Talk:Genbukan

Notability and primary source tags
This article needs reliable third-party sources to establish notability. The tags serve as a reminder that the article needs work (or deletion). Please do not remove these tags without addressing the underlying issues. Repeated tag removals is WP:EDITWARRING: a block-able offence. jmcw (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've put back the tags and semi-protected the article but please keep in mind, those tags are getting stale. If the article's notability is a worry, it should likely go to WP:AFD very soon for discussion. Likewise, if meaningful sources are lacking, they should found. Unsourced content which is thought, in good faith, not to be independently verifiable can be removed at any time. Those tags shouldn't stay much longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What! please clarify _what_ unsourced content is thought in good faith not to be independently verifiable because I've seen much worse in this encyclopedia and I've seen pages with like sources, i.e. Bujinkan. In Bujinkan school, a _rival_ school to Genbukan I do not see a single source which is not connected in some way to Bujinkan. Here I did research and found articles from "ninja" stuff magazines that support Genbukan. But it seems POV is the rule in these subjects in Wikipedia, specially when some people, ie Jmcw37 have some personal preferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you editorial guys may destroy what you wish and keep self referencing martial arts schools that Jmcw37 or some other of you guys "like". I did not this was a personal preference POV propaganda site: ¡My mistake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Ninja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My personal preferences are to follow Wiki policy: see WP:RS and WP:Notability. To 186.176.107.45: if it gives you some peace, please note that the Bujinkan article is also tagged as needing sources and to establish notability. And, please sign your posts with ~ ! jmcw (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the primary source references in the lead paragraph. What are needed are reliable, third-party books or journals: the web site of the organization and books by participants are not useful in Wikipedia. The Bujinkan article has the same problems. Try looking at Google Scholar or Black Belt Magazine, for example. jmcw (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

References 1, 3, 5, 6, 10 are not related to Genbukan but 10 is now brokken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only dropping by to leave some neutral (and hopefully helpful) tips. I tend to agree with this edit. In a short article like this, there is no need to tag every sentence that has a sourcing worry, moreover when there are so many, one tag at the top will do.


 * The notability tag has been there for three years now. That's way too long. If sources showing WP:N don't show up soon, say within a few weeks at the very most, the article should go to WP:AFD or the tag should come down. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review the multiple references to Black Belt Magazine added at the top of this page that will soon be added to the article since this seems to be a non POV source according to Jmcw37 and some of the lords of the Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

These references go as far back as 1985... I guess this school has been "notable" for quite a long time now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see what "bunching up" adds to the case: having Jmcw37 friends log in to "drop by" to leave some "neutral" tips just proves the POV case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, now that you guys "semiprotected" the article there is no way for these "Black Belt Magazine" articles from a dates as far back as 1985 could be added, or reference 10 (one of 4 references, in such a short article, not related in any way to Genbukan and reliable sources, or at least sources whose reliability has not been rebufed by _anybody_ in this talk page: Is this Jmcw37 and Jmcw37 friends personal Wiki or is it The Wikipedia? Because I am lost know... these "editors" that pride themselves as being editors with a lot of praise for themselves can't even follow a link but insist that this article "does not meet notability guidelines" or does not reference "third party" references, but 4 of 10 references are to third party references whose reliability is not being questioned with _facts_ just with _apreciations_ from Jmcw37 and friends. This is a school that was founded in 84 and by know, in this short span of time, has over one hundred affiliated dojos in thirty countries and twenty states of the union. Since 85 (one year after it's creation) it has been recognized with articles in Black Belt magazine, which Jmcw37 seems to hold in high regard, but, lo and behold, this accounts to nothing when Jmcw37 and friends decide not to follow links, or read books or check Youtube for techniques, nothing: I guess Jmcw37 is nowdays the dictator of what goes in Martial Arts in Wikipedia. You can then have your very personal wiki or now, that it is "semiprotected" you guys can follow the links yourselves and do the editing yourselves. I've done my work, for nothing I might add, since these obtuse so called "editors" won't offer any clear reasoning for their "tags". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.170.99 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking into reference 1, I looked at the 'About Us' page of the web site. Perhaps you could help me with " НИНЏИЦУ - ВО АГЕНЦИЈАТА ЗА МЛАДИ И СПОРТ

Промовирана нинџицу вештината Вчера, во Агенцијата за млади и спорт од страна на Марјан Анастасовски - нинџу мајстор беше промовирана нинџу боречката вештина пред сe како техника преку која нинџите се стекнуваат и ги извршуваат своите екстра физички и психички способности со цел запознавање на пошироката јавост, а во контекст за добивање позитивно мислење за решавање на статусни прашања, пред надлежните институции во земјата за унапредување на нинџу вештината. Тоа значи дека нинџу вештината не е спортска и не е спорт. "Како боречка вештина идејата на Нинџу федерацијата на Македонија, како здружение на граѓани, е запознавање и доближување на оваа вештина до обичниот граѓанин. Со оглед дека сме млада федерација формирани се 12 здруженија или клубови низ цела држава. Заинтересирани има многу. Сепак, приоритет ние е квалитетна едукација пред се на тренерскиот кадар кои потоа квалитетно ќе ги пренесат своите знаења на членовите. Во делот на соработката со останатите федерации, на Балканот, на ова ниво, ние сме пред сите останати. Со оглед дека нинџицуто како вештина најразвиено е во Јапонија, се трудиме токму со нив да имаме најдобра соработка, за што се направени и првите контакти", истакна Анастасовски. Инаку, по пресот неколку нинџи извршија демострација на справите кои ги користат, како и неколку зафати кои се користат за елимација на противникот. Како и да е, нинџу боречката вештина во моментов е далеку од спортот. Нејзината вистинска примена може да биде во специјалните единици на МВР и на АРМ. Д. Ѓенчевски Промоција на нинџицу Конечно и Македонија ќе добие Нинџицу федерација (НФМ). По тој повод денеска, во 12 часот, во Агенцијата за млади и спорт ќе биде промовирана токму оваа федерација, а преку неа и нинџицу спортот, кој, пак, ги има и првите сенсеи - најнизок степен на нинџи. Инаку, нинџицу е техника преку која нинџите се стекнуваат и ги извршуваат своите екстра физички и технички способности. Оваа интересна техника која потекнува од древната Кина се развила и е промовирана од Јапонците. На промоцијата ќе биде организирана и мала изложба на која неколку сенсеи покрај демонстацијата на своите боречки способности ќе биде презентирана и опремата потребна за тренинзи и натпревари. Пресот ќе го води претседателот на НФМ, Марјан Анастасовски."?
 * Thanks! jmcw (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 3 looks like a commercial site . jmcw (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference 5 does not appear to be an independent source . jmcw (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having trouble finding the editorial policy of . These are not WP:RS. jmcw (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You wanted a Black Belt Magazine article: There is one in the edition of December 1985, and comments on May 1986. Of course I cannot edit the article now that it is semiprotected with the new sources. You yourself (Jmcw37) asked for a reference from that magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why a reference to a macedonian youth and sports agency supported federation would come to question, but of course that is only what the site claims, and I do not have any information from a macedonian youth and sports agency to support the claim that the ninjutsu federation over there is supported by a youth and sports agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if the Blitz Martial Arts Mag article is a good reference by this editorial standards or if australian sports mags are also supposed to be unreliabe... LOL!--186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What I do think, not being an "editor" myself, is that the Black Belt Mag article, the australasian Blitz Martial Arts Mag. article the macedonian federation references, from a federation that dares to claim that they are somehow sponsored by this youth and spots agency, and the other references at the top of this page (since I cannot edit the now semiprotected page) besides the references from the over one hunred dojo's that teach Genbukan do ammount to notability. Interesting that all references from dojo's that teach genbukan are considered to be non reliable because they are affiliated with the subject... I wonder if the same applies say to karate articles: Do most of the reference come from sources unrelated to karate? LOL!--186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope: I just came from the karate site and it seems that one has to have the tags added too... LOL! --186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also check the reference to the Martial Arts of the World book, the Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts, Japanese Ninjutsu Practitioners, the Guide pratique des arts martiaux, etc. That I can't add because, when I edited the article, added sources and removed the tags they were added back again without any critique of the references. Now I get the critique of the references I started adding but not of the others I've researched. --186.176.107.45 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

notability
This article should either be sent to WP:AFD or the notability tag should go, I'd say within a week, given the tag has been up for three years (way, way too long) and the article is still here. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Genbukan. That was the thing to do. "Vote early, vote often." Gwen Gale (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nudge! jmcw (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it'll bring in some needed and helpful input from more editors who also know something about the sources to be had in this topic area (Japanese martial arts). I went to Martial_arts and saw you'd already posted the AfD there, cool beans. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)