Talk:Niten Ichi-ryū

Untitled

This article is in need of grammar correction. While quite interesting, it feels to me like it was written by someone who has English as a second language. It could be made more clear and concise.

Two Katanas vs Katana and Wakazashi

I am under the understanding that Niten Ichi is predominantly practised with two katana, and not with a katana and wakazashi pair. What little I recall of Musashi's writings I think he recommended training right from the beginning with two katana, as he regarded this as the most desirable practice and said it would be difficult to have the off-hand un-learn the wakazashi in order to pick up a katana. --Enlashok 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I recollect, fighting would usually be done with the daisho; the twin katana thing I'd only heard for training. --Gwern (contribs) 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the 'two katana' is a mistake in one of the English translations (Victor Harris) but other translations (Tokitsu, Cleary etc) do not translate Musashi's text with this error in. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu's 'Nito Seiho' is done with kodachi (short sword) in the left hand and odachi (long sword) in the right. - BigScottUK 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kuroyama Roiyaru?

I have edited out "Kuroyama Roiyaru" from the lineage. Please see Kenji Tokitsu's "Miyamoto Musashi: His Life and Writings" pp. 130-131, William Scott Wilson's "The Lone Samurai" p. 178, and Imai Masayuki's "Miyamoto Musashi: Dokkodo, Niten Ichi Ryu Seiho" p.127 (japanese language). Terao Kumenosuke Nobuyuki was a direct student of Miyamoto Musashi and received direct transmission from him. There was no one in between. The name "Kuroyama Roiyaru" seems unlikely; there is no reference to it anywhere I have looked, and the name "Roiyaru" is not in my Japanese name dictionary. It is, however, an english loanword for "Royal". Therefore there is no reason for this name in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.137.132 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Succession

I'd like to discuss the inclusion of the other successor of the seito line, Yoshimoti Kyoshi, in this article. For more information, please refer to:

• [[1]]
• [[2]]

The reasons are:

• Yoshimoti Kyoshi was chosed by the family of the late Kiyonaga Fumiya as his successor in may 2007. The same happened 30 years ago, when the Kiyonaga family posthumously recognized Imai Massyuke as successor of Kiyonaga Tadanao.

• The japanese budo community has a deep recognition of Gosho Motoharu and Yoshimoti Kyoshi as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu representatives. They constantly represents the ryu in major events. For example, only this year: Kyoto Taikai, All Japan Naginata Championship and the Miyamoto Yori Taikai in KOKURA. This month Kendo Nippon, the most important publication of Kendo and Kobudo, made an article about Yoshimoti Sensei and the succession of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu.

• Nihon Kobudo Kyokai clearly states that they register only one representative per ryu, but that doen't mean that there aren't other successors. Nihon Kobudo Kyokai recognizes that Imai Massyuke chose to have three successors in 2003.

• There were a legal action moved by Iwami Toshio requesting the sole possession of the Bokuto of Miyamoto Musashi, today in guard of the Usa city temple and available to the three successors of Imai Massayuke or their successors. The action was denied by Japanese court in July 2007, thus making a legal antecedent against his recognition as sole successor. The court decided that there were other successors with the right to have access to the Bokuto and that the property must continue with the Usa Shrine.

• Gosho Motoharu was the teacher of Imai Massayuke. When Imai Massayuke became soke, he was in the ryu for less than one year. Gosho Motoharu was the responsible for teaching him and the other members of th ryu untill 1988.

• The transmission of Menkyo Kaiden was interrupted in Imai Massayuke. Imai Massyuke didn't received Menkyo Kaiden in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. Gosho Motoharu is the most senior member of the ryu alive who has Menkyo Kaiden, received in 1955. Yoshimoti Kyoshi received Menkyo Kaiden from Gosho Motoharu in 1999. Thus, he is the only successor nowadays who comes from a unbronken line in Menkyo Kaiden transmission.

Given this, and respecting the proposal of Wikipedia to be open and neutral, it should be included Yoshimoti Kyoshi as 12 successor (Junidai) of the Seito Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (succeeding Kiyonaga Fumiya, daijuichi) and of Mr. Chin Kin, of Taiwan, as daijuichi.

In the dispute section of this article it could be explained that Iwami Toshio Gensho don't recognize the other as successors and that he is not recognized as soke for the other successors, but as a daijuichi successor.

--NitenBr 17:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right! lets go through this again

I've noticed that Gosho-ha is again pushing its POV down the throat of this article yet again. Obviously they wont be able to see facts but here they are anyways: The HNIR tradition has one headmaster: Iwami Toshio Gensho, the 11th in line. There is no 12th leader like the Gosho-ha tradition article claims. This fact is recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai. They recognise two lineages of HNIR, neither of which are Gosho-ha: 兵法二天一流剣術（福岡） - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術（熊本） - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)

None of the above traditions and orgs recognise the Gosho-ha claim to sole, or otherwise shared leadership of the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio. The official HNIR tradition, regardless if Gosho-ha wishes to recognise this t or not, is led by Iwami Toshio. The lineage in English can be found here which is the official site of Hyakute Colin, a Menkyo Kaiden (complete License holder in a MA-system), who also belongs to the official HNIR line under Iwami Toshio.

These changes of the main HNIR article to try and reflect that Gosho-ha is the current leader of ALL HNIR traditions must stop, for they are not recognised as such nor are they accurate according to above sources. Nor shall the Gosho-ha try to rewrite how the HNIR tradition do their training including the bit about Aikuchi. Regardless of what method Gosho-ha HNIR uses to train Aikuchi it is totally irrellevant in THIS article since Gosho-ha and the main HNIR traditions are NOT one and the same. They have nothing to do with each other: they are seperate under different leaders and different views. What Gosho-ha headmaster say about how the main HNIR tradition performs its training is completely and utterly irrellevant.

Finally: If these intrusions on the factual accuracy in both this article and Gosho-ha article continues I will be forced to do an official request for arbitration in order to hinder further similar edits.

Fred26 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Fred26

The Seito Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, the main tradition, has three successors. In the line of Kiyonaga Fumiya, the actual succesor is Yoshimochi Kiyoshi.

Nihon Kobudo Kyokai doesn't deny that Imai Soke choose to have three successors. NKK informed that they could have one associated, and Imai Soke decided that was Iwami Toshio. But that doesn't imply that Aoki Soke's discipliple from Taiwan and Kiyonaga Fumiya (now Yoshimochi Kiyoshi after him) were also successors.

Kendo Nippon wrote an article about the succession months ago. Please check: [3]

I think that together we can arrange this article in a way to show both sides. If you think anything write by me is offensive or partial, show me that and we will re-write.

--NitenBr (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Kendo Nippon? An online Kendo-magazine with little connection to koryu. I tell you what, I'm literary 2 phone-calls away from Iwami Toshio. I can send a request to the guys over at koryu.com with their many and respectable scholars and authors on Koryu-history and have THEM put up an article describing the big gaps in the Gosho-ha claim to the headmastership.

There were three menkyo kaiden of HNIR chosen, NOT three successors. In theory HNIR can have a 100 menkyo kaiden but only one of them can be soke. That soke is chosen by the previous one. Imai Soke chose Iwami Toshio to be his successor and noone else.

This is what is at the center of all the gosho-ha arguments: the claim that Imai Soke set out three successors .Gosho-ha has claimed that the sokeship was dismantled/disabolished (whatever) with Imai Soke. This is not true. This is something the official HNIR tradition, and its members, categorically deny, it is something they do not subscribe too, it is something they do not uphold and they certainly do NOT recgonise any other Soke of HNIR than Iwami Toshio. This article WILL adhere to the fact that Iwami Toshio leads the official HNIR tradition. What could be clearer? If Gosho-ha has a dispute, then that is their problem to be settled outside here. There is no problem, however, stating that Gosho-ha and their headmaster do not subscribe to the lineage of the official tradition and that they now believe/delude themselves into thinking they actually lead everything and they have somehow transformed into the main line of HNIR.

Under wikipedia one must include the fact that there are people that dispute a succession or a different opinion in an article, no argument here, but what YOU are doing is very different. You are trying to weasel Gosho-ha versions of the lineage succession in this article by saying there were 3 official successors and that (for instance) the HNIR tradition train with soft shinai eventhough you obviously have no idea of how it is done in the HNIR mainline main dojo. You also keep referring to a 12th successor to the ryu, but Iwami Toshio has not yet passed away nor has he chosen any successor. If there is a 12th successor to the Gosho-ha tradition then it is a whole other matter. Like it or not, your version of the lineage is not accepted in the mainstream. It is Gosho-ha who is the minority, and until Iwami Toshio recognises your claim, which will be when hell freezes over, you have no leg to stand on and you will not pretend otherwise in this article.

Here is what will be done from now on. You will not revert edits to this article that aim to put in the official truth: That Iwami Toshio is the current 11th sole and single soke of HNIR tradition. If you have to link to the official Gosho-ha site, as a reference, as the "Official HNIR website" then you will only serve to confuse people with little experience of gosho-ha, for there is only one recognised HNIR seito line. From now on, if you need to post links to the Gosho-ha site the description cannot include the claim that it is the "official HNIR site" for it is not. "You may referr it to the official site of the HNIR tradition as taught by Yoshimoti (etc)"

Furthermore, if you have no practical experience with the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio, then dont post training-methods/weapons that Gosho-ha uses in THIS article. Gosho-ha article, yes! This article, no! As I said before: Gosho-ha has nothing to do with Iwami Toshio and how the practice is executed in his dojo and it will be reflected in this article.

I expect you to uphold this from now on. If not, then you can slug it out with the Wikipedia Admins in which case it will most likely end up like it did on both E-budo and Kendo-world.

Fred26 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"I can send a request to the guys over at koryu.com with their many and respectable scholars and authors on Koryu-history and have THEM put up an article describing the big gaps in the Gosho-ha claim to the headmastership."

Actually, that would be very useful for people in general to see, regardless of how this particular Wikipedia dispute comes out. You should ask'em. --Gwern (contribs) 18:53 9 February 2008 (GMT)

"What is Kendo Nippon? An online Kendo-magazine with little connection to koryu." Aswer: No, it's not!!!

You dont know what Kendo Nippon is? Please, so don't come here talking about schoolar etc...

Kendo Nippon is the most respected publication on Kendo (and in koryu too, for lack of a more specialized publication) in the world. It has been for at least 30 years! please, don't say thinks that you don't understand. I think it's best you call the Koryu.com people and ask what Kendo Nippon is. Probally they have a lot of issues, they can show you some.

Do you know who Gosho Sensei is? He is the person who taught Niten Ichi Ryu to Imai Soke AFTER he became 10th Soke! Because Gosho Sensei was the last Menkyo Kaiden in the mainstream line.

In a side note, Gosho Sensei didn't gave Menkyo Kainden to Imai Soke. GOsho Sensei says that there are no Jitte or Jiu jitsu on the ryu and that Aikuchi was how Aoki Soke called free forms made with fukuro shinai. Will you contradict him?

In Hyoho.com and other sites connected with Iwami Toshio, there is the information that Imai Soke started practicing in 1956 with Aoke Soke. That is a lie! Imai Soke started in 1975, a few months before Kiyonaga Soke passed away. Eight nonths later, Kiyonaga's widow decided to postumated desiginate Imai sensei as Soke, and asked Gosho Sensei, close friend of the Kiyonaga family and Soke Daiken (title given by Aoki Soke) to teach him, what he made, staying as his and everyone's else in the ryu teacher untill 1988. Iwami Toshio practicing only started in 1989. The same person, Kiyonaga san, designate Yoshimochi Sensei, son of Gosho Sensei, as successor of Kiyonaga Fumiya, her son and daijuichi successor. That is what Kendo Nippon featured in the article.

I think the Wikipedia moderators will judge the article of the most respected publication in the world more than enough about this point.

--NitenBr (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the WikiMods will not take the side of a single teacher in Japan's story over massive organisations such as the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai. These guys are something else when it comes to koryu. They have their own in-house historians that refuse access to those who cannot prove their lineage and anything they don't know is either false or not worth knowing. I wish I had access to that level of historical koryu knowledge.

-- BigScottUK (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If this Kendo magazine is "the worlds most respected publication" then they sure have proven one helluva dissappointment, not to mention a complete and utter failure to exhaust the sources available at their disposal which included the HNIR with Iwami Toshio, and you can quote me on that. They have really botched the job this time. And trust me, I'm not the first, and I wont be the last to say that.

Ok, I'm seeing a pattern here so let me get things into perspective. (I'm gonna keep using "Gosho-ha" since otherwise it would be confusing to call both sides for "the official HNIR".) So to make it easier for all the peeps, here are the Main line of HNIR arguments and statements in a nutshell:

• The main line of HNIR does not recognise the legitemacy of the Gosho-ha claim that there are three official successors to the 10th Soke.
• There is only one successor to the 10th Soke of HNIR, the current 11th Soke Iwami Toshio.
• Menkyo Kaiden do NOT mean successor. It means a person has recieved an official license of complete transmission of (any) ryu, not that he/she automatically will succeed the person he/she recived it from.
• A Sokeship is passed from master to student.
• An example of how there are more than one leading figure in a ryu can be found in the Katori Shinto Ryu tradition, which has a Soke who literary owns the ryu, and a teaching headmaster called Shihan in this particular case.
• HNIR does not award sokeship to more than one person at a time.
• Imai Soke started HNIR in 1956[4] and trained under the 8th and 9th soke, Aoki and Kiyonaga respectively[5].
• When the 9th Soke, Kiyonaga Tadanao Masami, died (suddenly) the remaining Kiyonaga family chose Imai to be Soke due to the unfortunete death of the 9th Soke.
• In 1976 Imai became the official 10th soke of the Seito HNIR tradition.
• On the 20th december of 2003 there was a ceremony held in Kokura[6]. That ceremony decleared three new Menkyo Kaiden of HNIR and the inauguration of Iwami Toshio Gensho as Hyoho Niten Ichiryu Seito Ju-Ichidai, the 11th Soke.
• The authority of the Kiyonaga family does not extend beyond the decision to name Imai the 10th Soke. Imai Soke retained full and complete authority on who to make his successor. He chose Iwami Toshio.
• Kiyonaga family does not hold a herediteray position within the HNIR.
• The Kiyonaga family does not have any authorisation to dictate HNIR policy of any sort.
• There exists only one branch of HNIR that is recognised by the mainline: The Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu
• The HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio is recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai: (Link to the entry on HNIR.
• Entry in the above website:

剣術 - Kenjutsu 兵法二天一流剣術（福岡） - Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Fukuoka) 野田派二天一流剣術（熊本） - Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryu (Kumamoto)

Here are the Gosho-ha statements, which furthermore, for the other peoples reading pleasure, is led by a splinter faction (Gosho-ha) that broke away from the main HNIR tradition and have no part of it. Here is what you say in a nutshell:

• Claims that Gosho-ha and Main Line HNIR is now reunited under the leadership of Yoshimoto, the 12th successor (in their doctrine) to the tradition.
• Claims that Kiyonaga Fumiya has become 11th soke, with his successor Yoshimoti, (son of Gosho), as the 12th.
• Gosho-ha have chosed to end their previous name of "Gosho-Ha HNIR" ("-ha" meaning branch school) and referr to themselves as being "reintegrated with the Seito Line", the Seito line being the HNIR line under Iwami Toshio Soke.
• Claims HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio is literary lying about Imai Masayuki Nobukatsu, the 10th Soke.
• Claims the 10th Soke started training HNIR in 1976, which is 19 years after the reported date of 1956.
• Claims Imai succeeded the 9th soke (to become the 10th) after only ONE years practice. (Imai started in 1975 according to Gosho-ha)
• Imai Soke awarded three Menkyo Kaiden which included Iwami Toshio, a certain Chin and Kiyonaga Fumida. Gosho-ha belives these three menkyo kaiden holders were appointed successors to Imai and the HNIR system eventhough Imai Soke specifically chose Iwami Toshio as the official 11th Soke
• Claims there are three successors to the 11th Soke position, which included a certain Kiyonaga Fumiya, son of the 9th soke, who was "approved" as a successor to, and by, the Kiyonaga family and thus to the 11th sokeship.
• Claims that the Kiyonaga family has authority, perhaps due to their blood-ties with the 9th Soke (Kiyonaga), to appoint individuals who will succeed the sokeship of the Mainline HNIR.

To summarize why Gosho-ha has no leg to stand on:

• Menkyo Kaiden - Licenses of complete transmission, not successor-license.
• Soke - "Headmaster" and/or "Head of Family" - In HNIR chosen by the previous soke. (only one at a time)
• Kiyonaga Fumida got a Menkyo Kaiden, not the sokeship, by Imai.
• Kiyonaga widow & family does not have any authority in the HNIR tradition, thus when they chose Yoshimoti as the 12th soke, (to the illegitimate 11th Sokeship of Kiyonaga Fumida), it becomes clear that the Gosho-ha claims are nonsense. Hence there is no legitimate or formal connection between the Seito Line under Iwami and the Gosho-ha.

Fred26 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And to add a bit more important info on the succession. In this case I'll quote directly from the www.hyoho.com website: "Succession in the Hyoho Niten Ichiryu, the name designated by Musashi towards the end of his life does not follow a hereditary pattern. It is attested by the conferral of two artifacts. A scroll on which is written the name of the techniques and the approach to them that must be transmitted to perpetuate the school. A wooden sword that Musashi made himself, with which he trained and used as a walking stick during the last years of his life. The main atribute to succession is of course the physical and education transmission handed down from teacher to student, learned over most of a lifetime and with it the deep understanding of Musashi's Mu that accompanies his waza. Those who do not understand and possess Musashi's Mu have not chance of advancement or succession!"

The bokuto which has always been handed down through generations from Sohke to Soke is designated as a national treasure."

There is also a nice photo on the above site which shows Iwami Toshio being handed the wooden sword during his inuaguration. If the Gosho-ha is in possesion of the Jisso Enman no Bokuto, as the succession tradition requires, then they should have no problem posting a dated photo of it together with Yoshimoti.

Fred26 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to remember commerce here. Kendo Nippon is a magazine that needs to sell x number of issues to remain a viable business success. They may take certain information they are given as true without researching it in great detail as it makes good reading.

As for the Jisso Enman no Bokuto, I agree - I think a dated photo of the bokuto would be useful in sorting this issue out.

BigScottUK (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About the Jisso Enman no Bokuto. There were a legal action moved by Iwami Toshio requesting the sole possession of the Bokuto of Miyamoto Musashi, today in guard of the Usa city temple and available to the three successors of Imai Massayuke or their successors. The action was denied by Japanese court in July 2007. The court decided that there were other successors with the right to have access to the Bokuto and that the property must continue with the Usa Shrine based in testemonials and the documentation provided by the shrine. So: 1- The affirmation the the Bokuto belongs to Iwami Toshio in incorrect 2- There are a legal antecedent against his recognition as sole successor

Remember that we are not talking about one sensei's (Gosho Hanshi) point of view. The japanese budo community recognizes Gosho Sensei and Yoshimochi Sensei as Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu representatives. They constantly represents the ryu in major events. In 2007: -Kyoto Taikai -All Japan Naginata Championship -Miyamoto Yori Taikai in KOKURA.

Your allegation trying to discredit Kendo Nippon are absurd. Have you at least read the article? Will you also say that the organization of Kyoto Taikai, lacks of research?

More on Menkyo Kaiden: Iwami Toshio received his Menkyo Kaiden from Imai Soke, who never received his. The truth is that the person who taught Imai Soke was Shihan Gosho Motoharu, who did'nt gave him Menkyo Kaiden. --NitenBr (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Jisso Enman no Bokuto:

I can confirm that Iwami soke has the bokuto in his possession, and will supply a dated photo if necessary. Please contact Usa Jingu who will confirm this.

Imai Masayuki, 10th Soke, Menkyo Kaiden:

Imai soke received Menkyo Kaiden from the previous soke (which may actually mean Aoki soke). Will confirm this in July when Iwami-soke visits England.

On a related note, I find it disturbing that the Gosho-ha only appear to the world once Imai soke has passed away and cannot answer these ridiculous allegations himself.

BigScottUK (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bokuto is possesion from the Shrine. The terms dictate that any one of the successors can have it for a period of 15 days.

Iwami Toshio made a lawsuit asking for the sole possesion. In last July it was dennied by court.

We feel very sorry for having to publish the information regarding when Imai Soke started practicing and for not having received Menkyo Kaiden, but the actude of Iwami Toshio's students, trying to display their master as the sole successor, left no other alternative.

So you don't know who gave Menkyo Kaiden to Imai Soke? - please confirm the information, because there is no one who should have given Menkyo Kaiden to him. Gosho Sensei was the person who taught the ryu twchniques to him and did not gave him Menkyo Kaiden.

Can you provide any proof that Imai Soke had Menkyo Kaiden?

--NitenBr (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm checking that info right now, but while I'm doing this you can consider the fact that if Imai never got a Menkyo Kaiden then the MK of Kiyonaga Fumiya is invalid. Fred26 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But Yoshimoci Kiyoshi received his Menkyo Kaiden from Gosho Sensei, who received from Aoki Soke.

--NitenBr (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. As such, the long discussions about what the "truth" and "proper succession" (or any variation thereof) should not occur here. Stick to discussing and reporting what can be verified in independent reliable sources. In the article, attention should be given in proportion to how prominent such claims are in the reputable references. That is to say, if there is a clear majority/mainstream opinion presented in the sources, that should be the primary opinion/set of facts presented in the article. If something is a clear minority view, it should be given a small amount of space in the article. If a particular claim is an extreme minority opinion, only appearing very rarely or only in sources of questionable reliability, then it is likely it shouldn't be discussed at all. If there are any questions as to whether a particular source is reliable, you can always ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you still cannot come to an agreement, asking for more outside input and/or informal dispute assistance may be helpful. Vassyana (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Allright. This sounds reasonable. I'll put together the sources available. Fred26 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Before continuing the discssion I must ask you do not revert edits on this article

I must ask you (NitenBR) again not to revert the edits and try to superimpose the Gosho-ha POV on the main HNIR article. Thanks Fred26 (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who is reverting.

Why are you taking off Yoshimochi Kiyoshi as successor, a information that is here fot months before the discussion is finish and no conclusion is taken?

NitenBr (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the HNIR article was first created back in 2005-04-07. The first mentioning of Iwami Toshio as soke was in 2005-10-23 The first edit that tried to impose the Gosho-ha POV onto this article was made on 2007-01-03. So who is reverting who here?

And here is the fact which is at the core of Wikipedia: Neither Gosho-ha, you or anyone have the right to proclaim what the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio Soke believes or do NOT believe. It is written in black and white on the official HNIR site that they consider Iwami Toshio the one and only 11th Soke.

You see, Wikipedia adhere to a Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia report what a certain faction or organisation or religion believes in and what doctrine they follow, eventhough Wikipedia themselves do not believe in these doctrines. They also have an obligation to post what rival factions & religions & orgs believe in and if they differ in doctrine. Do you honestly believe that Wikpiedia would allow, for instance, the Catholic Church to impose their Point of View over the Protestant Churches official doctrine? That they would allow literary putting one factions words into the other factions mouth? Or Vice versa?

Let me give you a more specific example. The Catholic Church needs no introduction. On the CC's article there is a link to a list of Popes in a lineage format. Wikipedia writes that the current pope is Benedict XVI, recogniced by the current CC's Pope's election council or whatever it is called. This is the official CC doctrine.

In recent times a number of groups, usually lumped together under the name Traditional Catholics (TC), was created as a reaction to the changes made in the Catholic Church (CC) via the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's. Some TC people believe and strongly advocate the belif that the Papal seat is actually vacant and has been for awhile, that the current pope is illegitimete. Of course, we all know that the CC HAVE elected popes and that the lineage IS unbroken. This fact is simply not recognised by the TC's doctrine.

So, here is my question to you: do Wikipedia allow the TC wikipedia editors superimpose their Point of View (POV) in the main CC article? Do Wikipedia allow the TC to replace the official lineage and doctrine (as stated in the article) with that of TC's own? Do wikipedia allow the replacement of the Papal-lineage with their own lineage of "Papal throne vacant" and that Pope Benedict XVI is an illegitimete Pope? No, they do not.

So with relevance to the current issue at hand: Under Wikipedia standards you are NOT allowed to say that the HNIR tradition under Iwami Toshio believes there are three successors for the strictly do not, which is in effect what you have been doing with your edits and thats why I started this above discussion to begin with. You see, even if through some miracle you would be able to get undeniable proof that Gosho-ha is the legitimete successor to the tradition, you will still not be able to replace the official doctrine of HNIR under Iwami Toshio, represented in this article, as it is still NOT what Iwami Toshio believe.

Me in turn cannot go over to the Gosho-ha article and state that Gosho-ha tradition is NOT led by "this or that" Soke or that Gosho-ha trains "this or that" weapon in their tradition if they themselves state the opposite this.

What you can and should do, however, and which I agree on 100%, is to add an entry in either the HNIR article, or create a whole new article which is acceptable if there is much information to squeeze into one paragraph. This entry should state, neutrally, that Gosho-ha disputes the lineage for "this or that" reason, and to post links which leads to whatever sources you have on the subject. Admitedly, I havent been able to create a complete enough paragraph & entry on Gosho-ha's dispute with Iwami since you have reverted my edits and not even given me a chance too.

Do you understand now? Catholics cannot state what Protestant official doctrine is or what they believe, nor vice versa. So I ask you again: Cease reverting the articles edits. Reverts which are aimed to superimpose Gosho-ha official doctrine over the doctrine of the HNIR tradition, the latter which is featured in this article. Such POV editing is something you cannot get an Admin to approve regardless of how right & righteous the Gosho-ha feels about their claim.

Fred26 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we'll continue the earlier discussion later as I have not formulated a complete reply yet and I have some business to attend to tomorrow and I wont be back until friday. Rest assured I'll take it up though. Fred26 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyoho.com is not Niten Ichi Ryu official site. It is Hyakutake Colin's site. He is a student of Iwami Toshio. It can be the official site of Iwami Toshio's group, as nitenichiryu.jp is from Yoshimochi Sensei. But you can not say it has any weight for providing information on the matter, unlike Kendo Nippon, that is a respected and neutral publication.

Because that is our case. Following your example, it is like if the Times (for lack of a better example) publish an article saying that the TC Pope (if there is one )is the pope in fact. Or if this imaginnary pope is called to represent CC in the the most important ecumenical event (in a analogy for Yoshimochi sensei represent the Ryu in Kyoto Taikai).

What I want to explain (and I don't know if it's clear) is that in Japan the recognization of Yoshimochi Sensei as successor is a fact. You can't fool Kendo Nippon, Kyoto Taikai, the Japanese Naginata Federation, etc... These people really recognizes Yoshimochi Sensei as one successor, and the Wiki article should reflect that, not the Iwami Toshio's group point of view.

For the "Gosho ha" expoents in Japan, there is no "Gosho Ha", but Seito Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. Our dicussion should be how to accomodate the two groups in the article. Because the revelance of Yoshimochi Sensei's group is unquestionable, in Japan and also abroad.

--NitenBr (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately avoiding the issue by trying to push more Gosho-ha doctrine into this. You have chose to ignore the example I provided by trying to prove that it is perfectly allright to put words into the mouth of other people as long as you have more than one online article. Hyoho.com is run by Colin yes and Colin speaks for Iwami Toshio. You still want to superimose Goshi POV on top of HNIR under Iwami Toshio and you try to discredit hyoho.com as a source. You claim that the Gosho-ha is literary unquestionable both abroad and in Japan eventhough it is not true: http://www.ryoishintoryu.com/niten.htm

http://ejmas.com/tin/2007tin/tinart_calgaryniten_0710.html

http://www.koryu.com/guide/niten.html

http://www.waterlily-aroma.co.uk/niten/Ourgroup.htm

http://www.koryu.fi/NitenIchiRyuKenjutsu.htm

I'm giving you a final warning to cease imposing your POV over this article or I'll be forced to report you to the Admins. You have enough awareness of this issue that you will not get any further warnings.

Fred26 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I relally think that we should call the admins, because you insist on trying to impose the point of view of Iwami Toshio's group over the others.

--NitenBr (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm tempted to draw a comparison to a brickwall but it'll have to wait. I will be gone by tomorrow and wont return until friday. Fred26 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best outcome here is to split the two pages completely into:

a) Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu under the 11th Soke IWAMI Toshio, and

b) Gosho-ha Niten Ichi-ryu under Yoshimoti sensei

...with the minimum of links to each other.

A point on naming conventions:

HYOHO Niten Ichi-ryu is the name of the seito line as recognised by the Nihon Kobudo Kyokai (NKK) and the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai (NKS), the two groups in Japan that deal with historical schools (koryu). Gosho-ha is exactly that, a -ha (a breakaway group, or a branch from a group) and shouldn't carry the name HYOHO as this is the name of the main (seito) line. Mr Yoshimoti is well within his rights to run his own school without the authority of Iwami Toshio, the current soke, but he should not be using their full name.

Gosho-ha NIR can call themselves the seito line, have the backing of all the gendai (modern) budo groups or magazines they like - or perform as many embu as they so desire, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are not recognised by the people that count (NKK & NKS). These guys will only deal with koryu groups and a small amount of important genbudo groups (such as Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu). They will not recognise modern breakaway groups as this is goes against everything they are trying to protect.

BigScottUK (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Niten Ichi-ryū

Except when referring to specific branches or works, the school that Miyamoto created is always called simply "Nitenichi-ryū" (二天一流) in Japanese. Is there any reason why this article should be named "Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū"? Hyōhō is of course just a generic term meaning "strategy", and it's only used in some branches of Niten Ichi-ryu. Of course, there is also no compelling reason why it should be "Niten Ichi-ryu" instead of "Niten'ichi-ryu", but that's another question. If there's no objection I will proceed with renaming to "Niten Ichi-ryū". o (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be understood that the Ryu is the intellectual copright of its head. In this case Iwami Toshio Harukatsu. There is a dispute over the use of Kani above but they cant even read the present Soke's kanji correctly. A Ha usualy evolves at the suggestion and permission of a Soke. Not on ones own idea. As mentioned both Kobudo Associations recognize the present Soke. What is not mentioned is the fact that both association are run under the auspices of Nippon Budokan with full recognition of status by Monbusho the Japanese goverments eduction authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyaku (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bacteria in the War of the Ideologies

Did you get that joke with that altruistic/talkative Samurai from that movie? If you use the Daikyu to parry, while being fast and strong enough to split, you might actually end up with two opponents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:3AC2:0:18C9:E4CB:F40A:315B (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)