Talk:Shintō Musō-ryū

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shintō Musō-ryū article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Shintō Musō-ryū has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	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!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 "Kurod-period" Description 2 "...used in several seitei (modern) martial arts such as bujinkan..." 3 Creating a seperate History section soon 4 Fred (and all) 5 Just a heads-up; the Organisations 6 GA-status 7 Good Article Review 8 The "notable practitioners" 9 I havent forgotten the improvment

[edit] "Kurod-period" Description

I added the "kurod-period" description, the years between Gonnosuke and the start of Meiji-period for lack of a better term. I know the japanese like to use periods, like "showa"-period or "meiji"-period so I figured it wouldnt be totally inaproperiate.Fred26 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...used in several seitei (modern) martial arts such as bujinkan..."

Some bujinkan practitioners might take issue with the bujinkan being labeled as a modern art. As a combined curriculum it may be new, but each of the nine schools of the bujinkan are about as old, if not older than SMR. I've removed reference to the bujinkan here since the correctness of this statement could be argued either way. Surely there are other modern jō staff arts which could serve as an example?--63.193.241.64 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. The many controversial issues regarding Ninjitsu & Bujinkan shouldn't be discussed here in any case and as you said, there are better examples of jo-usage in other martial arts. This whole ninjitsu-thing is enough explosive as it is. I recommend the E-budo.com/forums for anyone interested in serious discussions regarding bujinkan. :) Fred26 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a seperate History section soon

I just went over the total size for this article with and without the History section. 53 kb with and 34 kb without. I'm gonna make preparations to split the History section into a new sub-article. Fred26 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred (and all)

Please make sure that any information you place here is referenced properly, and put through a spelling and grammar checker. It also a good idea to throw it to someone else and have it checked for readability. I just went through and edited some of the writing and the "reiho" being related to the samurai. Honestly speaking, the reiho in SMR is more modern than anything else- taking on a flavor of Kendo at times and "Educational System/Military" budo (the barking commands, etc.). Truly, this stuff exists outside the ryu itself and in the society. The reiho that would exist inside the budo would be something different, as seen in other martial arts using special ceremonial bowing- those are truly "bushi" specific methods of etiquette. Kudos! -Russ Mekugi 11:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm doing my best with what I have. English isnt my first langauge and I have no formal education aside from what I learned in high-school. Yer point about "reiho", (which I had to look up in a dictionary by the way), is well taken. Fred26 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Good job really! 221.30.246.207 07:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads-up; the Organisations

In my humble opinion...well almost humble anyways..is that this articles only weak point is the information on the organisations. I'm preparing right now to revamp it all and put some more meat on it and reorganise it. After that I'll head to the sub-articles for the final push.

• edit*

By "weak" I mean it is severly lacking information in comparison to other sections. This article is far from perfect.Fred26 13:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA-status

I submitted the article to GA status since I think it covers the criteria but points might be raised. Since I didn't edit the article I suppose I could promote it myself but a second uninvolved opinion is always worthwhile. Pass or fail the next step would be peer review. I also think History of Shinto Muso-ryu Jodo should undergo the same process but I suggest we wait and see how this main article progresses or at least wait until on GA review is complete before nominating the second article. This way points made for this article may also be pre-emptively taken care of for the second. My feeling generally is that GA status followed by incorporating the changes suggested by peer review makes an article A-class and both the articles are good candidates.Peter Rehse 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

• Support No surprise there I nominated the article but I do have one point I would like to see addressed although it does not affect my vote. In the References section there are only three citations that are incorporated as inline references (multiple times) but eight further tacked on to the end of those. I think it would help alot if those latter references were incorporated into the text at least once per each.Peter Rehse 08:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm..I see what you mean. I'd forgotten bout that. Those were my main sources until I found better material. In most cases those other sources were based in the two main works: "Matsui, Kenji . 1993. The History of Shindo Muso Ryu Jojutsu") and ("Pascal Krieger Jodô - la voie du bâton"). I think I can remove a few sources as they are reduntant and doesn't offer anything not already said in the above works. I'll get right on it as soon as I get back home from work. Fred26 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy - I now Strongly support.Peter Rehse 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's very close to GA, but I would like to see the following things addressed:
  • Consistency with WP:MOS-JP for terms and names of people.
  • Less use of Japanese terms in discussion (Japanese terms should be indicated parenthetically, and used as little as possible - this overlaps with the previous issue)
  • The whole page needs to be moved to Shintō Musō-ryū or Shindō Musō-ryū, depending on which one is more widely used. So moved including the related articles - the old names of course are kept as redirects.Peter Rehse 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if the citations used the "ref" form, but I guess that's not mandatory as long as all references are consistent.

I would be inclined to support if these are addressed, and I'll do some copyediting myself to help out. Bradford44 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree fully. I'm lacking in those areas (japanese names and terms). I'd apreciate any help.
• A move to Shintō Musō-ryū sounds good. I recommend we choose "Shinto" instead of "Shindo" as the former gets more results in google/altavista. MovedPeter Rehse 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here I must admitt my lacking again. "Ref", not sure exactly what you mean I should do instead of the current reference-code. ~

Give the word and I'll fix the stuff I'm able. (naming might be trickier) Oh, please keep in mind that "History of SMR" sub-acticle is still not synched with my latest Shinto Muso-ryu article revamp & sourcing. I still haven't started as I wished to finish here first. I would ask it isnt recommended for peer review until I get the source-tags and other things in order.Fred26 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also nominate "History of SMR" for GA-status yourself - in fact why don't we just leave that to you since you seem on top of things. I would still wait until the GA process is complete for this article to see what other comments pop up. I would also not forget Shintō Musō-ryū Jo Kata - the third article in the series - which has similar problems. Fix those problems there and add a pici and it is at least a good B.Peter Rehse 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update. I've finished with the restructoring of the references section. I also removed the extended information in each of the "ref". I used to use this box for every ref-tag:

"ref name="CWTJ">Matsui, Kenji . 1993. The History of Shindo Muso Ryu Jojutsu, translated by Hunter Armstrong (Kamuela, HI: International Hoplological Society)</ref".

But now instead I use the buttoned down version:

"ref name="CWTJ">#1</ref" ("<" and ">" removed for show). I honestly didn't know bout the short version until a few weeks ago hehe :). Fred26 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Notable Shinto Muso-ryu practitioners subsection the inline links should be converted to in line references.Peter Rehse 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also played a few games with the note and references to avoid external link pointers in the reference list and also that the numbers should come behind punctuation.Peter Rehse 09:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The infobox (and to a lesser extent, related parts of the article) is extremely confusing to someone like myself, with no independant knowledge of SMR. Are the ryu listed in the infobox practiced by SMR, or just the arts originally taught by those ryu? At class, does the SMR instructor say, "today we're practicing Isshin-ryu", or does he say, "today, we're practicing kusarigamajutsu"? Finally, how is the odachi listed as a weapon practiced under the umbrella of jojutsu, tanjojutsu, kusarigamajutsu, and juttejutsu? The infobox should be an extremely direct and simplified way of summarizing information - this is very confusing. Check out the box at Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu, it is a good example of how it should be done. Bradford44 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well..my teacher usually say: "Lets train some tanjo" or "lets train some kenjutsu". The main point I was trying to make in the info-box entry on "isshin-ryu" (and so on), was the name of the assimilated ryu which is trained. Katori Shinto-ryus different arts, kenjutsu, iaijutsu and so on, are not "auxiliary arts", they are not a "ryu". All of the auxiliary arts of Shinto Muso-ryu were independant ryu that were adopted into SMR and that is, I believe an important piece of info to add, though I obviously didnt want to make it more confusing than informative. That was the point I was trying to make in the info-box: "SMR teaches kusarigamajutsu, specifically the Isshin-ryu school of kusarigamajutsu" .I failed obviously to make it clear. :-). I also wanted to describe what weapons are used. Example: a spear is used against the kusarigama in some kata so I added the yari as weapon. But anyways, I can see how it is confusing. I'll get right on it.

Oh, by the way, I'm the original developer of this type of info-box as found in the SMR, Katori, Jikishinkage-ryu, Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu, Kashima Shinto-ryu, Kashima Shinryu and prolly some others. :-).Fred26 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've never seen the term "shihanke" used before. The article uses it very frequently but never defines it. This should be corrected, and a suitable English word should be used instead, if practical. Also, what kanji does it use? 師範家? Like an amalgam of Shihan and Soke, meaning the "model/expert teacher of the house"? Bradford44 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shihanke was a term I picked up from a fellow Jodoka over a year back and he and his jo-group used that definition to describe Shimizu and Shiraishi, and it stuck on me since it was a bit of taboo to call either "headmaster". Soke is out of the question as well. Shihanke does exist though: [1]. In any case, I used it until I could find better (english) word which doesn't mean headmaster but still a senior position. Fred26 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Also, the article needs to be internally consistent as to the use of jodo and jojutsu. First, which one does Shinto Muso-ryu practice? If it used to practice jodo, but now practices jojutsu, this should be made clear. Right now, the terms are used nearly interchangably. If the terms are in fact interchangable, that's fine, but then that should be made clear, and whichever is used the most should be used thereafter.

Bradford44 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah..Yeh, jodo and jojutsu are used interchangeably and I'll take steps to make i clear in the article(s). To be honest even within the SMR community it is a bit tricky since SMR-Jo has no single leader or org. That means every org has their own definition. I believe the Kyushu Jo-groups frequently referrs to the art as "jojutsu", while Shimizu-lines usually referrs to it as "jodo" as it was Shimizu Takaji who first named the art "Jodo" from the old "Jojutsu".Kinda like how Iaido, Judo and Aikido came to be. It was in the spirit of the times: A new age with more "do" than "jutsu". I was diplomatic when I named "Shintō Musō-ryū Jo Kata", (instead of Jodo or Jojutsu just "jo"). Anyways, I'll make this issue more clear in the article. Thanks for your input, I apreciate any help I can get to make this a good article. Fred26 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that all the concerns have been addressed. Please take another look and add any further or unaddressed concerns.Peter Rehse 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I still have to fix the info-box and the concerns voiced by Bradford44. Fred26 07:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some modifications on the info-box. Hopefully it makes more sense now. Fred26 08:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, besides the stuff I mentioned I'd fix even before the GA-nomination I'm pleased with the current version of the SMR main-article. The info-box looks acceptable. Fred26 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's still too listy for my taste. I think some of the lists should be rewritten in prose form (such as pretty much every list under the "Grades - new and classical" section). Also, maybe the lists of techniques, stances, and organizations. Consider that if you don't have enough to say about the stuff in the list to be able to rewrite it in prose form, then perhaps the information isn't interesting or notable enough for inclusion in the article. On the other hand, I invite you to convince me that I'm wrong - I'm otherwise very close to supporting GA status. Bradford44 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding organisations My first reaction, in accord with what I mentioned earlier bout the Organisations section lacking, is to delete that section from the article until I can (off-site) put together enough material to MAKE it interesting.

Regarding stances. I've been wondering bout the value meself after going through the article these past weeks with more scrutiny. The sword-kamae is fairly general and not very unique. The Jo-kamae is of course unique, but prolly meaningless to the average reader with no knowledge of the system since no descriptions are included..And I see no reason to include descriptions of the kamae itself. I'll delete that paragraph.

Regarding the gradings. I think I have an idea of what you mean with writing it in "prose". I'll get on it.

Regarding techniques The list of techniques I see no reason to remove. Kamae, yes. Techniques, no. The kihon is a pillar of the Shinto Muso-ryu system. No it wasnt part of the original densho, but it is used to teach valueble lessons in distance, timing and not to forget the opportunity to train techniques before performing them in a complex kata. If I remove the list of techniques then whats the point in having an article with the list of Jo-kata? I have no intention of removing that one either. If this costs the article your GA-vote then thats the way it is. If you feel a description is necessary for each of the kihon then all I can say is that I cannot create individual descriptions of the kata and kihon in the allowed time. Fred26 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to promote. I think there has been good discussion and the points addressed. I am sure that the main author will address the few outstanding issues shortly but a) the nomination has been out there long enough and b) the article is well within the GA-criterea. The next step of course is peer review in I would say at least a months time (longer if the article changes significantly) before promotion to A-class or higher. With respect to the related articles the authors are encouraged to self-nominate when they are ready.Peter Rehse 12:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "notable practitioners"

I just had a thought. One of the main (original) reasons for having a notable practitioners section was to simply point a finger at individuals who practiced Jodo and were in one case or another, "noticable". Nakayama Hakudo is definietly a noticable person in the world of Budo. Donn Draeger likewise. But along the way I have (inadvertedly) modified it as to include high-rankers within the SMR with their own organisations. I think that perhaps I should infuse those entries into the lack-luster "Organisations"-section of the SMR-article and thus kill two birds in one stone. I still dont have a working idea since I still havent got all the materials I've been putting together for the expansion I promised earlier. But that is just a matter of time.

And as a continuation of that thought: I could put together sort of lineage chart for the organisations as they are today. It would be a version of the lineage-chart found in the History of SMR-article but would include how all these modern orgs trace their lineage back to Shiraishi Hanjiro, Uchida Ryogoro and so on. That may be overkill though, but I'll check to see if it is practical. Fred26 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I havent forgotten the improvment

Sorry if things have moved slow but I've been taking a mini-break from wiki after the latest push I made. I'll get right on the finshing touches on this article (the issues we have discussed so far) as soon as possible. Fred26 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)