Wikipedia warning on Gyokko-ryu listing

Hi Guys,
was doing a bit of a Google/wikipedia trail on history of the schools etc and came across a warning on the Wikipedia Gyokko ryu page. It's been proposed for deletion as somebody has proposed that;

'This article lacks independent sources and fails to show this is a notable martial art.'

It states the article may be deleted if the message remains in place i.e. past 28th december apparently.

Just thought I'd let you guys know so that somebody with some half decent historical knowledge and sources (unlike myself!) could address this...

Many thanks

 

This is the trouble with the majority of Takamatsuden arts, there is no historical evidence to support them.

There are exceptions to this, such as Takagi Yoshin Ryu, and before I risk offending someone I'm not saying the others don't exist, just that there isn't the historical evidence to support the claims.

It would be a shame to see the page lost due to this, but on the other hand for those of us who train we can learn from those who know, does it really matter if people who don't train can't view it?

 

I fairly regularly go through wikipedia articles on Martial Arts on styles I don't train in. It can help give perspective, and I might find something interesting that I might want to research further.

 

I would tend to agree with the Wiki editors. It's not encyclopedia material.

 

Why?

 

Maybe it has to be based on verifiable facts? Or at least be a commonly held theory and stated as such.

 

I can just imagine some future meeting at the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai.

"First order of business is the ryu-ha of Mr Hatsumi. Right never mind these scrolls I think the first thing we need to address is if he's in good standing with Wikipedia....anyone?"

 

For it to have an article on Wikipedia? Really?

 

AnxietyCoachJohn

wikipedia is not really a good source for material specially in school studies... if really need to study find books in libraries not websites because usually is it fiction.. and not authorize by an expert people






AnxietyCoachJohn :hat:

 

If Wiki is still trying to change its image by having stricter rules and only allowing verifiable facts not just opinions/beliefs then yes.

 

So is it not a fact that Gyokko Ryû is a ryûha taught in the Bujinkan, Genbukan and Jinenkan, and is mentioned in the Bugei Ryûha Daijiten?

 

It's fashionable to hate on Wikipedia, however, it's a really excellent source no matter how much grade school teachers are bemoaning the loss of Dewey decimal based card catalog skills. Sure, it's not primary sources, but, then again, a 'real' paper-based encyclopedia isn't either.

Seriously, people complain that it's not an 'appropriate' source, but when's the last time anyone took a class where the Encyclopedia Britannica would have passed muster as an accepted source? How many academic articles cite an encyclopedia? The first answer is probably 3rd grade and the second is most definitely 0, unless it's a journal article about the history and development of encyclopedias (encyclopedae?).

While there is slightly larger concern about controversial/current topics because of the ability for anyone to edit, these things tend to get ironed out and it's still an excellent starting point for an overview of just about anything. If you're looking for anything more than a survey it's not going to cut it. But, as I said, neither would an encyclopedia sitting on some shelf.

In particular, I lean on Wikipedia heavily as a mathematical reference where it's amazing. Britannica's got nothing on it with that sort of stuff. I can get a list of integrals of exponential functions in about 1.3 seconds. Much better than having to memorize them. That space in my brain is much better used by remembering the lyrics to 'We Didn't Start the Fire'.

Even though any encyclopedia is a secondary source, primary sources are required to base a secondary source on. Nothing cited on the gyokko-ryu page, nor anything in the public domain, comes close to qualifying as a primary source. Thus, an encyclopedia is not an appropriate place for an article.

 

At the risk of seeming obtouse... Given everything StephenK has just said in particular..

Would not the fact that there exists these questions and controversy regarding Gyokko-ryu within our slice of the community let alone the MA communty as a whole be a reason to note it?

I admit I am not a wikipedia fan perse.. but I fail to see how it can be considered a great starting point to research 'just about anything,' if things like this get deleated when there are indeed percievable reasons to keep the information out there..

Just my opinon...
(and I did have a tooth and chunk of jaw cut out today.. so I freely admit my post may simply seem like rambles... if so, I apologize.)

 

That fact should be included on the Bugei Ryuha Dajiten wiki page. It should also be stated that the people who created the book have no research credentials and never did any outside research to verify any of the schools in the book are authentic. They simply compiled the information from the practitioners and took their word for it.

As long as it is stated that there has not been any verifiable proof of the schools authenticity and the history is based mostly on the belief of its practitioners then I think it should be on Wiki.

If you want it to be stated as a verified fact without any real proof then I"m going to side with Wiki on this one.

 

It must be real because i have proof in the form of a" Quest Video"

 

Archived

 

We spent more than half of 2010 training in techniques from the Gyokko Ryu. Guess I must have imagined it all

 

Or maybe you spent half a year working on something Takamatsu imagined.

 

But that's not the issue. If he imagined it, it's here now. And thus deserves an article on Wikipedia if some people take time to write it. And some people have. So why remove it?

 

Strange. Why is there no mention of Gyokko-ryu Kenjutsu in that Wikipedia article?

It does at least point out that the so-called Gyokko-ryu Bojutsu (circa 2005) was actually from a branch of the Kukishin. Maybe the hyper-sekrit Gyokko-ryu Kenjutsu is being kept hyper-sekrit from the general population because someone is worried that it will be recognised as being something else? You never know

*runs off sniggering*

*runs back*

Oh and just in case anyone is in any doubt, I've already been proven right many times that the Gyokko-ryu Bojutsu turned out to not be Gyokko-ryu Bojutsu. That's why I am 99% sceptical that the so-called Gyokko-ryu Kenjutsu is what it's claimed to be either.

*runs off sniggering again*