Jump to content

Talk:William Durbin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,748,677 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Martial arts}}.
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{martialartsproject|class=B}}
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].


{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN
'''Previous discussions:'''
|action1date=2007-08-21
|action1link=Talk:Kiyojute Ryu Kempo#Failed "good article" nomination
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=152679126


|action2=AFD
*[[Talk:Kiyojute Ryu Kempo/Archive01|Archive 1 (09/12/2005 to 12/21/2005)]]:
|action2date=14:55, 2 March 2008
*[[Talk:Kiyojute Ryu Kempo/Archive02|Archive 2 (12/21/2005 to 01/06/2006)]]:
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiyojute Ryu Kempo
|action2result=move
|action2oldid=189233034


|topic=everydaylife
-----
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|living=yes|listas=Durbin, William|
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Martial arts}}
}}
{{Archive box|
* [[/Archive01|09/12/2005 to 12/21/2005]]
* [[/Archive02|12/21/2005 to 01/06/2006]]
* [[/Archive03|01/06/2006 to 07/10/2007]]}}


==Article title and translation==
Mr. Anonymous Critic,


A couple of transliteration and translation points, that also relate to the title of the article.
The standard of quality on Wikipedia is not making it a sufficient for an ""A" in a 500 level liberal arts class at a top ranked school." It's to make an encyclopedia article, not a research paper, there is a difference, and the official standard of quality here is the [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured Article]] standard, which is compared against other Featured Articles, community standards (other wikipedia articles in general), and the listed standards for a Featured Article.
#気楊柔手流 should be correctly romanized as "kiyōjūte-ryū" when indicated parenthetically
#気楊柔手流 literally means "spiritually positive gentle ''hand'' style (or school)", rather than the translation given.
#Is the term "bugei" part of the name of the art or not? If it is, then the kanji for it should be given, and the article should be moved to "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei". On the other hand, given the kanji on the logo, perhaps the article should be moved to simply "Kiyojute Ryu".
I won't make any changes without first waiting to hear responses. [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


: Okay,
Your personal rants are also, frankly, not what is needed here. It's clear you are writing this as an attack piece (especially the angry rant you posted on the talk page, pretending to be "another" former student, and then removed, it's still in the change log). Posting pretending you are multiple people to create the illusion of more support is considered [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppetry]], a bad thing. You had a personal disagreement with him, and now want to make the article about his martial art as unfavorable as possible. How can you write a Neutral Point of View article when you blatantly express a specific agenda to defame him?
: 1. I personally have no problem with that change to the romanization, I would have done it myself but I'm not too adept with the macrons (and when I was taught Japanese, the romanization didn't include them, so I'm not in the habit of adding them).
: 2. "spiritually positive gentle person" is the translation that Kiyojute Ryu uses in their own literature (acknowledging in their handbook that it does normally mean hand and that the name works perfectly fine when translated like that, but they also meant a double-meaning with a less common translation), "hand" is a far more common translation, I've seen that kanji on rare occasion translated as person, but it is definitely not a common interpretation. Changing it to "spiritually positive gentle hand" seems fine, perhaps with a note that they do also mean for 手 to have a more obscure double meaning, citing the section in the student handbook and maybe a link to an online Japanese kanji dictionary listing such a double meaning [http://www.webdico.com:8080/kanji/kansear?dbname=kanjig&sword=%E6%89%8B&stype=0]. As for system as opposed to style or school, that's fine if you'd rather use "style" instead.
: 3. As for the name. "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" is used in their literature and website as the full name of the art (the kanji adding "kempo bugei" after "kiyojute ryu" are not on the logo, but they are present on rank certificates, the student handbook, and other documents), but "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo" is used much more often, with "Kiyojute Ryu" used less often. I was treating it much like naming conventions in other articles where the most common name was used as the article name, but the full/formal name was listed in bold at the beginning of the article. --[[User:Wingsandsword|Wingsandsword]] 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


::1. Just to be perfectly clear, it seems that Kiyojute Ryu doesn't use macrons in its official publications, so there is no need in this case to use them in the article title, only parenthetically when showing the romanization of the kanji. I don't want you to think that I'm suggesting the article title include the macrons.
You started out by coming here and making completely unverifyable accusations from your own personal anecdotes, and after having your accusations disproven, or shown to be irrelevant (like accusing [[Kentucky State University]] of being unaccredited because he taught there), you are now latching onto attacking Mr. Durbin by connection to Rod Sacharnoski, but are utterly uninterested in creating an article on him, so it's clear that Sacharnoski isn't your problem here, it's just an excuse to gripe about Durbin. You are obsessed because the UOP was in legal trouble, and presume that he knew the exact legal details of it's status as far back as 1980?
::2. Yes, I see what you mean, and I certainly don't want to over-complicate matters. I think the whole issue could be avoided if you just remove the word "literally" from the sentence, and leave "person". Additionally, perhaps the section discussing Kiyojute Ryu's philosophy might be an appropriate place to briefly discuss the name's meaning, rather than the lead.
::3. I don't have any personal experience with the art, so I'll leave it up to you to decide on the article's title. However, if you're aware of any trademark status that the name has for any of its variations, that might assist in a determination. In any event, the first line should use the {{tl|nihongo}} template and read "{{Nihongo|'''Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei'''|気楊柔手流拳法武芸|Kiyōjūte-ryū Kenpō Bugei}} is ..." [[User:Bradford44|Bradford44]] 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


:::1. That's clear, I figured you meant the romanization in the main article.
Also, editing archived talk pages to remove your own statements, and signing other peoples, like Mr. Boler's, names to talk pages are very bad things to do (logged IP addresses tell a lot).
:::2. Good point, I'll put in a paragraph in the philosophy section about the meaning of the name and remove the "literally" from the translation of the name in the lead.
:::3. I'll change the way the name is listed in the lead then. As for the trademark status and determining how to list the name, a "TM" is beneath the word "Kiyojute" on the student handbook, that's the only trademark I know them to actively assert is on that word alone, so that isn't too helpful in determining what to do there. Perhaps a redirect of "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" to this page would be in order then though. --[[User:Wingsandsword|Wingsandsword]] 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


==Failed "good article" nomination==
Also, placing your own personal conclusions, where you express your own opinions and try and interpret facts into your own conclusions and opinions at the end of a section is is not part of making an encyclopedia article from a NPOV. --[[User:Wingsandsword|Wingsandsword]] 11:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 21, 2007, compares against the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|six good article criteria]]:


:'''1. Well written?:''' [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] The article needs to be gone over for each aspect of the [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]]. There are spelling, grammar and other basic errors. There is also inconsistency in the referencing system. Visually, the large blocks of text without proper titles or sub-sectioning is very unappealing to read. These need to be trimmed down and broken up in to digestible chunks.
----
:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] There are a vast amount of potentially controversial statements that either lack citations entirely, or lack reliable ones. Statements such as "taught over a thousand peace officers" need independent verification.
This is the anon critic.
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] The article is overly detailed in some areas (belt rankings and philosophy for example) and lacking in others, such as the history of the mechanics of ''how'' the art spread beyond a single school or teacher. Remember to [[WP:OBVIOUS|state the obvious]] and not overindulge when it comes to the level of detail in the prose. Cover a broad range of topics, and stick to the important facts. Brevity is not just the soul of wit, but of readability.
Look, I didn't write that talk post and then delete it. I suspect I know who did, but I'm not going to make accusations without proof. I have consistently tried to avoid making accusations without proof both here and in the article itself. I challenge you to point out one such accusation that I've made and whose change I did not find acceptable. I acknowledged that my claims about their actions were unverifyable and I've not tried to put them back in the article. I've been trying to focus on what is factual.
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] The article contains no counterpoint to the many outlandish claims now present, and has seemingly (to read the prose) been written by an admirer of the founder and the practice. Any nascent U.S. synthesis martial art, disconnected from traditional roots and lineage, has detractors. To be perfectly honest, with the glowing account of the founder and the excessive philosophical detail, this reads like a brochure.
But you have consistently deleted facts that I've put in the article. For example, Durbin does not make clear in the faq that his degree is unaccredited and was received from a school which was closed for offering degrees illegally. You've twice now deleted that from the article, but it is a -fact-.
:'''5. Article stability?''' [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The article has not been the subject of any recent or ongoing edit wars.
The faq states, ''"I earned my Ph.D. from the University of Oriental Philosophy a branch of, Juko Kai Kokusai Remmei, in 1982. I originally joined Juko Kai in 1978. I was a graduate of Campbellsville College, with a BA. At the time I was teaching for the College and when I became aware of the professional degrees offered by Juko Kai, I asked the college if they would accept the degree and they declined. So at that time I did not pursue the degree.
:'''6. Images?:''' [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] There are properly attributed and well-used images.


{{ #if: While it is quite normally customary to place an article with problems to fix on hold, per the recommended GA review process I feel this article must be failed because it requires an overall improvement that would in my estimation take far beyond seven days. Honestly, I only see two reliable and ''independent'' published sources (the Plain Dealer and the Kentucky Kernel) that lend notability to the school, and I believe it is borderline in meeting notability requirements.|While it is quite normally customary to place an article with problems to fix on hold, per the recommended GA review process I feel this article must be failed because it requires an overall improvement that would in my estimation take far beyond seven days. Honestly, I only see two reliable and ''independent'' published sources (the Plain Dealer and the Kentucky Kernel) that lend notability to the school, and I believe it is borderline in meeting notability requirements. }}
In 1979, I moved to Frankfort and began teaching for Kentucky State University. The University told me that they would accept any degree I earned from the University of Oriental Philosophy, which would also increase the salary I received. At that point, I began to work towards the UOP degrees, earning my Masters in 1980 and my Ph.D. in 1982.


When these issues are addressed, the article can be [[Wikipedia:Good article candidates|resubmitted]] for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a [[WP:GA/R|GA review]]. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:FGAN -->
Some accept this degree and others do not. Since alternative forms of education are becoming more prevalent, I believe that this degree will be more widely accepted in the future. I can say that I worked as hard for my degree as anyone, since physical skills are expected along with the academic aspect. My personal thesis was on the influence of Christianity on martial arts in Japan."''
— [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


==Problems with sources==
Do you see the words "unaccredited" or "school found guilty of operating illegally" in that comment? But you've twice now deleted what was in the article and replaced it with statements that simply aren't true.
Quoting from Wikipedia policy,
*[quote]Articles should rely on reliable, '''third-party''' published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]][/quote]
*[quote]Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, '''self-published books''', newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]][/[/quote]
*[quote]Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:..it is '''not unduly self-serving'''; it '''does not involve claims about third parties'''.[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]][/[/quote]
Given that, many claims in this article - such as most of those in the Recognition and Endorsements section, violate the above policies. Durbin's claims about who has endorsed him are not third-party sources. Also, they are self-published by Durbin, are self-serving, and make claims about third parties (the people he claims has endorsed him).
Therefore, these sources will be removed from the article. That may lead many statements to be unsourced. It is customary courtesy to wait awhile (one week) before removing such unsourced comments once they are identified. I'll wait appropriately.-[[Special:Contributions/198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] ([[User talk:198.97.67.57|talk]]) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


:Ahem, they are acceptable under the very terms of those policies you quoted, as the terms of those policies with regards to self-published works in topics about them. The claims are cited, and that included books which have been through outside editorial review by non-vanity presses, which are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. --[[User:Wingsandsword|Wingsandsword]] ([[User talk:Wingsandsword|talk]]) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not signed Mr Boler's name to anything that I've written. It would take a very careless person to pose as two different people under the same IP.
::How do you derive from those policies that the references are acceptable? I can't see how you derive the exact opposite of what the policies state. I think we could open this up for discussioin in the martial arts group on Wikipedia, but before we do that, I'd like to see a better explanation from you. The claims are cited, but the references aren't acceptable by policiy. The policies don't differentiate between vanity and non-vanity press, so I don't know why you think that's relevant. (though, I must say, I can't find any source which states whether or not Human Kinetics is a vanity press, so that's a red herring anyway) -[[Special:Contributions/198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] ([[User talk:198.97.67.57|talk]]) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Someone writing about their own art it a primary source, so use for contentious claims like endorsements is not good. I know nothing about the quality of the books, [[Paladin Press]] covers speciality topics especially martial arts, & related areas but I don't think it's a vanity press but I also don't think it has a wide peer review policy, see the article. --[[User:Nate1481|Nate1481]](<sup>[[User talk:Nate1481| t]]</sup>''/''<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Nate1481|c]]</sub>) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
----
Changes have been made based on the following
"some critics" are weasel words and, therefore, deleted
"many years later" is imprecise and replaced with "in 2001"
"(although when Durbin received his degree, the UOP was operating in North Carolina)" moved for better flow in reading
clarified exactly what the Ryu's faq states and does not state regarding his degree
Summary statement added back in as it is all factual and Sacharnoski's credentials are relevant to the quality of training Durbin himself received and, therefore, the quality of instruction he is giving
"some have interpreted" are weasel words. Without them, the paragraph becomes pointless. Therefore deleted.
Comment regarding Ueshiba and So Doshin added back in as it is factual that Shinto and Zen Buddhism do not include beliefs in God and this provides context to Durbin's statement.
-----
This is the problem I have with Wikipedia. No one should be allowed to edit without registering first.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
It's also, why I believe that Durbin would cringe if he was aware of it's existance, and the fact that anyone can edit it's content. Again, I have to recommend that you inform of this asap. I fear that he will have you remove it.


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[William Durbin]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=699427310 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
As for the Sacharnoski article, I have tons of documents that I will provide someone if they want to pursue it. I will not, however, participate in it's creation. I've been down that road....
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001044323/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids=100247292:100247292&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+5%2C+1992&author=FRAN+HENRY&pub=The+Plain+Dealer&edition=&startpage=NOPGCIT&desc=In+self-defense+hit+your+attacker+where+it+counts+Callers+to+our+everywoman+hot+line+have+asked+for+information+about+how+to+protect+themselves.+We%27re+happy+to+oblige. to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids%3D100247292%3A100247292%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DMay%2B5%252C%2B1992%26author%3DFRAN%2BHENRY%26pub%3DThe%2BPlain%2BDealer%26edition%3D%26startpage%3DNOPGCIT%26desc%3DIn%2Bself-defense%2Bhit%2Byour%2Battacker%2Bwhere%2Bit%2Bcounts%2BCallers%2Bto%2Bour%2Beverywoman%2Bhot%2Bline%2Bhave%2Basked%2Bfor%2Binformation%2Babout%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bprotect%2Bthemselves.%2BWe%2527re%2Bhappy%2Bto%2Boblige.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
J Boler


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
-------
This needs an edit:


Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"During these years, he began to develop a personal philosophy regarding martial arts that combined spiritual and physical training. By 1978, Rod Sacharnoski of Juko Kai approved William Durbin using his personal philosophy in teaching Juko Kai classes, and also in that year he met Bill "Superfoot" Wallace, a master of Shorin-Ryu Karate and the World Middleweight Full Contact Karate Champion. Studying further with both Sacharnoski and Wallace, Durbin developed further in his studies of the martial arts and refined his personal philosophies and methods of teaching. He also began training under Nimr Hassan (a.k.a. Terry Lee), the last authenticated student of James Mitose, and was eventually recognized by Hassan as a Shihan."

Durbin did not meet Hassan in 1978, as it is inferred in the paragraph above. I believe it was during the 90's that Durbin met with Hassan, and GAVE him a 5th Dan, in return for one himself.

----
I was at the high school (in order to have enough space for everyone, a public high school gym was the meeting place) where he announced the addition of Nimpo and introduced Hassan to the Ryu. As memory serves, it was in 1995.

----
Nimr Hassan is identified as "the last authenticated student of James Mitose". How was he authenticated?

----
"NOTE: Regarding the above note, Dr. Durbin is merely presenting his own view of God the Father, as a Christian. What he is referring to as "a fundamental belief in God in some form" would equate to the various kami in Shinto, the process of enlightenment and seeking the Truth in Buddhism (which is usually defined in western terms as attaining oneness with God, the universe, or other spiritual concept; also, in some sects, Karma may be viewed in a manner similar to a god), and similarly, the seeking of the Way in Taoism. The concept of a force beyond the phenomenal world is universal, not existing only in atheism. Whether one decides to label this force as God, Goddess, the Void, the Universe, the Clear Light, Jehova, Allah, Yaweh, etc.; or even break it into smaller demi-gods, angels, etc., it does not change the ultimate fact that religion is about viewing the same concept from many different persepctives. To apply Dr. Durbin's statement strictly from a Buddhist perspective, for example, an enlightened person would be able to reach the highest levels of the martial arts even though their opinion on a so-called anthropomorized god may differ. It is this enlightenment to God, the Truth, etc., in an individual that Dr. Durbin refers to, rather than the semantics of a specific God in their personal religion."

deleted as it is making a claim that is not verified. As it contradicts my own personal experience with him when we discussed my Pantheistic beliefs, I'm thinking its not true. One way or the other it comes down to sticking to claims that are verified.
Incidentally, the whole idea of having a "personal relationship" with something which is impersonal (such as the Tao, Kether, 'the Light', 'the Truth', 'the Void', the Universe, etc.) makes no sense and many religions with such a concept are against having a personal relationship of this sort. Buddhism, for example, teaches to "slay the Buddha" if you meet him on the path to enlightenment and speaks at great length of the problems with attachment to such a thing (i.e, "dukha").

----
If you have verifiable data which conflicts with what is in the article, then add it. However, do not delete verified data from the article simply because you don't like it. It destroys the integrity of the article (which is considered vandalism on wikipedia).

----
The following statement, "but Durbin insists on a belief of a 'higher power,' whether it be the entity of universe or whatever, which he belived these men did" which seems to have been created out of the previous editor's own fertile imagination was replaced with the following verified statement from the Ryu's FAQ on their web site, "A person who just does not believe in God cannot possibly reach the highest levels of the martial arts, since they are of a spiritual nature". In the future, please restrain from making changes '''from''' verifiable sources '''to''' acts of creative fiction. The process of creating this article should work in the opposite direction.

----
"Nimr Hassan is identified as "the last authenticated student of James Mitose". How was he authenticated?"

I agree. Terry Lee was the last known student of Mitose (also the same one that murdered the Namimatsu family, under the direction of Mitose.) As the author of the document in question, it is UP TO YOU to back up that claim. If you can't, you are misleading the reader.

If you are wanting to right a credibile article, it's up to you to prove the claims you make; not the readers job to disprove them. Otherwise you are supporting the same revisionist history that Durbin has been guitly of in the past.

----
Looks like there was quite a lot of activity recently on the article. Many of the edits involved deleting verifiable data for no good reason. That destroys the integrity of the article and may be considered to be vandalism.
Please lets work on an article here, not try to twist it into a baseless PR piece for anyone's pet cause.
----
"Looks like there was quite a lot of activity recently on the article. Many of the edits involved deleting verifiable data for no good reason. That destroys the integrity of the article and may be considered to be vandalism."

Could you elaborate as to what was removed? Especially the portion on "verifiable data?"

----
The following two sections were removed again despite being grounded on verifiable data. The second one was, for once, not replaced with a work of fiction
In summary, Kiyojute Ryu was founded by William Durbin who received his doctorate from an unaccredited school run by Sacharnoski and found guilty of offering all its graduate degrees illegally. His training was received primarily from Sacharnoski and, thus, cannot be reliably traced back before Sacharnoski (as Sacharnoski has been unable to keep his stories straight regarding his own credentials in the martial arts). The only verified sponsoring organization for the Ryu was created by Sacharnoski and William Durbin was the vice-president of it at one time. Finally, William Durbin's writings are the only source offered for his claims that the Ryu is recognized by well known people in the martial arts community (an example of circular reasoning).

NOTE: It should be kept in mind that neither Shinto nor Zen Buddhism have a belief in God. It is therefore unlikely that Shintoists (such as Morihei Ueshiba - the founder of Aikido) or Zen Buddhists (such as So Doshin - the founder of Shorinji Kempo) held or hold beliefs in God, but Durbin insists that "a person who just does not believe in God cannot possibly reach the highest levels of the martial arts, since they are of a spiritual nature". Based on this statement, Durbin does not believe that Shintoists (like Morihei Ueshiba) and Zen Buddhists (like So Doshin) have ever reached the highest levels of the martial arts.
----
Ok, look. Let's discuss the UOP, because there is still some mis-information as to what happened. When it was brought to the attention of the officials in Maine (please note the word, WHEN), they determined that he had not followed the proper procedures, and had not seek licensure under proprietary education laws.

It's my understanding that he quickly filed the proper paperwork,and became licensed. Someone needs to write an article on Sacharnoski if they feel so strongly about the UOP. If the UOP wasn't licensed when Durbin received his PHD, then he is a victim....

I think stating that the degree is not from an accredited university is pretty clear.

----
As I've said before, if you have verifiable data which contradicts what is in the article, do not hesitate to put it in the article. "It's my understanding" is not, in any conceivable manner, verifiable data. In fact, the letter from the Maine Department of Education dated June 18, 2001, states "some months ago..I shared with you the fact that the institution was not authorized to operate or to offer degrees in the State of Maine. Since our last communication there has been no change in degree-granting authority for this entity." So for several months after he was informed, he just continued with what he was doing. This was in 2001.

Not only did he continue to operate as before after he was informed, he brought charges against those people (Don Cunningham and Jeff Boler) who had informed the authorities of his illegal operations in selling academic degrees for the UOP via the internet. (Those charges were dismissed by a judge in 2004.)

You said, "It's my understanding that he quickly filed the proper paperwork,and became licensed." Now you know what really happened.

Further, there is a big difference between an unaccredited school and one found to be operating illegally. For clarification, it is not necessarily illegal for a school to be unaccredited. To be illegal requires more and more serious violations.

Finally, We cannot ascertain whether Durbin is a victim in this mess. What we can ascertain is that Durbin is deliberately misrepresenting himself by not mentioning the actual merit of his degree in the FAQ.
----
If you have a problem with the accreditation or legalities of the UOP, write an article about the UOP. It's status doesn't warrant any mention in an article on Durbin, other than to state that it's not an accredited degree. (Which it does state.)

If we took every little aspect of Durbin's life, and tried to write about it....you'd end up with a large novel. All things considered, I think the article is fine the way it is.

----
Durbin uses the title "Doctor" to give a veneer of authority to his claim that he's a martial arts expert. That veneer has a lot to do with how he presents the art he created (he has written several articles on how the Ryu is more authentic and historically accurate than other systems and makes the implication that his "doctorate" gives him a privileged perspective). As a result, the legitimacy (or more to the point lack of it) of his doctorate has everything to do with the Ryu.
Only by first tearing away all the unverifiable claims of priveleged perspective and overly inflated claims of authority can you see the Ryu for what it is - a couple of not particularly outstanding schools led by a Baptist minister with delusions of grandeur.

----
Is the line of thought here that Durbin adds the title Dr to his name on the Ryu's website because he felt the need for more filler on the page?
----
In an article for an "Encyclopedia", I think adding anything other than "un-accredited" causes nothing more than a drift from the original topic. It would be great to see "University of Oriental Philosophy" underlined, with a link to a supporting article. However, I do not think it's necessary for inclusion here.

And I think asking a student of Durbin to make such a change is futile.

----
The encyclopedia article should stick exclusively to verifiable data. When a person makes a contentious claim and backs up that contentious claim with the fact that he said it before, that's circular reasoning and circular reasoning shouldn't be in the article.
So, if we take out everything but that which is verifiable by other than circular reasoning and we leave in everything that is verifiable by other than circular reasoning, then we'll have a much more concise and better written article.
Let's do that. Then we can examine how much of the UOP material can be moved elsewhere. Once that's done, I'm probably going to be cool with just calling it a [[bullshido]] here with more information on the UOP page.

----
There may very well be a valid reason for deleting the following quote from this article, "Apparently, the man who had just received a "doctorate" in Oriental Philosophy (with a specialization in the philosophy and history of Japanese and Okinawan arts), didn't know that he was incorrectly translating a concept which is very important to Japanese philosophy." However, if there is, could you please explain it here?

==April Fool's edits==
"Though there is proof that Sacharnoski trained under Shian Toma, thus linking him to Seikichi Uehara and Motobu Ryu."
-deleted as it isn't sourced

"with the intention of using them as credentials for promotions and pay raises in the capacity of a martial arts instructor"
-restored as its deletion is not explained

"(nearly 20 years after Durbin received his PhD)"
-deleted as its relevance is not explained

"However, the only "verified" sponsoring organization for the Ryu was created by Sacharnoski and William Durbin was the vice-president of that organization at one time"
- restored as there is no counter evidence presented and its deletion is not explained

"It should be kept in mind, however, that William Durbin's writings are the only source) offered for his claims that the Ryu is recognized by well known people in the martial arts community (an example of [[circular reasoning]]) (Nimr Hassan is the one exception to that.)
- restored as its deletion is not explained

==April 2nd edits==
The Ryu's FAQ states that "The University told me that they would accept any degree I earned from the University of Oriental Philosophy, which would also increase the salary I received". This is misleading as it suggests that the University accepted an illegitimate, unaccredited degree without reservation. I think the actual nature of their acceptance of that degree needs to be clarified.
----

If you are talking about the doctoral degree, then the University did not accept it without reservation. They did not have to, as the degree was awarded in 1982, and he was no longer working for the University as of early 1981.

----
Regardless of when he graduated vs. when he was working at the University, when he claims that they told him they would accept any of the illegitimate, unaccredited degrees he received from the UOP, he is saying that the University would accept any of the illegitimate, unaccredited degrees he received from the UOP. Unless he's saying that they lied to him by telling him that they would accept such a degree and then the University would have actually reneged on that offer.

==April 5th edits==
"Edited because this inference was a blatant attempt to defame Durbin."
No, it wasn't. It was taking his statement of his position at face value and taking it to its logical conclusion.

"Of course he thinks Ueshiba reached the highest levels. The tao that can be names is not the tao. Thus there is no God."
I have no idea what any of this fortune cookie stuff is suppossed to be about. Ueshiba was a Shintoist, not a Theist.

I highly recommend, if you are at least a Sensei in the Ryu (there are many things about the black belt ranks that are not shared with the colored belt ranks), that you tell Durbin during your next mondo that "there is no God". Report back here on how that went.[[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 11:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Lastly, if you seek a loving atmosphere in which to train in real self-defense, and polish your body, mind, and spirit, then, empty your cup and see for yourself."
deleted as it is clearly a recruitment attempt, not a description of the Ryu. [[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 11:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

==April 9th edit==
You are trying to debate the article's content in the article itself, when such debate belongs on this page.
If you wish to edit the content of the article to something which is contested, it is customary on Wikipedia to propose those changes on this page first. In the future, please do so.
Having done that, let's discuss your proposed changes
"Addendum to "NOTE": Though neither religion uses the word "God," they do believe in higher power(s) and spirituality. This notion is best illustrated by a Taoist maxim: "The Tao that can be named is not the Tao." Thus, our feeble, dualistic thought processes and languages are so grossly incapable of representing "God" in thought or word, that we might as well not assign specific thoughts or words to the notion of "God." Durbin, coming from a Western perspective, uses the word "God", but does not exclude other corresponding terms for "God" such as, the void, universal truth, Allah, grand ultimate, natural law, et cetera ad infinitum. For the record, Durbin believes Ueshiba and So Doshin DID reach the highest levels of martial arts, though it was only by their assiduous practice and deep spiritual devotion. Ask him yourself."
This is not what Durbin says. Durbin speaks very clearly of God and having a relationship with God. While it doesn't belong in the article itself, I can tell you from personal experiece gained during my Nidan mondo that -God- is exactly what he means. Please, for your personal edification, assuming you are at least a 1st degree Shodon in Kiyojute Ryu, tell Durbin during your next mondo that you don't really believe that God really exists but is just man's feeble attempt to put a face on something which is ultimately unknowable. Report back here with your results.
I'd be highly interested in seeing if Durbin has changed his position from what it was a few years ago. Until then, your own personal interpretation of his words is not what belongs in this article. Taking his words at face value is what belongs in the article.
-------
Is Durbin aware of, or has he even authorized the publication of this article?
-------
Durbin doesn't need to nor is he empowered to authorize publication of this article. This is an encyclopedia. His approval is about as needed as Jack Chick's approval on an article about the Chick Publications.
-------
That may be true, however, if a student of William Durbin put this up without his prior knowledge or approval, he would be highly upset. (I know from personal experience.) Which is my point. I am aware that Wikipedia does not require it. That is not the point I was trying to make, so please get over yourself.

==Circular Reasoning==
"The preceding statement is an example of circular reasoning." under Religious Aspects was deleted on the following grounds.
I do not believe the person who put it there knows what circular reasoning is. It is using the conclusion to support the arguement. The statement where it was inserted uses Durbin's assertion that the highest levels of martial arts training require a relationship with God in order to argue that he doesn't believe that Ueshiba and So Doshin reached the highest level. That's not circular reasoning. Again, Durbin believes that God is real (in fact, he believes he spoke to God face to face during his Tenshin Sho) and when he says "God" he means -God-, not some concept created by man to explain the unexplainable.

==edits of 8/16/06==
The source for the first statement is in the quote directly above the first statement. The second statement is a reiteration of the fact that a person who believes in that quote cannot believe that people who do not believe in God (such as So Doshin and OSensei) have ever reached the highest level of training. Neither is POV.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:First, there's absolutely no need for the nowiki tags.
:Second, regarding the sourcing: you mention that it is "from the Ryu's FAQ", but you provide no reference to this FAQ. I am [[WP:FAITH|assuming good faith]], and yet, after extensive searching, I have been utterly unable to find any such FAQ. Is it online? In print? Where? [[WP:CITE|Cite your sources]].
:Third, your editorializing regarding the nconsistencies in the logic contained in that FAQ constitute [[WP:OR|original research]] unless you can provide a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for them. The fact that your logic is correct (i.e., I believe you, and I agree with you) does not make your logic encyclopedic or [[WP:NOTE|notable]]. In short, as far as main namespace articles go, no one here cares what you think, or what I think, about any given topic - what we think is, by defition, a [[WP:POV|point of view]].
:Therefore, pending [[WP:V|verification]], I have reverted your changes. --[[User:Kgf0|KGF0]] ( [[User talk:Kgf0|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kgf0|C]] ) 10:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::Kiyojute Ryu Kempo's homepage has been removed from the web. It was on the web when this article was created [http://www.kiyojuteryu.org/]. The homepage contained the FAQ. However, its removal from the web renders much of the content in this article unsourced. That content will need to be identified and removed or an alternative source will need to be found. "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)." (from the Wiki policy page). What I have provided above is a synthesis/review. So, its not original research.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::The [[Wayback Machine]] has an [http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.kiyojuteryu.org/ archive of that domain] if you want to see if you can find relevant links between 1999 and [[19 March]][[2005]]. Regarding your "synthesis/review", [[WP:OR|wikipolicy]] requires that "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation" comes from [[WP:RS|reliable]] [[secondary sources]]. If what you have provided above comes from such a source, please [[WP:CITE|cite]] that source as well; if, OTOH, you wrote said "synthesis/review" yourself, based only on the application of your logical reasoning to the original [[primary sources]] (i.e., the FAQ), then it is, indeed, [[WP:OR|original research]] which is also defined on the relevant policy page as, "a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has ''not been previously published by a reliable source''." (my emphasis) Thus, if the source is you, all you have to do is get it published, and then we can quote it and cite your book/article/pamphlet. Until then, it stays out, no matter how correct the analysis may be. --[[User:Kgf0|KGF0]] ( [[User talk:Kgf0|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kgf0|C]] ) 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::::That's fine. I can change the wording to something like "So Doshin was a Zen Buddhist. Zen Buddhism doesn't have a belief in God [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/suzuki.html]. Durbin believes that people who lack a belief in God cannot reach the highest level of training." and leave it at that. There's no further analysis or synthesis there - its just a statement of three facts.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

== Re: NOTE in the section on spirituality ==

Just wanted to point out that Shintoism is a religion of nature and ancestor worship, and does involve believe in "gods" of nature and of ancestors. Also, in Buddhism many sects believe in bodhisattvas, who can be called upon in times of need much like deities.[[User:Rurouniyuudai85|Rurouniyuudai85]] 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Deleting said NOTE, for said reasons. [[User:Rurouniyuudai85|Rurouniyuudai85]] 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::No, it believes in kami and okami, but not God. Durbin is speaking of God here. Note is being readded -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:31, 1 February 2024

Former good article nomineeWilliam Durbin was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 2, 2008Articles for deletionRenamed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Article title and translation

[edit]

A couple of transliteration and translation points, that also relate to the title of the article.

  1. 気楊柔手流 should be correctly romanized as "kiyōjūte-ryū" when indicated parenthetically
  2. 気楊柔手流 literally means "spiritually positive gentle hand style (or school)", rather than the translation given.
  3. Is the term "bugei" part of the name of the art or not? If it is, then the kanji for it should be given, and the article should be moved to "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei". On the other hand, given the kanji on the logo, perhaps the article should be moved to simply "Kiyojute Ryu".

I won't make any changes without first waiting to hear responses. Bradford44 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,
1. I personally have no problem with that change to the romanization, I would have done it myself but I'm not too adept with the macrons (and when I was taught Japanese, the romanization didn't include them, so I'm not in the habit of adding them).
2. "spiritually positive gentle person" is the translation that Kiyojute Ryu uses in their own literature (acknowledging in their handbook that it does normally mean hand and that the name works perfectly fine when translated like that, but they also meant a double-meaning with a less common translation), "hand" is a far more common translation, I've seen that kanji on rare occasion translated as person, but it is definitely not a common interpretation. Changing it to "spiritually positive gentle hand" seems fine, perhaps with a note that they do also mean for 手 to have a more obscure double meaning, citing the section in the student handbook and maybe a link to an online Japanese kanji dictionary listing such a double meaning [1]. As for system as opposed to style or school, that's fine if you'd rather use "style" instead.
3. As for the name. "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" is used in their literature and website as the full name of the art (the kanji adding "kempo bugei" after "kiyojute ryu" are not on the logo, but they are present on rank certificates, the student handbook, and other documents), but "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo" is used much more often, with "Kiyojute Ryu" used less often. I was treating it much like naming conventions in other articles where the most common name was used as the article name, but the full/formal name was listed in bold at the beginning of the article. --Wingsandsword 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Just to be perfectly clear, it seems that Kiyojute Ryu doesn't use macrons in its official publications, so there is no need in this case to use them in the article title, only parenthetically when showing the romanization of the kanji. I don't want you to think that I'm suggesting the article title include the macrons.
2. Yes, I see what you mean, and I certainly don't want to over-complicate matters. I think the whole issue could be avoided if you just remove the word "literally" from the sentence, and leave "person". Additionally, perhaps the section discussing Kiyojute Ryu's philosophy might be an appropriate place to briefly discuss the name's meaning, rather than the lead.
3. I don't have any personal experience with the art, so I'll leave it up to you to decide on the article's title. However, if you're aware of any trademark status that the name has for any of its variations, that might assist in a determination. In any event, the first line should use the {{nihongo}} template and read "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei (気楊柔手流拳法武芸, Kiyōjūte-ryū Kenpō Bugei) is ..." Bradford44 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. That's clear, I figured you meant the romanization in the main article.
2. Good point, I'll put in a paragraph in the philosophy section about the meaning of the name and remove the "literally" from the translation of the name in the lead.
3. I'll change the way the name is listed in the lead then. As for the trademark status and determining how to list the name, a "TM" is beneath the word "Kiyojute" on the student handbook, that's the only trademark I know them to actively assert is on that word alone, so that isn't too helpful in determining what to do there. Perhaps a redirect of "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" to this page would be in order then though. --Wingsandsword 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article needs to be gone over for each aspect of the Manual of Style. There are spelling, grammar and other basic errors. There is also inconsistency in the referencing system. Visually, the large blocks of text without proper titles or sub-sectioning is very unappealing to read. These need to be trimmed down and broken up in to digestible chunks.
2. Factually accurate?: There are a vast amount of potentially controversial statements that either lack citations entirely, or lack reliable ones. Statements such as "taught over a thousand peace officers" need independent verification.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article is overly detailed in some areas (belt rankings and philosophy for example) and lacking in others, such as the history of the mechanics of how the art spread beyond a single school or teacher. Remember to state the obvious and not overindulge when it comes to the level of detail in the prose. Cover a broad range of topics, and stick to the important facts. Brevity is not just the soul of wit, but of readability.
4. Neutral point of view?: The article contains no counterpoint to the many outlandish claims now present, and has seemingly (to read the prose) been written by an admirer of the founder and the practice. Any nascent U.S. synthesis martial art, disconnected from traditional roots and lineage, has detractors. To be perfectly honest, with the glowing account of the founder and the excessive philosophical detail, this reads like a brochure.
5. Article stability? The article has not been the subject of any recent or ongoing edit wars.
6. Images?: There are properly attributed and well-used images.

While it is quite normally customary to place an article with problems to fix on hold, per the recommended GA review process I feel this article must be failed because it requires an overall improvement that would in my estimation take far beyond seven days. Honestly, I only see two reliable and independent published sources (the Plain Dealer and the Kentucky Kernel) that lend notability to the school, and I believe it is borderline in meeting notability requirements.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sources

[edit]

Quoting from Wikipedia policy,

  • [quote]Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracyWikipedia:Reliable_sources[/quote]
  • [quote]Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptableWikipedia:Verifiability[/[/quote]
  • [quote]Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:..it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties.Wikipedia:Verifiability[/[/quote]

Given that, many claims in this article - such as most of those in the Recognition and Endorsements section, violate the above policies. Durbin's claims about who has endorsed him are not third-party sources. Also, they are self-published by Durbin, are self-serving, and make claims about third parties (the people he claims has endorsed him). Therefore, these sources will be removed from the article. That may lead many statements to be unsourced. It is customary courtesy to wait awhile (one week) before removing such unsourced comments once they are identified. I'll wait appropriately.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, they are acceptable under the very terms of those policies you quoted, as the terms of those policies with regards to self-published works in topics about them. The claims are cited, and that included books which have been through outside editorial review by non-vanity presses, which are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. --Wingsandsword (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you derive from those policies that the references are acceptable? I can't see how you derive the exact opposite of what the policies state. I think we could open this up for discussioin in the martial arts group on Wikipedia, but before we do that, I'd like to see a better explanation from you. The claims are cited, but the references aren't acceptable by policiy. The policies don't differentiate between vanity and non-vanity press, so I don't know why you think that's relevant. (though, I must say, I can't find any source which states whether or not Human Kinetics is a vanity press, so that's a red herring anyway) -198.97.67.57 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone writing about their own art it a primary source, so use for contentious claims like endorsements is not good. I know nothing about the quality of the books, Paladin Press covers speciality topics especially martial arts, & related areas but I don't think it's a vanity press but I also don't think it has a wide peer review policy, see the article. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Durbin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Durbin&oldid=1201694171"