Talk:Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū

Comments
They are all the same. I've replaced the text in each with redirects to this page.

also Ueshiba studied a bit of Judo when he was young - not this ryu. I've removed the reference.Peter Rehse 03:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ueshiba did do Judo when he was young there are no dispute here. But there is a common problem among historians, even Ueshiba son, the late Kissomaru Ueshiba misquoted in one of his books that his father studied Kito ryu instead of Tenjin Shinyo Ryu.

According to the information gathered through research and interviews done by Aikido journal editor,Mr.Stanly Pranin (Aikido historian) and also by Kubota Sensei(current Tenjin Shinyo Ryu headmaster) indicated that Ueshiba sensei did study tenjin shinyo ryu,(please view the lineage chart provided on the external link).Ueshiba studied under one of Iso Mataemon students by the name of Tozawa Tokusaburo. However he did not spent long time learning Tenjin Shinyo Ryu (maybe for aprox 2-3 years).

the stuff on Goshin Ryu or whatever is totally baseless. On my last visit to Japan around last year, Kubota sensei DID NOT mention or indicated about any changes within the system or any so caled "new stream". This is a mere publicity stunt to promote this particular individual school (breakaway) without any proper approval by the current Tenjin Shinyo Ryu headmaster Kubota Sensei. Why would Kubota Sensei suddenly be "inspired" to change the teachings passed on by his teacher,instead of keeping it pure ? Goshinjyutsu (translated "self defence jujutsu")curiculum is ridiculous, isnt Tenjin Shinyo Ryu system is enough to be used as a self defence art instead of having to augment its "GOSHIN" (self defence) elements ?

Swblock

The above comments on Goshin Ryu are slanderous.

Since 1998, when he first learned of Mr. Calvin Lester, an individual has made a non-stop attempt to discredit the achievements of him. One can only question what his real motives for doing so could be. On the surface, perhaps it is to maintain his self-proclaimed stature as the western authority on the bujutsu, to sell more books from his website? Yet, he doesn't seem to mind others of European descent to have their claims to the koryu. Rather, he only appears to have a deep seated contempt for Mr. Lester.

The fact that an individual traveled to and studied other styles in Japan and was introduced to Kubota Sensei does not make him a notable authority on any of the Koryu, as he achieved full licensure in none as far as anyone can tell. His assertion that Kubota Sensei made no mention of his delineation of Goshin ryu is only a reflection of the lack of respect / trust that Kubota Sensei placed in him. Furthermore, that lack of trust in that individual can not be considered a notable fact for the exclusion of Goshin ryu here in Wikipedia.

Moreover, that individual questions above why Kubota Sensei would do what he did. First of all, it is his, and his alone, perogative as the head of the school to do whatever he wants for the style. Secondly, it is of no one else's concern, including frustrated authors. That individuals understanding of the Tenjin Shinyo style is rudimentary at best. Much of the information provided on the Wikipedia page for Tenjin is lacking completeness. But, there is no way for that individual to know since in all likelihood, he has *NEVER* trained in the style personally.

Imagine, someone who claims to be such an authority on Tenjin Shinyo ryu, yet has never trained for a single day in the ryu. that individual has about a tenth more book knowledge of the style than the public at large. Surely, no one can expect him to be a notable source for either the inclusion or exclusion of anything related to Tenjin, or even the Koryu at large. Wikipedia should reach out directly to those individuals who are certified, knowledgeable sources of information.

On the other hand, *ALL* of the information on Tenjin Shinyo Goshin ryu can be verified. In fact, all documents, some handwritten by Kubota Sensei himself, could be presented as verifiable proof to any Wikipedia authority, assuming that Mr. Lester even cares to agree to such disclosure. Mr. Lester has presented a herculean effort to ignore the misplaced anger of that individual and his actions. But, enough is enough.

So here we seem to have a disagreement working itself out on the talk pages of wikipedia, which is fine, I suppose. As long as it doesn't involve a seesawing of postings and deletions.

When I came upon the article it seemed a little 'school specific' so I attempted to broaden the article and remove bias. I also have never studied Tenjin Shinyo Ryu but relied upon the materials cited in the reference section with a great deal of it coming from Meik Skoss'of Koryu Books. I have no doubt that it lacks completeness and would benefit from additional information, so feel free to do so.

Just a few thoughts;

When in doubt I think it best to provide some sort of reference for the material in contention. (This can even be a personal discussion with an important person in the ryu.) When something is in contention it is usually best to acknowledge the fact, point out what different parties have claimed and sources for this information. That way even if the information is not something you agree with people can know the range of claims and their sources. Also one should always sign their posts in order that people know there is someone willing to stand behind what they have written.

Just an idea.

I've had problems myself with people posting information in my own work that I know to be false. In the end I decided to let them do so with my protest duly noted in "talk" and reference to where true information could be confirmed by the head of the school and a method of contacting that person. They didn't care and posted it anyway as it was to their advantage to do so. I don't think that there is anything I could do to avoid a 'posting fight' otherwise. : ) --Mateo2006 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 20:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tenjin Shinyō-ryū → Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū – Correct romanization in accordance with WP:MOSJ. The article text uses an apostrophe, so the current title is an anachronism. Also, while it doesn't really apply here, GBooks shows a slight tendency toward "Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū". --Relisted. Tyrol5  [Talk]  00:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) elvenscout742 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:MOSJ General guidelines Syllabic n ん is generally written as n before consonants (see below), but as n' (with an apostrophe) before vowels and y. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The sources used in this article (e.g., makotokan, koryu-bujutsu) do not use that spelling. (FWIW, they don't use the macrons either.) Should follow common English usage, rather than presume to instruct external sources on which romanisation is and isn't correct. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regards Elvens' "slight tendency" argument: note that GBooks estimates only 19 hits for "Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū" but 87 for "Tenjin Shin'yo-ryu" and 286 for "Tenjin Shinyo-ryu". So the fifteen times stronger case... Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a native English-speaker and I live in Japan, and I never heard of this subject before a really boring morning at work last week when I was browsing random Wikipedia articles. What makes you think this topic has a "common English usage"? Also, please read MOSJ, to which I linked above, before !voting in any more of these Japan RMs: your obvious bias against the use of macrons in these articles is quite apparent. 聖 ( 会話/投稿記録 ) 07:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW elf, as this is a process aimed at building and gauging consensus, to change your name between comments would be less open to being misunderstood if you yourself had pointed out you had done so. Cesiumfrog (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your friend JoshuSasori found it far too easy to turn my old username into a derogatory parody. This one should be easier to work with. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MOSJ states:
 * Japanese terms should be romanized according to common usage in English-language reliable sources... To determine if the non-macronned form is in common usage in English-language reliable sources, a review should be done of all the related reliable sources... If an article uses English-language reliable sources and those sources use a particular form of romanization to name a topic, give preference to that romanization in the article title and body text.... If no romanization is given by the reliable sources used in an article, use modified Hepburn romanization.
 * Seems unequivocal to me -- we've established that 95% of English-language reliable sources for this topic do not use the macrons, and two thirds omit the apostrophe as well.


 * With respect, it would hardly be surprising for a person completely unfamiliar with this topic and who lives in Japan to be biased toward attempting to accurately represent the Japanese instead of attempting to accurately follow the usage in English sources familiar to this topic. We all have biases of some kind. That's why it is helpful to reduce the argument to numbers. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we don't romanize the syllabic n before y as simply "n" even if there are a million reliable sources that do that. That makes it unpronouncable. There are plenty reliable sources to show that Wikipedia's standard romanization method is in use. Additionally, can I ask why you saw fit to de-rail another RM related to capitalization by making personal attacks against me regarding the use of macrons?? the "Forty-seven Ronin" article is a mess, I would have been perfectly willing to compromise with you regarding the macron (given that Wikipedia actually has an article called ronin), but you saw fit to be overly confrontational and ruin the RM even though out of four users (including you) none were opposed to either removing the capital "R" or capitalizing the "S". Please stop doing this.
 * Tell you what: you re-nominate Forty-seven Ronin to be moved to either Forty-Seven Ronin or Forty-seven ronin, and I'll "let you have" this one. I've re-posted two of my own RMs in the last month or so. On one I was completely in the right because the previous one had been sabotaged by your friend JoshuSasori, but otherwise with a clear consensus, and the other was a case where the first RM had basically established a consensus on where the page should be moved, but my suggested title was not it, so I re-nommed for the more popular title. I still don't feel right re-nomming a page where there was some notable controversy, though. Do we have a deal?
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you consistently trying to make this personal? I don't know who this Joshu user you keep mentioning is, nor what she said to you, nor why you keep linking me to that person. You also seem to be under the misimpression that there is some kind of ownership to be dealt or traded here. Lets please try to keep our comments on topic here.
 * Do you think the MOSJ (or policy generally) is consistent with, or at variance to, your contention that particular romanisation rules should take precedence over preponderances of external sources? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenjin Shinyō-ryū → Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū – I proposed this back in February. User:In ictu oculi supported and User:Cesiumfrog opposed. The opposition was based on a misunderstanding of how romanization and style guidelines work: we are not trying to "instruct external sources" as to which romanizations are "correct". Both are valid, but on Wikipedia we use this one. In the middle of the discussion I was forced off Wikipedia and became unable to respond when Cesiumfrog insinuated that he didn't know about JoshuSasori, despite my only prior interaction with him having involved him refer directly to my dispute with JoshuSasori. If I had remained on Wikipedia at that time perhaps the RM would have ended more decisively, so I'm reopening it now. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hijiri, why persist in trying to make this personal? I find your accusations utterly bizarre: your own tool (interaction analyser) indicates I've never once edited any page within 300 days of the same being edited by JoshuSatori (whoever that is). I'm not even sure exactly what you're claiming, so please link to the diff (for my edit) and state very plainly what you think I've done wrong. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you said I like to move pages according to my own personal preference, despite you and I never having interacted with each other before and this not being at all about my personal preferences. You were clearly reading something into my then recent dispute with JoshuSasori. How do you explain that? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - same as above, Shin yō and Shi nyō need distinguishing, this does it. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "need distinguishing"? We could add a disambiguation template, if there is some other article which you think this title could be confused with (but I'm not aware of any). If you're generally trying to distinguish words that have different Japanese spellings, then you have a Quixotic goal, since nothing less than kanji titles will eliminate the homophones of Japanese. If your purpose is to inform readers of the Japanese written form and pronunciation, it is unnecessary because we already are using the template for that. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just trying to help readers in the title before they open the article
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Our MOSJ states "If an article uses English-language reliable sources and those sources use a particular form of romanization to name a topic, give preference to that romanization in the article title and body text". The sources used in this article (e.g., makotokan, koryu-bujutsu) do not use "Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū", and searching for each variant on google-books showed that "Tenjin Shinyo-ryu" was fifteen times more common. Cesiumfrog (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article, as far as I can see, currently cites only two sources, one of which is a self-published non-reliable source from Lulu.com, the other of which is a tertiary reference work. Please find some reliable sources (most Google Books hits on anything to do with martial arts and Japanese military history are unreliable sources, in my experience). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. If we're going to use Wikipedia's house Romanization, i.e. Modified Hepburn, then use it correctly.  User:Cesiumfrog's argument would call for stripping all diacritics but that's not at issue here.  —  AjaxSmack   02:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Since the title contains macrons (ō, ū), we should transliterate in its complete form Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū. If we're not going to use an apostrophe, we shouldn't use macrons either: Tenjin Shinyo-ryu. The current title meets half-way which satisfies neither. --Article editor (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.