Jump to content

Talk:Gōjū-ryū/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Relevance?

Fukien White Crane - I wonder what this section actually adds to the quality of the article?

<-- Yes it does, it emphasizes the Chinese origin of the style, and specifies the particular Chinese style.

Goju-kai logo (of the International Karate-do Goju-kai Association IKGA): why this logo? why not the IOGKF logo?? I think the clenched fist logo should be on a seperate Goju kai page about the IKGA/Japanese school of Goju-ryu.

Goshi Yamaguchi is the Style leader of Goju kai Karate do (the Japanese school of Goju ryu; IKGA), not of Okinawa Goju-ryu!! (IOGKF)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Well, IOGKF is not the only Okinawan goju ryu organization either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Goju ryu

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) The information about goju ryu's origin can be challenged. The article names "Naha-te" and Shaolin "Nam Pai Chuan" as goju ryu ancestors; however, naha-te was neither a style nor a school, but a generic name to martial arts in Naha. About Nam Pai Chuan, I have never heard of it, and I have read a bit of history of goju ryu. Sources would be greatly appreciated here in order to decide whether to keep that information or not.

Mr. Miyagi's style

Goju ryu is Mr. Miyagi's style as you could observe the movements in what he is teaching. The "Wax on, wax off" movements are part of Goju ryu since the art is defensive rather than offensive.

>>Goju is both defensive and offensive. That's what the punches and kicks are for! In The Karate Kid, the style is referred to simply as "Okinawan Karate". The movements "wax on, wax off" apply to most styles of karate. They're a kind of like knife hand blocks. In fact, the one's taught in Karate Kid are more effective in real life than the silly hard blocks taught in modern kaarte schools. If you tag the arm rather than the wrist.

Perhaps the above statement could be included in a section titled, "Goju-ryu in popular culture or the media" or something like that.

Well, Mr. Miyagi in the Karate Kid movies was supposed to be based on the historical Miyagi Chojun. -Darryl Hamlin 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"Based on" is too strong a term. "Used the same name" is as far as the resemblance goes. Fumblebruschi 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) When the kid is going to fight in the tournament, he starts performing the beginning of Seyunchin. Yes, it looks like the Japanese seyunchin, not the Okinawan versions; and yes, nobody fights following the kata choreography, but at least, we can say that goju ryu is a strong influence in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs better external links that arent just advertising schools. It'd also be swell of someone to write about the philosophy of goju somewhere.

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Well, I classified the external links in: informative, international organizations and national organizations. It works for the moment because there are not many links, but if someone starts adding links of all national organizations in the world, then that would be a problem. Maybe a page only for links to organizations would be required in the near future. It may also happen that people start adding links of regional organizations or even local organizations and specific dojo, so actually we are talking a full worldwide goju ryu directory. Probably, wikipedia is not the place for that.

A lot of the links ar advertisign a spesific school or organisation, if the organisation can pass the notability criteria then a wiki-link would be enough if not then it shouldn't be here either. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) The links you are talking about do not refer to specific dojo, but to national organizations: Sometimes, the website for an organization is also the website of the hombu dojo. For instance, Okinawa Jundokan website is also Jundokan dojo website. I think that major deletions should be discussed in advance. If not, the article may become an article with only mainstream information.

Belts

The Fukyugata section of the article mentions a yellow belt.

When I was studying Goju-ryu with Kimo Wall at UMASS, there were four belt colors: white, green, brown, black, in that order (theoretically, one could use the same belt for all by simply dying the belt the next darker color, but I never knew anyone who did), with optional colored tips to indicate one had made significant progress toward the next belt.

There was never a reference to a yellow belt. Is the belt ranking system within Goju-ryu standardized, or are there variations?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It tends to vary depending on what Organization the karate-ka is with. Meibukan may have different belts to Jundokan. Even the JKF Goju kai has different varation in belts to the IGKA. Hope that helps!
Winst0n 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Most ranking methods seem to vary. The Goju-ryu class I'm in uses white, yellow, gold (yellow with dark stripe), orange, blue, purple, green, red, brown, brown/black (brown with black stripe), and black, in that order.

Kaya tetsu 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The belt system came from judo originally, as did the gi. I think the only function of the belts is to give junior students, who are generally younger people who need visible encouragement, a feeling of achievement; so what colors you use, or how many, is really pretty unimportant.
Kimo Wall-sensei uses the system he does because it's what he worked out when he started running his own school in the early seventies, and it works fine, so why change it, I think is his attitude.
The proliferation of belt colors generally has two causes, both financial. First, most commercial instructors (by which I just mean instructors who try to make a living from their teaching; not meant derogatorily), in order to make ends meet, usually have to run a lot of children's classes. Children like lots of encouragement, so the more belts you have, the more positive reinforcement you can give them. Second, of course, many instructors charge a fee for testing for the next belt; the more belts you have, the more often you can charge money for them. Fumblebruschi 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Color belts shoudn't be an issue: there are ten kyu and ten dan, and that is all that matters, I think.

6 kyu an 10 dan under CMAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.197.148 (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Belts & kata

I disagree with the way kata are supposed to be taught. It does differ quite much between the different organisations. We'd better say that 'usually kata X is taught at X level'Moenstah 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Please, elaborate.

Leader of the style

There isn't such a thing as a universally recognised leader of Goju ryu. The designated leader chosen by Chojun Miyagi died during the Battle of Okinawa. Nowadays different organisations [i]claim[/i] they're the "true" heirs of the style. Which isn't historically supportable. Moenstah 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ronin ryu

This is the first time I've ever heard this term being used. Seems a little out of place (Okinawa) and time (post Meiji). I propose to deleting it. Moenstah 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above post on deleting this term "Ronin Goju-Ryu" as a universal pseudonym for Goju-Ryu. Also, The listing for "Gene Cross" as current Head-Master for all of the Goju-Ryu schools is false. If you have researched the lineage of Goju-Ryu or actually been a member of an established Japanese sanctioned (USA Goju) Goju-Ryu Dojo the Grand Master for Goju in the United States is O'Sensei Peter Urban. O'Sensei Peter Urban attained this by being a long time student and retainer of Master Gogen Yamaguchi who inherited the Head Master title for Japanese Goju-Ryu by decree from Master Chojun Miyagi himself. Where the term "Ronin" in terms of contemporary Goju Karate is concerned is this:

Sensei William (Bill) Liqouri, a student and senior Black Belt of O'Sensei Peter Urban, established a U.S.A. Goju-Ryu Dojo in Orlando, Florida under the apices of O'Sensei Peter Urban and U.S.A. Goju. A senior student and Sempai of Bill Liqouri's, Gene Cross, had a philosophical, albeit friendly, falling out and Gene Cross left U.S.A. Goju to establish his own Goju-Ryu dojo. In order to differentiate his dojo from Sensei Liquori's dojo (as Sensei Cross' Dojo had yet to be sanctioned by USA Goju or O'Sensei Peter Urban) he named dojo and offshoot style "Ronin Goju-Ryu" as Sensei Cross' splinter had not been sanctioned, as previously stated. Sensei Cross' dojo was established in 1979 and is headquartered in Arcadia, Florida and has several satellite dojos in Florida and the southeast. Be mindful of the fact that Sensei Cross' Ronin Goju-Ryu based in Arcadia, Florida is different and separate from the Rônin Goju Ryu Kai World Karate Organization and other organizations using the "Ronin Goju" moniker elsewhere.

Being a former student of Bill and a student and family friend of Gene, I know this history as anyone familiar with USA Goju in Florida will attest. Both Bill, Gene, and any other Goju-Ryu senior belts worth their salt will attest to the Miyagi-Yamaguchi-Urban connection and I can assure you Sensei Gene Cross would totally balk, if not be disgust at, as being cited the "Head Master of Goju-Ryu" out of loyalty to Goju and O'Sensei Urban. If you read the doctrine of Sensei Cross' "Ronin Goju" it even states that: The name Ronin means "masterless", therefore there is no master of Ronin Goju Karate. Instead, governed by the black belts of the style with Sensei Emory "Gene" Cross being the ranking black belt and mentor of the style. If you notice there is nothing about being the "Head Master of Goju-Ryu" and he further more cites his lineage in Karate as Yamaguchi-Urban-Liqouri.

With all parties named in this writing being in agreement that O'Sensei Peter Urban is the originator of established Goju-Ryu in the United States, by virtue of the Miyagi-Yamaguchi connection O'Sensei Urban had this to say upon anticipating his passing: "...The question I always get is who takes my place or fills my shoes or takes over when I am gone. I shall give you his name right now: "MR. NEMO" will be the supreme founding grand patriarch when my time comes. In the ancient Latin language the word (nemo) means nobody. Yes, that's correct. I have raised each and every one of you who have in some cases been loyal and satisfied with me for over forty years, to be your own person and that your personal dojo and your personal students will always be untouchable by anyone but you. They are your life's work as you are still part of my life's work... Only a democracy can follow my work. The college of Hanshis (9th Dans) will be the congress and the 10th Dans will be viewed as the senate. They will form the government that follows a founder in this way only: "MAJORITY RULES". They will all be connected to each other by means of Email and the Internet. They may elect amongst themselves a presiding minister amongst equals..." Therefore, the writer of the original article does not have any merit or veracity claiming that Sensei Cross is "Head Master of Goju-Ryu" (which Sensei Cross will vehemently deny ever making a claim to) or that internationally or even nationally Goju-Ryu is generally know by the Ronin Goju-Ryu.


The term "Ronin" has become a fad in current vernacular with the recent popularity of the term used in entertainment such as movies and children's cartoons, mind you that Sensei Cross' "Ronin Goju" was established thirty years ago before people outside of Martial Arts circles had even heard of the term. As-far-as the term "Ronin" being misused in the initial article, I believe this is intentional. Either to smear Sensei Cross by making it look as if he makes the claim of "Head Master of Goju-Ryu" himself or capitalize on the mystism and popularity of the term "Ronin" in current media. Some organizations nationally and internationally have even copywrited the use of "Ronin Goju" as part of their organizational title. Again, there is not any historical standard to demonstrate that Goju-Ryu, as established by Kanryo Higaonna and Chosun Miyagi ever was to be known universally as "Ronin Goju-Ryu".

I move that the whole article be deleted and rewritten by an established USA Goju or IOGKF authority.

Harris, 08/21/07

69.68.161.162 15:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.68.161.162 (talk)

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC) A topic such as a branch of USA goju should have their own article. In fact, any specific branch or goju ryu should have its own article. Be it ronin goju, usa goju, IOGKF, Jundokan, Jimbukan, gojukai, or any other. So all the information about "ronin goju" should be deleted from the "goju ryu" article, and moved to a new article focused on "ronin goju".

Also, IOGKF has no say on this issue. I am member of IOGKF and we do train, but we don't keep track of every goju organization in the world. That is not IOGKF's mission, and therefore, we have no authority to say anything about other organizations. Members of IOGKF (and of any other organization) can do that only as individuals.

I think this illustrates the point above, i.e. who is the leader of the style. There are plenty of splits since Miyagi sensei died. and putting one styles opinion of who is the leader isn't going to work on Wikipedia. As far as I'm cconcerned we should just forget about that and just have Miyagi sensei there as that's something everyone can agree on. I agre with Alfredo as well. Any later splits should be listed in "see also" and have their own article.Ticklemygrits (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Nanpa Shorin-ken

To delete: "It is accepted that Chinese Nanpa Shorin-ken was the strain of kung fu that influenced this style 1. As such, this style and that of Uechi Ryū were built upon a similar foundation."

"Nam Pai Chuan" is one generic name for southern Chinese martial arts. "shorinken" refers to the history of pangainoon (Uechi ryu), however, there is no historical prove that goju ryu comes from the same school. It may well come from a different school with some similarities. The web page used as a source is not reliable since it is not an academic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, EVALUATE LINKS BEFORE ADDING, MOVING OR DELETING THEM. The following links should be moved from "external links" to "see also (internal links)". It means wikipedia articles should be created in order to link them internally:

  1. Kokusai Koryu Gojukai Karatedo
  2. Kokusai Kenyukan Goju Ryu Karate Kobudo Kai
  3. Sho-Rei-Shobu-Kan

If nobody creates those pages, I will delete the links in order to avoid overpopulation of links. A wikipedia article is not a collection of links. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved all links to Template:Goju_ryu, at the end of the page. That way the article is not going to be a list of links, and important and useful links can be added to the template. To add links to the template, click on "v" at the left top corner of the "Branches of goju ryu" box Alfredo elejalde (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, EVALUATE LINKS BEFORE ADDING, MOVING OR DELETING THEM.

1) World Federation Karate Union for South America: That link is not goju specific. 2) Canadian Naha Te Goju Karate: National organizations should not be under "international organizations". This organization only promotes tournaments based in Canada. 3) English Goju Ryu Karate Do Association: National organizations should not be under "international organizations". Besides, the link to the international organization they belong to is already included. 4) Okinawan Hatha Goju Ryu Karate-Do Website: It is too focused in American goju ryu. It is also information about an off-spring of USA Goju and should have its own entry in wikipedia. 5) Goju-Ryu and Martial Arts book from Japan and Okinawa: Commercial web site. They sell books and other material.

If nobody defends them, I will delete it in a couple of weeks. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE, EVALUATE LINKS BEFORE ADDING OR DELETING THEM.

1)http://www.ikeepbookmarks.com/goju_ryu : Links organized and commented about all aspects of goju ryu. Different sources, essays, videos, etc.

Alfredo elejalde (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a policy about links to be included in this section of the article: "This section refers only to web sites that contains significant -in quality and quantity- documents about Goju ryu." The link added by 41.208.50.176 doesn't conform to this standard. There is a couple of very good articles, specially that about sanchin kata, but some of the articles are too basic (like the one about goju ryu kata), some links do not work at all (like the ones about different aspects of sanchin kata), and finally, there are not enough articles to justify its inclusion in an "informative links" or "general references" section. There is also an extra problem: the index of articles is part of a general index for the website, and the website belongs to a national organization, so there are information of interest only for members of the organization. It would be better to have a web page with the index of articles. As I said, the "encyclopedia of sanchin" is an excellent article, and i use it constantly as a reference to my own training.

Suggestion: Move the link "South African Okinawa Karate Doh Goju Ryu Jundokan Kyokai" to "Branches of goju ryu karate", section "other organizations".... Done!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo elejalde (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Altering quotations

Hi Rossen4. You edited a quotation in Goju ryu article. I reverted the change because quotations are never edited. Please, refer to the Wikipedia Style Guide. The text said:

"According to Chojun Miyagi: "In 1828, our ancestors inherited a kung fu style of Fujian province in China"

You changed it to:

"According to Chojun Miyagi: "In 1828, our ancestors inherited Fujian White Crane|a kung fu style of Fujian Province in China"

I undid your changes for two reasons: first, you never edit quotations, and also, it is not certain that White Crane is the parent style of Goju Ryu; some people say it is Whooping Crane; in any case, there were more than 10 different Crane styles. On the other hand, other styles also are sources of Goju Ryu, like Tiger, monkey, Panther, etc. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If a quote is wrong, it most certainly should be edited. The only issue is, what is the actual quote. If neither can be verified, the quote should be removed, as it is not a quote but a guess. Kenfo 0 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Question of Dates

Shōwa period lists the coronation of Hirohito as Dec 25, 1926.

[World War 2 Database] gives his father's death as Dec 25, 1926 and the coronation ceremony as Nov 10, 1928.

{cite book |last = Higaonna |first = Morio |title = Traditional Karatedo Vol. 1 Fundamental Techniques |date = 1985 |isbn =0-87040-595-0 |pages = 28 } gives the coronation ceremony in 1930 ( or was it that the tournament was held in 1930?) and Goju Ryu name registered with Butokukai 1933.

{cite book |last = Hokama |first = Tetsuhiro |title = Timeline of Karate History |date = 2007 | pages = 62-63 | publisher=Ozata Print | location=Okinawa } confirms dec 25, 1926 as beginning of Shōwa period. In August 1931, Miyagi Chojun writes an essay "Goju Ryu Kenpo" marking the first written occurrence of Goju Ryu ( a copy is in the Okinawa Karate Museum ). In December 1933, Butokukai officially recognized karate as Japanese martial art.

{cite book |last = Bishop |first = Mark |title = Okinawan Karate |date = 1989 | |isbn =0-7136-5666-2 pages = 28 } gives (so the story goes) 1937 as the year of the Butokukai demonstation that prompted the question of style name.

I think that 1931 as the first written occurrence of Goju Ryu would be the most trustworthy date to use in the article. I like the story of the naming too. jmcw (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add what I see as a rather serious problem of writing or dates. The writer states "In 1929 delegates from around Japan were meeting in Kyoto for the All Japan Martial Arts Demonstration. Higashionna asked Miyagi to go as his representative;". Yet in the preceding paragraph, the implication is Higashionna died in 1915 or 1916. He sent someone to a meeting 13-14yrs after his death? Highly suspect, or very poorly written/explained. Kenfo 0 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Kata information and organization

In my opinion, a lot of information in the kata section of the article is not relevant, is kaiha specific, is full of unnecessary information, needs sources for verification or is not well organized. Examples

a) Irrelevant information:

Example 1: "In Chinese training, Sanchin kata also introduces the student to the use of "qi" (Japanese "ki") for training and fighting applications. It can be understood to be a form of "qigong" as employed in Chinese Wushu. Many western interpretations of qi/ki explain it as an enhanced understanding of internal body dynamics and muscle control through repeated and strenuous training."

It is irrelevant because this article is not about sanchin kata, so sanchin kata mechanics, history and comparative issues should go in a sanchin specific article.

Example 2: "(shisochin) emphasizes the power of Gōjū-ryū, the hard and the soft, and integrates it into one. It is a switch between long distance combat (Shotei zuki-palm punch) and close quarter combat (Nukite - or knife hand - and armlocks)."

That can be said about all goju kata without exception: power, integration og hard and soft, switch between long distance and short distance, close quarter combat.

b) Kaiha specific:

Example 1: "This kata (seyunchin) is typically taught at sankyu to ikkyu levels (brown belt)." Not all goju organizations teach this kata at that level.

Example 2: "This was a Seikichi Toguchi's specialty kata."

There are some references to fav orite kata to some well known sensei. That information is unnecesary in this article. It should be included in kata specific articles.

c) Unnecessary information:

Example 1: "Shito-ryu has its own version and different versions are now practised even in Shurite derivatives like Shotokan (called Hangetsu) and in Wado-ryu (called Seishan). Seisan was a favourite kata of Jin'an Shinzato and his specialty kata initially. This kata was adopted by other styles such as Isshin-ryū."

The article is about goju ryu, not about how spread this kata is.

Example 2: "its techniques (kururunfa) are based on Chinese Praying Mantis style. Initial idea was to have a "counter-style" against other "traditional Shaolin-type styles" where each kata could be considered as a representative of such particular "style" (or expression of certain strategy in fighting)"

d) Sources:

Before all this changes I am talking about, this section of the article needed some serious information concerning sources. After the recent additions, the problem is bigger.

e) Organization:

Why tables? They are not easy to manage and there are lots of wasted space. When you print the article, big tables are always cut in two or three pages. I think the old format without tables is better.

Please, give your opinion so we can decide whether we delete the extra information and whether we go back to the prose format instead of keeping the table. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

With point a), I agree with you but because this is outside my pervue, I didn't do anything in terms of movement (moving the information around). I would guess if that is an issue, you can feel free to move it.
With point e), Tables are necessary because the information is stastistical. I don't see the wasted space and yes, they are not easy to manage, but the pages of wikipedia are for readers, not editors. Yes, tables maybe cut into two or three pages (I've never tried), but if a table is big, then that's the baggage that comes with tables. I sympathize with your feeling that the nontable is better (I don't feel that way, but), but unfortunately, we have to keep information easy to read and readable.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
About tables: there is not one statistical piece of information in the tables you are talking about. You can see the wasted space when you compare the amount of information in each column. Some of them are crowded with information, some of them are almost empty, with just one or two words. If there were no crowded cells in some columns of the table, it may be a good format. But it is not the case. About the length of the tables: there should be no baggage, We, editors, must help the reader. Readers must have access to documents that can be printed easily, so it is not a feeling about tables or sympathy what I am asking for, but a decision to benefit the reader, not our editing likes or dislikes. Now, in what sense a table is easier to read than the traditional prose, with subtitles, bold, italic and underline texts?
I just need a good reason to change my mind. On the other hand, an editing of such importance (eliminating prose and using tables, or viceversa) should be consulted with other editors before being done. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the length of the table may be too long, but we cannot cleave it just for people who print the articles. Some of the cells maybe crowded just because of that face that the information is not much. Say romanji, you really can't add more than a phrase in the cell. It's just the nature of the article. And that is statistical information. Statistics does not always mean numbers. The infomation can be categorized into variables.68.148.164.166 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not convinced by your arguments. Please, check When to use tables. I think that tables make it difficult to edit, do not help readers, waste space, do not have balanced amounts of information in cells of the same row, and do not constitute statistical information as numbers or as variables. So, in order to help readers and editors, and since it is just the two of us who have showed some interest, and I took the time to present the case (despite you not doing so), listen and answer to other positions, I find no reason to support your claim about the usefulness of tables. I will change the format back to no tables. Alfredo elejalde (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary comments (Links)

Some comments are not necessary and some are open to debate since they are the personal opinion of one of the article editors. We need to agree in what is relevant and what is not, and whether these comments are back in the article or not.

See bold text:

Line 146:

This section refers only to web sites that contains significant -in quality and quantity- documents about Goju ryu.

Well done! jmcw (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article had a section "informative links", which was changed to "external links".

The older "informative links" section contained two links:

a) Informative links

This section refers only to web sites that contains significant -in quality and quantity- documents about Goju ryu.
- All Goju-Ryu Network at Gojuryu.net: Great Goju Ryu resource and forum on the internet.
- Sanzinsoo Okinawa Goju-Ryu Karate-Do: Translations of excellent Japanese Goju Ryu documents. Recently converted to blog format.

Those links were replaced by these:

b) External links

- JKF Goju-kai official site
- Jundokan official site

The links in (b) are certainly external, but they do not are notable enough to deserve an independent section of the article since Gojukai and Jundokan are two particular organizations and none of them is entitled to represent goju ryu oficially,, but only their affiliates. This issue is very common in martial arts: No organization in the world can be taken as the head of a martial style, except when a koryu bujutsu has not been taught outside the private sphere and therefore there is just one line of transmission of the art. That is not the case of goju ryu.

On the other hand, the links erased are valuable since the provide two sources of reliable information, with the only limitation being they are not academic sources. however, this is the problem with martial arts in general, there are no academic sources on schools like goju ryu. Yamada sensei is a well known translator of old goju ryu texts, and gojuryu.net is a forum where goju practitioner and goju scholars discuss different aspects of their style. As long as there are no academic research on goju ryu, those sources and a few books are the only sources to be considered on this subject.

Those external-informative links are of course temporal, and meet the criteria for Links to be considered:

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered

For these reasons,, I would like to add the old links again to the article. Any person researching goju ryu will have to read Yamada sensei translations and ask experts in gojuryu.net. Wikipedia guidelines say:

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

So if any person interested in goju ryu will sooner or later read Yamada's translations and talk to experts in gojuryu.net; and if the state of research on goju ryu is not yet mature so little information can be found,, then I think that those two links have a place in the article. I hope you agree or you convince me otherwise :) Alfredo elejalde (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these comments about the quality/type of references available for the martial arts. I feel that the original external links were more general and more valuable. jmcw (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fighting arts

If the article is not available anywhere else, then the article should not be used to source a statement in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written from information available in reliable sources. The fightingarts website does not qualify as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information. Also, when you use the undo button do not remove the editor's name from the message, this prevents the editor from knowing which specific edit you undid in the edit summary. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I regard FightingArts.com as an acceptable tertiary source when they name the source of a quotation. Secondly, the book in question is written in Japanese: the English Wiki will need a translation. Further, the book is rare: see Hawaii Karate Museum Book Collection: Otoko: Meitoku no Jinsei Gekijo. The material is available from several sources: see [1]. I would appreciate it if you would return the deleted citation. jmcw (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor on this reversion would prefer a link to Wiktionary but they are Japanese terms not in general, English-language usage so they, to me, seemed helpful. Comments appreciated. Swliv (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Translating the meanings of the titles of the kata should be done here via simple gloss, not by linking to another page that doesn't even mention the usage. Firstly, its not like they are difficult to explain ("dai ichi" just means "number 1" or "the first") and its not needed to send the reader away when two words can do. And secondly, because the other page is a dictionary definition and should just be transwikied to wiktionary. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see it as a need as much as an option, with the link being to me less intrusive and duplicative. If one prefers the definitions included I'd encourage it. As to the validity of the linked page I'm not wedded to it though it was born of a significant global moment of long-enduring significance for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The Dai-ichi name of the generating plants was not being communicated in English translation at the time or since that I've seen and, as I recall, the Japanese Wiktionary wasn't all that clearcut helpful at the time either. As to the non-mention of the judo usage of the terms (with dai ni Number 2 as well) they can be easily added to the linked page; though I don't think anyone's really favoring that. Meanwhile I'm still reverted from the page here but I'll consider this and other possible responses further. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Karate Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia:WikiProject Karate

Dear editors, I am proposing a new WikiProject Karate to bring together editors with knowledge of this martial art specifically, especially due to Karate becoming an Olympic sport I think it is time to focus energy on the roughly 3500 main space articles associated with Karate. Full description of the rationale and goals can be found at the link above, please comment, discuss (and join if you support this project!) All the best, Mountaincirque 10:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gōjū-ryū/Archive_1&oldid=1228791203"