Talk:World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation article.
Article policies
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.

Contents

[edit] Regarding the Neutral Point of View of the article

Please, write only facts, in a NEUTRAL way, not opions. Write in an encyclopedic way.
To prevent a new edit war: People of GKIF are kindly requested to write any contradicting information in the article about GKIF. People from WGKF are requested not to touch that article and people from GKIF are requested not to touch this article about WGKF to prevent another EDIT WAR and keep the whole story as neutral and honest as possible. Also a link to the main article Genseiryu should be kept in both articles at all times, since they are a continuation of that article... Thank you for your co-operation! -- MarioR 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

It's about nearly two weeks, that's long enough. I don't want to see a repetition of edit warring, I'll be watching and will deal with serious disruption as I judge necessary. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am in all honesty trying to rewrite some sentences to make it as neutral as possible. By for example adding "according to WGKF" in some cases that are disputed by the other side and by adding links with evidence to prove statements, I hope to accomplish this. Anyway, true or not, it doesn't really matter, this whole article is about World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation (WGKF) and therefore about the viewpoint of the WGKF, the federation that trains the traditional Genseiryu as taught by sensei Seiken Shukumine and follows his first book "Shin Karatedo Kyohan". This viewpoint should NOT be changed into the viewpoint of those following sensei Tosa. Their story is different and is the viewpoint of Genseiryu Karatedo International Federation. Although WGKF does not acknowledge that story, nobody of WGKF ever changed that article. Some people of GKIF (actually just one who is now using dynamic ip) have been changing this article here (WGKF) into the viewpoint of GKIF. Then the story is not anymore about WGKF but about GKIF and there is already an article about that! They should change that article, not this one, if they want to keep an honest and neutral environment on Wikipedia. Regards, MarioR 22:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

At least several of the edit summaries to these articles have been of an inflammatory nature. Edit summaries are for summarizing your edit not for attacking, criticising or disagreeing with anyone. Please confine your discussions to talk pages and be WP:CIVIL. I am going to warn you both openly that, if you continue using such edit summaries, you will surely be blocked, although the anonymous IP user should take particular note. I would urge you to look for other areas of Wikipedia to contribute to as well, where you may find less conflict. -Splash 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] again reverted

like the Main article about Genseiryu a good NPOV article by Mario Roering is deleted and replaced by an article that is not neutral but the point of view of Butokukai Denmark. I will write an article that can't be disputed and hope they will see this. Because this is a time consuming work I will, at the moment, revert the article to the more correct version without insulting remarks like WGKF say Sensei Shukumine appointed 2 years after his death a succesor. They want to make fun and that is not a good intention to write an article. WGKF accept and respect the way of training by everyone. They just say they follow the way sensei Shukumine concerning Genseiryu by following his first book SHin Karatedo Kyohan. Also nobody thinks that the document signed by sensei Shukumine, where he mentiones that Genseiryu is training Ten-Chi-Jin-I-No kata, is false. Even Butokukai Denmark doesn't really think it.They just don't like that this pamphlet exist that is signed by the founder.--TenChiJin 07:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting part about Genseiryu-Butokukai

Some anonymous user, uses different ip addresses to delete the whole part about Genseiryu-Butokukai all the time. We all know who this person is, but let´s just say this person belongs to GKIF and he simply does not like it that WGKF has this viewpoint about this organization. However, there is absolute NO slandering, degrading or insulting text in that part, so there is NO reason to delete this. As a matter of fact, this is a piece of story that BELONGS in the article about WGKF, since it is their viewpoint and it makes the (layman) reader understand there are in fact more Genseiryu organizations. Removing this part of text, just because it´s not the viewpoint of the reader, is therefore considered vandalism and will not be accepted! -- MarioR 17:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can we try to fix this?

Whilst I am prepared to invest time in this, I would also note that User:JeremyA has also tried counselling both parties, but neither responded to the suggestion that you take this to RfC or RfAr — this gives the impression you prefer to continue the fight. It is clear that there is unlikely to be a resolution via talk pages, and that the situation has largely degenerated to sterile reverting. Let me present to you the alternatives available, in order of preference:

  1. Come to an agreement via the talk pages, or your user talk pages;
  2. Try informal mediation;
  3. Take the matter to an article-based RfC;
  4. Take the matter to a user-behaviour RfC;
  5. Request formal mediation at RfM;
  6. Take the matter to the Arbitration Committee at RfAr.

Options 1 and 2 show little sign of working. I suspect that, due to the specialist nature of the subject, option 3 would be unlikely to produce much other than alternative forum to fight in. However, it must surely be worth a try. Why not go list the article at RfC for a week or so and see what happens?

Option 2 remains open to you all however. If you can present evidence, externally verifiable, on this talk page to back your claims I would be interested to read it. It sounds as if there must be some way to present both sides of the argument in the same article.

Option 4 is on the way to an Arbitration. It will probably produce comments positive and negative on the behaviour of all parties involved. Reqeusts for Mediation presently have a considerable backlog, but one suppose that, if all the earlier options have failed that it would not be unreasonable to skip that part out. That leaves Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) generally takes a dim view of edit warring on any article for any reason. It takes a generally dimmer view when all other avenues of cooperation have been exhausted without result. It does not usually determine content issues. So one possible outcome is that both of you are banned from editing either article (under any IP address or account) for a lengthy period; you will probably also be cautioned against making attacks in summaries or edit pages with the threat of blocks if you do. The ArbCom rarely decides completely one way or the other. I would advise that Arbitration be avoided if at all possible.

If you cannot proffer good, referenced evidence in pursuit of option 2, can I invite you to file an article RfC first, give it a week to see if comments are incoming, and take it from there? -Splash 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GKIF

I have removed the section of GKIF as there is already an article on Genseiryu Karate-do International Federation. I don't see how a discussion of GKIF is relevant to this article and the presentation of the removed section seems to me to be intended solely to annoy a certain GKIF member. JeremyA (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There was no section of GKIF! There was however a section called "The 'other' Genseiryu style" that showed how this new Genseiryu style came alive according to WGKF. At the end of the paragraph there is a reference to GKIF and people can go there to read further... However, WGKF believes that the story of GKIF is wrong and is only told in that way so they can promote themselves better. The true history NEEDS to be told in the article about WGKF. It's their viewpoint and therefore important information for an understanding of the way WGKF thinks, trains and deals with the situation. The story on the GKIF page is their viewpoint, and I think they will find it important to tell this story for their own reasons...
I will see how this story can be rewritten, but it cannot be discarded totally from WGKF. -- MarioR 11:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This part is now totally rewritten to make the importance of this part clear: the reasons for the establishment of the WGKF. I did mention the GKIF with an internal link, since this is the Wikipedia way, even though I don't agree with what is written in that article. Just for the record: my hands are itching to change the misinformation and lies in that article as well, but I won't, since it would only start another edit war!! I believe it is a good thing to have "their" story on GKIF and "our" story here on WGKF. If each side would stay away from the other side, the edit war would finally be over! Now, there is the problem: we are willing to stay away from GKIF, but people from GKIF are not willing to stay away from WGKF! So WHO is keeping the edit war alive here??? -- MarioR 13:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Research

In the summary of a, so called "edit", by an anonymous user of whom we all know it's Peter Lee, done on the 24th of August 2005 (couple of times) it's written:

(This version is the most reliable version according to any facts, and according to any source!!! 
All herein is researched. Mario Roering is a twisted insane person and so are his edits!)

Besides the fact that he keeps insulting me by calling me all kinds of names to which I will only comment by saying look in the mirror!, he is talking about some "research". Let me tell you here that this alleged research is the research performed by one single man (you guessed: Peter Lee!). I do not know if he really did research it all and is deliberately twisting the truth, but I have done a counter-research, together with a colleague, and came to a whole bunch of different conclusions!!! So far for this by Peter Lee so called "research" then...
Now, researched or not, this article here is about WGKF, the World Genseiryu Karatedo Federation. Everything written here is their point of view. It is not necessary to start every single sentence with "according to WGKF...", since it is already the title of the article, so it must be clear to anybody that this is about them, from them and according to them! Deleting the facts (researched or not) and replacing them with the 'facts' from one single person who claims to have done research, but only brings in HIS point of view, makes the whole article about something that is NOT WGKF, but maybe about Peter Lee, or, just maybe, about GKIF... And of course that is absolutely wrong! That is not what the article is about... Nobody sees people from WGKF changing the story on GKIF, do you?? -- MarioR 14:36:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:NPOV is a little different. You say: "this article here is about WGKF... so it must be clear to anybody that this is about them, from them and according to them". The "about them" part is obviously true. However the "from them" part is not obvious—for example, I don't think that the NATO article is written by NATO; and the "according to them" part flies in the face of NPOV.
My interpretation of WP:NPOV is that while the article should clearly be about the WGKF, but it should be written from the point of view of a dispassionate outsider. Therefore, where two different organisations (or individuals) disagree on a point, that should be made clear in the article. "according to the WGKF... " is a bad wording, as it implies to me that the this is what the WGKF say but we don't believe it. However, sentences could start something like "the WGKF states... " or, "the WGKF asserts..." JeremyA (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

This is to let you know that a Request for Comments has been filed which concerns the conduct of the two principal editors of this article, Peter Lee and Mario Roering. You can find it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter Lee and Mario Roering. It having now been certified by the two relevant editors and having had the relevant evidence supplied, it is now open for comments.

Please provide a response as you feel appropriate in the assigned section of the article. Please keep discussion to the talk page. Please keep things civil, and be aware that any member of the community is entitled to comment as they see fit. -Splash 03:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)