Talk:Keichu Do

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Hi - I'm the guy who originally suggested the Keichu Do be deleted. I did a bit of fix up with regrad to wikification and requirements/suggestions of the martial arts project (see the links in the box above). One of the things is an overuse of titles especially those from unacredited universities and frankly soke mills. In any case Wikipedia frowns on the use of martial arts titles so the removal (which I did) gets rid of much of that problem. The other thing that could be improved is a bit more emphasis on notability. Where the art is practiced by how many, etc.

Please don't be offended but what probably got my hackles up in the first place is the impression that this was yet another Soke, PhD, Reverand, 10th Dan American Karate system. There are so many of them. When you revise the article - please keep that in mind.

I hope this helps more than hinders and please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. CheersPeter Rehse 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tons of Questions!

Can soemone tell me why this notice has not been updated or deleted? It has been nearly a year since it was originally posted and a lot of changes and updating has been performed on the article it refers to. I understand that the editors of this site are very busy individuals. However this notice is continually being used as motivation to keep placing tags on the article. I contacted Mr. Herse (sorry if I spelled your name wrong) asking how to do the in-ste citation (I beleive that is the newest requirement that the article is facing). I tried to read all the information that the site has on the subject. I am sorry it was to much for me to handle at the time and it did not make much sense to me either...

Can someone please explain to me exactly what it is that is meant by original research?

And please explain to me why the articles have to be linked to information found on this site to be considered accurate?

Thanks for any help you may be able to provide, Quo tsv 13:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)quo_tsv

Read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes, WP:NOR, and WP:V. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-12t21:01z

That is really all that needs to be done to meet the requirements for in-text citation? Does it have to be referrences to Wiki information or can it come from other sites? Quo tsv 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussing why a source is invalid

Hi,

I am sorry that I did not offer a chance for discussion over the removal of the reference to Bullshido.

First and fore most my desire to have Bullshido removed as a none valid source of reliable information has nothing to do with my opinions of whether or not I like or dislike the site. Nor is it blanketing, it was a very pointed removal.

In the case that you can find a statement from Karl William Marx Sr. admitting that he does not have ph.ds and apologizing to everyone for the possibility of accidentally misleading anyone. Then fine, I would not object in the least.

However on Mr. Marx's web-site there is information that will allow individuals to contact him and ask him themselves. As well I will ask him to consider putting up a statement about his ph.ds on his site. This is not a secret, Mr. Marx was robbed and deceived by seemingly fraudulent organizations. Thanks to a few members of Bullshido and another site the information that his ph.ds may have come from 'diploma mills', lead him to investigate the possibility for himself and uncover the truth for himself.

However! By far and wide most of what I have seen is the expression of opinion and the expression of ideological differences. Meaning that statements, that once stripped of all the bluster really just say I don't like this style because I am not interested in it/ I don't agree with it. There are a great many people who do not value the activities and opinions of those who present themselves as moderators of the martial arts on Bullshido. Not only this but how opinions and information is presented. Rude, vulgar and offensive language and images await anyone who signs onto that site. I am sure that you have underage users that depend on your site to provide research material. Now here is a link to a site that is presented as a factual and unbiased source of honest information on dishonest martial artist and schools. And what they end up finding is pictures that should have mature to XXX ratings and highly offensive language! Not the type of link that I would want a child to come across. When I was last on there, the picture that is put up as avatar for those who are banned shows one man on his back with another guy at his feet punching in between his legs. Whether the second guy is hitting the first in his private parts or somewhere else is uncertain, and a unnecessary point.

You can not call opinion fact, nor can you call opinion unbiased. If it is to show evidence of Mr. Marx's admittance and apologies over the Ph.D.'s, then I would not have deleted the link. I had suspected that Nate1481 was a member of Bullshido, and it did not take no more than a few seconds to click over to his user page to discover that he is indeed a member of that site. Considering that anyone who considers themselves as members of Bullshido has stood in opposition to Keichu and Mr. Marx, it would only be natural and logical to think that Mr. Nate may very well be one of those individuals. If he is not then he has my full apologies for doubting his well meant intentions. If he is one who has stood opposition to Keichu then it is highly suspect that his intentions might not have been all that sincere (One of these days I will learn to spell, if that is wrong then I am sorry.)

Seeing that the only way for a person, who does not receive updates from Bullshido, can see any of the information in the articles is to become a member and then look through the entire article, it would seem that there is intent to bring to light information that would not be allowed on Wikipedia as part of one of your articles.

Honestly what does Mr. Marx looking like Santa have to with anything? How could you possibly consider this an honest attempt at valid research? Or how about the expression of negative stereo types toward the Cajun Culture show anything but the bigotry of the person expressing the opinion? There was even a reference to the fact that if you switch a couple of letters around Santa quickly becomes Satan. What an implication! This, however, is the least of the damage that Bullshido has the potential to do.

There has in some cases been valid points, for example the Ph.D's. And even then it was automatically assumed, and EXPRESSED as much, that Mr. Marx sought to attain fraudulent degrees to raise others opinions of himself. This sentiment, of slander, prevailed even after Mr. Marx found out for himself that it does actually seem that he was deceived by the institutes he trusted. Then openly stated as much and apologized for any harm that his being deceived may have caused.

From my experience it would seem that, for the most part, Bullshido is about as valid a source of information as a .50 cent market tabloid. In fact one of the members openly expressed that they were a liar and purposely set out to deceive others. This statement does not reflect all members of Bullshido nor does it represent my opinion of the supposed mission of Bullshido. It does represent the vast majority of what I had been exposed to.

That link has no place anywhere in the Keichu-Do article. If I had a site that had all age ranges using it, I would not want any links to any site that contributes to the delinquency of minors. That of course is my opinion and unfortunatly it is not one I can keep quiet. Whether they are right or wrong with their opinions is non of my concerns. I have been a student of Keichu-Do and several other arts. I have found that Keichu-Do has been a valuable asset to me through out my life. You will never hear Mr. Marx say that Keichu is for everyone, and that there is nothing out there better than Keichu. You will hear him tell you the truth, we do not hide anything and are up front with any information. As humans we make mistakes and it has been my experience that when a mistake is made and pointed out it is addressed, corrected if possible, and apologised for.

I am going to erase that link again, I will continue this discusion with anyone and everyone who is interested and thinks that there may be a valid reason to keep it on there. If it turns out that Bullshido is the only means to attain a statement of recognition, correction, and apologies then I will personally put the link back on. Until then I stand by, and will continue to say "that link has no business here".

Best of wishes to all of you. May God Bless and keep you all, quo_tsv 02:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am the user who requested you talk about the sourcing of Bullshido links.
I thank you for taking the time to do so.
However, I feel that you do not present any valid reason that the Bullshido link should not be used in this article. Assuming Good Faith....as is Wikipedia policy I present the following rebuttals to the points you mention.
1. If you took the time to read the thread in question you would see the detailed correspondence between Marx/His representative and Bullshido user Samurai Steve/Judah Maccabee. In this, if memory serves, Marx/His representative openly admit the possibilty that Marx has been duped regarding his qualifications and that the research done into the institutions reveals their lack of credibility.
2. Based on my understanding of the situation, all of the work was done by members of Bullshido. If some other site also contributed to revealing Marx's qualifications as false then I'm sure Bullshido, as well as myself, would be interested in seeing the research (properly timestamped of course) that shows this. According to the correspondence I have read it was not a case of Bullshido bringing concerns to light and Marx uncovering the truth for himself, it was Bullshido bringing irrefutable evidence to light and Marx not being able to dodge the issue.
3. Language and actions that are deemed as rude by you frankly do not concern myself or Wikipedia. There are plenty of things accessible through this encyclopaedia that are unsuitable for minors, it still does not prevent their admittance here. I would not want a child finding out that a teacher he idolised has potentially lied about his qualifications, however the facts as uncovered by the Bullshido site stand. This encyclopaedia has a basis in fact sir, not pretty or digestible lies. If you care to refute the findings of Bullshido I suggest you do in the relevant arena, not remove proof of facts because the site on which they are presented offends your personal morals.
4. Your attempts to paint user Nate1481 in a bad light will not wash. If you'd look in his profile you'd see he states his position as a member of Bullshido. Nate has not attempted to obsfucate the facts, just present pertinent data as is required by Wikipedia. If you find his wording disingenuous I'd suggest you find a way to present it that achieves consensus, the overriding principle of Wikipedia, not revert the edit due to your dislike of the subject matter, site or user.
5. One does not have to become a member to read threads at Bullshido.net. Your attempt to discredit the source in this manner is provably false with a simple click on the site. Also you do not need to be a member to access the .com or .org sections of the site.
6. Marx's intentions or motives surrounding the false qualifications are not for discussion on Wikipedia. It has not been verified that he intentionally sought dishonest qualifications and therefore such information will be changed if put here. However the fact that he has held unaccredited qualifications is a fact, as is the fact that he has claimed they are genuine for a number of years. Whether he did this because he honestly believed they were genuine or for some other motive is not up for debate. The fact, brought to light by Bullshido, that his qualifications are questionable is not in dispute.
7. Your opinion on the validity of the Bullshido information is just that, your opinion. Bullshido has shown itself as a valid source of information regarding the Ashida Kim saga as well as the federal court case surrounding Race Bannon, I suggest you read the Bullshido page if you are unfamiliar with these cases.
8. I congratulate you for stating your own interests, namely that you are a student of Marx. Like Nate1481 did, this is a useful tool in seeing the inherent bias and interests of people editing the article.
9. I have already reverted the page in question. I thank you for your response but cannot see any reason why the link is not a valid one in this article. If Marx and his system are notable enough to warrant a wiki article then the link is notable enough to supply evidence about said person.
10. You state that Bullshido has slandered Marx. If you have any legal challenge against Bullshido I suggest you make it. Editing this article can be put on hold as it was in the Konigun article until such a legal challenge is resolved. I suggest you read the wiki article on slander, you cannot slander someone on the internet. The term you are searching for is libel.
Regards Iscariot 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Iscariot has covered several points I would have made. But I'll address others.
First, the possibility that Bullshido.net is a "profane, vulgar place" is completely irrelevent as to whether it should remain in the article. The key issue here is if it's a link to reliable, verifiable information that is pertinent to the article at hand. In fact, the link you're deleting is to an encyclopedic article on Marx that is devoid of any vulgar elements. Even if that were a factor in removing links from Wikipedia, there wouldn't be any problem on those grounds.
Second, Marx is entitled to make any statement he likes concerning his Ph.D's. However, the fact of the matter is that he laid claim to several academic credentials that did not stand up to scrutiny - this is notable and merits inclusion in this article. As does his student's claim that Keichu-Do was the official martial art of Louisiana, as well as an article that stated there was a state holiday for Keichu-Do.
The only conceivable reason that one would want to delete the link from this article is to try to prevent others from seeing the Bullshido investigation into Marx. --Scb steve 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS for Wikipedia's requirements for sources. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-19t18:14z —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain where this article has run afoul of those guidelines? --Scb steve 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS#Self-published sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details." -- Jeandré, 2007-09-23t14:30z —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Still not seeing any problem. The information from Bullshido is based on first-hand accounts from Marx (his emails), Marx's own writings, or contacts with authorities regarding Marx's claims about Keichu-do. No different than consulting official government sources on a topic and reporting the outcomes. --Scb steve 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Emails do not qualify unless they're republished by reliable published sources. If the other information qualifies it can be used as references in the Wikipedia article. Primary sources need secondary sources indicating notability. -- Jeandré, 2007-09-24t21:07z
Iscariot,
Thank you for taking the time to make the above rebuttals. There seems to be a dividing line on the nature and acceptability of Bullshido. It seems that only those who participate on it, as in those who have matching interest and views, agree that the contents are fair/ accurate and acceptable no matter the discretionary content. Then there seems to be a vast majority who find the site and the content highly objectionable. If the contents are questioned in the least, if the sites integrity is in question then it should be stated and made clear that there is at least some concern as to the sites reliability.
1. After reading your rebuttal I managed to find and read the article, comments are as written below. Does Mr. Steve operate under both of those names on Bullshido? Such recognition as to the possibility of Mr. Marx being 'duped' was made by Mr. Marx and his representatives. It was not made nor, if I remember correctly, recognized by all members of Bullshido. Which indicates that they are still standing by their opinion on the matter. Which is that he is an intentional liar and deceiver
2. While Mr. Marx's education was called into question by members of Bullshido, it is not due to their participation that Mr. Marx began to investigate the claims made about the institutes. If I remember correctly the investigating members of Bullshido were very back and forth on the matter. Some said that the institutes were non-accredited and diploma mills. Others could not find them at all, and yet there were (if I remember correctly) members of Bullshido who actually found that they were accredited. The site that actually spurred Mr. Marx to look into the status of the schools that he attended was e-budo. Which had more to do with their approach of the situation, in the beginning, than anything else. "...and Marx not being able to dodge the issue." Even now we can not escape the insinuations that he is some sort of liar, whose only purpose in life is to be as deceitful as possible. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Marx has not hid from any allegation and has done just about everything within his ability to help resolve this issue.
3. "Language and actions that are deemed as rude by you frankly do not concern myself or Wikipedia...." In no way am I or do I under-value you as a person. But much like your concern for others opinions, such is returned to you when your's are found to be in negative light and nature. Since you have spoken on behalf of the site can you clarify, are you an official spokes person for Wikipedia? And could you help clarify something for me? Are you also a member of Bullshido, unlike the other member who is a member of Wiki. and Bullshido, I could not find a members page on you but the name you use does appear on both sites... Then do you not think that some sensor out there would be interested that there is no disclaimer concerning the links to inappropriate sites? I am sure that there are a LOT of parents out there that would have cause for concern to know that such a reputable on-line encyclopedia is unconcerned to the corruption of their children. "I would not want a child finding out that a teacher he idolized has potentially lied about his qualifications,..." Could you explain this? The results do not out weigh the methods. There are other ways of attaining the same information that Bullshido seemingly blundered over, than by the methods they used. Immorality no matter how small is not excused because of the results that it gets. Refute has been given in appropriate arenas and it has done about as much good as not saying anything at all. I highly doubt that saying that Mr. Marx looks like Santa, and that Santa respelled is Satan, is irrefutable fact as to Mr. Marx's person/ persona/ character or whatever other term could be used to describe an individuals personality attributes. My personal morals have little to do with my objections to the use of Bullshido as reliable fact. I can not remember but I am sure I made that clear in my original explanation.
4. I was in no way attempting to "...paint user Nate1481 in a bad light...". It seems a conflict of interest to have a member of Bullshido, whom if I remember correctly was one of those whom stands in direct opposition to Keichu and Mr. Marx, as an editing member of the Keichu article on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with Nate1481's character. Since I do not have any knowledge of Nate1481 I would not insinuate against his Character. If you had read a little more carefully you would have noticed that I attempted to say that I noticed that he was a member of Bullshido after clicking over to his user page on Wikipedia. If I did not say so in the above posting, I am sorry, but I wanted to thank Nate1481 for the work he has done. As, when I added an additional statement to clarify what was written because it was indicating an opinion that Mr. Marx was intentionally deceitful, it was not removed. My objection is to the site, which is in question. It is questioned in threads on it's own site (if I remember correctly) as well as off of it's site. This question-ability alone is ground to remove it as a site that offers 'irrefutable facts', or in the least place a statement with the link or mention of the site that it is to be considered by some to have questionable intentions and content.
5. You are correct, one does not have to be a member to read threads on Bullshido. What I was attempting to state was that (for the message board forum, which I think is a different address than the article site) unless one had a link to a direct post, which can only be gained by someone who is receiving updates to the thread, which can only be gotten if one is a member. One will have to read through the entire thread to find the couple of posts that have been discussed here, which means that one would have to read through several libel statements. Now if you are talking about the articles such as the one Scuba Steve wrote then this is a matter of two different things. As, all you are reading in the article, is the efforts of one person based off of their research and any information that may have been given to them presented in an unbiased opinion/statement as possible.
6. "Marx's intentions or motives surrounding the false qualifications are not for discussion on Wikipedia. It has not been verified that he intentionally sought dishonest qualifications and therefore such information will be changed if put here." That is odd because until I altered it there was a statement that seemed to insinuate that he had intentionally sought to be dishonest. Then do you not think that it would be appropriate that a statement should be made, if the link is used and the site is still referrenced, that Bullshido members seem to paint a picture contrary to that which Wikipedia is trying to maintain. Someone who has been deceived is not likely to know that they have been deceived until someone gives them evidence to the contrary. Which has happened and which has caused Mr. Marx to research the information for himself. When I last asked him about it he stated that it would seem that the institutes are not creditable. His thanks for pointing this out and his apologies for having been deceitful, have been extended and seemingly overlooked by certain members of Bullshido who still want to think of him as a liar. "However the fact that he has held unaccredited qualifications is a fact, as is the fact that he has claimed they are genuine for a number of years. Whether he did this because he honestly believed they were genuine or for some other motive is not up for debate. The fact, brought to light by Bullshido, that his qualifications are questionable is not in dispute." Then what is the dispute, as I have not made any statements to these points. I have not disputed that he held false documents, nor his intent (my opinion has been stated with the facts that have been given to me), nor have I disputed that members of bullshido did in fact bring up his qualifications.
7. It would seem that you are implying that Bullshido was in the court room and had a direct effect on the Race Bannon federal court case. It is no testimony to someones validity to track down public records and repeat them. If this is not the case and Bullshido participated in the investigation that determined or helped determine the out come of the trial, then I offer my apologies for my earlier statement. By far and large the information "brought to light" by Bullshido were never some great secrets hidden in a dark and damp cavern hidden in the middle of no where. All of Mr. Marx statements and claims have come by information that was given him (i.e his degrees <he was under the impression that the institutes were creditable>, his statements concerning a Keichu Day <which were based on a letter that he received which he has supplied a couple of times>). So if I were to go by this definition "defamation (of character) n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error." Then the actions of some members of Bullshido would no longer be subject to my 'opinion' and it becomes a fact that the "investigation" becomes highly questionable. Even if Mr. Marx was to fall under 'public figure' then it would seem that this is still applicable because many of the stated "facts" were accompanied by malicious statements and open dislike.
8. "I congratulate you for stating your own interests, namely that you are a student of Marx. Like Nate1481 did, this is a useful tool in seeing the inherent bias and interests of people editing the article." I am confused this is in direct contradiction to your statement earlier. In which you seem to be coming to the defense of Nate1481, when you perceived me painting him in an unfavorable light. As per..."Nate has not attempted to obfuscate the facts, just present pertinent data as is required by Wikipedia." I am sure that I have said that I do not think this was intentional, though it is a bit perplexing that you would say that he has not confused the issue and then recognize that there is an inherent bias and interest involved in the editing. This is cause alone to prevent anyone who has an interest invested in the view points expressed in Bullshido from editing any article on Wikipedia that has any content on Bullshido. I just noticed that you stated that, "...namely that you are a student of Marx. Like Nate1481 did...", which leads to the belief that this information was readily handy to anyone reading the article. There is no statement to indicate Nate1481's interests and view points. Like wise one would not even know Nate1481's affiliations, etc. unless one were to go looking for them. And in-order to do this a person would have to track down the editors logs which show who has edited what and when, just to discover that Nate1481 was a participant in the editing process...
9. The article, written by Scuba Steve on (I believe) Bullshido.net, has been recognized by Mr. Marx, statements concerning it are posted below. The threads, are contested and questionable. Mr. Marx and Keichu have nothing to do with the merits and creditability of Bullshido. It is kind of like when a Bullshido member expressed, what they saw as a fact, that Hitler was a Christian (I know that it is not directly relevant stick with me). Hitler may have expressed views found in the Bible to back and support his campaign. No matter how much he professed these things it in no way made him a Christian. Likewise it does not matter how much members of Bullshido mentions Keichu or Mr. Marx, their (Mr. Marx's and Keichu's) creditability will not increase Bullshido's creditability/ nor it's members.
10. It is not my place to make legal challenges to/ against Bullshido, as the defamation/ libel was not made against me. Yeah I forget sometimes that while the matter at hand is the same, that the vehicle of delivering the content/ matter is different. I am sorry for having wasted your time to have to correct such an horrendous error.
"::The only conceivable reason that one would want to delete the link from this article is to try to prevent others from seeing the Bullshido investigation into Marx. --Scb steve 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)" Please keep the insinuations out of the equation. Your attempt to pervert the motives behind the removal of the link is unmerited and unappreciated. The libel is noted, please refrain from the continuance of this conduct. While not discussed earlier, due to a lack of having read your article, I was refering to the Bullshido site (in particular the message board forum threads) in general. After reading your article, a rebuttal off site of both Bullshido and Wikipedia will be made to it and then we can link that as well. Considering you refer to the "investigation" I would assume that you are referring to the threads and not the article. Since the article is the expressed opinion of the investigation that was done. Since that is the case the "investigation" is being questioned and as such is not irrefutable as of yet. And considering the quanity as a whole the "investigation" seems HIGHLY unreputable.
Sorry about the length, think you for you time and consideration.
Respectfully Quo tsv


First, I am sorry I mistook the link to the article for a link to the Message Board Forum. The first time I clicked on it the link took me to the Wiki article on Bullshido.

Now, I have read the article, and so has Mr. Marx. Both of us recognize the time and effort that it must have taken to write it. Personally I would like to think the author for their efforts, for the first time I can see a clear and understandable interpretation of all the things that have embodied all of the discourse of the past couple of years in the Bullshido threads. I am, however, afraid that the article is in no way objective. It is slanted in many areas to the author's perspective and there are very clear misconceptions that are spread throughout the text. This is one of the reasons why I have difficulty writing any type of article on Keichu, because I do not want my opinion of it to influence the text. No matter how well meaning, Mr. Steve (if I got the author wrong I am sorry, it has been a while) was, he has a predetermined view point. I am completely sure that his efforts were in an sincere attempt to keep his opinions and view points out of it. I did not find this to be true all the way through the article.

I am not going to go through all the points here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quo tsv (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)