Talk:Ashida Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
The subject of this article, Ashida Kim, has edited Wikipedia as
Ashida Kim (talk • contribs).
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project.

Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable;
if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article was nominated for deletion on October 4, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

This page has been archived to save space:

  • /archive1 26 March, 2004 - 11 July, 2005
  • /archive2 16 September, 2004 - 3 December, 2005

Contents

[edit] Article removed

I removed this article. It is not good. --Radfordwdavis9 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And other people reverted that crap. Is that a sockpuppet of Ashida Kim I see speaking here? Any admins or anyone less cowardly than me awake to verify this? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You are only going to get youself banned or/and the page protected again. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] REVENGE OF JOHN PETERSON LLOYD

PLEASE REMOVE ASHIDA KIMS PAGE (DELETE IT)

This article has been proposed for deletion 2 times in the last 3 months and both times editors felt he was notable enough to keep it. Trödel|talk 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Have Ashida Kim and Jimbo met personally because there seems to be some serious enmity between the two.

I want Jimbo to answer this question not any other administrator

Thank you

No, even though I'm only another administrator (Jimbo is actually the owner), I'm going to answer you anyway. I'm sure they haven't met personally. The enmity is all on Kim's part, I'm sure. Kim seems to have an anger problem with people who he believes have dared to question his, erm, ninja grandmasterishness, that's all. Wales didn't even do that. The Wikipedia editors-at-large are reporting in the article on some notable aspects of Kim's professional life. Kim starts ranting when he is reminded, by whomever, that what he is doing doesn't meet the common standards of traditional East Asian martial professionalism. I don't know why that should surprise him since his idol, Count Dante, made a career (until he drank himself to death) out of denouncing tradition by word and deed. But keyboard intimidation in aid of imposing one's will on the world is a Florida-ryu neo-ninja technique, apparently. --Fire Star 17:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Firestar, you are a man who knows martial arts extensively,I feel you know that the orthodox methods will not work in the modern arts.

Is Mr Kims methods actually a sample of "Bullshido" I mean most teachers today make you stand ,throw punches and kicks at the air and dont do sparring and speak about breaking melons with their heads and walking on glass shards whereas there is no emphasis on sparring. Most teachers make you spar in a low stance that is reminiscent of ancient wars and we all know that the possibility of a samurai ambushing you at home is practically zero,so i need to know if mr kim s method of defense actually works. His books are another story.

Orthodox methods work just fine for me. In my experience, people who have the most problems with the effectiveness of traditional training methods are those unable (for whatever reason) to learn a complete traditional syllabus. Instead of trying to see why they can't figure out what the old style teachers are teaching, they lose patience, quit (or are thrown out) and then go on the internet to try and cut off the heads of their old style teachers in order to make themselves feel taller. Traditional teaching first insists on humility, patience, personal discipline and interpersonal responsibility and only then addresses the question of martial ability. It is a safety issue as well. I'm not going to teach anyone who treats other people, any other people, badly. Why should I? There is no shortage of bullies in the world, why make more? Students have to demonstrate to my satisfaction that they have a caring heart before I'll show them any fighting. Rough characters traditionally left orthodox schools prematurely, without understanding their strategic doctrine or any but the most basic techniques and so their reports of the efficacy of those doctrines or any advanced techniques are necessarily suspect. This is why you get movie actors like Bruce Lee "taking what is useful" from other arts because he never even saw Yip Man's kung fu before he left. Such mix and match approaches don't interest me. Mr. Kim's inability to earn respect, not only in the traditional but even in the modern mixed martial arena raises lots of questions, IMO. He may or may not know how to hurt people, but hurting people isn't impressive to me in itself. Anyone with a gun can be a killer. The question you should ask yourself is: what virtues do you see in him that you would wish to emulate? --Fire Star 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Firestar,have you or anyone you know ever tried Kim's Ryu ninjutsu. I don't live in Florida but If I did,I'd like to check it out.

I mean,the guy has become famous after getting into such situations and he claims to know so much. He says he was taught by someone called Shendai but does not delve further. He says that his style is not related to Sensei HAtsumi's and special.

Is This TRUE?????

[edit] Blanked

I am Ashida Kim and blanked the article because it is awful!! --Radfordwdavis8 11:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the above user is a sockpuppet of Ashida Kim. For starters, Ashida Kim as we have known him here never said anything in just one sentence. Kim also never admitted that his name was really R. W. Davis, indeed, he had a singular aversion to the name appearing at all. This user is probably just trolling. --Fire Star 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Why doesn't Ashida Kim just use his ninja powers to kill all of the other editors?--Dr.Worm 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim vs. Hayes

A series of letters between "Judy W.," Tani J., Ashida Kim and Stephen K. Hayes:

http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=&aid=47

Some "interesting" claims are made...


Kim also claims that the "Bullshido" website is some sort of rival ninja clan secretly run by Hayes:

http://p206.ezboard.com/fashidakimmessageboardsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=560.topic

Maybe there is no articleworthy information here, but I thought it was all curious and at least deserving of a mention on the talk page. 71.131.184.243 12:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Ashida Kim Pictures Discussion

I have found two pictures allegedly of Ashida Kim from the German location of the Black Dragon Fighting Society - a group that Kim claims membership in. The justification for believing these pictures are Ashida Kim come from a lengthy investigation by Samuel Browning, a member of Bullshido.com

http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewreview&id=160

(note - I've edited two of the links to have proper linkage, as Sam Browning didn't copy his sources correctly in some parts)

Two of Bullshido’s members have reviewed a video of a man outside 1010 Ave W NW, Winter Haven Florida during daylight. The man appeared to be the older man in the following black and white pictures [the two pictures]. These pictures have been identified as being that Ashida Kim in Florida by one of his German followers, Andreas Leffler. See:
http://www.blackdragongermany.de/html/galerie_freunde_weltweit_2.html
http://www.blackdragongermany.de/html/galerie_freunde_weltweit_1.html
If our visual identification is accurate as we believe it to be, then Radford Davis and Kim/Hunter are one and the same person.


I apologize for prematurely posting the pictures without discussion. I'm getting better and better at this, but I might make a couple mistakes along the way.


If the images are reinstated, I would like them put back in as they are displayed here, verbatim:

Image:F AshidaKim.jpg
A picture reportedly of "Ashida Kim" taken in Florida with an unidentified man (pictured right)
Image:F AshidaKim2.jpg
Another picture reportedly of "Ashida Kim" taken in Florida (pictured right)


Scb steve 04:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm assuming that if I don't hear any disagreement, I can reinstate the two photos into the article.

Scb steve 05:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I think that the license issues need to be resolved before those pictures are added to the page. There is no copyright info provided for them. Who owns the copyright on those images? Ashida Kim? If so, has he given permission to use them here? Pburka 15:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The copyright status of the pictures' provenance has to be clear before we can use them. Indeed, they won't be on Wikipedia at all much longer if we can't determine exactly where they came from. --Fire Star 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The pictures are from http://www.blackdragongermany.de/ Scb steve 21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you get permission from the web site owner to use the pictures? Pburka 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felbeast's Edits

Felbeast, can you link to the place where your contributions are derived from?

Scb steve 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced accusations

You cannot have such extremely NNPOV accusations - essentially accusing Ashida Kim of fraud - as in the "$10,000 challenge" section without sourcing them. SCB, or whatever his name is, gave an URL in his edit summary when he reverted, but didn't put it in the actual article! Serious claims require serious proof. I'm not going to do your work for you - give specific sources for your accusations and put them in the article. In the meantime, I will remove the potentially libelous statements AGAIN until they are accompanied by legitimate sources. Some people, it seems, have learned nothing from the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. wikipediatrix 03:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I agree (and have been working on maintaining the position) that Wikipedia shouldn't say Kim is a fraud or a crank. There is, however, in the Western martial art community, a large number of websites devoted to accusing him of just that. That is all we should report about it, IMO, and one of the two things the consensus of commenting registered editors as well as two failed AfDs for the article (the second one initiated by Jimbo, who is therefore aware of the discussions) feels to be notable about Kim. Myself, I prefer reporting Kim's own statements rather than making my own about him. That is why I only restored the $10,000 challenge bit of the things you deleted. I've since added a link to your last version of it. Regards, --Fire Star 05:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


I cannot currently access www.bullshido.net, but if you do a search in the articles section of the website for "Ashida Kim", you will see an article by "Anthony" detailing the outcome of what happened when he tried to take Ashida Kim up on his $10,000 challenge. I believe this is the appropriate link: http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewreview&id=2


The text you are trying to delete is the following:
In an effort to quiet criticism and suppress challenges, Ashida Kim has established rules for a "$10,000 Challenge" for those wishing to test his skill. These rules place significant financial and legal demands on challengers, who are required to pay $10,000 as well as post a $25,000 bond and cover all expenses of the event. Several individuals claim to have come forward to challenge Kim, and presented evidence of the money, yet report that he declined to arrange a fight. Note that the $10,000 appears to refer to the aforementioned fee — nothing in the rules states that the challenger will receive $10,000 on victory as may be inferred.


How is this fradulent? It is true that he has rules for his challenge, that they place significant demands on the challenger, including giving Kim a portion of ticket sales and putting up room and board for him and 3 guests. It's true that individuals have tried to take him up on his offer (see Bullshido article by Anthony), and it's true he declined to arrange the fight. It's also true that there is no cash prize for the challenger if they win.


I accompanied my "libelous" claims with the appropriate source. You chose to completely delete the section instead of inserting the link. Please consult the link ( http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewreview&id=2 ) to see an example of individuals coming forward to challenge Kim and Kim backing down from it. Nothing fradulent or libelous there.
Scb steve 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, Kim himself is the person saying these things. We can leave it to our readers to believe whether Kim is telling the truth about his abilities or whether he seemingly doth protest too much. I have slightly edited the first sentence of the $10,000 Challenge bit to reflect that Kim is the one discussing his own integrity and setting up these rules on his website. --Fire Star 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
To Fire Star
My response was mostly directed at Wikipediatrix. I think your most recent edits ("In what Kim describes as an effort to quiet his critics and suppress their challenges") is a more accurate reflection of what's presented at his website. I give you more props than a stage theater closet. I only hope that there won't be any more undiscussed edits on this particular topic by anyone involved.--Scb steve 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Unsourced allegations can get Wikipedia into legal trouble and I choose to be WP:BOLD and not take the time to chit-chat about what obviously is very wrong. Take comfort that if there's ever a Wikipedia article about YOU, I will delete any unsourced allegations about you from it, too. Although the parts I excised were the worst offenses of unsourced allegations, this article is STILL chock-full of them and needs lots more sources to back up what it says. For example, there is no source cited for the claim that Kim's book plagiarizes Andrew Adam's. I would think you would want to make the article so source-laden and iron-clad that no one can possibly refute any of it, rather than a page that just says "Kim did this and this and this" without proving it. wikipediatrix 19:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

To Wikipediatrix:

My additions and edits are made based on the information that I know and can speak credibly upon. I cannot provide sourcing for areas that I don't know. I am not a sole contributor to this article, as opposed to my recently created article on Martial Arts Therapy, where I have taken great pains to provide sources on material germane to the discussion.


But to make this a more productive discussion, as you have a greater amount of experience and perspective than I do concerning Wikipedia "legalities" and procedure, please indicate the portions where you feel there are sourcing issues, since you state that the article as a whole is "chock-full" of unsourced allegations. Speaking for myself, I can try to find whatever substantiation exists within my reach and improve those areas accordingly.

--Scb steve 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Greetings everyone. As Steve says, there have been a lot of contributors to the article. There have also been many editors looking it over during the two AfD events. As a result, while the article is uneven, there is also a somewhat stable core that doesn't seem to offend the majority of editors who have perused it. I do agree that the plagiarism section should either be reworded, citing a source, or dropped. For now, I agree with its removal. By hammering things out like this a point at a time, I believe we will only succeed in writing a better article. Regards, --Fire Star 19:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tel Shia

I don't know how important this is anymore, but in "Secrets of the Ninja," Ashida Kim refers to a neck-breaking technique called "tel shia." The ONLY other time I have ever seen or heard about this technique was in an old Star Trek episode called "Journey to Babel." Spock refers to a Vulcan technique for breaking necks called "tel shia," which was used to murder one of the ambassadors aboard the Enterprise(TM), in an apparent attempt to cast suspicion on Spock's father. Check it out!

Fascinating. This message board post mentions the connection. I haven't read Kim's books - does he acknowledge the Star Trek connection himself, or does he act as if it's a real technique? A Google search for "tel shia" brought up nothing but Ashida Kim and Star Trek references. wikipediatrix 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If that can be substantiate4d it should be put in the article.

No it shouldn't. That would be original research. Pburka 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Original research on our part or on his part? If it is on his part, a claim that he has published in one of his commercially available books, I don't think our policy applies, as the policy concerns our editors publishing their own conclusions about their own research. The main import for the article is, if he really made "science-fiction" claims, what pattern does it imply for his teaching and marketing style? The next thing you know, he will be offering Jedi ninjutsu lightsabre classes! At any rate, a derisive reaction in the article (in distinction to our reactions on a talk page) to Kim's (or anyone's) outrageous claims would be wrong. We have to stick to reactions from notable published sources. --Fire Star 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Making any comparison between Ashida Kim's use of the term and the Star Trek use of the term is original research. Mentioning that there are no other references to this term other than Star Trek and Ashida Kim is original research. We could safely say that he describes such a technique, but without tying it to Star Trek. Of course, Tel Shia isn't very interesting without the Star Trek link, is it? Our role is not to draw conclusions about his teaching and marketing style. Pburka 19:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
True. I guess that I was assuming that Kim mentioned Star Trek in his book. If he doesn't, then everything you say is applicable. I'm not interested enough to actually buy the book myself, of course... ;-) --Fire Star 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I had assumed that the link to Star Trek was made by the anon above. If Kim makes the connection himself then I have no objection to its inclusion, but someone should provide a quotation here if that's the case. Pburka 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out a fact is not "original research". If it is a fact that Ashida Kim has a neckbreaking technique called Tel Shia, and it is a fact that Star Trek has a neckbreaking technique called Tel Shia, and there are sources to prove both, then stating these facts is quite permissible in a Wikipedia article. The concept of "original research" applies to unsourceable claims whose only source is anecdotal, such as, say, "I talked to Gene Roddenberry in person and he said Ashida Kim ripped him off". wikipediatrix 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I politely suggest that you review WP:NOR. Even though there are sources for both of these facts, presenting them together suggests to the reader that there is a relationship between them: namely that Ashida Kim copied Star Trek. That is, it would introduce a theory. Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for new ideas, even if they are synthesized from established facts. Pburka 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of WP:NOR, and it says exactly what I've been saying: "Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." There is a difference between presenting two facts and letting the reader draw their own conclusion, and drawing the conclusion FOR them. Obviously, I do not want the article to say "Ashida Kim copied Star Trek", I want the article to simply note the sourced and proven facts. There is a difference between reporting facts and editorializing. wikipediatrix 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is an attempt to circumvent WP:NOR by allowing the reader to draw their own conclusion where there's only one conclusion which could be drawn from the facts as presented. Although the article won't say "Ashida Kim copied Star Trek" it would clearly imply exactly that. It would be equally inappropriate to add a sentence to the George W. Bush article saying that "Laura Bush has never filed formal assault charges against her husband and continues to appear with him at public events" even though it is verifiably true. Pburka 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not the same thing and you know it. Besides, I see nothing embarassing to Kim about the inclusion of the Tel Shia information. Even if he DID copy the idea from Star Trek (and I'm not saying he did) - so what? People interested in Martial Arts also tend to be interested in action films (Kim's fondness for Conan the Barbarian has been mentioned elsewhere). Again, so what? I don't see this as a problem. wikipediatrix 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What we need to know is if Kim mentions anywhere in his own literature if he got the "technique" from Star Trek or not. This pdf file of one of Kim's books references "Tel Shia" on page 66: [1]. There is no reference to Star Trek. Even though it certainly isn't a Japanese, Korean, Sanskrit or Chinese martial art term, or a term in any other language that I am aware of outside of science fiction, we can't just say it is from Star Trek. Kim describes its application as fatal, but the Star Trek fictional technique was never shown to be lethal on the show. As a digression, it shows to most traditionalists (and again, I wouldn't put this in the article, but people in the profession will see this as clear as day) that Ashida Kim is just making his stuff up as he goes along; making outrageous, yet vague, claims by mixing metaphors and restating half baked philosophy from a half dozen traditions as well as imparting voluminous mostly impractical advice to the credulous. The remarks we make about Kim being controversial are just in light of his being the subject of challenges by a certain group of people. As far as the rest goes, if we just report on what Kim himself says, we will be fine. If a reader contrasts Kim's bio and published material with the bio and published material of just about any traditional teacher out there, they (if they have the candlepower) will be able to draw their own conclusions. --Fire Star 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what if the tel shia technique was mentioned, and it was hotlinked to another wikipedia stub on the subject of tel shia? Would that be acceptable?

It would be less unacceptable. But my biggest concern is that there's no good reason to include any information about Tel Shia except in relation to Star Trek. Ask yourself why you want to include this term in the article: I believe that it's only purpose is to imply that Ashida Kim borrowed the term from Star Trek. That theory is original research. Although you can probably find a sufficiently convoluted way to include the info, the purpose will still be to introduce a novel theory. (By the way, you can sign your entries by including four tildes, like this: ~~~~.) Pburka 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"a name of no apparent association with the historical right-wing nationalist paramilitary Black Dragon Society of wartime Japan"...Sorry to throw my two-inexperienced-cents in, but how is a statement such as this any less the result of independant research? The theory that he nicked the term from Star Trek seems no different to me than the theory he ripped off the Black Dragon name as well. Rpf 13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The line you quoted is in reference to the fact that no proof has ever linked Ashida Kim's group with this Japanese group. The similarity in names might make some people draw a link between them, but since none exists, the caveat that there is "no apparent association" is necessary. This way, no one will erroneously conclude that Ashida Kim's group is carrying out the mission of this Japanese group.
Right. It is highly unlikely that Ashida Kim (an American) is an accepted member of an organisation of xenophobic extreme-right-wing Japanese nationalists whose activities in China, Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria made the Gestapo look like Boy Scouts. An organisation who viewed any foreigners, especially Americans, with complete contempt. Since the name used for the two (or three in this case) groups is exactly the same, the statement is a disambiguation. The following statement is original research: Count Dante (and then Kim in his turn) nicked the name to appear more "dangerous" to the gullible souls they wanted (and want) to fleece out of their comic book money. So, that we say there is no apparent connexion doesn't mean there absolutely isn't (absence of evidence isn't definitive evidence of absence), just that apparently there is no evidence in the public domain that there is. Kim himself doesn't reference the original group in his literature that I am aware of. --Fire Star 17:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything to say about Tel Shia other than that there is no apparent association with Star Trek? Pburka 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
We don't have a Tel Shia article (yet), but we do have a Black Dragon Society article, which at least calls for some kind of dab line. --Fire Star 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Deletion

Who nominated this article to be deleted? --Scb steve 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Someone using this IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.120.56.33 No reasons were listed... --U238 22:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashida Kim

Sensei Ashida Kim is a good teacher and practices orthoodox disciplines. I know as I have personally attended his Florida Dojo.

Sensei Ashida also teaches us,the use of weapons and street smart tactics which Master Hayes sucks at.

I don't know why everyone at Wikipedia hates him.

Kimfan 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't hate him. If you'll look through the entire history of this debate you'll see that many of us tried on multiple occasions to help the guy out, to no avail. The person who was here claiming to be Ashida Kim would not let others disagree with him. At Wikipedia, you have to agree to disagree or you'll hit a brick wall. I'm a professional, orthodox, martial arts teacher with hundreds of students myself, and yet, I don't seek to punish rival teachers or other people whom I see as dissenting from the doctrines I uphold. I don't intimidate people with implicit or explicit threats of violence or threaten people with curses from demons or even legal action. Neither do the people I learn from, or their peers in the Chinese martial arts community. So, to most martial artists, for these and other reasons Kim's behaviour seems unprofessional. In that, especially in the West, he has a lot of company. It's no big deal, so he shouldn't feel persecuted, but rather he has an opportunity to learn something from all of this. --Fire Star 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashida Kim's behavior is reprehensible for a five year old, let alone a self-proclaimed ninja master. You'd do well to distance yourself from him and his laughable "ninjitsu" training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.102.206.195 (talk • contribs) .

<_< Let't not step on anyone's toes her....but...I'll say this. No one can honestly buy into claims of having all sorts of "special powers" like turning invisible, and threatening to send occult guards and astral spies after you if you compromize a booklet. As well, bullshido.net serves as a valuable rescource to searching out bullshido in the martial arts. They managed to come up with the $10000 for the challenge, but were turned down. There's a whole forum full of witnesses for you right there. This only goes to strengthen all the other testimonies of those who have claimed to have accepted the challenge. Also, you're having to pay him a tremendous sum of money simply for the proof he owes the public, much unlike the open challenge from the gracie family, no money, full contact, no holds barred. As well, he's made up clearly untrue, irrational statements in his defense, such that it's hard to believe that he's really that naive. Like Bullshido, a site publicly known to be run by Neal "Phrost" Fletcher, being accused of being run secretly by a rival ninja clan, conveniently after they critisized him, and what they view personally (with good reason), as most do, as purely pseudoscientific methods. He gets mad when you question him, and rants when you point out his lack of any true ninjutsu tradition. We haven't jumped to any conlusions, but no matter how loyal you feel to him (though I personally view absolute loyalty in martial arts as a disease), the evidence is still heavily stacked against him. No one else here hates Ashida Kim, and I certainly don't either. I'm simply of the opinion of deciding the authenticy of something no matter how I feel about the person. This article is basically presenting the evidence both for and against an extremely controversial martial artist. Some things are just facts. You CAN'T turn ivisible for example. Others are opinions, supported by heavy evidence, mind you. In the end, the only thing that would make this article seem lacking in nuetrality is the fact that Ashida Kim hasn't presented much valid evidence in his defense. No direct statements about his authenticity were made at all, other than things that are direct contradictions of solid facts. Some of us martial artists probably are atleast a little annoyed at him confusing people, thus posing a possible threat to their safety. But, in the end, you've got to understand we've remained as nuetral as possible for this sort of article. Really, this article is fine. As well, it should unquestionably be kept as a rescource for those interested in the evidence of fraud, and what exists against it, and in my opinion, has suceeded in protecting it's nuetrality while doing so. There's no favortism here, simply evidence, with one side simply outweighing another.--Waenishikusu 01:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ninjato

I read in the article that ashid is supposed to have invented the term "ninja to" in 1980... I find it unlikely. I own roleplaying material copyraighted in 1981, and likely written the year before, that includes the term and describes it as "the straight bladed sword used by the ninja" ... As far as I know, the authors were not so into modern ninjutsu they would have been aware, and used in their game a term of such recent coining. I also have reports from the late 80s (circa 1987) that Japanese sword dealers knew exactly what it was a gaijin wanted when he came asking for ninja to... and reacted very negatively to it. If the word were of such recent coining, I doubt it would have elicited such strong reactions... on the other hand, American media and "martial schools" have been depreciating the image of the ninja (never very positive in Japan anyway, except in VERY specific context) ever since they discovered Japanese culture in the late 40s and 50s ... I'd guess coining of the word would more likely date from then, hence its being household already in the 80s.

I may look like I may be defending mr kim. I'm not, but if you want to attribute an author to an atrocity, don't attribute it to just any atrocious man... you don't attribute the shoah to Vlad III Dracula just because he too committed atrocities, do you? --Svartalf 18:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think the information about Kim's dispute with Wales and Wikipedia should be included in his article. I only learned about him at another site, after learning that (in retaliation for criticisms and publishing personal information like his real name) he published information about Wales' family and other details like Wales' social security number in edit summaries, and I think that should be included here... It is certainly noteworthy. Joey 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

not really. i didn't hit the mainstream media and it wasn't even a particularly significant internal wikipedia conflict.Geni 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion stands in direct contradiction to my original sources... They indicate that because it was impossible to delete edit summaries at the time, the dissimination of this personal information did pose a real problem that wasn't cleaned up for literal weeks. That seems like a pretty significant internal wikipedia conflict to me. Joey 06:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
We were haveing problems with undeletable edit summuries all over the place at the time. There were no major fights on the mailing list or other popular arenas. All in all it was a far smaller than say userboxes or Brian Peppers.Geni 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real Black Dragon School

The black dragon link should point here. http://www.ninjaburger.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrWorm (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That link seems to be a web store of promotional items. Could you explain? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/OR problems

Scb steve noted in an edit summary: "previous rv from vandalism attempts did not fully restore information". Actually, I deliberately didn't fully restore it, as noted in my own edit summaries. Much of the info was hopelessly POV and OR. I can break it down piece by piece if someone really doesn't see the problems with unsourced claims and opinions like "it has become a common term now", "apparently spurious claim", etc. being in the article. Also, any sentence that begins with "Davis claims..." MUST be properly cited and sourced. wikipediatrix 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleaning house again

This article is STILL filled with completely unsourced libelous claims about a living person in direct defiance of WP:LIVING. As Jimbo Wales says, "Don't just slap a 'citation needed' tag on such information, remove it entirely". I have done so. Don't restore any sentences that say "Davis claims this" or "Davis did that" without providing a proper source as per WP:V and WP:RS. Bullshido.net is a highly opinationed blog, not a proper impartial source, and doesn't qualify. wikipediatrix 19:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog. Further, it was Bullshido.net that exposed Ashida Kim's actual identity. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have an article on a pseudonym of a real person that allows some authentic material from a source, but not others. Without the Bullshido.net information, Davis' identity would never be exposed. --Scb steve 15:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say Wikipedia was a blog. What's your point? Bullshido.net is a blog. If bullshido.net is the only source for Ashida Kim's actual identity, then that should go out too. wikipediatrix 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, if bullshido.net is the only source for information about anybody, it's arguable that person fails to meet WP:NOTABLE. If the person is indeed notable, surely a reliable source can be found supporting the true identity of Mr. "Kim".--chris.lawson 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say, Bullshido is not a blog. Bullshido identified Ashida Kim's identity through a careful search of court and business records, along with visual confirmation, akin to the actions of any mass media agency. The "reliable source" in this case for Kim's identity is court records and business records found and described by Bullshido in its article:

http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160

A investigation by members of Bullshido.net, a website devoted to discussing and investigating questionable behavior in the martial arts has uncovered the following. By a minimum of clear and convincing evidence we have discovered that the man running this site, is named Radford W. Davis, and he has been using the pseudonyms of both Ashida Kim and Chris Hunter since at least 1980. Starting in 1980 Davis has published approximately a dozen Ninja related books (1) achieved greater circulation then the publications of legitimate Ninjutsu masters like Masaaki Hatsumi and Stephen Hayes who traveled to Japan to study with Hatsumi. Davis, whose "ninja" alias incorrectly mixes a Japanese first name with a Korean last name, has been operating his enterprise out of its current Lake Alfred Florida post office box for well over a decade. (2)

Look at the footnotes, and you can clearly see the basis for declaring Ashida Kim to be Radford Davis. In terms of WP:V, the verifiable sources are Paladin Press, ZABA search engine, and examining copyright records of Radford Davis on works by "Ashida Kim." Reliable sources include copyright records regarding works by Paladin Press and are described in the article. Given that these concerns have been resolved of where the information in the Bullshido article came from, I will re-add the materials. --Scb steve 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? This article HAS NO FOOTNOTES. That's the whole problem. wikipediatrix 18:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?name=Reviews&file=viewarticle&id=160 has footnotes. 5 extensive ones that provide substantiation for assertions made in the main body, including the specific process for identifying Kim's identity. --Scb steve 18:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've rewritten the article now in such a way that your link is, I think, acceptable. Although we still can't use bullshido.net as a reliable source for most things, we can provide it as a "courtesy link" for the "Kim's identity" section I've just created, because the subject of the subsection is specifically about something that bullshido.net figures directly into. That makes a big difference. I also added general info about how Kim presents himself from his own site, so that the article isn't unfairly weighted with controversy, but also added some more controversy by adding the "Shit List" section. wikipediatrix 19:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Asides from some minor changes, this seems appropriate. Glad we coould come to consensus. --Scb steve 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old link

A dead link removed by MikeJ9919 pointed to a page that has been archived. If you don't consider the resource outdated, libelous or otherwise inappropriate, you may want to copy-and-paste the following in the external links section, or use it as a reference.

* {{cite web
| url = http://www.xeroth.org/pcults_stories/chris-ashida.html
| title = Christopher Hunter = Ashida Kim
| accessdate = 2006-12-09
| author = M. C. Busman
| date = May 2003 or earlier
| archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20050208051416/http://www.xeroth.org/pcults_stories/chris-ashida.html
| archivedate = 2005-02-08
| quote =
}}

Wikipeditor 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/h/Talk%7EAshida_Kim_1138.html"