to complain that "I argued about it" when I was willing to change. Never changing your view on anything is a sure sign of not having learned anything.

My source (now 4th Dan in Wado), from whom I heard the "short sword story" got back to me and replied:

"I don't remember the source of the Shotokan story - it may not be accurate with regards to the "shoto" part. "Sho" does mean short and "to" does mean blade (sword is actually "ken" as in kendo), but it may be possible that the pine waves is correct. I don't know if shoto is also pine waves in Japanese. "Kan" means "place of", so shotokan kind of means shoto's place - the term some of his students used when talking about going to karate training."

I don't want to give his name because it can be looked up too easily and then he would be bugged. In any case, it's not the written (in a book) documentation that you said you required -- although you said that if I could supply "ONE" statement from somebody else that the story was out there you would allow my clarifying note to stand. However, I think it's enough justification to explain the homonym and at least say that this *may* prevent confusion. Why make people go to two different places (the shoto article and the top of this one) in order to "put two and two together" in order to come up with a realization that can be pointed out in one place? I'm sure you have tried to figure out computer documentation and have wished that you didn't have to gather points from all over the manual in order to follow how to do something -- this is why "user-friendly" technical help books have a market. Since people would *pay* for this help, it would seem to make sense to provide it -- right?

Cap j 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is now not even a link anywhere in this article, to shoto (I went to "edit" and did "Control-F", to include the search using the pairs of square brackets). I didn't want to link to it in the introduction, because that would be confusing. I thought that a little note would be just the thing. How can people even "jump through hoops" in the first place if they can't even find the hoops? You two have talked a lot about how people should do their research and look at the kanji. How can they do that when all links and references have been thoroughly removed? This *is* a hypertext encyclopedia, you know. Cap j 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

-My latest proposal (as of March 6, on my talk page), seems to address User:Southwick's concerns about lack of documentation. What's wrong with it? It certainly seems to me that it is useful to put in a footnote about possible confusion of the derivation of the most important word in the article, since it's useful to give its seemingly true derivation in the introduction, and the confusion seems so plausible and consistent with a martial arts theme -- that Funakoshi would have been nicknamed "Shoto - The Short Sword". This would certainly seem to be indeed the place for it. This *is* the article on "Shotokan", after all. User_talk:Cap_j - Cap j 23:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with the way you are saying this. The only thing I would support would be: “Shoto" [note 1] was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, which means "pine waves" ([1], pg. 85), while "kan" means house.

Note 1. Shoto is also a homonym of shoto. (with shoto a link)

I want to try to work together. ron Southwick 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears, Ron, that you are frustratingly reading my paragraph above as if that is what I want to put in the article, when what I want to put in the article is posted on my talk page in one place so that it can be seen without continually being pushed up by discussion. My comment above is only *explanation*.

Sigh. Here again is what I want to put in the article. It is (I repeat for about the tenth time) on my talk page. Sigh:

"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword"; confusion about the derivation of "Shotokan" may occur otherwise. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

You say that you do not *agree* with this, but you cannot seem to explain what is *wrong* with it. It would make no claim whatsoever, when posted in the article, to any reasonable person, that the "short sword" story is being told out there (even though it is; I just don't have it in a book for you, so I'm not trying to claim it on Wikipedia). It can be looked at as *preemptively* preventing confusion.

For someone who says he wants to work together, you are laying down a lot of conditions. I think it is reasonable to say at least:

"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword". The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

I think it's reasonable of me to dispute not showing the Kanji and it's reasonable of me to dispute not having that first sentence that basically says "Note that this use of shoto does not mean "short sword"." If you want to put in that sentence rather than "Not to be confused with..." that would be fine with me. Cap j 08:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

My advice is to not discuss each other. Instead, discuss the article. When you criticize other editors, you make a poor impression on more experienced editors. You are implying that other editors cannot see when someone is behaving badly without your help. Moreover, you should be aware that some people seek to provoke others. By remaining unflappable, you discourage them.
If you cannot agree options include:

• include both versions of the disputed section. Use words like "Most people think "A"; Others think "B". See Global warming controversy for how this has been done.
• take a break from editing the article for a week or two. When you come back to it, you may find that the dispute has calmed.
• is the whole article in dispute? If not, move the pov tag to the disputed section and ignore it for awhile.
• you can post on {{WP:RFC]], but posting on Talk:Karate seems to me to be more likely to reach interested editors.
• you can poll the editors on the talk page, but with at most four voters, one of which edits anonymously, it may not be very conclusively. Still, it would be helpful to someone like me to understand who is who.
• it would be helpful to refactor the talk page. As it stands, it isn't easy to see what the dispute is about or what the arguments are. Maybe you could clearly indicate the two versions and list the arguments pro and con for each. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• >is the whole article in dispute? If not, move the pov tag to the disputed section and ignore it for awhile.

Unfortunately, Ron keeps deleting the whole disputed Note, so we can't even do that. The dispute is over putting a footnote in the introduction at the top of the page, and it is over the derivation of the title of the article, so it pretty much has to go at the top. Cap j 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• >include both versions of the disputed section. Use words like "Most people think "A"; Others think "B". See Global warming controversy for how this has been done.

I would agree with putting both Ron's and my proposed notes in a "Notes" section. We could say "The content of this note was disputed; here are the two suggested versions:"

I would also agree with settling the dispute over explanation of common terms by putting in both Ron's and mine (and the old guy's) terms. We could even label Ron's as coming from a 5th Dan in Taekwondo who has studied Shotokan and label the others as less authoritative interpretations. Cap j 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• >you can post on {{WP:RFC]], but posting on Talk:Karate seems to me to be more likely to reach interested editors.

I did go and do that a few hours previously. Cap j 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The terms were translated incorrectly. Most of the terms are on Wikipedia already and translated correctly. I am actually checking and verifying my data. I would not want to post my opinion, just the facts. With links to those pages and continuity within the encyclopedia itself this should become a nice article. ron Southwick 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My answering points are gathered together in one place at the end of "Pine Waves" Cap j 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pine Waves

I don't see how this information holds any real relevance to shotokan. If the community insists that the information should stay in the article, I at least ask that it be slightly revised so that it flows together with the rest of the writing better. NeoChrono Ryu 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it's important information, but you're right that it could flow better. Maybe in a history section or something. Matt

This is how it appears now:

"Shoto" (松涛) was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, in which "松" means "pine tree" and "涛" is a Kanji variant of "濤", which means "large wave", thus meaning "Pine Waves" ([1], pg. 85); hence "Shotokan" was the name of the hall where he trained his students -- since "kan", "館", means "house".

Would anyone object to it's being changed to:

"Shoto" was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, which means "pine waves" ([1], pg. 85), while "kan" means house. Hence "shotokan" was the name of the hall where he trained his students. NeoChrono Ryu 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds just like the JKA website. The kanji is already at the front of the article. Looks good. ron Southwick 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I like that much better. Go ahead NeoChrono Ryu. 142.161.178.204 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

-That *is* the front of the article -- or to what front of what article were you referring, Ron? I certainly don't think it's a good idea to be deleting information from an encyclopedia; the motivation to agree to that at this point certainly seems like nothing but pettiness. Cap j 20:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

-I noticed that Matt must have just anonymously removed the Kanji from the intro in the edit: 00:46, 9 March 2006 142.161.179.162, with his only comment being "Cleaner intro". Look-up gives http://www.mts.net. An administrator might think of blocking the IP address range 142.161.***.*** from where he makes most of his edits -- it's bad form to make a disputed edit while the page is under dispute. He didn't move the information to a note; just deleted it -- pretty much a crime to do to an encyclopedia. I would agree with putting all that info into a clarifying note along with the suggested material on my talk page. Even in a history section would be fine with me. - Cap j 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Matt did nothing. I think that was NeoChrono. It was talked about above. Looks better. ron Southwick 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, maybe it was Matt. That is OK. Thank you for helping Matt. ron Southwick 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Matt, NeoChrono, CapJ

What do you think about adding this: “Shoto" [note 1] was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, which means "pine waves" ([1], pg. 85), while "kan" means house.

Note 1. Shoto is also a homonym of shoto. (with shoto a link)

Simple, direct, verified, no POV bias ron Southwick 15:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cap_j is correct in commenting on the importance of leaving accurate and informative edit summaries in his 06:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC) post. More information about edit summaries and their use may be found at WP:ES and WP:ESL. Type your username in the first box and "en" in the second of "Edit summary usage" to check your consistency of use (but not quality). [3] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think that valuable information is lacking in the above which is important to leave in, in an encyclopedia. Making no changes to the introduction:

"Shoto" [note 1] was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, which means "pine waves" ([1], pg. 85), while "kan" means house.

"1. This transliteration is a homonym with a different meaning elsewhere of "short sword" (see shoto). The Kanji, however, has no similarity. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a Kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade."

The Kanji should be kept because it is an extremely relevant clarifying note to the term "Shotokan". Even though it might be available elsewhere, the point of Wikipedia is to present basic information gathered from elsewhere. Even though it might be in other articles on Wikipedia, this is *our* article, and we can't guarantee what others will do to other articles. I refer you to the extremely enlightening utility of the clarifying note in the Chaise Longue article (for which no reference book is even cited there). Upon reading that, I slapped my forehead and reflected: "I see it now! The ignorance that is out there! The ignorance!"

I think it's reasonable of me to dispute not showing the Kanji and it's reasonable of me to dispute not having that first sentence that basically says "Note that this use of shoto does not mean "short sword". I have to add Ron's removal of descriptions of common terms (15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick) to my dispute list.

If Ron thinks there is POV bias in my proposed version, could he please explain why? I'm working in the dark in editing my note in hopes that it will be acceptable.

An unanswered question: why make people go to two different places (the shoto article and the top of this one) in order to "put two and two together" in order to come up with a realization that can be pointed out in one place? I'm sure you have tried to figure out computer documentation and have wished that you didn't have to gather points from all over the manual in order to follow how to do something -- this is why "user-friendly" technical help books have a market. Since people would *pay* for this help, it would seem to make sense to provide it -- right?

Cap j 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you can't include everything. We haven't included why he would choose "pine waves" and I think that's more important to include than a possible yet highly improbable mistranslation. If you dispute that it's highly improbable, then find me one other website, anywhere, that claims that the shoto in Shotokan means short sword. I seriously doubt that you can. Therefore I can only conclude that the number of people that shared this misconception is small indeed. Too small to warrant clarification. I can think of half a dozen things off the top of my head that would be of greater value to any potential reader. But, like I said, I don't think it's appropriate to include everything, the article would be far too cluttered. 142.161.191.155 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

I have not addressed the Chaise Longue because it is not the same. There is not confusion with Shotokan. I kind of like the kanji too but I think we need to work on the rest of it then try to work it in. Let me recap for those you do not want to read all that stuff.

CapJ entered into the page that Shoto was Funakoshi’s nickname and that it meant short sword, due to his small size and skill in Karate (I am paraphrasing). When it was removed (not by me) he put it back in. It was removed again and the editors asked him for a reference. He put it back in and said (paraphrase) his teacher, who learned some Japanese words, told him this and that was enough to keep it in. I then came into the picture and thinking this must be a vandalism/joke and removed it. I also, since I read/write/speak - Japanese/Chinese/Korean included the proper Kanji to show the real meaning of shoto. CapJ then stated that we should leave it in to “combat the ignorance” so that no one would make that mistake. Even in the face of data he still wants his info in. We do not have to have it in due to POV rules. I have offered a proposed entry to try to keep the peace “Shoto" [note 1] was the pen name Gichin Funakoshi used in his poetry, which means "pine waves" ([1], pg. 85), while "kan" means house.

Note 1. Shoto is also a homonym of shoto. (with shoto a link)ron Southwick 05:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron's edit of (15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick) was clearly done as my punishment for disagreeing with him on his talk page (User_Talk:southwick Cap j 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)) for his first deletion of my note (which Matt said was fine with him at the time) in his first edit, "05:17, 2 March 2006 Southwick", when he appeared on the scene. Here's what he removed from the "Common terms" section (not all of which was added by me): (mostly the items in parentheses -- he left the original terms):

   * Karate: Empty hand (i.e., unarmed combat)
   * Osu: An aknowledgement (used primarily when bowing)
   * Sensei: Teacher (literally "The one who has gone before")
   * zanshin: awareness (that you might be attacked -- literally "continuing mind")

Cap j 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Answering Matt: there's plenty of room on the page; this is a pretty much indefinitely-expandable web page. Clutter can be dealt with by using organization. I encourage you to add your ideas which you think are important. Cap j 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Answering Ron: it is *exactly* the same issue as in the Chaise Longue clarifying note. There is indeed confusion over the derivation of "Shotokan"; I just can't claim it on Wikipedia without a book. I'm accepting the page reference in the book and your Kanji in good faith; why can't you accept my word in good faith that a crowd of Karate students have heard the incorrect story (this answers Matt, too)? Even if not, why can't you admit that it is confusion waiting to happen? You are still not explaining why you think there is POV in my proposed note -- could you please explain why you think that? There isn't any POV in it. Please. Even saying "Not to be confused with" is not claiming that it *is* being confused; it would just make my proposed note more concise. Cap j 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On the POV subject:

From above-

According to Wikipedia:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This viewpoint fits into the last point and thus does not belong in this article. ron Southwick 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is factually incorrect that there is any POV *in* the proposed explanation. Read it again, from my talk page:

"1. This transliteration is a homonym with a different meaning elsewhere of "short sword" (see shoto). The Kanji from Funakoshi's original text (of [1]), however, has no similarity. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a Kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade."

Putting something in a Wikipedia article that is documented, even for undocumented *reasons*, is not the same as putting in something that is undocumented. I dispute not saying basically "Funakoshi did not mean "short sword" when he called his hall "shoto"," due to its clarifying nature, which seems to be documented as the literal truth. As I remark, it's too harsh to newcomers to tell them to go figure it out themselves; Wikipedia is supposed to be a gentle place of help.

Wikipedia is a place for supplying basic information; Ron, as an advanced karateka, might not see what would help the less-knowledgeable. Computer self-help book writers, for example, see the utility of input from those who don't know the subject so that they can give feedback on the use of the explanatory material. I have a witty comment here; if someone asks, I'll put it on my talk page -- its meaning is that it is too harsh and terse not to add explanatory material and tell people they have to study it themselves. Ron is being too harsh in a place that is here to help people; it's like he's in the dojo rather than on Wikipedia.

The common terms should include an idiomatic translation as well as a few words of explanation of the implications; my dispute there lies in not including them. If Ron will supply his own in addition to the literal translations, I'm sure that would be fine. Good table. Again, it's too harsh to tell people to go learn the extra explanation themselves.

Cap j 02:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC) (I think it neater to put all of my points in one place.)

I agree that a more descriptive definition would certainty educate the reader. Sometimes the definitions given do not seem to fit. The actual transliteration is often very descriptive and enlightening to the non-Asian speaking individual but, as stated, it would detract from the actual subject, Shotokan karate. I think that continuity wins in this situation. Our definitions should be the same or very similar to pages which also use these terms. I have verified their translations and they are the accepted versions. Personally, I love the more descriptive translations. Do you have any ideas on how to incorporate this info without over doing the terminology section? As stated, this is not a language page. If you would like to see a sample of my transliterations email me and I will send a chapter from book I have written on this very subject. ron Southwick 03:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is lots of documentation for idiomatic translations and explanation about implications; someone who has them could look them up in his books and cite them, which would be helpful, whereas I would have to go and get a book out of the library. Walter and you aren't right in asserting they would be only about general language; they would be about Shotokan, naturally and obviously, since those are the terms that are on the page. Cap j 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This could go on and on. We clearly aren't going to convince you Capj, so I'm going to stop trying. No one here shares your opinion on this matter. I doubt you're going to convince any of us, so unless you're prepared to change it back to the way you want it unilaterally, I suggest this topic gets dropped. No one is making any progress. 207.161.44.198 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

So is the whole "Pine waves" vs. "short sword" debate officially over? Because if so, we could probably drop the POV tag. If the debate isn't over, could we move the tag someplace else? It's current placement is kinda in the way for those of us who looked up the article because we wanted information about Shotokan ;) --Waterboy matt 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove it. It isn't a POV dispute, in my opinion, but rather an content dispute. I was not a party to the dispute and don't claim to understand it in detail, but my summary follows in case it is helpful to someone trying to understand the history of this article.
I think the source for the "pine waves" content does not meet the criteria of WP:RS since I was not able to find it in the University of Chicago or University of California library catalogs. This is important because it suggests that the source is not vetted by a university librarian and it is not readily available to other editors that wish to verify it. On the other hand, the "short sword" content had no published source (as required by WP:RS). In the meantime, a number of editors have allowed the "pine waves" content to remain thereby providing some assurance that it is not broadly disputed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I looked it up on the Library of Congress Online Catalog. I figured if it was anywhere, it'd be there. Just do a basic title search for "Karate-do: My way of life". It should be the first result. Of course, I haven't read the book, so I don't know if those guys are right, but the book does exist. -Waterboy matt 21:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it exists. But, it would be helpful to have a source from the scholarly literature, or even from a national monthly publication or a reputable newspaper that provides editorial review of the content and provide some assurance of accuracy. BTW, I did another search, this time on the name of the author (instead of the ISBN), and the University of California Library does list the Funakoshi, Gichin title. The University of Chicago Library lists no titles by this author. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can get more sources. I also can read the kanji and it does say that. The official website also tells the pine waves story. Thank you for removing the POV. Now we can do something. ron Southwick 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Having just stumbled across this argument, I'd thought I'd throw in a little extra for debate: The kanji choice for Shotokan also reflects the kanji used in Matsumura, and it could be claimed that Funakoshi was carrying out a little word play in honour of the man. —This unsigned comment was added by 217.41.241.254 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 March 2006.

I left the discussion for a couple of weeks, as Walter suggested.

Ron got a little carried away with adding Kanji, whereas I just wanted it shown to dispel ignorance re "Short sword". Upon Walter pointing that out, Ron used that as an argument not to replace explanation to the Common Terms, which argument is not valid, because giving idiomatic translation and some words of explanation about implications would clearly be on the subject of Shotokan, not language.

Re "short sword", there is no dispute about the facts that I want to post (latest version of my clarifying note can be found on my talk page). I think it is unreasonable to require documented proof that the mistake is being made or that ignorance exists out there; is this not the "primae facae" (excuse my Latin) reason for writing an encyclopedia in the first place? It's too harsh to expect people to come to realizations with minimal information, aside from Ron's initial evaluation of me. Another example of a clarifying note, aside from Chaise Longue: Gravitomagnetic#Fringe_physics. There is no documentation to prove that the fringe physics is *actually* being confused with the real thing, just that it exists. Similarly, "short sword" is a valid meaning of "shoto" and I can find no documentation to prove that it is *actually* being confused; I have only my personal experience that up to about thirty people have probably been confused by the homonym. The documentation for what I actually want to post is not disputed.

If there is no longer any dispute about the above, I'll add them back in. How does one flag a content dispute as opposed to a POV dispute? Cap j 16:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CapJ - The issue is solved. Nobody wants it in here. Forget it please. ron Southwick 19:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we delete all of the old crap on this page? It's so long it's hard to find anything. I suggest that if we're putting this "short sword" issue to rest, that we delete all posts regarding it. I give permission for all of my posts to be deleted as long as they are deleted along with the rest of the posts in the debate. 142.161.187.72 22:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Matt

Matt You are right this is done. Lets archive it and clear it off. I will remove it it if comes back. You do the same. Matt can you email me. ron Southwick 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to point out that Ron said that "An edit war is not what I wanted." Cap j 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, Matt, my logic is unassailable and I have finally managed to make it explicit. You don't have any good rebuttal, therefore the note should stay in. (Earlier point written on Ron's talk page: it's good to have input from "new users" about the sources of their confusion -- we're writing this for people who don't know, of course -- this is well-understood in the computer manual field) I have to point out that you two do not own this article. I don't suppose it matters if you delete the old posts here; people can easily read the history. Cap j 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not putting information in to help newcomers (since the experts learned it themselves the hard way) is like saying "Encyclopedia?? He can walk to school like I had to!" Cap j 20:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the "Common terms" section is now good enough, for me. Cap j 20:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Capj, only you think your "logic" is "unassailable". We stopped arguing with you because you're unreasonable. That hardly gives you the right to change things to your liking despite the wishes of EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON WHO HAS EXPRESSED THEIR OPINION. Are you aware of how many homonyms there are in the Japanese language? Hundreds, most likely thousands. There are probably dozens in karate alone. For instance, wankan (the kata) means King's Crown, but "wan" also means arm. Did you want to put a note in clarifying that too? Give it up. 207.161.43.66 02:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

I have to say it is you who are unreasonable, given that you didn't have a problem with it until bad feelings developed (It was Ron who jumped in around March 2 2006 and started WWIII). "Every single other person": you and Ron. This is the homonym that causes a problem here: Shotokan, the very article title. No, we don't need to put in a note for every other little thing. Please yield to sweet reason. Cap j 00:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I previously refuted the "many homonyms" argument with the point that this addresses the most important word in the article. I have the legitimacy here (It does not give you legitimacy just because I took a break from the argument for a couple of weeks, at Walter's suggestion). You're not supposed to delete peoples' additions, but work with them in a collaborative way. I have taken pretty much complete input from you in modifying my note and if you look back in the change history you can review that I took the input quickly enough. Just because you got mad over a little back-and-forth isn't sufficient reason to abandon rationality; there pretty much never is such reason. Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot -- see point 7. at the top ("Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle."). Also, on Wikipedia:Wikiquette, "Principles of Wikipedia etiquette", second last point, it says "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible". You will find advice liberally located throughout the Wikipedia help documentation saying not to "edit-war". Once again, you have no good rebuttal to my logic, but rather when I finally made it explicit by saying that "Putting something in a Wikipedia article that is documented, even for undocumented *reasons*, is not the same as putting in something that is undocumented," you (Matt) and Ron just clammed up about it because you can't answer it.Cap j 17:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since every point Ron and Matt have made have been well-rebutted by me and they have nothing to say anymore, I ask that they please stop vandalizing my work. Cap j 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The information is not related to “Shotokan” and is removed, as per Wikki rules. It is now considered vandalism. As for not responding to you, I was told by senior wick-people not to respond. They said they know when someone is acting inappropriately. ron Southwick 00:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You make bizarre overstatements and go too far in trying to make your point. It is a useful clarifying note. Deleting it is the vandalism. You owe me an apology. Cap j 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you become reasonable and work with me, we can still talk. However if you and Matt simply stop removing my work, I will leave it at that and not make any nasty comments. Cap j 02:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody likes to have his work deleted and to be subjected to harsh, terse, and hard-to-comprehend orders. Nobody likes to then receive an "apology" in which justification and further putting-in-the-wrong of him is done, as Ron has done. A sincere apology would be the way to make progress. It is also unfortunate the level of arrogance you display; I know personally that karatekas are supposed to be extremely humble.

Ron, you have no rebuttal to my point that "Putting something in a Wikipedia article that is documented, even for undocumented *reasons*, is not the same as putting in something that is undocumented."

I remind you of your statement that "An edit war is not what I wanted." (which can be found above or in the previous section using Ctrl-F or in the Change History of this discussion -- end of Feb through beginning of April time period).

Re the common terms, it's a good idea to gather the karate relevance into one place. The point that this is not a language lesson should be interpreted to understand that the relevance to karate should be included, not just the translations. I know that there are some links to articles, but it's still useful to gather the terms; it's what an encyclopedia is for -- helping those who need the knowledge. Also "Osu" didn't have a link, so it's a good idea to keep its explanation. If it's totally wrong, please explain why, but for the moment since other explanations that I *know* made sense were removed, I tend to believe that there is nothing wrong with the "Osu" amplification. Cap j 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's a good idea to show the Kanji in the clarifying note since it was removed from the introduction. Ron, you agree with me in showing kanji because you put it in many other places; therefore it shows unreasonableness and targeting of me, specifically, that you remove it from the entry that *I* added -- and note in the Change History that I completely went from asserting that "short sword" was "a story" on a par with "Pine Waves", to putting in this note to *correct* it, in response to input from you. Cap j 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First I have removed the inaccurate and inappropriate term information. According to Wikipedia rules, “Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor instruction manual”. The definitions exist in the encyclopedia already. That is why I linked them. There is no need for any explanation; it exists already on the site.

Specifics:

Osu is NOT primarily used in bowing. It is obvious that the author is not knowledgeable in karate terminology or the Japanese language. Osu is actually misused by most non-Japanese speaking people. Osu actually is considered slang and is not official Shotokan terminology. The term should be removed as well.

Zanshin is not “Awareness that one might be attacked”. Kata - This is a unnessary definition – Wikipedia is not a dictionary, also the link exists. Same for Kihon, Kyu and Dan.

As far as the note, it is clear that the author is uneducated about Shotokan. I point to the rules of Wikipedia…AGAIN According to Wikipedia:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

This is CLEARLY a small minority, thus it is removed.

There is no data or references to back any of the claims and so according to Wikipedia rules:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

ron Southwick 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt, I have contacted Shotokan of America and they are going to look this over and help us. I also put the story out on a couple of karate boards so the army is on the way. Let's just remove the inaccurate/unverifiable information. With more real Shotokan knowledge here it should turn out grand. ron Southwick 00:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, the information I am attempting to add, wrt the Common Terms, clearly discusses and clarifies Karate. It was you who got carried away with adding Kanji and are now confused about the difference between definitions and Karate enlightenment. Remember, we might have some very young people reading this who could use explanation of simple terms like "Dojo" and the rest -- right here; it doesn't hurt to collect it in one place; there is a lot of room to the right-hand side of the "Common Terms" table! However, thanks for your authority on "osu"; I'll make the change. Your repetition of "viewpoint" is incorrect; please drop it; I am adding no viewpoint. I disagree with you about "Zanshin"; it's commonly known by many people that it generally means awareness that one might be attacked.

It's also a good idea to state what things do *not* mean, and what things are *not* true, for clarification; being too terse is harsh -- it doesn't get the point across (for example when teaching physics, it's important to point out in W = Fd that if there is no displacement there is no work done, thus, for example, magnets sticking to a fridge and holding up against gravity are using no energy!). Rigorous, terse, concepts need amplification. Thus my note about "Short Sword" should stand.

However, I do hope more Shotokan people show up, because some fresh approaches would be useful. Cap j 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you, Ron, would fill in the right-hand side of the "Common terms" table with some explanation of Karate relevance of the terms, for "osu" and others. Since you know some things, it would be very helpful if you wouldn't be so terse. This is an encyclopedia! Fill in some explanatory content! Cap j 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to discuss this issue with you further except to repeat that you are the only person I know of that has ever believed this ridiculous and easily dispelled myth and therefore it does not belong in this article in any form. 206.45.164.225 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

Ron,

You are incorrect in theory that explaining the Shotokan/Karate relevance of common terms constitutes "dictionary definitions". Rather, what is there already, below what I am trying to add, are the dictionary definitions. However, I cannot stick to adding to the table because the entries on which I have knowledge are linked well enough. I only wish that *you* would add some Karate explanation for osu and some of the unlinked terms by adding that table column or using a footnote or two if there are only a couple of unlinked terms, and not be so terse.

I've rebutted your "pov" argument by pointing out that I am adding no pov; everything is fact, as originally supplied by you yourself and Matt. You are just repeating yourself, I'm afraid, and you do not have a valid rebuttal to my point that clarifying notes, containing *facts only*, are useful in an encyclopedia. Cap j 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Matt,

I am not putting any myth in the article; I am only putting debunking of it.

There is a lot of hearsay about Karate, and it's important to put in what is *not* true, or someone else may come along with a feeling of certainty, and change it again. A note preempts this.

This is a good point, so I'll put it in "full caps" (I do not intend to "shout", please understand, but it's a good idea to catch the eye with this:)

THERE IS A LOT OF HEARSAY ABOUT KARATE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT IN WHAT IS *NOT* TRUE, OR SOMEONE ELSE MAY COME ALONG WITH A FEELING OF CERTAINTY, AND CHANGE IT AGAIN. A NOTE PREEMPTS THIS.

Best regards, Cap j 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ, You should not justify your own ignorance by including this note. I would dare say 99.9% of the people in Shotokan know this. Also the place for “competing” versions is on the talk page NOT the article itself. We will take a POLL to see if it should stay. I will set that up.

ron Southwick 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

N00b here, but I was invited here to contribute a bit of my research-ryu expertise. I have never read, seen, or heard anyone refer to "Shoto", as in "Shotokan" meaning short sword. No one, Japanese or roundeye, has ever told me that, or even told me that some people get it confused. It would seem to me this is an unsubstantiated tale which has no bearing on a historical article about Shotokan.

Jaeger —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerAuslander108 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 7 April 2006

I'm not trying to justify anything; I'm just trying to prevent others from making the same mistake and causing the article to be modified incorrectly in the future. Cap j 22:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, you were saying "in a last attempt to be civil..." ... If I say what you want, what will you do in return? Cap j 23:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, there are limits to democracy, which seem to be recognized by Wikipedia: they want consensus. Cap j 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ - Maybe you should start a page on Osu, then I will add the kanji transliterations. ron Southwick 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, how about a page which actually transliterates martial arts terms, i.e. kung fu, osu, shodan…etc. So many are misused and you know how I love kanji/hanja. ron Southwick 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can stop deleting my work, we'll see... Cap j 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the "work" is legitimate and or pertinent then I am sure it would stay.Wikipedia is not here to dispel myths. This note is irrelevant. ron Southwick 23:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I always log in. What does that note have to do with shotokan karate? This is not a page on homonyms or myths. What does that note have to do with shotokan karate? ron Southwick 01:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ writes, “I'm just trying to prevent others from making the same mistake..” That is NOT the point of this article, AT ALL! This page is not here to justify your ignorance. ron Southwick 01:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ – What you fail to understand about consensus is that the issue is not whether we should remove it, it is if we should include it. There is no consensus on its part in this article, therefore it is not applicable and is removable. If you can answer the above question, What does this have to do with Shotokan ? ron Southwick 18:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Stop. You two need to stop with the heated exchanges. I'm an outsider here; I have this page on my watch list because of my comment above about multiple kata articles, but I've been watching this edit war go on and it needs to stop. Besides, it's silly. The "note" that Capj keeps adding isn't really necessary unless people are seriously disputing that translation... and the bit about the note being disputed really doesn't belong on the article page. I don't see much harm in it either, though... but people do tend to get too caught up in terminology on WP and it can ruin articles if too much attention is spent on it; personally, I would remove the translation from the top section, because it's not that central to what people actually would want to learn about Shotokan by reading this article. I think the info is interesting, though, so it belongs somewhere. Mangojuice 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright Capj, how about we ask someone to arbitrate the dispute and make a final decision. I am willing to accept the decision of such an arbitrator that is mutually agreed upon. I suggest Wsiegmund. He's familiar with the dispute, has tried to keep it peaceful and to the best of my knowlege hasn't expressed an opinion on the issue. How does this sound to you? 142.161.169.88 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)