Talk:Ashida Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ashida Kim article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Ashida Kim, has edited Wikipedia as
Ashida Kim (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
This article was nominated for deletion three times: September 18, 2005 (keep), October 4, 2005 (keep), and May 29, 2007 (keep).
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Kim Vs *****

Which should be used during the article, as one is an alias? --Nate 14:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's popularly known and published as Ashida Kim, but there's strong evidence suggesting his actual name is ******* *****. I think the article as it stands with the mention of the evidence for "******* *****" is good. --Scb steve 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There are also images of "Ashida Kim" endorsing products, if you look at his supposed image; there is no way he decends from the Japanese lineage that he claims. My cat looks more Asian than he does. Fortunately those who are serious about martial arts simply laugh at him and look the other way. However it would be possibly a good idea to put up one of the endorsement images, which isn't the classic masked view of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.78.172.74 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Its obvious he isn't asian, ashida is a japanese name and kim is korean..... strange how he got that mixed up LOL.KungFurules (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube "Fight" Video?

Anyone know the story on [http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lkx3UWo-k68 this? Should it be referenced in the article? I'm rather suspicious myself. --GenkiNeko 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What would it add to the article, even if we could prove that it was Kim behind the mask? Blast 06.04.07 1201 (UTC)

[edit] Take down the contrversy

we should take out he conreversey I read ashidas website and apparently he is upset we should respect him and do this out of common courtesy.~~

That is not how Wikipedia operates. wikipediatrix 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact i think this article goes way too easy on him. Rebavi may 18 2007

"we should take out he conreversey I read ashidas website and apparently he is upset we should respect him and do this out of common courtesy.~~" He is the one whos disrespectful, talking with a high point of bias, so why should we shift our view from neutral in his favor?KungFurules (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock it so it CANNOT BE EDITED

[Unsourced attacks on a BLP deleted by Andjam (talk)] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.166.243 (talk • contribs).

I see you care about this issue a great deal, which is a good thing. Please note, though, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for anti-scammer crusades. Rest assured that we will do our best to document everything about Ashida Kim that is verifiable and reliably sourced, regardless of whether these cast him in a positive or negative light. If you want to help, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and help us find reliable sources about Ashida Kim and his activities.
One more thing: when you add a comment to a talk page, please add four tildes (~~~~) to the end. That will add your signature, so we know who we're talking to. Thanks, and hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. :) --Ashenai 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[More unsourced attacks on a BLP deleted by Andjam (talk)]

-

I know Wikipedia is not about stopping scams. But this guy is WIDELY known [attacks deleted by Andjam (talk)]. There are other Martial Artists who have their claims challenged on their Wiki page. Such as Frank Dux and his deathmatches.

So post the real stuff about Ashida Kim and then lock the page so his followers cannot edit it back.

Please consider these points.

- Shaun McLorie -

[Attacks on a BLP deleted by Andjam (talk)]

I symathize with your point of view, but that in and of itself is exactly the problem. It's a 'point of view'. We're not allowed to post material biased to one side or another, no matter what. If you could provide sources for these statements and work them into the text while remaining perfectly neutral (that's going to be very hard) then I don't see a problem. Remember to keep everything NPOV (see WP:NPOV). Best regards.--Song 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify

From the challenge link:

Fifth, Ashida Kim will be declared the winner in the event of a 5-second pinfall, submission by the opponent using matte or pat-out, if the opponent is unable to answer the bell, if the opponent is knocked out or rendered unconscious by a choke or stranglehold for a standard referee's 10-count, if the Ringside Physician determines he is unable to continue, if he fails to appear for the match, or is disqualified for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Note the lack of any win conditions for the challenger, possibly jut bad phrasing but still... --Nate1481( t/c) 10:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That'd be a bit too original research-ish. Andjam (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshidoka

The info box at the top of the article used to indicate that Kim's occupation is Bullshidoka. This is derogatory and probably libelous. The Bullshido article indicates that it is "a derogatory term". Although Kim is described as such by his critics, it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to use this sort of judgemental, slang term to describe him in a summary.

I removed it last night, but my change was reverted. The editor did not feel that Bullshidoka was derogatory. I hope that this was a misunderstanding. I'm removing it again now. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions aside; I have to agree it doesn't belong in the info box unless it can be sourced, simply based on WP:BLP. It dose however belong in the see also section. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Last time I checked court documents were classed as reliable sources, Replaced the rest as the removal of all critical material would promote a single POV not a neutral one. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition some of the other sources are to the subjects website and other websites are primary sources, being more akin to evidence, so and so says this on the their website, go here to read it. The points sourced this way are specifically phrased as such, "Samuel Browning, in an article[4] published on Bullshido.net, draws the conclusions that Kim's real name is Radford W. Davis," a primary source can support this type of statement. If anything the edits made the article more problematic leaving the line, "Ashida Kim's writings and statements have made him a controversial figure in the martial arts community, and have led parties to scrutinize his background." Completely unsourced or supported.

Please also not this article has been subject to AfD before and survived, see above. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ashida_Kim Thedarxide (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policy says that court documents and other primary sources shouldn't be used, unless a third party reliable source also mentions the details (and bullshido.net doesn't qualify). Andjam (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a NPOV

This guy may be a douche bag but, the article needs to be balanced out with material that describes his early life, training, and actual accomplishments (if any). I realize that people don't know who he is, which makes the requested material hard. But WP:NPOV calls for neutrality in all articles. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why it is rather key, to know he is, the only other solution is re-riting it as an articel about a pen name used buy an 'unknown' author, in fact as their is no evidence that a real person called Ashida Kim exists I think I may do that. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In which case I think the court documents should be re-introduced to support pseudonym. Thedarxide (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It ends up in something of a Catch-22; "You cannot use certain sources in a BLP article, but without them the article becomes one about a pseudonym not a person so, they can be used to prove who he is." Interesting. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Biographies of living people apply even if the person is referred to by his pseudonym, rather than by his real name. Andjam (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Which would apply if I hadn't changed the article to be about the pseudonym, as this is not a case where information on what school a 5 year old Ashida Kim wen to, as there has never been a 5 year old Ashida Kim. The key problem is that the article cannot be neutral if you do not know who you are talking about, you can only talk about the celebrity not the background, and as you refuse to accept that a fact can be primary sourced ever you have a problem --Nate1481(t/c) 14:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want the article deleted, be my guest, and carry on your crusade against him on bullshido.net Andjam (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth, the tag is appropriate if you insist on removing sourced critical material to balance the article. Its getting very hard to assume good faith if you slap a speedy deletion template on article which as been though AfD 3 times & kept, it is seeming more and more like someone tying to promote a pov & disliking a sourced negative article. I would also point out that if you actually read the talk page you would see, I have removed unsourced negative comments regardless of 'My view that the individual(Radford Davis) who uses the alias Ashida Kim is a fraud who tries to scam people into believing he is a ninja. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with part of the article

Academy - block quoting is bad practice IMO. But I'm not too fussed.

Paladin Press lawsuit - uses primary source, rather than a third-party reliable source. This is against WP:BLP.

Black dragon lawsuit - no third-party reliable source coverage supplied.

S*** List - no third-party reliable source coverage supplied.

$10,000 challenge - no third-party reliable source coverage supplied. Bullshido.net does not qualify - it's a self-publishing site.

Monkey Steals the Peach - undue weight. Maybe if a third-party reliable source mocked it, it'd be more suitable. Speculating on white monkey steals the peach is original research.

See also - subtly implies that the living person is a fraud. Andjam (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that third-party reliable sources are required for everything? If somebody's website says, "ZOMG MY ASTRAL SPIES WILL KILL JIMBO," of course we can report that. <eleland/talkedits> 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Because people with self-publishing/blog websites can claim anything. I would rather read it in a magazine or newspaper. I know they are not always the most reputable, but it's better than the internet. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
To be clear; I would agree that BoingBoing and Digg and Bullshido.net are totally useless as sources for this article. I'm talking about the things that appear on Kim's own website and in his own books. Those are suitable sources in my opinion. <eleland/talkedits> 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Using bullshido, to source that bullshido published something is not 'usless' its simply proof--Nate1481(t/c) 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The article is on Ashida Kim, not bullshido.net. A third party reliable source hasn't reported on the comments by bullshido.net. Look at it this way - if I said on my blog that Ashida Kim was really George Bush, and then wrote in the Ashida Kim wikipedia article that "Andjam reckons that Ashida Kim is really George Bush", and I "proved" this by linking to my blog post, you wouldn't regard that as relevant, would you? You might be of the opinion that bullshido.net is more reliable than my blog, but as far as Wikipedia's concerned, they both aren't reliable sources, as they're both user generated content. Andjam (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The subtle difference is that the article on bullshido was a) not a blog, b) sourced, also If your blog was prominent & people might care about your opinion yes. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a shame that the link about 'Ashida Kim' was though innapropriate. Sometimes peole are not good people and are acting in a fraudulent manner. If counter point to his character is not allowed then that stinks as far as neutralkity is concerned 29/4/08 ~~pendodecahedron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendodecahedron (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale deletion is not what BLP calls for

Twice, the section "Monkey Steals the Peach" has been deleted, with no good reason provided. The section is sourced and uncontroversial, so it doesn't have the same BLP concerns as some other parts of the article. WP:UNDUE was used as a justification in the first deletion, however, the section doesn't present anything that could be called a minority viewpoint (as in a claim that contradicts what the majority believe), and this particular move is probably, for a large portion of readers, the only aspect of the subject with which they are familiar, given its minor internet meme status. This gives it huge significance as context. Therefore, evoking WP:UNDUE is practically a non-sequitur. If there's a real problem with this section, I'd love to hear it, but so far this just seems like overzealous BLP trolling. — Swpbtalk.edits 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing is poor in that it consists of mindless-link-propagation articles on social bookmarking websites. That doesn't prove that the "monkey steals the peach meme" is actually worthy of mention. For that we would need a source with some editorial control and fact-checking. <eleland/talkedits> 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name issue

For someone who has chosen to use a pseudonym, it is not acceptable to dig up legal documents and republicize their real name based on those documents, unless there is a clear and unambiguous encyclopedic need to do so, or that real name has also been used in reliable secondary sources. I don't see any compelling purpose for it here, so I have removed it. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to do a public records search to find something out about someone, it doesn't belong in their Wikipedia biography. Wikipedia is not for investigative journalism. FCYTravis (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline under WP:BLP1E refers to persons mentioned only in the context of a single event, not to persons with a whole biography on Wikipedia. Pulling up a document in a public database of court documents is hardly "investigative journalism" in any case. Kim's true identity is a matter of interest and controversy, as documented in this article, and so there's no good reason to omit the court filings which give his name. I mean, he signed them "****** *****" himself! <eleland/talkedits> 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Who was referring to WP:BLP1E? Have you bothered to look at WP:BLP, which does argue against using primary sources? Andjam (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"******* *****". I don't know whether you're afraid of "astral spies and occult guards" or phantom groundless lawsuits, and I don't care. Don't censor my comments, either way. <eleland/talkedits> 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about astral spies, only wikipedia's policies. I'd only be censoring you if wikipedia is a forum for unrestricted free speech, which wikipedia is not. Wikipedia policies apply to all pages, not just article space, and you can see wikipedia's policies on using primary sources. For example, someone recently put the physical address of Aqsa Parvez's family on the article page, and that edit was oversighted. If it had been on the talk page, it'd similarly have to be oversighted. If you think I'm overzealous (and maybe I am after what happened with Aqsa Parvez), you could ask for another opinion on the Biography of Living Person's noticeboard. Andjam (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've asked on the BLP noticeboard in the Ashida Kim thread. Andjam (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Sorry for not linking to the biography of living persons noticeboard thread in the first place. Andjam (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the Ashida Kim thread via the BLP tag placed on the main article. There is no reason to apologize. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Andjam; Thankyou.
Ghostexorcist; The tag was only added after the article had been heavily edited and reverted. and the debate was started. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S*** list

It seems to have been taken of the main site to I have added a copy from the internet archive. I have also added a comment that it was taken down before the criteria stated were fulfilled (most pointedly as this article is still here) but also as the Bullshido threads are still up, I have linked them to source this. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While true, isn't it a bit OR-ish? Andjam (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reading the policy it asks for sources, I can see why it's borderline but the line "The standard is verifiability not truth" implies that if it can be verified it is reasonable. One problem is that the article has, in part, become part of its subject. Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid notes that the Seigenthaler incident] has it's own article and while this is on a much smaller scale, death threats to Jimbo Wales that were made do make it worth of a mention. As to the taking down section, both the fact that it's gone and that it stated it wouldn't are effectively sourced from the subject, while the fact the article is here means that the conditions were not full filled. Similarly linking the Bullshido threads verifies that they still exist, the articles are mentioned (not by name) in the archived version of the list, meaning that the author brought them into the arena, and not on a small scale. Not including the response would be to bias the article against those on the list as it would only portray the author's version. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "the standard is verifiability not truth" merely means that we cite what reliable sources say, not what we ourselves think is the truth. It doesn't mean that we include every fact that is verified somewhere, as Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Also, I still think what you're advocating is original research. In addition, your statement "would be to bias the article against those on the list as it would only portray the author's version." is a false accusation I'd like you to withdraw. If I had my way, I'd remove all mention of the S-list, as opposed to only mentioning the original posting by Kim. Andjam (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on that section of WP:NOT is just not relevent. I can only assume you are referring to point 5 and as the shit list is relevant so is its removal; requesting a boycott of publishers? suggesting violence against people? both relevent to someone who is largely an internet personality and author! I would also like to state that I have not accused any of the current editors of anything, the closest I have come is to say that their actions seemed questionable, and that was several weeks ago. I stated that we should be careful to avoid being biased, Just to clarify by 'author' I meant Kim/Davis/Hunter not any of the current editors.--Nate1481(t/c) 10:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I'll be removing the NPOV and BLP warning tags next week unless someone objects. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given it another once-over and made a few tweaks. The text seems to be NPOV and in line with BLP policies as it stands. <eleland/talkedits> 13:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say 'Tweek' is misleading when you deleted half a paragraph. I have reinstated it as I do not see how it fails NPOV or BLP as is verification of existence on the one of them; similar to saying such and such won this race, and linking to the official results, and common knowledge (sense?) on the other, as they are reading the relevent article, argue Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid if you want but come on! It also seems reasonable to include some mention of how Phrost ended up on the Shit list. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Reworded as more of a report of facts, better? --Nate1481(t/c) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Bullshido.net forum postings are not and will never be reliable sources, for any purpose. Juxtaposing Kim's updated version of his essay with the continued existence of the WP and Bullshido articles is original synthesis and an unnecessary self-reference to Wikipedia.
Look, I have no doubt that R.D. is full of it; I've seen the YouTube video where he leans back on his ass and pretend he's levitating. The point is that WP has policies and we don't relax them even when the subject of an article oh-so-richly deserves our ridicule. Take that stuff to Encyclopedia Dramatica. This article has to be limited to facts which are attested in reliable published sources, not just facts period. See WP:TRUTH. Sorry. <eleland/talkedits> 05:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Quick point; the things listed are articles on Bullshido (look in the articles sections) that have been written reviewed and then published, comments on these articles are then allowed. I am not asking anyone to relax policies, I am just asking that evidence be accepted as a source, showing that something is fact surely means it then falls under common knowledge, i.e. the source allows anyone who wants to know to see that the Bullshido articles still exist, which is relevent. I will re word the self reference.--Nate1481(t/c) 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The self-ref is fixed I think --Nate1481(t/c) 10:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)