User talk:Southwick

Ronald A. Southwick


 * -Scientist (Molecular Biologist)
 * -Computer Specialist
 * -Adjunct Faculty -Michigan State University
 * -Martial Artist - practicing since 1978 (5th Dan)
 * Arts Studied
 * -Shotokan Karate - Military
 * -Taekwondo (5th Dan) - MSU Taekwondo Club
 * -Kendo (1st Kyu) - MSU Kendo Club

Talk:Shotokan
-From the Shotokan discussion page:

>If you have not read that book, then you should not post here.

>I will continue to remove it until you show evidence.

>Debate is encouraged - ron Southwick 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it a little funny for you to be saying that "Debate is encouraged" while deleting my contributions and saying "If you have not read that book, then you should not post here". Cap j 23:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

>There is no story to clear up, it is ignorance. First debate is encouraged. YOU have to show evidence that there is something here. Show me a reference that backs up your story. Will you answer that? This is the debate. Leave the page alone until you show your point. I am listening. ron Southwick 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

>First debate is encouraged.

-I object to your arrogance -- you are a newer user than I. Why don't YOU debate first before starting an edit war?

>There is no story to clear up, it is ignorance.

This is where you are confused. You admit that there is ignorance out there, but you start by saying "There is no story". Your second phrase contradicts your first. So if you admit that there is ignorance out there, why not let the debunking stand?

Also, please learn not to use comma splices (shudder). I might point out the inappropriateness of lecturing someone on writing while using bad grammar. Your correct sentence is "There is no story to clear up; it is ignorance." A semi-colon goes there.

Also, it took *me* on the discussion page to realize what your point might be, that maybe I need confirmation that the "short sword" story is a story that is out there in order to debunk it, although I'm not so sure of that. There's nothing wrong with preemptively correcting something that looks threatening, and the "shoto"-"short sword/pine waves" homonym looks like confusion waiting to happen, even if you haven't heard that it has already happened. Why does it take *me* to fill in *your* side of the argument?

>Leave the page alone until you show your point.

I object to your arrogance. You are the newer user here. You are the one who initiated the edit war by beginning to delete content I had added. YOU leave the page alone until this is settled; my addition of that note is reasonable, as I just explained. Cap j 02:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * -Please see further discussion on Talk:Shotokan, 6.

You are still arrogantly lecturing me about doing research first.

How am I or others supposed to do research on it when information that might clear it up keeps getting deleted from the first place I would look: Wikipedia?


 * >After others have pointed out, which you argued about, that you were wrong you now still want your invalid information on this page. Why? You have changed you view? I am not attacking you personally [sure you aren't] ron Southwick 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE, MAN, I ACCEPTED YOU PEOPLES' KANJI AFTER YOU SHOWED IT TO ME, WITH ONLY ONE PROTEST THAT THERE *HAD* BEEN AN ALTERNATE MEANING TO "SHOTO". FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS (since Wed. March 1st) I HAVE JUST BEEN TRYING TO ADD A CLARIFYING NOTE TO PREVENT FURTHER CONFUSION. And yes, *I* am now shouting. Congratulations. Cap j 06:42, Mon, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Really. Aren't you and Matt being just a little bit petty about one miserable little clarifying note? Cap j 07:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * >CapJ - Thank you for the grammar correction. According to the rules I have read, if an entry is not sited [that's "cited"] then it can be deleted. Shall we continue this on our talk pages instead of the Shotokan page? What do you think about the idea of a Karate Myth page? ron Southwick 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You or Mutt (whoops, "Matt") won't delete it if I start one and put my little note (most of the data of which was collected by you) on it:

"1. Not to be confused with shoto meaning "short sword"; confusion about the derivation of "Shotokan" may occur otherwise. The Kanji for shoto, "pine waves", is (松涛). The first character is (松), which means pine tree. The second character (涛) is a kanji variant of (濤), which means large wave. The Kanji for shoto, short sword, is (小刀). The first character is (小), meaning small, and the second character is (刀), meaning blade. Any literate Japanese reader who saw "松涛" would not mistake it."

??

Actually, short articles are subject to speedy deletion. What is your real objection against adding this as a (foot) note??

Note that I'm even saying "may occur", not "*is* occurring" (for which you insist on documentation), because it is too early and I have not yet heard back from my Karate teacher as to the origin of the story. I don't suppose you can object to the inclusion of *this* note, can you? If so, how? I think it's useful to repeat the Kanji here even though it's at the top of the article and in the shoto article; it's a good idea to bring them close together for comparison.

I'm glad to see that you are making some useful additions to the Shotokan page. Perhaps you might consider the writing *I* could have been doing instead of all this back-and-forth defending one little miserable note that I wanted to add. Cap j 07:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have a story or two about Funakoshi I could share. If you will agree to stop blocking my clarifying note, as suggested above, which actually removes your documentation objection and whole reason for blocking it, and support it against Mutt (whoops, "Matt") I might be willing to share them. I don't know if they are myths or not, but one is certainly a story. Maybe we *could* collaborate on a stories or myths page. What do you say? Cap j 07:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My source (now 4th Dan in Wado), from whom I heard the "short sword story" got back to me and replied:

"I don't remember the source of the Shotokan story - it may not be accurate with regards to the "shoto" part. "Sho" does mean short and "to" does mean blade (sword is actually "ken" as in kendo), but it may be possible that the pine waves is correct. I don't know if shoto is also pine waves in Japanese. "Kan" means "place of", so shotokan kind of means shoto's place - the term some of his students used when talking about going to karate training."

See 6. of Talk:Shotokan for the rest of the points, a bit earlier in minutes from the timestamp in my sig that follows here.

I was actually thinking of adding an article on Funakoshi so that I could put the story I mentioned (an additional second slightly longer story) in it, but it too is undocumented and comes from the same karateka. I noticed that there is already a "stub" on Gichin Funakoshi. Moreover, I am unwilling to continue to "cast my pearls before swine" as long as you continue to be ungenerous.

Cap j 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Answering your messages on my talk page:

>I did not say that I wanted one person to agree; I said I wanted a verifiable source (according to rule one. {1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.}) The debate is not whether we should delete it; the debate is why it should be there. In the first paragraph about Shotokan Karate the explanation, including the kanji, is given. Unless you have a published reference on this story I see no reason to address it?

Here's where I got the idea of the "one person" bit:

(Copy and paste from Talk:Shotokan 6.): "If you can show “one” piece of documented evidence, from a reputable source of this story, then including it might be appropriate. If not, then it is hearsay. - ron Southwick 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

OK - so why don't you go over to the Chaise Longue article and delete the clarifying note from there? It's not cited. As I said, "Working to rule" (insisting on the letter of the law out of the rulebook) is not cooperation.

>the debate is not whether we should delete it

You said "First debate is encouraged", while deleting my addition before talking about it. Yes, that is the debate, and the other part too, if you like. You are bandying words.

>In the first paragraph about Shotokan Karate the explanation, including the kanji, is given

Which you are now agreeing to remove from Wikipedia while saying that people should look up information. I hope your karate teacher used to really kick you across the dojo while lecturing you on how you have to be faster.

>Sorry I missed your other note. I would be more than happy to help you create a Martial Myth page. I think that would really help to educate people. That would be the place for your story, note, not at Shotokan. It really does not belong there. Let me know. ron Southwick 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But you have been continually saying that undocumented information does not belong on Wikipedia -- and myths, of course, are by definition undocumented. You are obviously just ignoring what you yourself are saying whenever it is convenient for you, and enforcing your way. Pretty childish. And how many TIMES do I have to repeat, since about March 3 2006 or so, that I am not even going to claim on Wikipedia that it's a story? I am willing to modify my note to say "may cause confusion", which I have done. You have seen what I am now suggesting -- on my talk page. Why do you require so many repetitions before something "sinks in"? One point that doesn't seem to have "sunk in" to you yet is that I am willing to change when I seem to be wrong -- never changing one's POV is a sure sign of not having learned anything. With this many repetitions required before you will learn something, how did you ever get your 5th Dan with all the details you have to know? The only explanation remaining is remarkable ungenerousness on your part, unbecoming a professor and a karateka.

>Could you please remove the POV. I made a POV Dispute tag on the Shotokan talk page. ron Southwick 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To what the heck are you referring? I haven't touched the article since March 6 or earlier. I had to let your deletion stand so as not to continue the edit war.

Cap j 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I realize you meant the POV *Marker*. That is pretty arrogant of you to tell me that. Just because I am not edit-warring does not mean I do not dispute it. If I replaced my note (as now shown on my talk page) you would delete it, wouldn't you? It is a case in point that communication did not happen effectively because an extra word of explanation was not there. Do you see the point? Cap j 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, has not my latest proposal as shown on my talk page for the last two days met your objections? Cap j 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that maybe you seem to be slow about absorbing new points because your browser pages aren't being refreshed. You might try clicking on "View" (menu) - Reload (Netscape), or "View" - Refresh (Explorer) every time you revisit a page. Also clearing your browser cache every day when you leave will help prevent stale local content. Cap j 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

>Also the intro has been changed a bit.(Not by me)

From the IP address, it has been Matt going on there and anonymously deleting information that is subject to dispute. I think that is a crime to do to an encyclopedia (deleting information) and unacceptable on Wikipedia (making hostile edits during a dispute instead of working it out on the talk page and via the process) and I have complained again, suggesting that his IP address range be blocked.

>I consider this info to be Karate 101.

Man, that is what Wikipedia is *for*, to provide a basic introduction to subjects, and to try to dispel some ignorance, remarking that if more can be provided, that's great too.

>I was going to add a note but I thought I would talk to you first. I do not agree with saying “not to be confused with”. The only thing I would support would be a [NOTE 1] after “shoto” and the note – Note 1 – Shoto is a homonym of shoto {link}, something to that effect. You might be able to word it better.

Why don't you copy the old intro with the Kanji and my suggested note with the rest of the Kanji and put it into a writeup and put it on my talk page? I don't know what is wrong with "Not to be confused with"* and I'm uncomfortable putting effort into writing that is going to be deleted. I think all the Kanji should be shown. I think it's bizarre to be fussing about detailed wording as long as people are warned not to step into "the leg-breaking hole" of what seems to be a compelling interpretation. Even better, there's nothing wrong with going ahead and adding the note to the article, working in the "direction" in which a disputer is arguing; that's what I thought I was doing when I was taking the information you provided and putting it into a clarifying note. As long as the edits are being done in a fairly cooperative manner in a "building" spirit, there will not be any disputes, from what I have seen on Wikipedia.


 * Oh, you're still interpreting "Not to be confused with" as a statement that the story is out there, which is pretty touchy of you. You might interpret it as a preemptive measure against *possible* confusion, which is what I've been saying to you previously. I think that's fairly unreasonable of you, given that I've given you some *indication* that the story is circulating, and "Not to be confused with* wouldn't even *claim* on Wikipedia that the story is out there. I'm getting pretty tired of this.

>People will not be searching for shoto but shotokan

I don't get your point.

>Now onto your remarks (I will not address your personal attacks) – I consider this info to be Karate 101. Any search would have easily verified the information. People will not be searching for shoto but shotokan. If you would have gone to some of the web sites listed on the page you would have found the “pine waves” information. You continued to replace the info after being asked to verify it, which you could not. When you were proven wrong you still wanted, what I believe, to justify your ignorance by including it anyway. You appeared to have an agenda. Educate your instructor and it will end there.

That is bizarre. Would you please go back and review that I accepted you peoples' Kanji with only the one protest? Then all I was trying to do after that was add a miserable little clarifying note, accepting your word on it. Remember, it took *me* to realize that you were saying that I was claiming that it was circulating story - you seemed unable to communicate that point yourself (See the "POV Marker" communication business above). "Proven wrong" is a little arrogant; I'm accepting your reference until I get around to reading it myself. It is a little petty of you to complain about my replacements of progressively more conservative statements that flat-out said "In order to debunk orally-circulating misinformation". I cannot think of stronger language I could have used against the "Short sword" story without using four-letter words -- that is language that would have really made a supporter of the "Short sword" story extremely angry. Oh, and you objected to it because I was implying that it was a story that was being told. Well it was; I just don't have a book on it for you. It's pretty petty to stubbornly delete such a cooperative entry without putting some effort into figuring out how to tell me what was wrong with it -- you might have gathered from that that I was trying to be cooperative. I think I cooperated pretty well in that. Agenda. That is ludicrous. You should have edited it so that you would like it better, not just deleted it outright, which is *extremely* rude. Stop complaining about my restores. That is quite petty. As for telling me to do research, what is your problem man. I accepted your word for it. How are people supposed to do research if the information keeps getting deleted from the reference material: Wikipedia. And now you are telling me to look at websites when for so long you were telling me to use only *books*. You could have disputed the page and pointed me at the relevant information using the talk page, not begun with an edit war.

>Educate your instructor and it will end there.

What about the about 15 black belts and many more lower-ranked students who have since gone their separate ways? I've told my instructor about this page. You've seen his quote and you can see from that that he is not an arrogant type.

The educating information should be right out on the page in black and white; it's very elitist to remove it from Wikipedia and then tell people to go dig it up themselves as if what we are running here is a place of abuse rather than a place of providing information (and don't even *tell* them -- wait until they try to help out and then attack them).

>I would love to start with a clean slate. If we could work together and fix up this page that would be great. ron 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For someone who is saying he wants to work together, you are putting a lot of oppressive restrictions on what you will accept in terms of wording. For someone who is saying he wants to work together, you certainly don't get into it right by starting out with a series of hostile deletions without comment (see the Shotokan change history log).

Then please stop your bizarre misinterpretation of our conflict history, and your terse, arrogant orders that don't make sense, ("If you have not read that book, then you should not post here", "First debate is encouraged", "Leave the page alone" -- when it was you who initiated the deletions, "Educate your instructor and it will end there" and "Remove the POV") and your hostile deletions before discussion -- that is irritating. Cap j 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is ungenerous of you to be complaining that "I argued", when the Talk:Shotokan page section 6. is crammed with my frustrated protests to you that I am trying to help *combat* the ignorance. You still haven't acknowledged the usefulness of the clarifying note in the Chaise Longue article. Cap j 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

>It is ungenerous of you to be complaining that "I argued"

Particularly when I had it settled with Matt by changing to a cooperative clarifying note. That was fine with him. Then you showed up and deleted the note without discussion (leaving a mess), if you will review the change history -- your first edit, "05:17, 2 March 2006 Southwick". In your edit "15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick (Clean up of terms. Will add Kanji.)" you recently deleted information that I had put in there. Cap j 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of (15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick) was clearly done as my punishment for disagreeing with you above (User_Talk:southwick Cap j 11:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)) for your first deletion of my note in your first edit, "05:17, 2 March 2006 Southwick", when you appeared on the scene. Here's what you removed from the "Common terms" section (not all of which was added by me): (mostly the items in parentheses -- you left the original terms):

* Karate: Empty hand (i.e., unarmed combat) * Osu: An aknowledgement (used primarily when bowing) * Sensei: Teacher (literally "The one who has gone before") * zanshin: awareness (that you might be attacked -- literally "continuing mind")

Cap j 17:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask you why you think there is POV in my currently-proposed note (or the previous one, for that matter -- shown on my talk page and on Talk:Shotokan)? You refuse to explain it because you cannot, and you cannot because there isn't any. Cap j 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I might accept a sincere apology, not a fake one in which you go on to justify yourself. I believe most people would feel that way. Cap j 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is your removal of an important clarifying note that is vandalism. Cap j 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron, answering your message:

CapJ, In a last attempt to be civil, I have addressed the following issues: The note and the addition of terminology relevance. These answer your call for a rebuttal and why these cannot be used in this article.

Rules of Wikipedia-


 * 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
 * 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
 * 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

The note that you want to add is not needed, as we have discussed, because it is not relevant to the subject of Shotokan, or karate. Anyone that can read would discover this in minutes. The majority wins here, only a minority believes this. According to the rules of Wikipedia:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

You say that we have not refuted your argument, well here it is. This clearly falls in the third point. If you disagree please help me to understand why, using their rules.

The addition of a “karate relevance” section to the terminology is a violation of the following rules:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:
 * 1) Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
 * 2) Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
 * 3) A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used in order to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary.

That is the rebuttal. If you disagree please help me to understand why, using their rules.

Thanks ron Southwick 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron,

You are incorrect in theory that explaining the Shotokan/Karate relevance of common terms constitutes "dictionary definitions". Rather, what is there already, below what I am trying to add, are the dictionary definitions. However, I cannot stick to adding to the table because the entries on which I have knowledge are linked well enough. I only wish that *you* would add some Karate explanation for osu and some of the unlinked terms by adding that table column or using a footnote or two if there are only a couple of unlinked terms, and not be so terse.

I've rebutted your "pov" argument by pointing out that I am adding no pov; everything is fact, as originally supplied by you yourself and Matt. You are just repeating yourself, I'm afraid, and you don't have a valid rebuttal to my point that clarifying notes, containing *facts only*, are useful in an encyclopedia. Cap j 15:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You should not justify your own ignorance by including this note. I would dare say 99.9% of the people in Shotokan know this. Also the place for “competing” versions is on the talk page NOT the article itself. We will take a POLL to see if it should stay. I will set that up. ron Southwick 16:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are limits to democracy, which seem to be recognized by Wikipedia: they want consensus. Cap j 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CapJ - Maybe you should start a page on Osu, then I will add the kanji transliterations. ron Southwick 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, how about a page which actually transliterates martial arts terms, i.e. kung fu, osu, shodan…etc. So many are misused and you know how I love kanji/hanja. ron Southwick 17:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can stop deleting my work, we'll see... Cap j 23:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shotokan Karate
Walter,

I have contacted CapJ about the dispute on the shotokan page. He has not responded. I guess I do not know where to go with this. Who can remove the POV marker on the page? Can I edit the disputed section? I am learning the ropes here and am trying to fix that information. Any advice here? ron Southwick 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ron; I usually give people two or three days to respond. I would suggest not removing the POV tag until at least one other logged-in editor makes a substantive edit to the page or until Cap_j concurs. You might ask User talk:BenBildstein and User talk:Ekkis to have a look. Although they are infrequent editors, they have edited Shotokan in the past. Consider leaving a note on the Talk:Karate page. It is likely that a three or four way discussion will lead to a resolution. In the meantime, perhaps you can work on something else. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron,

Nonsense. I just spent a whole bunch of time writing a whole bunch of messages, and then you leave an instant reply and gripe because I don't reply instantly again. As I said on the Talk:Shotokan page, I am leaving a couple of days between discussion rounds now, in order to let people cool off. In the meantime, you might want to check your reply that you just left me and make sure that it's not just the same old refusal to understand what I have already repeated several times. I can afford to wait a couple of days before dealing with that again. However, If you have replied with something positive, I'm sure it will all be cleared up in a couple of days. Cap j 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

email from Ron to cap_j
Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:48:12 -0400 From: "Southwick, Ron" [email addresses and contact information snipped]

Please do not take this outside the Wikipedia. You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here.

Thanks, ron

Cap j 17:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I messing with? Please. ron Southwick 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject_Martial_Arts
You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- Medains 08:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me write this article?
Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)