Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū

There are no "unauthorized" dojo of Sosuishiryu in existence. If one wanted to start up another entry, listing the true name of that "Unauthorized" and recently created style, that would be fine. Otherwise please do not associated it with Sosuishiryu as it exists in Japan or at the shibu dojo overseas- simply because there is no longer any connection (by their own admission and doing). Thanks! -Russ

Mekugi 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use original research or second-hand information as per Wikipedia general editing rules.

Kogusoku 04:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Basic Guidelines
Hi!

Please make sure to follow these basic guidelines when editing this article!! It simplifies the editing workflow and creates a harmonious, problem free environment in which to expand the content!! Also, although it hasn't happened yet this is preventative maintanence: Please make sure to keep all talk outside the improvement of this article out of this discussion area.


 * No Original Research
 * Reliable Resources
 * Verifiability
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Neutral point of view
 * NPOV tutorial
 * List of policies

Thanks and happy editing! Truly, Mekugi 14:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Futagami-ryu merged
I just merged the Futagami-ryu article to this page. I feel that the content on the original Futagami-ryu article was rather bleak and the content on the SSR article is more detailed, so there was really nothing it could add to the page. If anyone feels otherwise, please feel free to add it into the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars....
No one wants to be involved in an edit war. They need to be talked out....that means discussed here....as per Wikipedia guidelines - as a matter of Wiki public record.

All the best and thanks!

Mekugi 08:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Koshi no mawari" refers to swordsmanship?
Can someone check this against the sources used in the article? I don't have any information about Sosuishi-ryu, but I do have at least one good source stating that "kumiuchi koshi no mawari" is a term that refers to grappling (armed and unarmed). "Kumiuchi" and "koshi no mawari" were also used separately to refer to grappling skills. Obviously, "koshi no mawari" just means "around the waist", so I suppose that Sosuishi-ryu could be using the term in a unique way; I'm just urging someone to double-check it, and if the article is currently accurate, perhaps a note could be added that "koshi no mawari" historically refers to grappling. Bradford44 18:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This source is probably from Draeger's book on classical martial arts about Takeuchi ryu. There is a slight error in what Mr. Draeger is writing because I suspect he wasn't that familiar with it (it happens). The truth is that it is not "really" grappling at all, but the use of the short sword and other items around the waist. In Takenouchi ryu it implies the use of the kogusoku/yoroi doshi, so it is not linked to grappling entirely, but to the use of weapons. This is how it is used in Sosuishi ryu because it also implies the use of the kodachi. The Makimono of Sosuishi ryu dated about 200 ago list the techniques under two categories, one being hte Kumi Uchi and the Other being Koshi no Mawari. This is also found in the book published by the Sekiryukan which shows some of the scrolls. :)

Mekugi 08:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one very good source available online: http://www.geocities.jp/minamoto_hitotsugu/kogusoku.htm

"The oldest known book on the bugei ryuha of Japan, the Honcho Bugei Shouden (Vol.9 1914) states: "Kogusoku has been transmitted since ancient times. Takenouchi, one of the oldest bujutsu schools, is a great example of this because of its famous techniques with the Kogusoku (which are now called Koshinomawari.)" Takenouchi Hisamori, after being enlightened by the god Atago, created the base of the ryu in 25 omote kata, which are known as the koshinomawari. Therefore, one cannot say they learned Takenouchi ryu without mastering the Kogusoku Koshinomawari. Legend recounts that Atago, disguised as a Yamabushi, broke Hisamori's 2-shaku 4-sun bokuto in two and said "The long sword is no good for fighting" and taught him the kata of the kogusoku (short sword).  The kata has remained in the ryu since the year 1532.  In the Kogusoku Koshinomawari kata, both opponents use 1-shaku 2-sun Kodachi. They first start in the "zaai" (seated) posture then go to kumiuchi, techniques designed around attacking– the opponent with the kodachi. Kumiuchi generally referes to armor, but there are kata for dealing with bare-handed and tachi (long sword) wielding opponents."

Hope that helps!! Mekugi 16:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Founder's name
Someone also needs to double check the founder's name, which I think should be Futagami Hanosuke Masanori, and not Futagami Hannosuke Masaaki. Bradford44 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Masanori is a mis-reading/mis-pronunciation of the name Masaaki. The founder's name appears in several other Japanese documents which concur this plus it matches the phonetic patterns of speech at that time (the edo era) just as one can trace words back to the times of Shakespeare and his pronunciations. The name was misread, it found its way into print and for lack of any type of research, it stuck. Mekugi 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Area Below Reserved for Attacks on Russ Ebert, Not on the Content of the Article
I went ahead and created this section since personal attacks will not cease. Anyone having content or ways to make the article better, please post above this area, to keep things organized. Go ahead and lambast me on the bottom-half, if you feel so inclined...

Mekugi (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ISN"T THIS THE SPOT YOU HAVE DESIGNATED RUSS? I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES.

KEEP DELETING AND I’LL KEEP POSTING THE TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toobills (talk • contribs)


 * Toobills: Mekugi did not delete it, I did.  The reason is because I cannot follow your post whatsoever.  Apparently you copy-and-pasted several kilobytes of material from various other talk pages on Wikipedia and other correspondence, and have interleaved your own comments.  Interleaving of comments is contraindicated on Wikipedia, because it makes it very difficult to tell who is saying what.  And in any case, your comments are so, so, so very long that, well, nobody is going to read them.  Please state your case more succinctly.  A couple paragraphs would be ideal.
 * Also, on a side note, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (e.g. ~ ). That way, it will make it easy to see which username was used to make the comments and at what time.  Thanks!! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

My previous reply was to every point that Russ/mekugi made. I attempted to make this as clear for you as possible. I am relatively new to this forum. I started every reponse with your name before stating my point of view after Russ' posts. Regardless, here is my case, and I'll try and explain it to someone not familiar with an ancient japanese martial discipline.

Manzo Shitama Sensei (teacher) is the 16th inheritor of this Japanese school of Jujutsu that has been passed from "father to son" since 1650. The name of the school is Sosuishi ryu. This is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own web site. When asked directly about this issue Shitama Sensei has stated the name is Sosuishi ryu, and no other derivation, as the name Russ is claiming to have "uncovered" by his research has components of the school incorportaed in the name. Russ is incorrect, again as is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own website.

As Russ's senior, and a direct student of Shitama Sensei for well over a decade, I attempted to correct Russ on this matter on numerous occassions. In addition, Russ is a junior student, and it is far from appropriate behavior to publicly contradict Shitama Sensei, as his authority and position on this matter is without question. If manzo Shitama Sensei states the name of his familial school is Sosuishi ryu, then that's the end of the debate. He is Sosuishi ryu. It would be bad maners for any of us to question or contradict his wishes, especially publicly on this forum.

Russ has based his research conclusions on several ancient documents he has read. Would we assume Shitama Sensei has never read them? Since that is not the case, Russ is speculating the intent, context, and texture of what those past headmasters wrote. Russ hasn't spoken to them, (obviously), nor has he read every document that has been written on the subject. His conclusions are less than academic, and are speculative. Shitama Sensei is alive and leading Sosuishi ryu. He has spoken to at least one former headmaster, his father, who Russ has incidently quoted after reading a document he wrote. Wouldn't Manzo Shitama Sensei better know, and understand his father's intent? He is a direct student of his father. Russ is not. Again, Manzo Shitama Sensei uses the name Sosuishi ryu. It is inappropriate for Russ or anyone else to challenge the 16th headmasters position.

I have suggested on more than one occassion that we can have Shitama Sensei's senior representative, Dennis Fink Sensei, who is graded as highly as possible in the discipline, (Menkyo Kaiden)arbitrate this dispute.He is fluent in english and has discussed this matter with Manzo Shitama Sensei. My suggestion has been ignored. I suspect it is because Russ may have to concede he is incorrect in this matter. For future academic integrity, I believe collaborating with Dennis Fink Sensei for accuracy is the best course of action to take regarding this article. This would solve this debate between Russ and I, and assure academic integrity from someone considered an expert in Sosuishi ryu by Manzo Shitama Sensei in Sosuishi ryu

I hope I have concisely made my point.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this more concise description of the problem. I think I have a better understanding now.  First, a number of points I want to address:
 * Who the heck is Jeff? My name is Jay...  heh...
 * The fact that one editor may or may not be a "junior student" and another "his senior" outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. Whether it is true or not, I don't particularly want to hear about it.  On Wikipedia, all of you are equals.
 * I am very disturbed by this comment: ..it is far from appropriate behavior to publicly contradict Shitama Sensei... The issue of whether your organization allows junior members to contradict senior members in public is not a Wikipedia issue.  If you want to yell at him outside of Wikipedia, go ahead.  But here, these titles have no meaning and so there is no particular reason why Russ should not contradict Shitama Sensei.


 * Now, that said, I think perhaps the policy you are looking for is the policy against original research on Wikipedia. If Meguki has done original research showing a different pronunciation of the jujitsu school, that has no place on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia only recognizes reliable sources.  In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu would be considered a primary source and could probably be reliably used for this.


 * It seems you may have a point after all, and I commend you for condensing the argument so that I can understand it and follow it.


 * Meguki, could you please point me to the sources you are using to support your position regarding the pronunciation? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Sorry about not catching you correct name.

We will leave "our organizations" internal parameters outside of the debate as you have requested. As you have pointed out Mekugi/Russ has absolutely done original research that contradicts the 16th headmasters own web site. Even outside of our organizations parameters, and hierarchy, surely you can agree that the 16th Headmaster knows significantly more than the students know about his familial discipline? I agree that Shitama Sensei's own web site which is published in Japanese and in English is a reliable source for academic consistency. Interpreting ancient scrolls and documents are speculative and are easy to take out of context as we don't know the writers intentions. I believe using Shitama Sensei's web site as a reliable source should resolve this dispute.

Thank you for sifting through all of this.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Toobills previous post of which I can make neither heads nor tails
I do not want to censor Toobills, but I can't figure out what the heck he is saying. I have preserved his addition below for posterity. It contains comments from me and Mekugi which have been copy-and-pasted from other pages, so be aware that only some of what is below are Toobills' words. Best of luck to anyone who wants to sort through this. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

All of my responses begin with your name. Good luck readers.

97.72.163.16 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, You have been requested as a moderator for Russ's complaint. I believe this is just more evidence of his initiating the first punch in the deterioration of this discussion. When he's punched in return, he counters with sarcasm, and runs and "complains to the teacher", as is evidenced by his complaing to you. Below is my response to Russ's allegations. His charachter does matter as he is using false credentials and contrived expertise to support his speculative conclusions and flawed research. I hope this helps.

[edit] HELP!!!!! user:Toobills and user:RC&RB incivility, libel and harassment Both have continually been uncivil, have posted libel/defamation of others (and myself) on Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Please look in the Revision history of Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Here:diff1; Here: diff2; Here:diff3 Here:diff4; Here: diff5 Here: diff6 And there are a few more that I am leaving out. I've tried to be as civil as possible, to no avail. This has led to continued insults and threats and it seems to be escalating. This has continued from e-mails sent to me personally at a prior date, threatening me from post user:Toobills and user:RC&RB stating that that any "posts I make at Wikipedia have to be approved by user:Toobills first". Now on here at Wikipedia, they are attempting to follow through with harassment, namecalling and general incivility. I fear it will turn into vandalism.

Jeff, I hope I am posting, and responding in the correct place.

The incivility began when Russ Ebert posted a response to me that he himself admittedly deleted. He later admits to you: "he is responsible for a lot of what went on there, and I would have prevented it and I regret it", In addition his scolding, public post, to someone who is significantly his senior, warning them to "behave themselves" is rude, and absolutely began the deterioration of this debate. Even I was surprised at his inappropriate, and disrespectful behavior. It seems now that he realizes that he has behaved inappropriately, as evidenced by his explanation of his lazines, and censorship of the "debate". My only regret is stating outright that he is a Blowhard, and a coward. It was wrong and admittedly, I allowed my anger and frustration at his unwillingness to abide by the parameters of the discussion page. owever, my frustration began and continued because Russ is refusing to debate this topic, and acknowledge any other view contrary to his own speculative research. If he did he may have to admit he's incorrect. I apologize for my frustrations, however I believe from your initial response to this you can understand where it came from. A scholarly debate should not be edited, and the discussion shouldn't be monopolized, and deleted. I will absolutely refrain from name calling and personal attacks.

I have never threatened Russ, nor has anyone else. If you would like have him provide you evidence of my threats. His claims are outright lies. If he chooses to make these allegations he should back them up with proven facts.-Bill

Mekugi (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi -- where are the personal attacks and insults? In the diffs you have provided, all I see is that the other users have written a very long discussion of the points in contention (which I don't understand at all, so you'll have to bear with me), and you reverted their changes. I think your reversion was inappropriate, unless there are personal attacks I did not see. The users in question did say several times that they thought you were incorrect, but I do not see the personal attacks. Could you help me out by saying what "insults" and "threats" you are specifically objecting to? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) The first post, DIF1 & DIFF2 is about libel/defamation aimed at me.Namely incivil statements like: "Or do you speak for a small faction in Tokyo, headed by a former low graded "student" of Shitama Sensei?" The low graded student is my teacher in the martial art. I dunno, but calling someone low-graded when they are of a higher grade than the person posting is rather rude, and continually calling me that throughout the article has no point. How does that better the article? It seems wholly as an attack on me. Or that is to say, it is clearly an attack on me and my group in Tokyo, not about the content of the article. Nothing in [:diff1 is about the article itself, but about me being low graded, not understanding anything he's saying. I am not sure how that contributes to civility either.

Jeff,

How is that question libel or defammatory? He made a condescending statement about "this not being an issue over here", (meaning Japan). I'm stating first hand, (then and now) that he is incorrect. His position makes an incorrect assumption based on spaeculative research conclusions. Again, he was the first to throw out the sarcasm, which I addressed in my response. rather than accept or discuss athe difference, he condescendingly chose to "assure me" that he knows better. I believe that Russ likes to attack without being attacked in return. The second part of the statement about "a group headed by a former low graded student of Shitama Sensei", is again a fact. Usuki is no longer a student of Shitama Sensei. His web page link in fact has been deleted from Shitama Sensei's web site for cause. The truth is, Russ's teacher is in fact the same grade as I am. He is not my senior, and I in fact consider myself and his teacher low graded students, however I am significantly senior, and more experienced than Russ. I'm sorry but credibility matters to a debate. Russ's speculative conclusions are inappropriate and his behavior is rude coming from a self proclaimed expert, and someone in his position as a very junior graded student. This again is NOT a personal attack but stating what should be obvious.

It's tough to sort through, I know, but if you look back it's a tyraid responses to this post: diff7 where I simply outlined the information, the rest is just an attack on my character. This was followed by a tyraid of other posts and really I am trying to be polite about it because really, this is defamation to me, my group and character. IMHO, there is no reason to get personal or make rude, incivil statements over something so small.

Jeff,

Again Russ assumes that an incorrect speculative conclusion is a small thing. he is just wrong. It's difficult for him to accept it. But more importantly it's his behavior that is inappropriate. I just stated facts that I can substantiate. he won't address them because it's has become part of his con.

Also there are statements regarding my research (pulling test out of books and authentic ancient documents and not limited to his "original research"- which is not allowed here) and arguing his points with personal research, creating a hostile environment. I am going to try to just post a few of the incivility diffs here:

diff8

"This is consistent with the behavior of your low graded group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

Russ is not the only person making these contributions that are inappropriate from such a low graded student. So in fact, his not accepting someone who is significantly his senios advice to behave appropriately is consisitent with his group in Tokyo. thier are countless other examples that have no place in your attemt to mediate.

This is why your web site has been removed from the Sekiryukan web page for cause.

Jeff,

This is a fact.

Furthermore, I'm not surprised, as I have a collection of incorrect online statements, and outright lies you have posted over the years."

Jeff,

I have numerous statements that I can present as evidence. I asked Russ if he would like to debate them. He never replied and just deleted the discussion as you know. For example, in another online forum hruss and fellow low graded student of his, who claims a higher grade than he was awarded, (that doesn't even exist in Sosuishi ryu), claim that Shitama Sense conducted Senbondori, (a ritual test of 1000 throws) in Tokyo of which they participated in and one was even injured. This never happened, as the ONLY place Senbondori has been conducted outside of Shitama Sensei's dojo in Fukuoka was in New York. I never brought it up. Russ knows it's an outright lie, I just eluded to it and many others. Again, this is another outright lie by a low graded group in Tokyo. I'm sorry, but that' not an attack, just a fact. You can see this evidenced on Shitama Sensei's web site if you doubt my correction to his lies. I'm sorry credibility, and the truth matter.

as for calling me a liar, low graded and in making false statements, etc. I am stumped to see where any of it applies to the article in question or how it betters the article, but in fact is an attack on me and my group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

It does matter because my assertion from the beginning is that his innaproppriate, speculative conclusions contradict Shitama Sensei's position on this matter. Shitama Sensei is the 16th inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. He IS Sosuishi ryu, and the discussion is about the name. Shitama Sensei has stated first hand when asked directly this question and about what Russ claims, His response was the name of the ryu is Sosuishi ryu, not any other derivation, as those are components of the ryu. My position as a higher graded student, and direct student of Shitama Sensei is to reiterate Shitama Sensei's position. How can that be disputed? His assertions are speculative, and incorrectly assume former headmasters intent as he attemts to uncover some "hidden treasure" that just isn't there. How can he correctly interpret someones intent and the context and texture of thier writings? Shitama Sensei is the only person that knows first hand his fathers intent. Shitama Sensei speaks Japanese. Why would his position be challenged by a low non- japanese graded practitioner? Without knowing anything about the discipline, doesn't this strike you as being innappropriate? I'm sure by your initial response it does, however I can assure you that his actions in this entire manner are childlike to say the least. Again, not an attack, but children brag and behave like experts in an unhumble manner. This is what russ is doing.

This stands out:

You are a fraud, and just another blow-hard coward behind a keyboard. Being called a fraud, blow hard. I seriously fail to see how that relates to the article.

Jeff

This was my last post, (of many) after Russ deleted not only my discussion with him numerous times, he deleted the post of another studentt who is also his senior. Conveniently he left his own post on the board. My frustration led to my violating the rules, and more importantly inappropriate name calling. I apologize for letting my frustrations get the best of my own manners. I will not make the same mistake twice.

And this, from the same Diff:

This is what happens when low graded students are left on their own, without correct guidance from a qualified Sensei. He's talking about me.

It’s endemic in the martial arts, and it’s reflective in your inappropriate behavior. I am not sure how my behavior is inappropriate, since he is not talking about the removal of the psosts, but to posting on Wikipedia at all.

We have allowed you to continue your childish, inappropriate, behavior to continue for years. You sit and pontificate as if you have some hidden knowledge, or expertise. I'm childish....get the feeling that this is focused on my character, and not the article?

Jeff,

Russ's behavior here has been childish. He doesn't want to hear another side, the correct side by those who challenge his self created expertise, and he throws a tantrum and deletes the discussion, except his own post. I stated the facts in this manner. I tried, as his senior to correct him and mentor him as is my place. If children are left on thier own without proper guidance, they do the wrong thing. I believe this is the case with Russ. It's not an attack, it's a conclusion that has been evidenced by his behavior and refusal to accept another opinion. If he accepted my opinion, he would have to assume his conclusion is incorrect. I don't think Russ can admit that there is a possibility he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does. His behavior is relevant to the article. The article is innacurate in several places. His character won't allow him to discuss a contrary opinion. I'm sorry, again the truth, and character and credibility matter in research.

You post video demonstrations of yourself that look ridiculous, and display the waza consistent with a beginner, while trying to pass yourself off as some sort of highly graded expert. We have attempted to correct you privately on numerous occasions. Again, this is about me, not the article.

Jeff,

This is the truth. he is a beginner as is evidenced by his physical technique, his grade, and the speculative conclusions his biased research has resulted in. He is trying to pass himself off as an expert, of which I can assure you he is not.

Sorry to sound like a broken record here(skipping DVD nowadays) but I am unceratin of how any of this pertains to the article in question. They are talking specifically about me, my character and re-iterating threats/demands sent to me in private emails just keep me from writing here. This is all because I have information they do not, resources they do not, all from third or second party sources (as per wiki guidelines).

Jeff,

Again I am merely stating Shitama Sensei's position, the 16th Headmaster. Does he assert that he's such an expert that he knows more than Shitam Sensei? I think he is. In addition where are the threats we are making?

So, I this is the gist of it: I try to post a response to the wording of the name, with reasoning. I then get a tyraid aimed at my legitimacy, not the legitimacy of the argument, but aimed at me.

Jeff,

Incorrect, as he refuses to accept it is not his place as a low graded student to be claiming anything. That is a huge part of this debate. Thier is no argument as he continues to delete any other view, and never addresses any contrary points when they are made.

Most of the prepositions in the first DIFFS are directed at me, thus the conclusion that I come to is that I am the subject of the arguement, not the material I am posting. Then, I try to keep it civil by removing the post, which was aimed at me. Then, I re-post with more information, citing a docuemnt. Another tyraid is aimed at my character (I'm too low, I am not high enough, I need to be something special to write here).

Jeff,

Again, another incorrect conclusion. They are intertwined as it is not his place to challenge Shitama Sensei, and despite his archeological finds, he is no position to interpret context and intent of headmasters that are deceased. Does he know more than the 16th inheritor, Shitama Sensei does? I am only asserting his position on the matter as is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own web site.

I remove it and post some guidelines to help smooth things out. Then, another post is made calling me a fraud, attacking my character AGAIN. So my conlcusion is that it seems like the posts are not about the article, or the material, by a hostile attack on my character and the belittling of my ability to research.

Jeff,

The guidleines he posted he violated first!!! This was after he altered or omitted any other view contrary to his own.

BTW Jay, thanks for you patience with me here....just learning the ropes. :) Mekugi (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate you posting the diffs originally, but they were so long I didn't see the personal attacks. The "fraud" and "blow-hard" comments are highly inappropriate. Many of the other comments are really pushing it. I will warn the user(s) in question, and we'll go from there. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Jeff,

Again, if you look back he began the vitriol and the sarcasm. He wants to attack without being challenged or attacked in return. This is what promted my comment about his cowardly behavior. Again, I apologize, and will not resort to name calling again, regardless of my frustrations with his behavior.

Mekugi -- one concern I have is that you have been completely reverting comments made by these other users. I recognize that part of this is because of what you perceive as personal attacks. However, blanking the entire comment, particularly when it is several paragraphs along, is a pretty drastic measure, and may serve to stifle debate. From reading Bill's comments in more detail, it appears that while a number of his comments have been in regards to you, he also had a number of points (the area is too specialized to know if they are legitimate or not) regarding the actual article content. You guys need to find some way to work those out... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I do realize that and will be more careful in the future, for sure. I realize that I am responsible for a lot that went on there and I would have prevented it and I regret it. That, to me is against the ideals of Wikipedia IMHO- to make the articles better for everyone. I'm starting to get the gist of debate on here on the discussion pages, so it's part of my acumen I intend to better while editing here. I originally went in with some caution and started to edit his intitial comment, but there was just so much stuff there it was impossible to sort. Without any explanation other than a "please behave yourself" comment, I erased it. On thinking about it I thought that was too rough and removed my response. Instead of re-vamping the whole thing I let laziness take over, and I just thought it would be better if I posted my info on the subject in hopes that he would rethink his position, thus start over (he did in a way, but it made him angry). I should have known better to do that but I went ahead anyway. I need to be more careful as these types of issues are touchy, and it's not right to censor anyone (I don't want that, I would not want anyone to do that to me). With the final user:RC&RB post, it was small enough to edit out the personal comments and get to the question, so I did that. But, it was too late by that point. Anyway, thanks for your help. I appreciate your time and effort.

Jeff,

My suggestion is this. Dennis Fink Sensei is Menkyo Kaiden, and Shitama Sensei's senior representative in Sosuishi ryu. He is also fluent in english and has discussed this matter directly with Shitama Sensei. I submit that he is an expert on Sosuishi ryu and can assit you in mediating this debate since you are having a difficult time sifting through the specialized information here regarding the discipline.

Again, i apologize for reverting to the name calling when I was censored and attacked. My frustration led to bad manners and it won't happen again on this forum.

'''Sincerely,

Bill Williams'''

Sadly, their is no scholarly discussion on this "discussion page". The online conversation, (for anyone seeking the truth), can be viewed in the history section. The discussion is attempting to be monopolized by one person, Russ Ebert, who posts as Mekugi, and who continues to delete any contrary view to his speculative research and conclusions. This includes the view and position of the headmaster Shitama, Manzo Sensei.

This discussion has deteriorated into the gutter on more than one occassion. Again, the vitriol has been initially initiated by Russ Ebert, (check the history of the discussion). I believe it is my responsibility as a direct student of Shitama Sensei, and Fink Sensei, to attempt to set the record straight. Their are, and have been numerous innacuracies, and deceptions in this article. They serve an agenda, rather than state the truth.

Shitama Sensei is the 16th Inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. He IS Sosuishi ryu. Sosuishi ryu is a living art, and it's current and future course is in Shitama Sensei's rightful hands.

We as students have no place on a self serving, speculative, "archeological quest" to interpret the intent, context, and texture of previous headmasters when reading what they wrote on "ancient scrolls". It's innapropriate and ill-mannered.

Again I state an old adage that is relative to this discussion: "a student of Budo should strive to remain humble and readily admit their lack of knowledge. Children brag, and behave like experts."

Again, my position is this: Shitama Sensei, as the 16th Dai Menkyo has clearly stated that the name of his familial ryu is Sosuishi ryu, not any other derivation.

I don't expect this post to be disputed, I expect it to be deleted in an attempt to stifle, and control the debate. Again, I submit that we have Fink Sensei mediate this dispute for accuracy. he is Shitama Sensei's senior representative, and is fluent in english. He has also discussed this matter directly with Shitama Sensei. I expect my suggestion of mediation will be ignored again

Bill Williams

---

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dsuishi-ry%C5%AB" Categories: B-Class Martial arts articles

Recently I made the comment below:

Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent.''' He has been asked directly about this question. He disagrees with you.'''

As students of Sosuishi-ryu, we are Shitama Sensei’s guests. We should act that way. Randy Cantonwine

Mekugi deleted it, then restored it, edited down to: "Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. RC&RB (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

and Mekugi added this comment "RC&RB" :-) Okay...let me get this straight. You are saying that the name "Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu" is one that Shitama chooses to use today, in the present, correct? Does the article not reflect that? "

No.... I am saying that Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms)and the book that he commissioned. He does not need anyone to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period.

Randy Cantonwine RC&amp;RB (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this edit to see how the argument has changed and where it is headed now and how it is easily confused:diff

Please notice that this has now gone from "Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu" to simply "Sosuishi-ryu" without any type of interim. "Sōsuishi-ryū" is in fact the name of the article, and the first name used on the page. Everything is else is listed under that. There is no reason for any of this to be happening, from what I can see. Otherwise, we are discussing things we cannot verify for a Wikipedia article.


 * Regarding this issue, my hopes are that this might help to clear things up :
 * | No Original Research

As well as this: | Verifiability
 * Please be so kind as to notice this statement:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

So hands are tied here, as we're limited to what we can verify through secondary and tertiary documents. Mekugi (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Russ,

Here's a shock, I disagree. I don't think "hands are tied here" at all. As I have stated in a follow up below: "In addition to your incorrect and speculative conclusions, I believe your research is academically flawed. In addition you have violated guidlines by citing original, albeit flawed original research, (a document you have read and incorrectly interpreted). In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu can be considered a primary source of verifiable reference. The only unpublished, unreliable sources of reference are those that you cite to substantiate your incorrect research conclusions.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the sources collected here, no excessive commentary please
I apologize for being so late to the party here, but I am not going to read through the pages and pages of previous debate. Let me see, listed here succinctly, the sources that support each side. If they are in Japanese, let me know the exact characters I need to look for... I know just enough Japanese to follow the grammar, and have a Kanji-English dictionary, but it takes me about 5 to 15 minutes to translate a single sentence, so I can't really skim a web page :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi's source(s)

 * 1) first source
 * 2) second source, etc.

Toobill & co's source(s)

 * 1) first source
 * 2) second source, etc.

Jay,

I will reiterate my position in this discussion as succinctly as I can. Manzo Shitama Sensei is the 16th inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. On his own web site he states the name of the school is Sosuishi ryu…period. Ref: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/index.html

In addition to Shitama Sensei, two of the most experienced practitioners of this discipline, on separate links to his own site, use the name Sosuishi ryu. I submit that Manzo Shitama Sensei’s web site, and those he has directly linked to, can be cited as a reliable sources in an academic forum.

Russ/mekugi has submitted a contrary position that is admittedly based on his own original research. His speculative conclusions are based on a few documents that were written by previous Headmasters, all of whom are deceased. There is no way to interpret the context, texture, or intent of these writings. In addition, we can rely on Shitama Sensei’s’ position, as he has trained, and has spoken directly with his father who was the 15th headmaster, and the author of one of Russ/mekugi’s sources. This “new” information Russ/mekugi has claimed to discover would have us believe that Shitama Sensei has never seen or read his familial documents that support Russ/mekugi’s flawed “research” conclusions.

In addition to his incorrect and speculative conclusions, I believe his research is academically flawed. I submit, as you have previously stated: “Now, that said, I think perhaps the policy you are looking for is the policy against original research on Wikipedia. If Meguki has done original research showing a different pronunciation of the jujitsu school, that has no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only recognizes reliable sources. In this case, the website of Sosuishi-ryu would be considered a primary source and could probably be reliably used for this.

Your conclusion is one that I have maintained all along. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Once on the Sekiryukan (http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/) homepage, click on English. You will see the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Honbu (or Hombu). Sosuishi-ryu is the name of the style and it is a form of jujutsu. Honbu or Hombu means headquarters. It does not say Sekiryukan Sosuishi-ryu as Russ (Mekugi) purports, but just plain Sosuishi-ryu, as it is the headquarters for all of Sosuishi-ryu.

It also lists Manzo Shitama as “Director.” Furthermore, if you scroll down just below the Sekiryukan you will see “Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Seibukan, New York” and “Director” Dennis Fink, as he is the International Director.

Scroll down again and you will see Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Australia and “Representative” Patricia Harrington, as she is the representative of Sosuishi-ryu in Australia. Please note that Russ Ebert’s group in Tokyo is not even mentioned on this site, as they are not affiliated and they have distorted, inaccurate, self-serving information as provided by Russ (Mekugi) Ebert himself on their website. Hence, Russ (Mekugi) Ebert's “original” research.

If you click on the New York Seibukan (www.nyseibukan.com) link you will come to the New York Seibukan website. Scroll down a little and you will see that is the International Headquarters of the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai. Kai means association. If you click on the link it will bring you to the Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai homepage. Dennis Fink’s bio, etc appears on these sites. I submit that these two sites are credible and reliable souces. The Sekiryukan, because it is the headquarters of all Sosuishi-ryu and the New York Seibukan/ Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu Kai homepages as they are linked directly from the Sekiryukan’s homepage.

Furthermore, the Sekiryukan is owned by the government of Fukuoka, Japan, with its chairman being appointed by the government. Hence this is an “official” governmental site. If you scroll down the Sekiryukan page you will see the chairman, Shingu Matsuhiko, former chairman of the Fukuoka Prefecture Assembly and current assemblyman. I believe this further strengthens my position for this being a credible and reliable site.

I hope this helps resolve this discrepency.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill,
 * Thanks for the sources. This shows, at least, that the official organization uses this name.  That is good.  I would like to see what Mekugi comes up with.  If there are reliable secondary sources showing there is contention over the name, that might belong in a later section in the article (definitely not in the intro).  If the contention over the name is Mekugi's original research, then we will leave it out.  Thanks for your time! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Not synthesized, not original research.

It was erased from earlier posts | diff:


 * The book "双水ノ流" or "Sosuishi no ryu" was hand-written by Shitama Shusaku (Shuzo)in Showa 16 (1941) as an archive of densho the Sekiryukan had collected over the ages. The original is, in fact, still kept at the Sekiryukan today. The formal name "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari" appears in there on at least three occasions as the name of the school.
 * On the first line of page two of "Sosuishi no Ryu", the title is "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari lineage".
 * Then, on the last line of that page, the text reads as follows
 * "Futagami changed the name of Futagami-ryu to Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari".
 * Another instance of the exact name occuring in "Sosuishi no Ryu" is in the Densho lists of the 11th inheritor, Shitama Yagoro Munetsuna. In this section several of his menkyo from a variety of ryu are listed, the final one is entitled "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari," given to him by Shitama Muneaki (the 10th inheritor).
 * Then, as an outside source of where this name is used (again), the famous book published by the Takeuchi-ryu (the formal name of that the ryu being Takeuchi-ryu Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari <竹内流小具足腰之廻>) you have "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari" clearly printed as the formal name of the Ryu on page 278.

See here: If you want to take a look at the hand-written book, I have scans I can send you personally. I will not put them in public.

Also, I would like to add I showed both Bill and Randy the page which lists the name Sosuishi ryu, which is here: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/jindex.html in this post, which was also deleted | diff
 * Let me try to get you to reason this out and see if you can understand where I am coming from on this. The name of the School, in a simple, spoken manner, is Sosuishi ryu. See here: http://www16.ocn.ne.jp/~sekiryu/jdouzyou.html It's the first set of Kanji in brackets under the pictures. Now look a little further down and see this: 柔術（組打）と居合術（腰之廻）Jujutsu (Kumi Uchi) to Iaijutsu (Koshi no Mawari) (the "to" means "and"). So, you are right, the compenents are Kumi Uchi and Koshi no Mawari. However, there is something being drastically missed here. Allow me to point out that these same compenents are usually listed as part of the old school name on the scrolls found in Fukuoka and in Tokyo. In the modern-era, the full group name of the Sekiryukan Hombu is Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu Kai, which dates from the mid 20th century (during the 1960's, as you know). So, this is really about old vs. new. They are the same thing, right? So it really doesn't matter as long as it is explained. It's not something to put yourself through a ringer for.

Mekugi (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Let’s analyze the speculative conclusions to Russ/Mekugi’s original research. In Manzo Shitama Sensei’s dojo, the Sekiryukan, Russ claims that he read…, in three places, mind you…, that the 15th headmaster referred to the school as “Sosuishi ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no mawari.” The 15th Headmaster, Shusaku Shitama is Manzo Shitama’s father. Manzo Shitama is a direct student of his father; he is the 16th inheritor, and legitimate heir to the discipline Sosuishi ryu that was founded in 1650. On Manzo Shitama’s website, in several different placed HIS school of Jujutsu is called Sosuishi ryu. On the web site Manzo Shitama never deviates from that name in English or Japanese. The Sekiryukan is owned by the government of Fukuoka, Japan, with its chairman being appointed by the government. Hence this is an “official” governmental site. Shitama Sensei is listed as the Director of the Sekiryukan, and is without question the legitimate heir to Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu. The Sekiryukan is a credible reliable source that can be cited in an academic discussion. In addition, the two web sites that are directly linked to the Sekiryukan web site also state the name of the school as Sosuishi ryu without any derivation. I believe they are both reliable sources in an academic discussion as well. Both of these sites are maintained by two of the most senior practitioners in the discipline. One of the two is Manzo Shitama Sensei’s senior representative Dennis Fink Sensei who is Menkyo Kai Den, and Manzo Shitama’s International Director. The other very senior practitioner, Patricia Harrington Sensei is a direct student of the 15th inheritor Shusaku Shitama, and maintains a close relationship and currently trains with Manzo Shitama Sensei.

So let’s go to a summation of the different sides of this argument:

Russ read it at least three times in an ancient scroll, formed a speculative conclusion and posted it to his own web site so it must be true. To support Russ’s conclusions we must believe the following:

Manzo Shitama Sensei the 16th Dai Menkyo of Sosuishi ryu, and Director of the Sekiryukan doesn’t know the name of his own familial system of Jujutsu, and wrote it incorrectly EVERY TIME on the Sekiryukan web site. Manzo Shitama Sensei has never seen or read the scrolls in his own dojo, the Sekiryukan, and furthermore is unaware of his Father’s intentions as clearly as Russ is. This would explain why Manzo Shitama doesn’t know the name of his own families’ discipline. This explains why he wrote it incorrectly EVERY TIME on the Sekiryukan web site. Russ knows more than the Fukuoka government, who owns the Sekiryukan, and he knows more than the government’s appointed Chairman who is also listed on the Sekiryukan site. This would explain why the Sekiryukan web site and the Fukuoka Government are incorrect and Russ has uncovered the “correct name” of the school. Dennis Fink Sensei, who is Manzo Shitama’s senior representative and International Director, is directly linked to the Sekiryukan web site. Here is another reliable web site and source that must be incorrect and ignored if Russ’s speculations are correct, since they are also using the name Sosuishi ryu without any derivation. Patricia Harrington Sensei, who is a direct student of the 15th inheritor, (who Russ cites in his “research”), and a current student of Manzo Shitama Sensei and a senior representative of Sosuishi ryu maintains a web site that is also directly linked to the Sekiryukan web site. Here is another reliable web site and source that must be incorrect and ignored if Russ’s speculations are correct since they are also using the name Sosuishi ryu without any derivation.

So we have several credible, reliable sources, three of which are academically acceptable to be cited. They completely contradict Russ’s sophomoric and flawed research, and his biased, speculative conclusions

Thanks again for your time.

Bill Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toobills (talk • contribs) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill -- please try to be careful to avoid words like "sophomoric," which only serve to rile things up. It's not like I'm going to be reading your arguments, and leaning one way or the other, and then be like, "Oh!  Bill said Mekugi is being sophomoric, so now I'm convinced!"  hehehe...
 * So, my compromise below may be inadequate, because I may have misunderstood... I am completely convinced at this point that Sosuishi-ryu is the current and official name of this school of martial arts.  The sources Mekugi has referenced seem to support a given etymology for the history of this name.  Are you disputing the current name (which I agree is Sosuishi-ryu), or are you disputing the etymology that Meguki suggests?  i.e. you are saying that the school was never refered to as Susuishi-ryu Kumuichi Koshi no Mawari, and that this name has nothing to do with anything?
 * Could you address please what exactly the scroll is that Mekugi is looking at? He claims it was written by a reliable authority in the 1940s to give a summation of the history of Sosuishi-ryu.  You have referred to it as an "ancient scroll that Shatami has certainly read", but that's fine, I just want to understand what it is.  Is Mekugi's characterization of the nature of the scroll correct, i.e. is it an academic work from the 40s from a reliable historian?  Or is this a mischaracterization? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I am asking is so I know if I need to find my dictionary, heh... Are you saying the scroll is not a reliable source, or are you saying it was mistranslated by Mekugi?  At this point, either is possible, but you have not really told me which one you think.  You have asserted that other sources say the school is called Sosuishi-ryu, I don't dispute that.  If this source is what Mekugi says it is, and says what he says it does, then it would appear to support the contention that the current name is derived from the longer version.  While the reliable sources you have provided support the fact that Sosuishi-ryu is the current correct name, I do not see how any of them either support or contradict the contention that it was derived from a longer version sometime in the past.  I'd like to understand a little better why you think that is. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

I am saying that it is mistranslated as well as misunderstood by Russ/Mekugi. Kumi Uchi (grappling)  and Koshi no Mawari, which literally means “around the waist”, refers to the use of a katana (sword) and they are the components of Sosuishi-ryu, not the name.

If we wrote a book on baseball and one of the chapters was entitled Baseball Innings, would that make the name of the game “baseball Innings?” The same would be true of the sports, “Football Touchdown” or Basketball Dribbling.” These writings that Mekugi is referencing only describe the components, not the name.

Mekugi in his attempt to “discover” something assumes that that masters with over 45, 55 years of study do not know or understand what has been written inthese documents. This includes the current Headmaster who ist he son of the man who Russ/Mekugi is claiming to have written the document that is his source. Russ is reading too much into what is written. To answer your question, Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari was NEVER the name of this system. On the international headquarters website there is a very detailed history of Sosuishi-ryu. If the name was Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari was ever used don’t you think it would be mentioned there? Mekugi’s “discovery” or “original research” cannot be found in any reliable source.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
Okay, I have heard both sides, and while I have not translated the Kanji for myself yet (heh, I discovered my Kanji-English dictionary is somewhere in a closet that I really don't want to clean today, oh boy..), I think I have possibly a compromise proposal. I would like to hear thought from both sides on this.

There is little doubt, if I understand correctly, that the current name of this school of martial arts is Sosuishi Ryu, correct? The dispute is over where the name came from.

Now, it is totally inappropriate to delve into that in the intro text (it's just not that important, and frankly, as a non-knowledgable reader, when I read the intro the way it is now, it is very confusing). But how about if we add a section on the history of the naming later on? It might read something like this:

History of the name
In (whatever the date is), Futagami, the Xth inheritor of the dojo, renamed the martial arts style known as Futagami-ryu to "Sosuishi-ryu Kumiuchi Koshi no Mawari," to denote that it consisted of 48 Kumu ichi jujutsu techniques with the addition of the concept of Koshi no Mawari (an iaijutsu precept) in order to make use of weapons. Over time, the name was shortened to simply "Sosuishi-ryu."

Probably half of that info is incorrect, ha ha ha, but you can maybe straighten me out. I believe Mekugi's source could be used to back this up. Perhaps this could even be blended into the History section.

In any case, here is what I think overall:


 * The subtlety about the history of the naming does not belong in the intro. The style is called Sosuishi-ryu, so that's all that needs to go in the intro.
 * The history of the name does appear to be a topic of interest, and I see nothing wrong with including mention of this later in the article. If there is a dispute over the history, please explain to me exactly what the dispute is, so we can start to understand that.

Does this make sense? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bill,


 * IMHO your arguement has now changed completely. Originally, you said that the historic name was Sōsuishi-ryū Jujutsu (I can post a diff here but feel it will only upset you). I disagreed with that and attempted to show you my reasoning (see above). I then altered the article to try and work the name in. Just to clarify, looking at what you have written now, given the online/written resource I provided in the Shadanhojin Sekiryukan Website you are saying that the school Sōsuishi-ryū. To that I answer that this is the name of the article, and it appears on the first line of the article. As Jay has pointed out, the name is "derived" from the older name (which to me is the formal, historic name) that appears not only in the archives at the Sekiryukan, but also those of Takenouchi ryu (<---which uses derived name as well). I believe what you are trying to get at is that you did not like the fact that I put the word "formal" in the text because maybe you have a different definition of the word (current is different than formal, at least to me). Have you read the first paragraph lately? I edited the word "formal" out in the middle of the week. So really, I am not sure what you are arguing about here.


 * Jay:

I like your idea. I have done this with the Kukishin Ryu article with a "history of the name" section. It seems to fit here too.

Bill, do you agree to that change? Mekugi (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Russ

I don't think I can be any clearer or consistent with my position. Perhaps you should try going back and reading most of what I have written, and some of what you have deleted. My position is Shitama Sensei's position as he is Sosuishi ryu. The name of the school is Sosuishi ryu...period. His web site, Fink Sensei's web site, as well as Harrington Sensei's web site are all reliable sources to  academically cite. I still cannot comprehend your continued willingness to debate the position they have all collectively taken. It's as if you believe you have uncovered some new information. Just like your research being flawed, I contend your level of understanding, and translation of these documents is flawed as well. This is where experience in a discipline comes in to play, despite that we have intentionally tried to ignore during this part of the discussion, (at Jay's request). You seem to really believe you know more than Shitama Sensei, and what he has specifically written on this subject on his web site.

It seems you get into academic trouble when you begin to speculate and make assumptions. You are mistakenly trying to speculate what "I am trying to get at". I have considerable experience doing academic research during my undergraduate and graduate studies. I can assure you that during my education I became aware of the definitions of "current" and "formal".

Jay,

Please refer to my post about Russ's misinterpreting, and misunderstanding the information he has translated from these documents he references. I suggest that the first paragraph should read simply:

Sōsuishi-ryū (双水執流?)[1] is a traditional Japanese martial art founded in 1650 that focuses on Kumi Uchi (jujutsu) and Koshi no Mawari (iaijutsu  and kenjutsu). In the Bugei Ryūha Daijiten, Sōsuishi-ryū is cross referenced and listed under the entry/title of "Futagami-ryū." It includes a brief categorization, history and description of the school. [3]

I believe it's a correct and simple statement regarding the school that is consistent with Shitama Sensei's position and his web site that we should use as a reliable source. Anything else would be an incorrect assumption and a flawed conclusion to less than academically accepted research.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More Resources
How about the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten, which is also previously listed as a resource for the article. Page 728 - Futagami-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi No Mawari. It lists taijutsu as a generic for Kumi Uchi this time. Here's the entry with translation: Japanese text: 祖は豊後竹田藩士、二上半之介正聴. 竹内中竹内中務太夫久盛の門人. 一流を創めて二上流を弥したが、後、大和の吉野川畔で流水を見て開悟し、体術のほかに刀術をあつかうようになってから、双水執流組討腰の廻と改弥した. 筑前に帰って、寛文六年から黒田家の師範となり、天和三年、高弟、田代清次郎則忠に相伝. English: The founder, Futagami Hannosuke Masaaki was a warrior from the Bungo Takeda Domain. He was a student of Takenouchi Nakazudaiyu Hisamori. He first named his school Futagami-ryu, but after a revelation watching the flowing water at the banks of the Yoshino river in the Yamato domain, he changed the name to Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari. After returning to Kurumae, he became the Kuroda family's martial arts instructor in the 6th year of Kanbun. In the 3rd year of Tenwa, Futagami's senior student, Tashiro Seijiro succeded Futagami as the head of the school, recieving Soden. Or page 349 where it lists "Shitama-ha" 舌間派（柔）福岡藩士、舌間弥五郎宗綱. 亡多と号す. 先祖は宇都宮氏で豊後大友家につかえ、弁舌をもって名があったので主命で舌間と改めた. 弥五郎は小笠原流古実・吉田雪荷流射・大坪流馬・小笠原流騎馬・長沼流兵・安部流剣・宝蔵院流槍・扱心流体・落松流大筒・津田流砲・松本流薙・荻野流火・佐々木流火・双水執流組討腰の廻免許皆伝を得、天保四年十一月十八日、双水執流十一代となる. 養子真吾が明治十年西南の役に戦死したため、再び十三代となった. 同十三年、博多に清漣舎を再興. 明治三十年死去.

This could get ugly here, so I'm going to not show the translation of that. Also you can find this name at Takeuchi-ryu's page online: http://www.geocities.jp/minamoto_hitotsugu/bunryu.htm

Russ,

Again you incorrectly assume, and assert you know more than Shitama Sensei. Why post something if you believe it's 'going to get ugly", and you wouldn't want to translate it? Is it another "staggering" archeological find that Shitama Sensei is unaware of. Stop the nonsense, and less than academic research already. Introspection and humility are all crucial components of our training. You seem incapable to admit Shitama Sensei knows more than you. Are you now suggesting that in addition to you, and of course you "research" the Takeuchi ryu web page is a better source than Manzo Shitama Sensei?

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bill,

I'm not saying that I know more than Shitama Sensei. We're talking about the Wikipedia article here and I want to assert that I am, in fact, talking about the Wikipedia article. I didn't translate the Shitama-ha section because of the type of posts you've made previously, and I'm afraid that you will become angry. I'm sorry to feel the way you do and I am uncertain how you come to your opinion. Mekugi (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Russ,

Actions speak louder than words. You are behaving like you know more than Shitama Sensei, and are ignoring his web site which is a reliable academic source. You refuse to even consider that you are incorrect. Shitama Sensei knows a little bit more than you do about Sosuishi ryu. What motivates you to publicly contradict the 16th headmaster, his web site, his senior students, thier web sites, and even the Government of Fukuoka? If he believed that the school was called anything else wouldn't he have documented it on any of the sites that I have previously referenced? Wouldn't it be on the Sekiryukan site. Are you asserting that he is unaware of your discoveries, and somehow he doesn't understand what is written in those documents as well as you do? You are uncertain how I come to my opinion..., ask a direct question, and I'll give you a direct answer. No double talk, no hidden agenda, just facts that are supported by my experience, and information I have obtained first hand from reliable, expert sources on the issue. I have no agenda driven motivation, other than to expose the innacuracies and incorrect, speculative conclusions you have posted in the past regarding this Wikipedia article.

Bill Williams 71.112.186.29 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

--

Ok.... I'll try again... Quite awhile back I wrote to Mekugi:

"As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question(an older name containing components of the ryu). He disagrees with you."

Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms) and the book that he commissioned. He does not need anyone to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period.

Mr. Williams' baseball/innings and football/touchdown analogy is correct. None of the most reliable sources (such as Shitama Sensei's website) include components as part of the name. At this website:( http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=User:Mekugi ) Mekugi claims an "intermediate knowledge" of the Japanese language. That's great, but I think we should be able to agree that Shitama Sensei's knowledge of Japanese is excellent. His position as headmaster makes him best qualified to judge the intent of previous headmasters (including his father).

Shitama Sensei (and his websites) are by far the most accurate sources. I don't know how to make it more clear.

Mekugi writes: "I'm not saying that I know more than Shitama Sensei." Well that's how it appears.... If not, why not accept Shitama Sensei (and his websites) as the most accurate sources?

And to you Jay, I'm sure that all this seems like a lot of hubbub over not much.... just the name. From my point of view (and I think that Mr Williams shares this perspective), if factual corrections need to be made, the name is as good a place to start as any.

Randy

RC&amp;RB (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So what about the book Sekiryūkan No Chōsen. Is this wrong as well? Are you sure that is exactly what Shitama sensei means? Could it be possible that you're interpreting it?

Mekugi (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Shitama Sensei (and his websites) are by far the most accurate sources. I don't know how to make it more clear."

This is why the Sekiryūkan No Chōsen book sanctioned by Shitama Shihan and the Shadanhojin Sekiryukan was used as a primary source in the article to begin with. It has more information about Sosuishi-ryu than any other publication out there. However, what has been written above about the Takenouchi-ryu and the Bugei ryuha Daijiten is actually contained in the Sekiryukan publication itself.

Please refer to Chapter three of the Sekiryūkan No Chōsen. Pages 116-138. Clear references are given as well as terminology. This is THE book of Sosuishi-ryu.

Kind regards.

Kogusoku (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Kogusoku

Jay,

Steve Delaney states "I am sorry to say this, but if it falls solely upon order, then you will notice that the first chapter is namely on the history of the Sekiryukan as a Judojo and not on Sosuishi ryu's bujutsu history."

Even beginning students (white belts) of the Sekiryukan, hombu of ALL Sosuishi-ryu understands that "Judojo" refers to Ju, which means gentle or soft (as in jujutsu, judo) dojo (place to practice the way). It does NOT refer to a "Judo Dojo," if that’s what he is alluding to. This argument holds no water, and further displays lack of knowledge of the Sekiryukan and Sosuishi-ryu, which are one and the same, precisely the point of the Sekiryukan no Chosen.

The Sekiryukan no Chosen, by the way was commissioned to commemorate the 350th anniversary of Sosuishi-ryu, not the Sekiryukan. As practitioners of Sosuishi-ryu should know, the dojo name Sekiryukan did not exist in 1650, it is the present name of Sosuishi-ryu's hombu, which dates back to 1911.

I’m sure that the next comment will be on bujutsu versus budo and that Sosuishi-ryu was bujutsu, not budo. As I indicated, the name of the dojo was changed to Sekiryukan in 1911, the use of “do” versus “jutsu” began to catch on, so to speak, after the formation of Judo, of which our 14th inheritor, Aoyagi Kibei Sensei contributed to in 1905. In fact Aoyagi sensei taught judo as well as jujutsu at the Sekiryukan.

I’m sorry to say this, but this debate (for lack of a better word) borders on ridicules and it is becoming a smoke and mirror charade, laced with rhetoric.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Concerning the Sekiryukan no Chosen that Mekugi/ Russ refers to concerning the name, the 2nd reference states " (Japanese)[Masaru, Negami. 2003. Sekiryūkan No Chōsen. Shadanhōjin Sekiryūkan. Pages 200-210.]". If this was a reference to the "official name" don't you think it would have been listed before page 200 in a book that consists of 224 pages? I think logic should prevail that it was not listed in the beginning of the book, but near the end because it is/was not the name of the ryu, which is what this book is all about. In this chapter it describes the Kumi Uchi and Koshi no Mawari (components of the ryu), even providing photos of a few of the kata. The reason that it is not mentioned until the end of the book is that very simply, it is a reference to the "components" of the system, not the name. We can not go by what other people may or may not have called the system (Mekugi's references outside of the "official website"). We must go by what the system (masters) calls/called itself. Football in some parts of the world refers to soccer. Because they choose to call it that, should we change the name as well and call (our) football something else? Just like we call soccer...soccer and football...football in the United States. Whether football is more accurate in naming soccer then football is irrelevant to the actual name. This is a matter of Russ/Mekugi's misinterpretation. I am not disputing that he can read the kanji, but he doesn't understand the reason why or why not some kanji are arranged a certain way. Once again, the system was passed down from master to master over a 350 year period, whereas each master "groomed" his successor by teaching them face to face not only the techniques but the meaning behind them as well, in addition to its history. The current master, Shitama Manzo Sensei was "groomed" by his father, the very same person that Russ is using as a reference in the 1941 document. If Russ is correct, why does Shitama Sensei dispute Mekugi's revaluations? Russ should be commended for being able to read Japanese, but he has a limited understanding of Sosuishi-ryu. Please don't take this as a "shot" at Russ, I am only trying to shed some light on the problem at hand. Dennis Fink Sensei, who is Menkyo Kaiden (license of total transmission) in Sosuishi-ryu, asked Shitama Sensei a direct question with a native Japanese interpreter present (to ensure that nothing was lost) about the name and that it is written on Wikipedia as Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari. His reply was simply "he is crazy" (whoever wrote this). Just passing this along, I'm not implying anything. Thanks again for your time and understanding.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

Jujutsu was called various names over the years kumi uchi was one of them, another was yawara. I am not disputing that the words kumi uchi was used to describe what we know as jujutsu at one point, just as yawara was used. What I have been saying all along is that the formal name of the ryu is simply Sosuishi-ryu, not Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi (or Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari), not Sosuishi-ryu Yawara, and not Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu. It is just simply...Sosuishi-ryu...period. It is a form of jujutsu (kumi uchi, yawara). All jujutsu koryu were known as these various names over the years. If we mention, kumi uchi koshi no mawari, then we must mention all of the names that jujutsu was referred to as. There is no need and it is irrelevant to this article. The "Formal" name is Sosuishi-ryu, that's it. Sosuishi-ryu consists of kumi uchi and koshi no mawari techniques. Hence, these are the components of the ryu. I hope this helps,

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

As you are aware, the issue at hand here is interpretation. This problem also exists when judges try to interpret laws as well as the United States Constitution. Judges attempt to “read the minds” of our forefathers, as to their intent when writing these documents. Attorneys argue these cases, as they study laws, and still “interpret” them differently. Nonetheless these issues of law are argued by experienced individuals and decided by people with even more experience, judges, then appellate judges and ultimately the US Supreme Court. An individual that took a couple of law classes and believed that he was an attorney would not be taken seriously. He could not argue his case before the Supreme Court. I do understand that the rules of Wikipedia do not recognize one person to know more than another and that everyone is equal and I respect those rules, although I disagree in this instance. However, it is very frustrating debating an issue of interpretation with people that don’t understand the rudiments of the issue at hand. Having said that, I contend that the problem is interpretation, in addition to “original research” and I adamantly oppose the inclusion of kumi uchi koshi no mawari as the name of the ryu, whether it be formal or not, as it was never the name. According to the dictionary, the word name is defined as “a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known.” I submit that the present headmaster, Shitama Manzo, sensei (teacher) of All of Sosuishi-ryu, insists that Sosuishi-ryu was never designated, called or known as kumi uchi koshi no mawari. He states this based on first hand knowledge passed directly to him from his father, of whose mind Russ/Mekugi attempts to read, concerning a document written in 1941. What Russ doesn’t (or refuses to) understand is that kumi uchi, yawara and jujutsu are interchangeable and that has nothing to do with the name of the ryu, which is Sosuishi-ryu. As Shitama Shusaku passed away long before Russ was born, Russ has never met him, nor did his teacher, Mr. Usuki, who studied briefly with Shitama Manzo Sensei. How Russ thinks that he can “interpret” Shitama Shusaku’s thoughts, or any of the other late headmasters, baffles my mind. Thanks for putting up with this tiresome debate.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Gentlemen:

Perhaps you have not read my post completely. Here it is again with some highlights:

snip & paste

Ok.... I'll try again... Quite awhile back I wrote to Mekugi:

"As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question(an older name containing components of the ryu). He disagrees with you."

Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms) and the book that he commissioned. He does not need anyone to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period.

Mr. Williams' baseball/innings and football/touchdown analogy is correct. None of the most reliable sources (such as Shitama Sensei's website) include components as part of the name. At this website:( http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=User:Mekugi ) Mekugi claims an "intermediate knowledge" of the Japanese language. That's great, but I think we should be able to agree that '''Shitama Sensei's knowledge of Japanese is excellent. His position as headmaster makes him best qualified to judge the intent of previous headmasters (including his father).''' Shitama Sensei (and his websites) are by far the most accurate sources. I don't know how to make it more clear.

Mekugi writes: "I'm not saying that I know more than Shitama Sensei." Well that's how it appears.... If not, why not accept Shitama Sensei (and his websites) as the most accurate sources?

And to you Jay, I'm sure that all this seems like a lot of hubbub over not much.... just the name. From my point of view (and I think that Mr Williams shares this perspective), if factual corrections need to be made, the name is as good a place to start as any.

Randy —Preceding unsigned comment added by RC&RB (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC) RC&amp;RB (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to brush over the comments here, and just focus on the one below (I'm busy, so they will have to go untouched).


 * Bill wrote:
 * Concerning the Sekiryukan no Chosen that Mekugi/ Russ refers to concerning the name, the 2nd reference states " (Japanese)[Masaru, Negami. 2003. Sekiryūkan No Chōsen. Shadanhōjin Sekiryūkan. Pages 200-210.]". If this was a reference to the "official name" don't you think it would have been listed before page 200 in a book that consists of 224 pages?


 * If you have read the book, you know what the chapters before chapter 3 are about- not about the history of Sosuishi ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari. I am sorry to say this, but if it falls solely upon order, then you will notice that the first chapter is namely on the history of the Sekiryukan as a Judojo and not on Sosuishi ryu's bujutsu history. So this really is not a logical argument unless you are trying say Sosuishi ryu is really Judo. I, however, do not believe you are saying this and unfortunately, to me it looks like you are commenting on a book you have not read or gone over very well (or had the time to have discussed with you). This is not meant to be offensive, but just a matter of fact as what you have written makes little sense otherwise. Pages 200-210 are in fact dealing with Sosuishi ryu's bujutsu specifially. This is is where it lists the name and why they are in the references to this article here at Wikipedia.


 * So I want to ask finally, this time specifically in with good intent:
 * Do you believe that the Sekiryūkan No Chōsen is wrong and why?

Kogusoku (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

I think that you are "brushing over" the main point. Mr Williams' argument is not that "the Sekiryukan No Chosen is wrong". He and I are saying that Shitama Sensei is by far the most qualified person to interpret it and the other documents cited. Also it seems to me that translating (and interpreting) a Japanese document into English comes pretty close to "original research". There is a significant probability that the researcher will accidently change the meaning, particularly if he is an intermediate student of Japanese.

Here are a couple of points that were "brushed over".

First from Mr Williams:

"This is a matter of Russ/Mekugi's misinterpretation. I am not disputing that he can read the kanji, but he doesn't understand the reason why or why not some kanji are arranged a certain way.

Once again, the system was passed down from master to master over a 350 year period, whereas each master "groomed" his successor by teaching them face to face not only the techniques but the meaning behind them as well, in addition to its history. The current master, Shitama Manzo Sensei was "groomed" by his father, the very same person that Russ is using as a reference in the 1941 document. If Russ is correct, why does Shitama Sensei dispute Mekugi's revaluations? Russ should be commended for being able to read Japanese, but he has a limited understanding of Sosuishi-ryu. Please don't take this as a "shot" at Russ, I am only trying to shed some light on the problem at hand.

Dennis Fink Sensei, who is Menkyo Kaiden (license of total transmission) in Sosuishi-ryu, asked Shitama Sensei a direct question with a native Japanese interpreter present (to ensure that nothing was lost) about the name and that it is written on Wikipedia as Sosuishi-ryu Kumi Uchi Koshi no Mawari. His reply was simply "he is crazy" (whoever wrote this). Just passing this along, I'm not implying anything. Thanks again for your time and understanding."

And from me:

"As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question(an older name containing components of the ryu). He disagrees with you."

"Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms) and the book that he commissioned. He does not need anyone to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period."

"I think we should be able to agree that Shitama Sensei's knowledge of Japanese is excellent. His position as headmaster makes him best qualified to judge the intent of previous headmasters (including his father). Shitama Sensei (and his websites) are by far the most accurate sources."

So I want to ask finally, this time specifically and with good intent: Do you believe that Shitama Sensei is wrong and why?

Best,

Randy Cantonwine - RC&amp;RB (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, In response to Steve/Kogusoku’s comment:

I have stated Manzo Shitama Sensei’s position over and over again. I’m afraid that despite whatever I present, this is likely not going to end, as these individuals just do not get it.

Manzo Shitama Sensei commissioned Professor Negami to write this book and he approved of it after its completion. Shitama Sensei DISAGREE’s with what these individuals are (mis)interpreting and has stated this several times. Quite frankly, he is tired of saying the same thing over and over again, as am I. I believe you have enough information to make an intelligent, academic decision regarding the name.

I submit that neither Russ/Mekugi, nor Steve/Kogusoku have enough rudimentary knowledge of Sosuishi ryu, or the Japanese language and nuance to challenge, and directly contradict the 16th headmaster’s position. This is not an attack on either of them, as I would categorize myself in the same manner. I have consistently stated that one of the problems we are faced with here is (mis)interpretation, in addition to “original research” and I adamantly oppose the inclusion of kumi uchi koshi no mawari as the name of the ryu, as Manzo Shitama Sensei has stated it was never the name. This is not MY position or opinion, it is the position of Shitama Sensei who IS Sosuishi ryu.

If you would like a statement from the “official” Sosuishi-ryu organization I (or you) can request it.

You suggested a compromise. This is what I suggest the first paragraph should simply read:

Sōsuishi-ryū (双水執流?)[1] is a traditional Japanese martial art founded in 1650 that focuses on Kumi Uchi (jujutsu) and Koshi no Mawari (iaijutsu and kenjutsu). In the Bugei Ryūha Daijiten, Sōsuishi-ryū is cross referenced and listed under the entry/title of "Futagami-ryū." It includes a brief categorization, history and description of the school. [3]

I believe it's a correct and simple statement regarding the school that is consistent with Shitama Sensei's position, and his web site that we should use as a reliable source. Anything else would be an incorrect assumption and a flawed conclusion to less than academically accepted research.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

I have a scanned copy of an "official" document from the city of Fukuoka, Japan, naming Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu and Shitama Manzo as intangible cultural assets. Even though this official government document uses the term Jujutsu, I am not stating that it is part of the name. The name of the ryu is simply, Sosuishi-ryu. However, the government of Fukuoka clearly identifies it as jujutsu.

If you would like to see it to help you come to a compromise here, let me know how to post it, and I'll get it on the discussion board.



Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how post this document.


 * Jay wrote:
 * Gentlemen,


 * I think that you are "brushing over" the main point. Mr Williams' argument is not that "the Sekiryukan No Chosen is wrong". He and I are saying that Shitama Sensei is by far the most qualified person to interpret it and the other documents cited.
 * Please show me where he writes this directly. If it's the website, then I can show you an instance on the same website of where the other name occurs. Are you certain I am the one that is synthesizing this information from one source and misinterpretation? I refer to may orignal post regarding the subject, which is supported by evidence from not only one, but three sources- one of which Manzo Shitama and the Sekiryukan wrote themselves.

You're right Russ,

You read it so it must be true.

You obviously know more about Sosuishi ryu than Shitama Sensei.

You understand Japanese better than he does.

You have spoken to him, and Professor Negami on this topic.

You understand more than senior practitioners who share his position on the matter.

Feel better now.

Sad, very sad. It's the tail arrempting to wag the dog. Some of us know the truth and see right through the charade.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill wrote:
 * ''Unfortunately, I don't know how post this document.

Toobills (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * Be warned, there are a lot of legalities around it. Have persmission first.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload


 * Bill wrote:
 * ''Unfortunately, I don't know how post this document.

Toobills (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * Be warned, there are a lot of legalities around it. Have persmission first.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload

Let me assure the self proclaimed expert who "warned" that: "I should have permission to post a document" - I do! That's in direct contrast to those who have no other agenda but to bolster their own resume, and self importance by acting like experts on a subject that is in direct contradiction to the 16th inheritors position on the matter. Where do you think I would obtain a document that is only displayed in the Sekiryukan? Use your head.

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean on wikipedia. You have to tag it properly; It's public information, but you still have to put the proper wiki tag on it or it will be removed. Incidentally, you are right I haven't spoken to Dr. Nagami directly about this subject directly, but Usuki sensei in Tokyo has talked to him extensively and I know the contents of thier conversations. As a matter of fact, it was Dr. Negami who contacted  Usuki sensei to verify information, which was verified to be in concordance. Dr. Negami stated that if he would have talked to Usuki sensei previously, it would have saved him a lot of time.

Mekugi (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay,

It would be appreciated if you could guide me as to how I can post this document properly, according to Wkikipedia’s rules.

As for the last comment from Russ/Mekugi, I am also aware of the contents of Professor Negami and Mr. Usuki’s conversations and it was ONLY concerning the introduction and history of Sosuishi-ryu “in Tokyo.” At the time, Ito Sensei, the legitimate inheritor of the Matsui-ha was not in contact with the Sekiryukan, so Professor Negami had to speak to a former junior member of Ito Sensei’s group, Mr. Usuki.

It was falsely purported previously by a splinter group of the Matsui-ha that 90% of the Sekiryukan no Chosen was information given by Mr. Usuki. This is 100% false. Either Mr. Usuki is not disclosing the truth or others are fabricating the contents of Professor Negami and Mr. Usuki’s conversations. I would hope that it was not Mr. Usuki and was a third party misrepresentation of the truth.

Please Jay, let’s putt this ping-pong game to an end. I’m getting tired of responding to individuals that change the rules as they go. I’m not referring to the Wikipedia rules; I’m referring to the rules of ethics, honesty and respect, to name a few.

Thanks,

Bill Williams Toobills (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is not interpretation or orignal reasearch, it is just stating what it says in the book that Mr. Shitama authorized. There is no synthesizing of information here as it appears not only in one recent document kept at the Sekirryukan, but also in the modern doments they released in Sekiryukan no chosen. It also appears in the root art of Sosuishiryu, Takenouchi ryu, From these sources he is saying it directly, and that he is aware of it and furthermore allowed to be published in his own book (at least, the Sekiryukan's book).

Steve, I know you are now “tagging in” at the end of this “discussion”. Perhaps you need to spend some time reading what I have said before. This is not MY personal position; I have only reiterated Shitama Sensei’s position on this matter. It’s telling how you, and your side kick refuse to acknowledge this. Rather you choose to cherry pick information to support a flawed conclusion

As far as I can tell, Shitama sensei realizes these are the same thing and it is not a matter of contention. Perhaps if both Randy and Bill could speak to him directly as others can in this country via telephone or letter, this would not be a problem. When foreign budoka speak to Japanese teachers over academic points, it's not a matter of just listening and taking what is heard at face value, the core meaning is also discussed and dissected for clarity. This was done with several human sources.

Steve, you wrote: “As far as you can tell”? Well, what a surprise…, another speculation, and incorrect conclusion. Are you now asserting the mail or the telephone only contacts Shitama Sensei from Tokyo? If you read any of the previous posts the conversation that occurred regarding this matter took place face to face with Shitama Sensei. I know for sure no one in Tokyo is meeting with, or speaking with Shitama Sensei regarding this matter, or any other matter, (including training) because he will not address your group. On the contrary, I don’t experience that problem. This is evidenced by your Sensei's link to Shitama Sensei's  web site being removed for precisely this type of inappropriate behavior. And we all know you have No audience with Shitama Sensei directly. “Face value…, core meaning…, dissected for clarity? This is precisely your problem, and it shows not just in your demeanor, but in your waza, and more importantly your lack of understanding of Budo. Individuals who are looking to take short cuts add, or leave out valuable information that is consistent with their own agenda. They label their discovery” as some secret, mysterious, core meaning. That’s what happens when junior students take short cuts. Why contradict Shitama Sensei? What’s the purpose? We all know that the words Jujutsu, yawara, kumi uchi, yoroi kumi uchi, and others are interchangeable, and are components of the discipline. Why do you and Russ NEED to interject your “speculative discoveries”? Does it make you feel good, does it bolster your resume? Does it somehow give you credibility behind a keyboard that you likely cannot get elsewhere in your life? We know you won’t be getting that credibility on the mat or in a dojo. Not sarcasm or an attack, just a genuine set of questions here.

"I submit that neither Russ/Mekugi, nor Steve/Kogusoku have enough rudimentary knowledge of Sosuishi ryu, or the Japanese language and nuance to challenge, and directly contradict the 16th headmaster’s position. This is not an attack on either of them, as I would categorize myself in the same manner."

That's interesting, how many years have you lived in Japan yourself to know that either of us are underqualified to speak or even understand Japanese? Do you know how many years either Russ or myself lived there? Russ has been living in Japan for over six years now. I have lived there for a bit over nine and a half. Again, not a sarcasm, nor an attack, but just a genuine question here.

Steve, I never said that you or Russ were “underqualified (sic) to speak or even understand Japanese”. Go back and re-read, or have someone explain to you what I said, and the complete context of my response that you posted and replied to. You ignored the most significant part of my statement: and that is I believe you lack the rudimentary knowledge of Sosuishi ryu to contradict and challenge the 16th headmaster’s position. I also included myself in this category. I also believe that despite your difficulties with english reading comprehension, it’s likely you have it wrong in Japanese judging from your speculative conclusions. There are Hundreds of thousands of Western foreigners in Japan, particularly those from Europe, North America, Austraila and New Zealand and are often called gaikokujin or gaijin living in Japan and most don’t study the martial arts, so let’s stop playing the “over here” rhetoric game again.

Furthermore, we have never once contradicted what Shitama shihan has stated -We merely quoted numerous what was in the book that he sanctioned and commissioned, which contains emiprical information. We also quoted the books that were mentioned in chapter three of the Sekiryukan Chosen regarding the history of the ryuha; The Bugei Ryuha Daijiten, Takenouchi-ryu - Jujutsu no genryu, Hiden No Nihon jujutsu and quite a few other books. As is stated in the article, he is viewed as the head of Sosuishi-ryu by all lines of the ryuha.

Steve, Again, I think you need to go back and re-read some of the points I tried to make. If you choose not to accept Shitama Sensei’s position, then just say so. Simply state that you are going to write whatever you choose, based on your own speculative research conclusions and interpretations of things you have read, or heard. We can end this and you can go back to other forums where you can continue your deceptions and outright lies.

Please don't make this some childish grudge match, calling names and using sarcasm. I believe we're a lot better than that.

Steve,I don’t think you’re better than that at all. You make sarcastic remarks and then you say don’t do it. You write in riddles, and innuendo, and outright lie to forward your agenda, (let me know when you want those posted). Russ argues, and then complains about being challenged, and then he outright lies about being threatened. This may not be the forum to address all of your inconsistencies so I won’t. Anytime you’d like to, let me know and I’d be glad to point out your lack of credibility and honesty. Here’s a suggestion regarding this “debate”, let’s bring back Russ, because the “second stringer” isn’t doing that well. I have addressed all of your comments in previous posts, please take the time to read all of the posts and bring yourself up to speed before commenting, because all you are doing is march-timing (marching in place) and not going anywhere. Hence, you are not moving this conversation along. The only grudge I have is with self-proclaimed experts forwarding a biased agenda, and trying to pass it off as academic reliable research.

Bill WIlliams Toobills (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regards Kogusoku (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please watch the name calling
We are starting to get back to the level of discussion that originally resulted in the report to WP:WQA. Let me assure you that all of your credentials (or lack thereof) are more or less meaningless, because nobody else on Wikipedia has any way of verifying any of that information. We should stick to what we can find in reliable information.

I am still trying to understand whether the contention here is over the reliability of Mekugi's source, or the interpretation of his source. I'm not sure I've gotten a straight answer on that one, but there is a lot to comb through here, so I'll check again if I have time. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I see that there is an answer here, that it is the interpretation of the source rather than the reliability. It is difficult to follow the arguments here when you guys interleave your comments with each other, because if I come back two days later I am not sure who said what.  I think I sort of follow it now.
 * This may require someone with more expertise than myself. If the parties in question cannot reach a compromise, you may consider filing a request for comment. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is closer to the interpreters of the source, maybe. :-) At any rate, thanks for your help Jay!!! You've really done a lot here, actually, more than most will admit to. Kudos!
 * Anyway, I am taking a little hiatus. This does not mean I concede my point that the names are the same and this is a silly argument, but it does mean my life is busy. I train five days a week, work a fulltime job, own two businesses and have three kids. My time is rather precious and right now it is a rather expensive commodity. Steve, if you would be so kind....

Mekugi (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve,

I'm happy to address your off-topic concerns:


 * 1) I have never lived in Japan. I enjoy visiting Japan, but I'm an American. Thus far, I prefer living in America.


 * 1a) My place of residence has no bearing on my knowledge of Russ' expertise in Japanese.


 * 1b) As you know, Russ claims an intermediate knowledge of Japanese ( http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=User:Mekugi ) . Experience argues against me taking him at his word, but I'll do so anyway.


 * 1c) Unless one's hobby is trying to show Japanese natives how to "properly" interpret their family heirloom documents, there is no special need to live in Japan. Anyone who thinks otherwise should consider the example of Fink Sensei. He is extremely skilled and rather highly graded (at least for someone who doesn't speak Japanese....).


 * 2) Regardless of Russ' (or your) level of expertise in Japanese, it is my position that Shitama Sensei is the most qualified person to interpret his family heirloom documents and the book that he commissioned.


 * 3) I have spoken directly to Shitama Sensei. I have trained at the Sekiryukan and he has taught at my dojo. Additionally, I have trained under him several times at New York Seibukan.


 * 3a) Amazingly enough, US mail and phone service works perfectly well to contact Shitama Sensei. (You don't have to be in Japan to talk on the phone or mail a letter.)


 * 3b) I have some manners and some understanding of budo. I would never contact Shitama Sensei directly without his invitation. I would go through my sensei.


 * 3c) Shitama Sensei did request that I write a letter to him in the early 90s. I did that and he followed up with a phone call. He wanted to get my thoughts on the behavior of a dissenting splinter group that then existed in Portland. It shouldn’t be a surprise that Russ had a leadership role in that group and its actions.

Randy Cantonwine RC&amp;RB (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC) - Mekugi said "this is a silly argument". Perhaps.... as I said: "a lot of hubbub over not much.... just the name." However, if the ryu is able to wade through all the "used hay" and put some factual information in this "academically flawless" article, the name is as good a place to start as any. RC&amp;RB (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pat Harridton's involvement
Harrington taught this style in Australia for 50 years or so, and at that stage, I believe, was the sole person teaching it outside Japan. This is references and obviously noteworthy, and she herself at the time was a rare woman instructing in martial arts as a sensei.

The references to her were removed from the article, for no reasons, but clearly this is noteworthy, so I have put them back in. I believe responsibility for this style was taken from her and handed over to the people mentioned in the article, at which point she started her own dojo not connected with this one.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Deathlibrarian,
 * I'm responding to your inputs under the Sosuishi-ryu Outside Japan heading. You're quite right that Pat Harrington was the representative in Australia until early 2016, but the art has been taught in the USA since the early 1960's. I've made a few edits to your updates to correct some small but notable errors. Please see my revisions under the Review History tab for details.
 * Kind regards,
 * Kumataka Dojos Kumataka.dojo (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)