Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Togakure-ryū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

When I originally came to this article, I found it like this. After working on it for a while, I turned it into this. Then User:Stvfetterly (alternate account User:GuitarStv) came along and made these changes to the article, turning it into this. I reverted him and started a discussion on the Talk page. He based his changes on these three sources. After a lot of back and forth (and a few reversions back and forth), I reverted back, but kept the Koryu Books ref in a Criticism section, so the article looked like this. We had already discussed and thrown out the MARdb source, as the site itself states in its disclaimer that it is unreliable. We are still discussing the Iga Ninja Museum source. In the middle of discussing with me, he turned the article into this.

Clearly, we're not going to get anywhere from here. I have asked him multiple times to show reliable sources that state that the history of Togakure-ryu is incorrect, because then we could include them in the article, but none has been forthcoming thus far.

Also, he believes that any source made by anyone related to the subject whatsoever cannot be included (for that matter, he believes that sources from the masters of the style cannot be used for anything too.) And, perplexedly, any source that discusses with, quotes, or references the masters of the style can't be used. Silverseren 18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Stvfetterly (talk · contribs)
• Silver seren (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Togakure-ryū}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page discussion

• How do you think we can help?

Give an opinion on the sources presented by both of us and what should be done with the article.

Silverseren 18:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Togakure-ryū discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The Bujinkan is a large organization that has claims historical ninjitsu lineage dating back thousands of years. They have published many documents claiming this lineage, and their leader (Masaaki Hatsumi) claims to have a scroll that shows all of this (although it has never been produced for verification). This organization has a large financial motivation to make these claims. When I came to the article, the references used in it were nearly entirely published by the Bujinkan and it's subsidiaries.

As an example, the following references were used in the article:

• Hatsumi, Masaaki (1988). Essence of ninjutsu: the nine traditions. Contemporary Books. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Morris, Glenn (1992). Path Notes of an American Ninja Master. North Atlantic Books. pp. 1–2. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Glen Morris, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andy Adams (October 1982). "The Roots and Reality of Ninjutsu". Black Belt. 20 (10). Active Interest Media: 45–48. Retrieved Octobr 10, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Levy, Joel (2008). Ninja: The Shadow Warrior. Sterling Publishing Company. p. 47. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Joel Levy, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andy Adams (October 1986). "Ninjutu's Leader Opens Fire". Black Belt. 24 (10). Active Interest Media: 36–40. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan

• Jim Coleman (February 1983). "Ninja in the modern world". Black Belt. 21 (2). Active Interest Media: 20–25. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan

• Wilhelm, Thomas (2010). Ninja Hacking: Unconventional Penetration Testing Tactics and Techniques. Elsevier. pp. 10–12. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - Written by Thomas Wilhelm, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andrew Breen (December 1992). "Trick or treat?". Black Belt. Active Interest Media: 30–34. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Hayes, Stephen K. (1990). The ninja and their secret fighting art. Tuttle Publishing. p. 22. Retrieved October 16, 2011. - Written by Stephen Hayes, former instructor of Bujinkan
• Darryl Caldwell (June 1985). "The Ninja Web". Black Belt (Active Interest Media) 23 (6): 15. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 17, 2011. - Written by Darryl Caldwell, instructor of Bujinkan
• Stephen Hayes (January 1978). "Ninjutsu: A Martial Art of Mystique". Black Belt (Active Interest Media) 16 (1): 76-78. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 20, 2011. - Written by Stephen Hayes, former instructor of Bujinkan
• Kornicki, Peter Francis; McMullen, James (1996). Religion in Japan: arrows to heaven and earth. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. Retrieved October 16, 2011. uses Hatsumi Masaaki, head of Bujinkan as source for the article

My original intention in modifying the article was to indicate that the bulk of it was written with publications of the Bujinkan, so I attempted to modify the language of the article. I also added some citation tags, and introduced some links as references to support this view.

Silver Seren immediately reverted my changes claiming that they were POV. I re-added my references, and tried to make some other edits to the article including useful redirects. Silver Seren again reverted my changes. I made more modifications to the page and Silver Seren reverted these changes again for the third time, again calling my changes POV, and indicating that if the Bujinkan claims something to be true, it is. I attempted to modify my changes to the article so that they would be less POV. More reversions happened, etc. etc. Eventually Silver Seren indicated that we should not use Self Published Sources as the basis for the article. I agreed, removing sources from the Iga ninja museam (who may have a financial interest in claiming ancient ninjitsu lineage), and the Bujinkan (who have a financial interest in claiming ancient ninjitsu lineage). After removal of Bujinkan related sources, there was not much information left in the article.

I've provided the following links regarding the Bujinkan's disputed lineage:

• http://www.koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html - Koryu.com is a publisher who specializes in information related to the martial arts of feudal japan
• http://iganinja.jp/en/faq/index.html - Website of the official Iga ninja museum in Japan. They claim that the only existing ninjitsu lineage holder is Kawakami Jinichi, not a member of the Bujinkan.
• http://www.mardb.com/ninjutsu-and-koryu-bujutsu/

Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See, no, I never said that. I said that Takamatsu calling himself the 33rd Soke isn't something you can change without having a source that says otherwise (or specifically disputes the lineage, for that matter).

And none of those sources, as far as I can tell from who the publishers are, are self published sources. They don't appear to be self published, which means paid for by the author to have a printing house print the books for them. All of the publishers in this case appear to be reputable publishers who choose what they publish. And I don't understand how Black Belt magazine can possibly be a self published source, unless you can prove somehow that they let people write articles in exchange for those people giving them money. Silverseren 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Secondly, you are adding words like claimed for Takamatsu, when he is the 33rd Soke, he is stated to be as such by the group, so he is" - Silver Seren, (from the talk page). The group you're referring to is the Bujinkan, Takamatsu is the person who is claiming a lineage that stretches back 33 generations. You're claiming that since they say he's a grandmaster going back 33 generations, he is. Do I misunderstand your statement?

Next, the articles written for Black Belt magazine all cite/use Hatsumi as their primary source. They're simply relaying information from him to their readers. How is that not self publishing? Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't presented any reliable sources that actively dispute the lineage that Takamatsu stated. We don't automatically assume people are wrong unless there are reliable sources that state they are wrong and, even then, we don't say they are wrong, we just include another line discussing the statement made by whoever disputes it. (Also, where is Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu in this discussion? I notice no one ever talks about him, even though the lineage says he's the 32nd Soke)

You don't know what information comes from Hatsumi (besides the quotes) and what information was researched by the author. When they are published in a reputable magazine, they are not self published. You're acting as if an interview would count as self publishing. I think you're confusing primary sources with self published sources. And, even then, there's a bit of a debate in the Misplaced Pages community where interviews and the like fall along there. Though these sources aren't even interviews, they are articles that use quotes obtained from Hatsumi, that's it. Silverseren 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse me, you are correct. I should have written primary sources. Hatsumi and the Bujinkan were the primary source of almost all historical information in the article you were writing. That's what I was trying to indicate with my edits that you reverted. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that there's nothing wrong with using primary sources. I was not using them for any sort of analysis or interpretation, I was using them for descriptions of the history of the style, which is probably best done from a primary source anyways. Silverseren 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, and the additions that I made to the article were from other sources that dispute the claims of the Bujinkan. These are the additions that you kept reverting. I removed the Bujinkan referenced material to try and bring the article to an NPOV since you seemed determined to get rid of any dissenting opinion that differs with the Bujinkan. --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We were still discussing the additions on the talk page. It's clear that MARdb is not a reliable source to use. But I went ahead and did add the Koryu reference into the article. We were still discussing the Iga Ninja Museum, so you had no reason to remove everything else from the article. I am not determined to "get rid of any dissenting opinion", i'm trying to make sure the opinions are coming from reliable sources that are relevant to the article. I already stated that I would be fine with using the Iga Ninja Museum, though using it for a sentence saying that the Iga Ninja Museum believe that its director is the only true heir of Ninjutsu isn't all that relevant, but i'm fine in adding it if you think it's absolutely necessary. Silverseren 20:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure exactly how canvassing works on this noticeboard, but I think contacting someone who has discussed with me in the past on this subject, saying that they don't consider Ninjutsu to be real, is inappropriate. I wonder if I should add Jni as a participant in this dispute, since they did make the two comments on the talk page. Silverseren 21:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the only other person who was involved in the discussion on the Togakure page. The exact message that I wrote him was "Hey, just wonder if you want to stop by ] if you've got some time." Are you really going to accuse me of canvassing because I notified him of the dispute you raised?

As far as what you 'allowed' on 'your' page from the Koryu.com website, please explain why it's OK for you to carefully and specifically word the source of criticism of Bujinkan claims regarding Togakure-rye via your addition of this:

• Koryu Books, a publisher of Koryū Bujutsu ("old school") books and related materials, stated on its website that it does not consider Ninjutsu or any of its styles to be koryū and, thus, does not sell books related to them.

but it's not OK for me to do similar regarding Bujinkan sources with modifications to the article worded like this:

• According to Bujinkan instructor Glen Morris, the history of Togakure-ryū started in the Mie Prefecture with its creator, Daisuke Nishina in 1162

The whole editing dispute arose from your rejection of that type of modification. As well, you misrepresented the information from the Koryu.com website when you included it. The website is not criticizing Togakure-ryu (the ancient ninja art), but rather saying that the people who claim to be practicing it in modern times do not have a traceable lineage. This directly impacts the claims of Bujinkan Sokes being made in the article. The ones that you say are true because the Bujinkan says it's so (please refer to quote from talk pages included above). Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had more of an issue with how your original edits to the article added words like claimed and purported 11 total times into the article, including three times within three sentences in the lede. Also, you added citation needed templates to both the lede (which is a summary of the article and doesn't require references) and to sections of the article that already clearly had references. You also relied on the three references linked to above to make statement that were not included in them, such as the sentence "Neither Takamatsu , nor Hatsumi have been recognized as having any historical relation to ninjas or ninja schools" from the Iga Ninja Museum FAQ, which doesn't mention either of them and, thus, is original research.

You also removed the sentence "This includes a lack of kata, which are "choreographed combat training routines"" for some reason, along with other parts of sentences.

Believe me, the "According to" bits are the least of my concerns. Silverseren 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about the lack of kata because later on in the same section there was a (Bujinkan) referenced sentence that stated that kata are performed in Togakure-ryu. Clearly the style can't both use and eschew kata. This was an attempt to improve the article.

The lede had a citations tag added to it because there were claims made that sounded doubtful and were not referenced. This is standard wiki policy.

I'll conceded that the wording regarding Takamatsu and Hatsumi's claim was not NPOV. If you had complained about that rather than continuously reverting the whole article I would have reworded it. Please realize however, you're now arguing about wording that has been removed from the article.

If you would like an alternate reference regarding the legitimacy of Bujinkan ninjitsu there's a good one that has been added to the Togakure-ryu page by another wiki user:

• The late Fujita Seiko was the last of the living ninja ... No ninja exist today

  — Donn Draeger, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts, p 130, 1969

Will this be considered a valid reference by you since even though it doesn't originate from Bujinkan sources? Do you work for or study under the Bujinkan organization? I'm trying to understand why you seem to put so much faith in their writings above all other sources of information, and why you seen to be taking modifications to this article so personally. Please remember that you do not own the article. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence later on said, "Togakure-ryū does contain some "historical kata", but they are different from traditional Japanese styles in that they require someone to be attacking the practitioner, similar to the training in judo and aikido." That doesn't interfere with the prior reference, which stated that they don't have current kata that they normally practice.

The lede was a generalized version of the article, per WP:LEDECITE. It didn't say anything that wasn't already stated in the body of the article (and referenced there). Including the minimum amount of references in the lede is standard wiki policy.

I'm arguing about both, the inclusion of sentences that aren't included in the references you cited and the removal of sentences (and parts of sentences) that were cited and discussed specifically in their references. Silverseren 02:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And that should be a reliable sources, yes, though I would like to know the full context of that quote, because the "..." means that words were taken out. Also, it being a reliable source doesn't mean we throw out everything else either.

And, no, I have nothing to do with Bujinkan, I just prefer articles to be written neutrally and comprehensively. This article was very clearly not being allowed to improve because editors of other martial arts disliked it. Or that's the impression I got, at least. Silverseren 02:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Found it on Google Books, but page 120 doesn't seem to be included in the preview. The pages after seem useful however. Though it doesn't seem to discuss modern times or even any specific styles of ninjutsu, so it's kind of limited as a source. What I want to know is, how is it defining "last ninja" in its book? Because I think the practitioners of the modern styles would agree that none of them are "ninjas", they just practice the style of ninjutsu. The pages that I can see don't seem to imply that ninjutsu died out, it actually implies that it went underground, with the whole ninjas becoming farmers and having to keep it secret thing, which more supports the described history of Togakure-ryu than anything else. Silverseren 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on Bujinkan-only sources does not seem to be NPOV to me. i don't have any dislike of ninjitsu, I just believe that historical claims should be verified . . . by people other than those who are making the claim. I know that this is a sticking point between us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvfetterly (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't accept your original research. Even less so since you've based it on your interpretation of a couple random pages of a book you partially read on google. Please also see:

• 3rd edition of the Bugei ryuha daijiten (one of the most important documents about historical martial arts in Japan), Watatani (who was a friend of Takamatsu) states that Takamatsu's (and thus the Bujinkan's) ninjutsu was made up from childhood ninja games. (Indicating that there could not be a 34 successor long historical lineage in Tokagure-Ryu.)
• Ben Bradley specifically describes Togakure-ryu as having a 'disputed lineage' - http://www.bullshido.org/Ninjutsu#note2

That of course, is in addition to The Koryu.com and The Iga ninja museam of Japan (which claims that there is only one surviving ninja with a lineage, and he's not a Bujinkan member). This should answer your reason for bringing up this dispute, and should be more than enough to convince anyone that the claims of the Bujinkan are just that . . . claims. These claims are not widely accepted outside of their own organization. That's what all of my edits have been attempting to clearly show to readers. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, a random friend of Takamatsu is reliable and far more important than anything Takamatsu ever said. Not to mention that they removed that statement from the friend in the 4th edition, which should tell you something.

You just linked me to a Martial Arts Wiki. What am I supposed to get out of this? Is this Ben Bradley person someone important? It just says he reads Japanese. Is this supposed to make him reliable?

You keep bringing up either bad sources or just alright ones (like Koryu), but they don't really point to anything. A book publisher saying they don't consider Ninjutsu to be Koryu and a museum director saying that he is the only true heir of Ninjutsu. Is that...it? I would have expected something a bit more...reliable. At least the Bujinkan members managed to publish actual books through reputable publishers on the topic. Do you have any actual reliable source that directly discusses Togakure Ryu and specifically calls the lineage into question? Because, right now, you really have little to nothing. Silverseren 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And I also notice you went and added the Draeger quote (without attaching the actual reference) to every possible article associated with Togakure-ryu, such as Masaaki Hatsumi, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, Bujinkan, and Schools of Ninjutsu. Are you sure you're not on some sort of crusade here? What exactly is your relation to Bujinkan? I assume, if there is one, it's not a good one. Silverseren 04:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So to summarize, so far in our discussions I've been told:

• The http://www.mardb.com/ninjutsu-and-koryu-bujutsu/ article is an invalid reference because the introduction contains information similar to that found on Koryu.com, despite the fact that article contains a lot of relevant information written on the topic of modern day ninjas including sections written by martial arts researchers Ron Beaubien, Ellis Amdur and Dr. Karl Friday (a history professor specializing in Japan).
• The Koryu.com is only an 'OK' reference, despite the fact that they are known for dealing with historical martial arts in Japan and related articles and books on a daily basis.
• The Iga ninja museum in Japan is not a valid reference because they are affiliated with a school of ninjitsu that is not the Bujinkan.
• The words of Donn Draeger in "Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts" are an invalid reference because of original research that SilverSaran completed with the help of Google.
• Information from the Bugei ryuha daijiten (The "Encyclopedia of Martial art schools") is not acceptable because they no longer contained reference to Takamatsu after the 3rd edition.
• http://www.bullshido.org/Ninjutsu#note2 is not acceptable because SilverSaren doesn't know who Ben Bradley is. (An active martial artist who lives in Japan, speaks Japanese, and writes articles about martial arts.)

The preceding list contains published books, works by scholars of Japan, a publisher who deals with historical martial arts in Japan, researchers well respected in the martial arts community, and one of the single best sources for Japanese martial history (Bugei ryuha daijiten) all contain material that call the lineage of anyone claiming to be teaching historical ninjutsu into question. None of these references seem to meet SilverSaren's stringent requirements to be 'good'. Meanwhile, anything published by the Bujinkan (or any magazine articles reporting their information) is considered acceptable. In our discussions SilverSaren has claimed that if the Bujinkan says something is so, it is so. He also continue to claim to support a neutral point of view. Frankly this confuses me, as ignoring or disputing all sources not of Bujinkan origin does (at first glance) appear biased.

I have no personal experience with the Bujinkan or any of their instructors / students. I have no opinion on the quality of martial art training that they offer as I have not enrolled in one of their schools. It may well be fantastic. From what I've seen, Masaaki Hatsumi is an incredibly talented martial artist. Many historical claims made by the Bujinkan organization however, are not commonly accepted. This should be pointed out in all pertinent articles to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and avoid bias in the articles.

I would like to resolve whatever dispute SilverSaren has with me, and have come here in good faith attempting to do just that. We seem to be mired in a bickering contest now however. What exactly do you propose is done with the Togakure-Ryu article SilverSaren? Clearly a simple reversion will not suffice, as the old version is nearly entirely (at least 90%) composed of Bujinkan sources. Differentiating all Bujinkan historical claims from the history accounted for by independent third party sources in the old article is difficult without using many instances of 'claimed', 'asserted', 'according to', etc. and I understand that they can be read as POV, so that is probably not a good way to do things either. I propose that the article be reworded to focus primarily on historical facts that can be verified outside of the Bujinkan, then a separate section with maybe a paragraph or two indicating the Bujinkan historical and lineage claims. This would seem to be a reasonable compromise between having no Bujinkan sources (as now) and having predominantly Bujinkan sources (as before). Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No,that's not reasonable at all. It's amazing how out of context you can make my words, while also managing to not listen to a word i'm saying. I've already explained the reason for the sources time and again.

MARdb is not reliable because it states that it is not reliable on its own disclaimer page and i'm not entirely sure how it's writing process works, since it words things like a wiki, saying that there are user submitted things, but doesn't appear to have an indication of signing up for it.

Koryu is an okay sources, yes, I included the information that it doesn't consider Togakure-ryu to be koryu, that's really all you can get out of that article.

The Iga Ninja Museum would be reliable, but i'm not sure what information you're trying to use for it. What you originally had it referencing in the article was original research, because it doesn't say anything about Hatsumi or Takamatsu. If you want to reference that the director of the museum considers himself the last heir of ninjutsu, feel free, but that doesn't seem like it really does anything.

I never said Draeger was unreliable, I said I would like better context for his comment, since it's on a page I can't view. Also since the rest of the pages I can view has information that is exactly the same as what I had in the article, like the Organization section I had.

We can include the Bugei ryuha daijiten, but the fact that they removed the statement from Takamatsu's friend in the 4th edition implies that they don't stand by it any longer.

And Bullshido is a Wiki. Wikis are not reliable sources, that is a fact. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and neither is any other kind of wiki. They are user edited and, thus, unreliable.

I've already explained all of these points. You have yet to actually present a source that specifically discusses Togakure-ryu and how it's lineage is fake. You've either presented sources that talk about ninjutsu in general or ones that do that and are unreliable. You really don't have any strong sources at all. Silverseren 16:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Although they do not all specifically center around the word "Togakure-ryu", all the points listed above do discuss the Bujinkan claims that Silverseren wrote into the Togakure-ryu article which were not neutral:

• The MARdb website has a pretty standard legal disclaimer for liability on the disclaimer page. Likely this it to protect them from people who attempt a martial arts technique and hurt themselves. This disclaimer does not make mention of reliability of the site or state that the site is unreliable as Silversaran has claimed. I do not see a reason why the experts listed in the article should be discounted because of a standard, generic legal disclaimer. The information by experts contained in the article casts doubt on Hatsumi's claim to Togakure-ryu lineage that existed throughout the Togakure-ryu article as Silversaran had written it.

• Re: Koryu.com. Silversaran is again misrepresenting this source. Koryu.com is not claiming that Ninjitsu is not a Koryu art. They are claiming that "modern-day ninjutsu and ninjutsu-derived arts are not koryu bujutsu". (Koryu, of course meaning 'traditional school', bujutsu meaning 'warrior techniques/arts'.) This statement thus indicates that they do not believe any modern school has a lineage dating back to the ancient ninja. This directly effects Hatsumi's claim to lineage that existed throughout the Togakure-ryu article as Silversaran had written it.

• Re: The Iga ninja museam. Let's try some basic logic here. If I claim to be the 'last ninja', then I am claiming that no other ninjas exist. If you then claim to be a ninja, then my claim is incompatible with your claim. You could say that my claim disputes your claim. Now let's put this in context of the article: the Iga ninja museum claims the last ninja with lineage is not Hatsumi. Hatsumi claims to have ninja lineage. Therefore, the Iga ninja museum disputes Hatsumi's claim. This link adds more evidence that Hatsumi's ninja lineage claim (through Togakure-ryu) is disputed.

• Please check the local library if you need better context for Draeger's comment. Again, this citation indicates that there are no more ninja alive who have an ancient lineage. Hatsumi claims to be a ninja with an ancient lineage (through Togakure-ryu). This link adds more evidence that Hatsumi's lineage claim is disputed.

• The Bugei ryuha daijiten may have removed the statement about Takamatsu making up his ninja art for many reasons. At the very least though, it deserves to stay in the article since Takamatsu was the 'ninja teacher' of Hatsumi, who is claiming to have a traditional martial art stretching back 34 generations. If (as his friend indicated) Takamatsu made the whole thing up, this would mean that modern Togakure-ryu has no lineage. This link adds more evidence that Hatsumi's lineage claim is disputed.

Finally, I've also suggested a way to Silverseran to modify the Togakure-ryu article to be more neutral. He has indicated that my suggestions are unacceptable without offering any of his own in their place. In the end, what is the point of this dispute? To better the Togakure-ryu article. Silversaren seems to have no interest in that outcome. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The MARdb disclaimer page says "makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the nature or accuracy of any material on this site". So they are saying that you have no reason to believe they are accurate. This means they are unreliable. Reliable means that the information is accurate and trustworthy.

I included the Koryu.com statement in the article, saying they don't consider Togakure-ryu koryu bujutsu. Why are we still discussing this one?

The problem with "basic logic" is that you are applying analysis and interpretation to something that is not stated in the source. That is the exact definition of original research. You can only state (reworded of course) the information that is directly included in a source, not extrapolate on it.

That's not what the quote says at all, again, you're inferring things from it that it's not saying. It says that Seiko was the last living ninja, that isn't saying anything about the practice of ninjutsu. Continuing the practice and line of ninjutsu has nothing to do with being a ninja. Again, the same book goes on to say that the ninjas became farmers because of pressure from the samurai-controlled government, so their practices of ninjutsu went underground. It's not affecting the lineage of the styles at all.

The issue is that a random friend (does it list his last name?) isn't necessarily a reliable source for the information. And the fact that they removed it in the next edition says something. If you want to include that statement from the friend, fine, but there's no reason for it to go in the lede. That's just pushing an agenda.

I want the article to go back to the way it is here, where it is more comprehensive, and add further criticisms and such onto that version of the article. Silverseren 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Belt magazine has a standard boilerplate disclaimer in all of it's issues as well. It disclaims reliability, safety, effectiveness, regarding the nature of material in the magazine. Why is SilverSaren OK with the magazine (with articles filled with Bujinkan claims), but not the article that I produced?

The Koryu.com reference was brought up again to demonstrate Silverseren's POV in editing the article, and how he did not correctly describe the content of the source in the only edit containing one of the citations that he allowed to remain in the article.

I have no issue with rewording the Iga ninja reference to be as NPOV and true to the citation as possible. I only ask that the same be applied to the Bujinkan sources that Silversaren has provided to the article. This would include full representation when listing contentious material taken from Bujinkan sources.

Silversaran has not yet provided a page number and quote of text for his claim that Draeger wrote that ninjas became 'secret farmers' after the death of the last ninja.

I did not say anything about including references from the Bugei ryuha daijiten in the lede. Silverseren is now using a Straw man logical fallacy to attempt to push his agenda. The name of Takamatsu's friend who wrote about him in the encyclopedia is Watatani.

I think that reverting back to Silversaran's edition of the article (primarily written by him alone) would be a mistake. It is well written, but there is no indication that more than 90% of the material is sourced from claims made by the Bujinkan. This is not a neutral point of view. As an example of the problem, let's look at the lede that Silversaren favours:

Togakure-ryū 戸隠流 is a historical tradition of Ninjutsu known as the "School of the Hidden Door", founded during the Oho period (1161-1162) by Daisuke Nishina (Togakure), who learned his original fighting techniques from a Chinese monk named Kain Dōshi. However, the history and early lineage of Togakure-ryū may be impossible to verify due to the antiquity of the time period. After Togakure, the title of Sōke (grand master) was passed down through other practitioners that kept the style secret from the outside world.

The 33rd Sōke, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, became renowned throughout China and Japan for his martial arts abilities and also his extensive knowledge that resulted from learning the Ninjutsu skills. Passing on the title of Sōke to the 34th, Masaaki Hatsumi, it was Hatsumi who took the style public, which has resulted in the ninja craze in the Western world. Hatsumi went on to create the Bujinkan organization that practices the nine styles of ninjutsu and has more than 50 dojos internationally.

The style of Togakure-ryū has been described as being less restricted into certain training regimens like other styles and instead encourages questions and individual, personal training. One of the main goals of the training is to teach students the ability of shin shin shin gan (God's eyes, God's mind) so that they can learn to properly know their opponents and defend themselves.

The second paragraph is entirely about the claimed lineage of the Bujinkan. The third paragraph is entirely taken from material from the Bujinkan. The final sentance in the first paragraph is taken from Bujinkan material. Finally, the first paragraph indicates that "lineage of Togakure-ryu may be impossible to verify" and then then goes on to treat the Bujinkan as having a verified lineage. This is confusing, and non-sensical. This is just the lede to the article, things get worse as you read on.

I submit that Silverseren is attempting to protect an article that he created from modification by other Wikipedians. He has been pushing for the article's inclusion as a DYK article and has now indicated that he's not willing to compromise. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the "Seiko was the last Ninja" statement. It's actually on page 130 in the book, not 120. And it clearly states that it defines ninjas as "espionage agents". So, yes, there are no current ninjas. The people practicing ninjutsu today are not espionage agents. They haven't been needed since WWII. And with modern technology anyways, their usefulness in that regard kinda decreases. Oh, and right after it says Seiko was the last ninja (going onto page 131 now), it says "Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on ninjutsu". So the book considers Hatsumi to be an authority on the subject. There's your reliability.

You did include it in the lede though. It's not a straw man if i'm referring to something that you actually did. Is Watatani his last name or first name?

The lede isn't confusing at all. Saying that proof of Togakure may be hard or impossible to verify doesn't preclude discussing the stated history of it. Again, no one has proven that Togakure didn't exist or create the style, in fact, while it may be impossible to directly verify, there seems to be enough evidence that implies that the history is likely to have happened as described. Of course, we have little information to rely on for such a period as that. It might be easier to actually research whether Doshi existed and was exiled as a starting point. But that's going a bit off topic.

I submitted it for DYK after I expanded the article by five times. How is that pushing for its inclusion? I submitted it and then put it on hold after this dispute started. It has little to nothing to do with this. I'll go ahead and remove it if you think it's that big of a deal. Silverseren 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would take the quote Modern authorities such as T. Hatsumi are responsible for most research being done on ninjutsu with a grain of salt, it might as well have a tongue in cheek hidden meaning like Modern research on ninjutsu is so poor or non-existent that T. Hatsumi can be considered an authority. And of course this quote supports the notion that almost all sources are primary sources derived from Hatsumi/Bujinkan. jni (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

To start off, DRN isn't a talk page. We might have to change the rules here to limit initial discussion without input from a third party to one opening statement. Reading through walls of text right off the bat is not very inviting, and is possibly the reason why no one has looked over this yet. I will read over the discussion today and post some comments later, until then please don't add more to the discussion. Thanks. Steven Zhang 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that there is older discussion about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Togakure-ryū. jni (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing the above discussion and related discussions. I will comment shortly. Alpha_Quadrant 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

From my initial analysis, I believe the sources are reliable. The subject is on a topic that was created 1,000 years ago. I'm not seeing how these book sources are primary. Alpha_Quadrant 18:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alpha, in martial arts, the senior students of a school do not question their teacher's version of history. The question here is about how independent the sources are. The word 'primary' is being used here to express that they are all people with loyalty to their teachers - they are not disinterested. Thanks for your effort in going through all this material! jmcw (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Alpha_Quadrant 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you still analyzing the discussion? Silverseren 22:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Togakure-ryū, continued

There is quite a bit of material here. Many thanks to the editors who go through this material. jmcw (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make a leading/POV synopsis to try to give some understanding to this wall of text: that Togakure-ryū is historically documented is not in question. The question is about Togakure-ryū from recent times: is there a reliable source that connects the historical Togakure-ryū to the modern Togakure-ryū. Silverseren believes that the material from the modern schools establishes this link; I think that Stvfetterly, jni (and I) do not believe that until now that independent, reliable sources have been shown to this link. jmcw (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, the claim of lineage by the Bujinkan is the issue that I have with Togakure-ryu article. No issue with the existence of ancient Togakure-ryu. --Stvfetterly (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I must make a stronger stance here; I'm not convinced that the historical Togakure-ryū even existed. 1969 edition of Bugei Ryuha Daijiten noted that: This is a genealogy newly put together by Takamatsu Toshitsugu, who made use of (took advantage of) the popularity of written materials on ninjutsu after the Taishō era. What are those written materials? They are not textbooks or old densho, but portrayals of ninja in fiction, that were popular in Japan in early decades of past century and especially during 50s and 60s (Taisho era was 1912 to 1926). If Togakure-ryū is real, why was the geneology newly put together while taking advantage of popularity of ninjas in fiction? Any written records about Togakure-ryū before Takamatsu do not exist. Academic historians do not study history of Togakure-ryū or Bujinkan simply because they don't have any material to work with. It is hard to find a reliable secondary source stating this though. As others have pointed out, problem with Silversaren's sources is that nearly all of them are derived from a single source and that source (Bujinkan organization) is not a dis-interested third party. On the contrary the authors of ninjutsu books affiliated with Bujinkan make money by writing books, offering training seminars and by running commercial ninjutsu dojos so they have a direct motive to make their art appear older and more prestigious than it really is. jni (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jni, do you think the Nigel Cawthorne "The Immortals: History's Fighting Elites" reference is acceptable? jmcw (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While I don't want to get into another long discussion like above, I would like to point out two things. First, the section in the 1969 edition of the Bugei, as already explained, was put together by someone named Watatani, who claims to be a friend of Takamatsu. The information in the 1969 edition was drastically changed in later editions (as shown here) and that sentence specifically was removed. There is no reliability in the statement since it has been removed and I would also like to point out that because Watatani is affiliated with Takamatsu, that also makes him a primary source. Thus, the Bugei is of the same level as the sources I was utilizing.

Second, please look at the Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 2. On page 163, it states, "the records found in the Ninpo traditions, combined with the plethora of information available in primary historical texts, portray a multifaceted military discipline that cannot be removed from its social, political, and military context.", when speaking of Ninpo. Just before this, it states, "Present-day systems that trace their roots to this era include Gyokko, Koto, Togakure, Iga, Koga, and others." I think this is pretty straightforward in saying that there are historical texts that discuss all the forms.

Oh, and I would also like to note that it discusses the Iga Museum on page 170, saying that it "promotes a mix of truth and fiction about ninjutsu for the entertainment of visitors." Silverseren 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@jmcw: Cawthorne's "The Immortals: History's Fighting Elites" is no textbook and it might get its information from Misplaced Pages. It tells the legend of Daisuke Nishina essentially same manner as old revisions of our Togakure-ryu article. Unfortunately page 223 that should list references is missing from the Google books review but 224 lists Wikimedia Common as source for most images in this book. We should verify if the ninjutsu section in this book is based on Misplaced Pages before using it as reference. I think the editorial review in Library Journal vol. 135 iss. 6 p. 86 about this book summarizes it appropriately: "Attractively produced and illustrated, it could attract some readers although it's of marginal use."

@Silver seren: I see you are utilizing my argument that BRDJ could be considered primary source here. No objection to that, but in that case we must treat it consistently i.e. not use this encyclopedia to support pro-Bujinkan POV either (that this is a documented entity with long history). Old revisions like contained statements like It must, however be noted that the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten recognises Togakure-ryū as a legitimate koryu bujutsu school. Statements like that are dubious given the tone of Togakure-ryu entry in the earlier editions of BRDJ. It does not necessary mean anything that 1978 edition has removed this one sentence. The editors might have done that just for politeness, or growing tired of ire from neo-ninjas. It is indeed somewhat harsh to claim in encyclopedia that ones friend got his ideas from popular fictions and backdated the alleged history.

It is no surprise that Roy Ron, author of Ninpo article in Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volume 2 criticizes the Iga Ninja Museum and other ninjutsu organizations. As has been pointed out before, he is an instructor of Genbukan, which is an off-shoot of Bujinkan. Note however that his article does not contain the unverifiable legend of Daisuke Nishiina or monk Kain Doshi or any other disputed embellishments. jni (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should be using both sets of primary sources, both for and against, since there's nothing wrong with using primary sources, as long as they are used in the correct manner. Roy Ron also uses the BRDJ in the encyclopedia, but he uses the 1978 version and that's the one we should be using as well, not picking and choosing from statements in old editions that were rewritten in later editions. Stvfetterly and I have already been discussing how to rewrite the article to keep it comprehensive with the information from the prop primary sources, while also explaining to the reader that the information is from such sources, along with exhibiting the counter arguments from anti primary sources. Silverseren 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please close this discussion

Stvfetterly and I have reached a compromise on the article. So the dispute has been resolved. Silverseren 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Glad to hear. Steven Zhang 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• James Brooke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

James Brooke is considered a Raja, not a Rajah. Raja means Governor or Ruler in Malay. Rajah means Graph (like an excel graph). To Malaysians who read this article may be confused by the title he was given.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• NGPriest (talk · contribs)
• Battang (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=James_Brooke}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed this on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Decide if his title should be Raja or Rajah. I have consulted 4 Malay teachers in Malaysia.

NGPriest 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

James_Brooke discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I'm from Sarawak and lived there. When we talk about him, he refer him to as Raja, not Rajah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Raja
It shocked me and my friends to refer to him as a graph/chart/graphpaper.
NGPriest 17:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to make a few points, this is obviously the English Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean that we should by any means have incorrect spellings in our articles, but it may mean that a word used has a different meaning or context as opposed to in its native language. I do however note that the article on Raja is indeed spelled Raja and lists Rajah as an alternative spelling. I'm not so sure if it has something to do with US/British English, but suggest th best way forward here is to discuss the issue on the Raja talk page. Hopefully this helps. Steven Zhang 20:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi NGPriest. I don't know which part of Malaysia you are from, but the overwhelming spelling in use by writers in English, in Sarawak as well outside, is RAJAH and has been since around 1841. The Sarawak Museum, a government body and well-respected by international academics, states on its web-site that "Sarawak Museum was established by Charles Brooke the Second Rajah" (I just checked). Just look at all the books about about Sarawak's history; look on the monuments and historic documents - all (with the notable exception of Gertrude Jacob in her biography in 1876) use Rajah. Surely, it would be far more confusing to change the spelling now? It is not unknown for one word to have two completely different meanings, after all: (and I very much doubt that there was a Malay word for graph in use in 1841...). There is now a note to which you are welcome to expand on your interesting linguistic point, but it is not appropriate to try to rename a Raj (sic) posthumously. Incidentally, is your point that the two spellings must be pronounced differently by a Malay speaker? What about for a speaker of Sarawak Malay though - a distinct dialect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battang (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Battang, as i said before, i'm from Sarawak, i'm approx 1 hour from Sibu.
Malay is widely used in Malaysia, there isn't much difference when travelling around Malaysia.
I assume most people got the rajah, since he was born in India?
Rajah: http://en.wiktionary.org/rajah = a Hindu prince or ruler in India (which he wasn't)
Raja: http://en.wiktionary.org/raja#Indonesian (Malay and Indonesian are similar) = A king
Whereas, Rajah (in Malay) means Graph.
NGPriest 21:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGPriest (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Necromancy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

On 12 June 2011, Canstusdis added content to the article on necromancy regarding a single religious vision / spirit visitation experienced by an Elder of the LDS Church in 1877 and used that as a basis for the claim "The LDS Church believes that the dead can contact the living." Since then, this particular content has been deleted from the article by four separate users, myself (Apo-kalypso) included, only for Canstusdis to revert the edit in each instance (the first attempt I made to remove it was 30 September 2011). Given that they did not supply any rationale, I cannot speak to the others' motives for deleting this content, but for my part, I stated: 1) the incident did not fit the definition of necromancy as it is outlined in the article, 2) the cited source was not reliable, 3) neither incident nor source supported a general inference as to the contemporary LDS Church's stance on such phenomenon, making any claim along these lines original research, and 4) associating a purported belief of the LDS Church with the practice of necromancy – which the LDS Church clearly repudiates – can potentially be read as defamation. Apparently dissatisfied with my rationale, Canstusdis restored the content and called upon me to initiate a discussion on the article talk page instead; I did so on 10 October 2011. We have now reached the point where Canstusdis is actually proposing to change the article's definition of its own subject in order to accommodate inclusion of the disputed content, which I think crosses the line in all sorts of directions.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Apo-kalypso (talk · contribs)
• Canstusdis (talk · contribs)
• Jean Calleo (talk · contribs)

Jean Calleo became involved in the talk page discussion as a third party on her own initiative.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Necromancy}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Starting 10 October 2011, I have undertaken to engage Canstusdis in a discussion on the article talk page, and Jean Calleo interceded with a third opinion (it did not come about as the result of a formal request, however) in support of my position on the issue, but after continuing to exchange several posts with Canstusdis, I find myself increasingly concerned about the character and course his participation is assuming in this discussion; in particular, his recent troubling proposal of a by-any-means-necessary solution to retain the disputed content in the article, content which clearly does not belong there in the first place.

• How do you think we can help?

Please direct me to a means of resolving this dispute, whether here or elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. I would very much like to arrive at a reasonable consensus decision as how to move forward with the article.

Apo-kalypso (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Necromancy discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Canstusdis understands that the main issue is the definition of necromancy. He believes that what he's trying to add to the article qualifies as necromancy, citing the dictionary definition of necromancy: "divination involving the dead or death". I think he should look up the definition of "divination".

Any kind of divination and especially necromancy are associated with (black) magic(k) and witchcraft; simply being contacted by the dead does not instantly qualify as necromancy, just like worshiping ancestors' spirits doesn't qualify and just like seeing ghosts doesn't qualify. — Jean Calleo  12:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, according to most dictionary definitions, including Wiktionary:

divination

1. The act of divining; a foreseeing or foretelling of future events

2. The pretended art of discovering secrets or the future by preternatural means

Again, you'll notice that this definition does not require the use black magic or witchcraft. And although I do understand that contacting the dead doesn't automatically qualify as necromancy, according to LDS Church documents (Journal of Discourses, 19:229), and the official LDS Church news website (ldschurchnews.com), Elder Woodruff undertook an event foretold to him by dead spirits. And again, in my opinion, Elder Woodruff's experience is best described as necromancy.

BTW, I really feel outnumbered here by two LDS apologists. ---Canstusdis (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's something I never thought I'd be called. Jean Calleo and I are not ganging up on you, Canstusdis, and our objection to the inclusion of this particular content in the article has nothing whatsoever to do with our thoughts, feelings, or experiences regarding the LDS Church and its culture, history, or doctrine. That aside, having read the Journal of Discourses cited above (the passage is actually found at 19:230, not 19:229), I cannot see where the "spirits of the dead" foretold, predicted, or revealed any future event when they appeared to Woodruff. As I said before, he did not set out to conjure, invoke, or raise them in order to gain their audience, they came to him of their own accord, not to deliver an omen or prophecy, but to make a request – one not even phrased as an imperative. That is simply not divination, let alone necromancy. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a mediator at this noticeboard. I am not affiliated in any way with either spiritualism or the LDS Church, both broadly construed, and am indeed a self-proclaimed skeptic (see my user page) as to such matters. The issue is over this edit.

• I believe the LDS Church News article (but not the other two sources in the contested edit) is a reliable source for what it says. It is, however, prohibited original research to extrapolate, however, from what that article says to a general statement that, "The LDS Church believes that the dead can contact the living." That sentence implies that the belief in the dead contacting the living is part of LDS doctrine or, at the very least, wholly-accepted practice but there is nothing in that article which supports that claim, which makes it original research.
• The questioning of the definition of "necromancy" which begins the article will be, I believe, eventually similarly unavailing, though it has some very slight merit at the moment. The initial sentence of the article is not supported by an inline citation to a reliable source establishing the definition. As such, it is open to question and revision and, indeed, removal if no such source can be found. I have no doubt, however, that a source for the term can be found (I have found several already) and that that the source will reference divination by means of or through the dead — whether through summoning, raising, or other contact (I'm intentionally being as broad as possible here). The key here, however, is that divination (and the word "art" in the definition cited by Canstusdis, though I note that only in passing without either approval or rejection of that definition) requires an intentional use of the dead, not merely a passive, unsolicited receipt of information. While reasonable minds might differ over the question of whether the divination was for the purpose of seeking unknown or hidden information versus discovery of future events, no version of the definition that I've been able to find would include a mere passive repetition of information learned from the dead.

The information in the edit is not appropriate for the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• I can re-write my addition to more accurately represent the reference.
• No definition that I cited uses the word "art".
• No common mainstream definition of necromancy necessarily requires it to be an intentional act.
• Woodruff's experience was not just a "mere passive repetition of information". He acted upon the alleged instructions of dead spirits.

---Canstusdis (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the mention of this apparently (though I stand to be corrected) isolated, anomalous event within the LDS church simply does not fit within the scope of the article as it is currently written since the current scope is largely based on the definition in the first sentence. An analysis of the various dictionary definitions of "necromancy" really does not solve the issue since dictionaries merely define words and are not intended to be encyclopedic as to subjects or facts; the bigger question is what necromancy includes in practice by its adherents and by its detractors. The one reliable source documents what allegedly happened, but what happened is different enough from necromancy as ordinarily described and criticized (and as currently described in the article) that it can be reasonably argued that you also need a reliable source which says that what was described is something which would ordinarily be described and included within the concept of necromancy. You can, of course, attempt to obtain consensus on the article talk page to broaden the scope of the article, but until you achieve that, the material just does not fit and is not appropriate for this article, in my opinion. At the end of the day, the inclusion must be supported one way or the other by consensus and you do not have it. I know that you weren't the editor who brought this dispute to this noticeboard, but part of what we "serve" here is a neutral point of view from experienced Misplaced Pages editors. You're free to take this advice or leave it, but my opinion is that it is not likely that you will be able to form a consensus to include this material, though you are free to try to continue to do so through continued discussion at the article talk page or an RFC or you may seek another opinion through the Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee. Some other neutral here at this noticeboard may also have a different opinion, so I'm leaving this discussion open for the time being and will close it in a day or two if no one else chooses to weigh in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Canstusdis – On the article talk page, you only linked to the Dictionary.com definition of "necromancy" without formally entering it into the discussion (referring to it as "most dictionary definitions" when, in fact, it was only a definition from one dictionary; indeed, a definition that does, contrary to your disavowal, use the word "art"), and you also neglected to render the complete definition from Wiktionary. In order to eliminate the ambiguity resulting from a selective presentation of factual evidence, I have taken it upon myself to do this, adding several more "common mainstream" definitions for the sake of comparison.

• Cambridge Dictionary: The practice of claiming to be able to communicate with the dead in order to discover what is going to happen in the future, or black magic.
• Dictionary.com: A method of divination through alleged communication with the dead; black art; magic in general, especially that practiced by a witch or sorcerer; sorcery, witchcraft, conjuration.
• The Free Dictionary: The practice of supposedly communicating with the spirits of the dead in order to predict the future; black magic, sorcery.
• Macmillan Dictionary: The practice of communicating with dead people in order to learn about the future.
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Conjuration of the spirits of the dead for purposes of magically revealing the future or influencing the course of events; magic, sorcery.
• Oxford Dictionary: The supposed practice of communicating with the dead, especially in order to predict the future; witchcraft, sorcery, or black magic in general.
• Webster's Dictionary: The art of revealing future events by means of a pretended communication with the dead; the black art; hence, magic in general; conjuration, enchantment.
• Wiktionary: Divination involving the dead or death; loosely, any sorcery or witchcraft, especially involving death or the dead, particularly sorcery involving raising or reanimating the dead.
• WordNet Dictionary: Sorcery, black magic, black art; the belief in magical spells that harness occult forces or evil spirits to produce unnatural effects in the world; conjuring up the dead, especially for prophesying.

You may be able to pick up on some common elements here: practice, method, art, conjuration, magic, occult, sorcery, witchcraft.

Now let's do it for "divination", using the same sources.

• Cambridge Dictionary: The skill or act of saying or discovering what will happen in the future.
• Dictionary.com: The practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means; augury, prophecy; perception by intuition, instinctive foresight.
• The Free Dictionary: The art or act of foretelling future events or revealing occult knowledge by means of augury or an alleged supernatural agency; an inspired guess or presentiment; something that has been divined.
• Macmillan Dictionary: The practice of finding out about the future by receiving signs from the spirit world.
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers; unusual insight, intuitive perception.
• Oxford Dictionary: The practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown by supernatural means.
• Webster's Dictionary: The act of divining; a foreseeing or foretelling of future events; the pretended art discovering secret or future by preternatural means; an indication of what is future or secret; augury omen, conjectural presage, prediction.
• Wiktionary: The act of divining, a foreseeing or foretelling of future events; .
• WordNet Dictionary: Successful conjecture by unusual insight or good luck; a prediction uttered under divine inspiration; foretelling, soothsaying, fortune telling, the art or gift of prophecy (or the pretense of prophecy) by supernatural means.

Again, there are some common threads: skill, practice, art, occult, supernatural.

As I see it (you are likely to discount what follows on that basis alone), part of the problem in this situation is that you seize upon certain words or phrases – or your personal interpretation thereof – to the exclusion of all others and throw the entire weight of your argument behind them (cf., TransporterMan's probably accidental substitution of "repetition" for "receipt" in his comment above). When someone advances a broader/clearer view that accounts for the things you have previously ignored or disregarded, you continue to maintain an artificially narrow/vague perspective despite its revealed insufficiency. Rather than acknowledge this, you propose to reconcile it with drastic solutions like, "If the incident does not conform to the definition, then the definition must be changed to conform to the incident". You alone cannot select or synthesize the most appropriate definition best suited to your individual purpose, for, in the end, that seems the only reason you would be doing it, not to enhance or improve the article's overall quality. In any case, even the most general definition among those I listed would not serve to describe the incident. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, Apo-kalypso. Again with the personal attacks? Again making things up that don't jive with the facts? How many false accusations do I have to endure from you? Please, just stop. ---Canstusdis (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Canstusdis, this issue can be solved by stacking arguments against arguments. There is no need and no room for additional dramatics and manipulation tactics. You've demonstrated throughout this whole conversation that besides trying to prove you're right (as we all are) you're also trying to intimidate and distract/derail other editors. We're not dense enough to fall for that, so you're welcome to stop.

What's your current argument? — Jean Calleo  14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Apo-kalypso and now I'll ask you. Stop with the unfounded accusations. I have not acted in bad faith as has been suggested by the both of you nor am I now trying to divert this conversation with "dramatics and manipulation tactics". Again, please just stop with the accusations. ---Canstusdis (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. — Jean Calleo  21:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Enough. Stop talking about one another. Limit your comments to the content issues, without personal comments. Unless someone has something more to say about the content issue, I'm prepared to close this discussion with my opinion and recommendation against the inclusion of the material for the reasons I stated above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for straying from the focus of this discussion. It is clear that there is nothing more to be said about the issue at hand that was not already said at the start and has since been said many times over. I appreciate you, ItsZippy, and Jean Calleo for taking the time to weigh in. — Apo-kalypso (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

TransporterMan has already interjected with his opinion as a mediator here; as a fellow mediator (and as someone with no connection to the LDS Church whatsoever), I shall do the same. Canstusdis has taken a source which mentions Elder Wilford Woodruff's vision and gone on to suggest that the LDS Church as a whole believes in necromancy. This is synthesis of the source, so cannot be used. Unless a reliable source can be provided which explicitly states that the LDS believes in necromancy, the LDS should be left out of the article. As for the definition of necromancy, previous editors have provided swathes of sources to support the current definition. Thus, I see no reason to change it. I urge all involved in this dispute to remain civil and focus their posts on the content and arguments, rather than each other. Any posts which question the motives and conduct of other editors instead of the content issue are unhelpful. As TransporterMan said, if this continues, the discussion will be closed. Furthermore, unless Canstusdis has any further contributions to make, which have not been raised and addressed already, I suggest the discussion is closed with the resolution that Canstusdis' proposed changes are kept out of the article. ItsZippy 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the issue has been resolved. Would there be any objections to the closure of this discussion now? ItsZippy 11:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Ra One movie's response. Reviewers like Yahoo and Rediff have 2 out of 5 and declared it a flop, the users Ashermadan, Ankitbhatt and Shshshsh are vandalising the article by inserting incredible reviewers like Hungama on the top.

Below is the diffs of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ra.One&action=historysubmit&diff=457461123&oldid=457460504

Link to Rediff rating: http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/review-raone-abhishek-mande/20111026.htm Other important reviews:

Yahoo - http://in.movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-reviews/r-one-review-000920615.html Zee News - http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/bollywood/review-ra-one-not-your-usual-srk-film_99089.htm

http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/oct/261011-ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-film-review-superhero-film-two-half-stars.htm

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ashermadan (talk · contribs)
• Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs)
• Shshshsh (talk · contribs)

The above users are trying to promote a product that has failed overall.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ra One - Response section}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I tried to discuss with them on their talk page, but they dont seem to give any importance. They are biased.

• How do you think we can help?

Please provide your neutral view on what the content should be and request the above users to stop vandalising the article until then.

Guru coolguy (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ra One - Response section discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Ankit - Calm down you emotional rat. Stop sobbing first.

I am not against srk or biased aginst him (why should i bother about a beggar who travels to Chennai every day in the fear of losing all his money in this flop?). My aim is wiki should host only credible information and it should not be vandalised by biased users like you. You need to give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible reviewer. The fact that it has given 4.5 out of 5 and Yahoo gave 2 out of 5 insists some thing is going wrong. If you cant give a proof then get lost from here, i will do what i can do as i have got proof that you arent able to supply a plausible reference to your sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankit - I again request you not to use uncivilized languages in Wiki, or else your account would be barred for abusing. Firstly can you give a proof that bollywood hungama is a credible source of reviews / ratings? Yahoo, Rediff and Zee are popular and neutral reviewers. You havent responded to my earlier questions either. When you say you have posted overall response, there are 10 positive, 5 negative and 2 mixed - the ratio is 10:7. How can you then declare it recieved a positive response? About your decision to watch The 7th sense, i am not bothered as there is a phrase that says donkeys only eat garbage even if you keep hygenic food infront of them. Finally, please respond to my questions about bollywood hungama before attacking anyone personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Want to see my response? Just look at what Scieberg said at the bottom. You'll see. And btw, for useless maniacs like you, I think my behavior is surprisingly civil. Regarding the donkeys thing, you are just making it plainer and plainer that you hate srk and are 1000% biased against him. So can't you see that Misplaced Pages is not for you? Bollywood Hungama is a reliable source, though not as popular as Zee or rediff. As has been stated before positive reviews come first and negative later. See any film article that has both types of reviews (not something like The Last Airbender, which has only negative reviews). You deserve a slap on the face, and believe me, you will get one soon. Good day. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ankit,

Thank you for coming to the discussion. Firstly i would suggest you not to use harsh / uncivilized language or attack any one personally. This shows you might be severly disturbed over the flop of your favourite hero from north.

And my opinion is Rediff and Yahoo's reviews should be put up first and the response setion doesn thave a different section for positive and negative reviews. Infact i have never seen any movie following this style. The reponse section should give information about the overall rating of the movie by credible reviewers. If you do not understand the meaning of credible please refer to any online dictionary. Hungama cant be a credible reviewer while Yahoo and Rediff are accepted across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey loser! The way you said this SO PLAINLY shows your extraordinary bias. I mean, phew! I've seen biased editors, but none as stupid as you who will so openly admit it. By the way, you're southern. I was actually expecting 7am arivu to be pretty good, and wanted to watch it. Seeing people like you, I'm certainly not going to do so. You can keep your lousy mouth out of my life. Believe me, I'm gonna post this entire thing on the Ra.One talk page, and just wait and watch for the roars of laughter you'll be getting at your totally imbecile behavior. Good day. And btw, about response? Loser, you know nobody will change it. So why don't you get a life? Have a nice sleep. You should then wake up and see the real world. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 11:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My God! I'm biased? Are you actually trying to tell me that I'm biased? You, of all people. For one, YOU are putting up the same negative review in the first line itself. You made it sound like Ra.One has been received disastrously from critics - a clear violation of neutrality. Second, you say that the movie has been declared a flop. HA! Please check yourself in a hospital. Ra.One has barely released and you go on telling the film is a flop. It's you who are biased, not us. Frankly, this is a waste of time and Misplaced Pages. You are a clear vandal and are inexperienced with film articles and Misplaced Pages policies. In addition, you show extreme bias. I'm sorry to say, if Misplaced Pages encourages people like you, it will be very very sad. And no matter the outcome of this so-called "dispute", the rediff review shall NOT be put up in the beginning because, as per Film article standards, all positive reviews come first and negative reviews later. Only the overall impression is stated at the beginning. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 11:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From Ashermadan: I agree with Ankitbhatt. We already mentioned the reviews. The reviews we counted have 20 positive ones ranging from 5-3 and 5 negative ones. We are correct to say that Ra.One received generally positive reviews. Gurucoolguy keeps on changing it and adding redundant text and talking about other films that aren't even in Hindi. Please ban him from vandalizing our article because we're sick of changing it back because of the edits he makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashermadan (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While I think bias is inevitable, and not something very uncommon on Misplaced Pages, "positive to mixed reviews" should be used. At the moment the assortment of reviews is below:

• 10 positive
• 2 mixed
• 5 negative

I've, as one of the active contributors, added both positive and negative reviews to the article. Business of Cinema review is unnotable and should be removed per talk page consensus. I think I'm done with this. By the way, where were those newfangled editors when the article was being constructed from the scratch? They're here only to fight over critical reception and box office figures. Nothing else! Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised I don't see any personal attack warnings on the talk pages of the disputing editors. "Mixed to positive" is a fair compromise, and I agree with Scieberking here. Lynch7 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope Ra.One makes a GA or FA soon and that we get rid of such silly disputes, vandals and disruptive editors. I was a part of this dispute resolution discussion, so I've made my final and last edit for an Indian cinema related article. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GA will not fix the problem. Fighting over reviews will sink the GAN.

I share MikeLynch's surprise that the edit warriors above can use such language and tone and not be warned against personal attacks. Insulting each other cannot continue. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Question for all involved, are there any review aggregator sites (like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic) that specialize in Indian films? Neither RT or Metacritic has any score right now. Sites like this can help guide the general tone of the article as it should represent the mainstream view, and they can do a great job of summarizing that view. (Please note the only score RT shows right now is the percent of people that want to see it. Basically, it's an on-line poll and not something to be added to the article). Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there exist no aggregator sites like that. RT lists Indian films, but I think only after a release in the US, and after getting reviews from US local portals. Lynch7 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Binksternet - I meant that once it gets rid of all the problems, the article should make a GA or FA. Also, a consensus has been reached to keep "mixed to positive". Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Review Gang? It currently says critics 6/10 and public 7.5/10 BollyJeff || talk 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ankit, keep yourself calm, I know your work but Misplaced Pages is all about grout effort. At the same time Guru coolguy must have discussed if he had a problem about certain point of view issues. Just went thru few of his edits, which may be right as per yourhis point of view, but Misplaced Pages is all about neutral point of view. You are right, Rediff.com, Yahoo! are popular reviewer, but when it comes to films, Bollywood Hungama comes ahead. They are expert in Hindi film industry. Be sure next time to discuss ahead at the talk page. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I had discussed this entire matter over in the edits itself. You can check up the revision history to understand. And now, I can see that other editors are putting the entire blame of this matter on me, and are now vindicating my stand. Well, fine. I consider this matter to be closed. You may come to whatever conclusion you want, seeing as it is you are completely swayed by guru's gibberish and accusations. Good evening. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Review Gang has a nice list of reviews. BollyJeff || talk 12:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Admins, The user Shshshsh is undoing my changes without giving any reference to his false claim that RaOne was housefull allover India. Infact it was not even a success in north india, while South India has its own quality movie industry. The Seventh Sense or 7am Arivu was the major release in South amidst many other Tamil movies. Now can you think of any one going to this kids movie called Ra.One which has been declared flop by major sites? Please warn this user. Guru coolguy (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert you, it was Ms. Meryam who did it, and when you reverted her, I noticed that she was right, and now I reverted you as well. The sources provided clearly say the movie has had a release all over India. Oh, and please chill. Shahid • 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know your conclusion. Btw, the over word of mouth about this movie is "waste of time and money" - Please refer to MouthShut.com which is a number 1 reviewer in India. The overall rating given by its users is 2/5. http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Ra-One-Movie-reviews-925602942 Guru coolguy (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Shahid - There are no sources that it was house full all over india,allthough it might have been released in few multiplexes in South. Please provide valuable ref/proof for your housefull theory before undoing my change.

Hi All - Thank you for coming on this discussion. I agree with Karthik Nadar that Times of india, ndtv are important reviewers compared to some hungama (which is totally biased). If you all agree then i can go in this order about the reviews:

1. Times of India (it gave 2 out of 5)
2. Hindustan Times (2 / 5)
3. Rediff (2/5)
4. yahoo (2/5)
5. Hungama (5/5 crazy!!)
6. Mouthshut.com (2/5)
7. ReviewGang 5/10 or 2.5/5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs)

mouthshut is not a reliable source. Shahid • 12:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note - from what I see, user:Guru coolguy refers to user for support on this thread and on the article. Here you see a diff where he turns to user:Varunn pandya, who, in turn, vandalises the article with false additions. Shahid • 12:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  That would be WP:CANVASsing, an unacceptable practice that might serve to decrease the weight others would give to his position (un-naturally inflated support). The notifications this editor sent to some are neutrally worded ("there is a discussion") whereas others are "please support my position" campaigning. DMacks (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

These users are only disrupting the process when a consensus has been reached already above. What is this "Southies" and "Northies" stuff? That's total nonsense and these near-ethnic slurs much be avoided. Scieberking (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that "mixed to positive" is the right verdict, which only one user out of 5 opposes to. The POV tag is absolutely unnecessary. The fact that the user has canvassed another user into the article, also using such terrible language as "northies", says it all.Shahid • 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shahid. The tag should be removed. On the other hand, the current consensus is also being twisted to "positive to mixed", which I think is just not right and must be avoided. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shahid too. Positive to mixed is what the reviews are. I also got a source from NDTV supporting the sentence. Check it out!. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi BollyJeff - The reviewGang has rated it at 5/10 which translated to 2.5/5. Let me know if this can be considered as the overall rating of the movie.

Well it was 6/10 when I first looked at it; now its 5.5/10, so 3/5 if it has to be based on 5. I would give it as listed 5.5/10 - However, its not up to me to decide if this can be considered an overall rating. Keep discussing it here. Comments anyone? BollyJeff || talk 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When looking at review aggregation sites, only look at numbers that include published critics. User ratings are not usable on Misplaced Pages as they're essentially an on-line poll which does not meet the reliable source standard. Looking at ReviewGang, it separates critic and user reviews, providing a summary for both. A quick search on WP shows it being mentioned in multiple articles. Right now, it's giving the film a 5.5 / 10 rating from the critics. That supports the "mixed to positive" statement. Ravensfire (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi BollyJeff - Well, if you see the same link after two dys it will be 4/10 but lets wait :D. Guru coolguy (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All,

I wish to add the neutrality logo to the entire article because the very first section shows wrong information. I also want to add the below reference on the first section which says the movie's story was stolen / inspired from 2010 blockbuster Enthiran or The Robot.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-04/news-interviews/28355718_1_anubhav-sinha-rajnikanth-s-robot-scientist

Also all the below important media sites say Ra1 is a disaster and i am not sure why Wiki is targetted by srk fans to host wrong information. Let them do it on thier own sites but not on Wiki. I wish to add below references on the main section as it should show the acceptance of the movie. Also the editors failed to give any reference that the movie was housefull all over india, it was only released in North India and We South Indians dont watch hindi movies which are mostly stolen from South (Tamil) movies and then much marketed. For example, the recent hindi movies Body Guard, Singham, Ready and even Amir Khan's Ghajini (2008)are all remakes of hit Southern movies. You might wiki or google to check these facts. So i dont agree that Ra1 was hit across india until it is given credible proofs (which is impossible).

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/diwali-cracker-raone-is-ambitious-but-flawed/196587-47-84.html http://www.rediff.com/movies/review/why-ra/20111026.htm http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/oct/261011-ra-one-shah-rukh-khan-film-review-superhero-film-two-half-stars.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 10:28, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

TOI Bangalore gives 3.5/5. Shahid, which TOI were you referring to? Lynch7 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not my post, Mike. Guru coolguy did not sign his post. I replied to him. Shahid • 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Guru coolguy, please focus on this dispute and leave the regional stuff behind. That's not helpful to resolving this dispute. Misplaced Pages isn't about personal preferences or views, but reflecting what the majority of reliable sources say. For films, the best way to determine that is to look at aggregator sites. Every film is going to have positive and negative reviews, but we need to reflect the majority viewpoint. Focusing only on aggregator sites, do you know of any besides reviewgang.com that have a summary of critical reviews? Ravensfire (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Hey Guru coolguy, firstly you must learn to sign when ever you post anything in other than articles, be it talk page or discussion page, etc. Secondly Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss whether South Indian watch remade or not. Firstly learn what Misplaced Pages is, or atleast edit with common sense, that what Misplaced Pages expect from us. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well well well. What did I tell you? See how this editor is so desperately trying to publicize Ra.One as a flop? And your use of northies and southies is plain disgusting. I live in Chennai, and I have never had to deal with anyone like you. Stop your ranting. See this, and then talk about Ra.One being a flop. Ha! Gotcha, didn't I? Your massive negative publicity drive is falling apart very quickly. Please come up with better excuses to explain your failure. And yes, I am sick of hearing you quote the review "Order". Because according to your order, all negative reviews come first. Right? Nobody is dumb here. We can all see what you are trying to lead to, and believe me, you are not going to win your way. There are people with enough common sense to see that you are worthy of a blocking, but I see that some more comments from you must come before anyone takes the step in that direction. Good day. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - Finally i have found a consolidated review from major medias and its in this link http://www.hindustantimes.com/Critics-verdict-RA-One-gets-mixed-reviews/H1-Article1-761773.aspx. I am pasting the summary below.
Overall verdict - RA.One gets mixed reviews
Hindustan Times Rating: 2/5
CNN-IBN Rating: 2.5/5
Indian Express Rating: 2/5
Rediff Rating: 1.5/5 (terrible!!)
bollywoodhungama.com Rating: **** 1/2 (The site says "..being criticised for over-rating")
The Times Of India Raring: 3/5
New York Times - It doesnt give any stars but says "NYT reviewer is far from disappointed with RA.One"
The Hollywood Reporter - It again doesnt rate but says "The film, directed by Anubhav Sinha, is gloriously silly, with stunts, CG animation and music numbers bursting out all over...."
In addition to the majority of above reviews being strongly negative, there are other important reviewers not mentioned in that link (yahoo, MouthShut.com and ReviewGang) who gave negative reviews again.
So the positive reviews are very less cpmpared to negative. The overall response should be changed as mixed to negative reviews if you are considering the above facts and proofs.

I will be also adding the Ra1 story stolen from Robot article from Times of India in the controversy section. Also still there has been no proof supplied that Ra1 was housefull all over india which is a misleading fact. I wish to change it as north india. And i am not against any region here but against people who consider that north india is alone india by neglecting / dominating other parts even in wiki (by posting wrong info on wiki).

Now that Mr. Guru coolguy too has agreed to keep "mixed to positive", like all other editors, can we remove the tag now... PLEASE? Scieberking (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He said mixed to negative, but he conveniently failed to mention three 3.5 star ratings in the same article. Also, the BOI link provided above clearly says "across the country". BTW, my opinion, if it matters at all, is the verdict is "mixed", not "mixed to this" or "mixed to that". That doesn't make a lot of sense. Someone keeps saying consensus is reached, but it apparently is not. BollyJeff || talk 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi ScieberKing, My opinion above is - The overall response should be changed as mixed. Kindly go through the link above which gives consolidated reviews. I didnt paste all other minor medias but majority gave less than 3 or 3/5. Guru coolguy (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, right. I also agree with you two. "Mixed" would read more logical. Now, I'm sure some editors will think I'm also being anti-SRK lol, for voting against keeping "to positive". Scieberking (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Guru coolguy, when you're pulling stats like that from a source, please be complete and verify your accuracy. In addition to leaving off several reviews with decent ratings, you got one of the ratings wrong, leaving off a half-star. Bluntly, your POV is showing, and that's a bad thing. If you want your view to be taken seriously, you need to be complete and correct in your posts. Please correct your post to include all of the ratings and make sure they are correct. Ravensfire (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Now then, it seems we have 3 votes for "mixed". Other editors chime in please (in a civil manner). BollyJeff || talk 20:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like most, if not everyone can accept the "mixed" description, is that correct? Okay, to move on to another discussion point - the order of the reviews. I've been going through a fair number of FA rated film articles and there's something that I missed in this article - none of them mention the specific score from a review. The only scores listed are from aggregator sites to give a summary of the reviews for the film. After that, the reviews are grouped to discuss specific points about the film. I would suggest that Ra. One have the same treatment. From a broad view point, look for elements of each review that make it distinct from the others. Things like unusual notes about the actors or acting in general, effects, cinematography, sound, directing, etc. Please avoid using the same review over and over unless it's a truly insightful film. If a review is mentioned, note somewhere the general review of the film (liked it, didn't like it, neutral, etc). Remember, summary, using quotes only for key points. Would this approach help with that point of dispute? Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Let us keep this civil

Could all editors involved in this dispute please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Guru Coolguy and Ankitbhatt, some of your comments have been blatantly offensive and unhelpful in resolving this dispute, which has become disruptive. I urge all involved to keep discussion focussed on the content, rather than the editors in question. Accusing or attacking other people is disruptive. It seems that the more recent discussion has been more productive, which is good. However, if the disruptive personal attacks do not stop, I or another mediator will close the discussion. Thank you. ItsZippy 19:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - Thank You for agreeing as mixed review. I have got one more concern, some one has added the below line which is incorrect and the references given for that do not prove the sentence.
Major reviewers were of the opinion that the film had brought the level of Indian films at par with Hollywood films. How can you compare this with hollywood movies? If its just for special effects, it cant be even compared with Robot (Tamil movie). And the references never says majority of reviewers have this opinion. I wish to remove this line. Thank You.. (And to those who criticised me should now agree that my concerns were addressed, thanks to the neutrality of the board) Guru coolguy (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

@ Guru coolguy -  Fixed Now, can I take this thread as resolved? Scieberking (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with keeping it "mixed". Most of the reviews I see on the page are positive (now another one from LAT was added). The rating of Rotten Tomatoes (80%) is very high, and generally, the number of positive reviews far exceeds the number of negative ones. This would be being unfair to the article. Shahid • 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with Guru coolguy. For one, most reviewers have stated that the technical level of Ra.One is on par with most Hollywood films. Your comment about Robot is a personal opinion not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Your tactics of picking reviews which show it under harsh light is grossly violating all Misplaced Pages principles. And moreover, you are modifying the reviews according to your will, which is completely unacceptable. Your drive to show that Ra.One is a failure, badly reviewed and incomparable with Robot is, to say the least, saddening and actually mildly amusing.

I'm sure we can reach to a very nice, simple and hospitable common viewpoint if we keep guru coolguy out of this. Otherwise, I can guarantee that he will drag this matter forever and not give any of us any peace. Other editors are starting to question my way of speaking. Please wait for the time when you start losing patience against blatantly misleading accusations that are not only pathetic but are also an attempt at tarnishing my image, in addition to the article, in a false and terrible manner. I, for one, am not going to budge. The consensus will HAVE TO BE mixed to positive, and the review order will have to be left as such. Others will have to choose - me or him. And I strongly hope that what I have said now does not constitute bad language, personal attacks et al. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 12:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what is meant by "positive reviews" and "negative reviews"; "most of the reviews were good", and "most of the reviews were bad", respectively. Would someone please explain the definition of "mixed reviews"? I would logically think it means "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus". If those definitions are correct, then when we say "mixed to positive", we are saying "some reviews were good and some reviews were bad, without a clear consensus (to) most of the reviews were good". This dosn't make a lot of sense when you put it that way, does it? I would think that if there is not a clear consensus, it should be "mixed". Mixed is mixed. I am not choosing you or him; neither of you own Misplaced Pages. I am choosing fair logic. BollyJeff || talk 12:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I can see what is going on. Really, am I being forced to call Misplaced Pages editors as plain cowards? I'm sorry, but NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY, is ready to take this matter on the face of it. All of you are trying to appease Guru coolguy. Is he a Misplaced Pages lawyer or something? Why is everyone so afraid of him? Nobody is ready to accept the fact that guru coolguy is equivalent of a vandal, a biased editor who is desperate to get his way even if it means using cheap shortcuts and below-the-belt twisting tactics. Unless somebody strongly comes out and says guru coolguy to stop his ways and bar him from editing for a short while, no consensus can be reached. Just wait and see, he will now pull out all sorts of fake reviews from friends as biased as him and post them here as highly regarded reviews. It is so revolting to see the condition of all this. Truly deplorable. And I am now beyond caring about my language. I am most certain that instead of catching the culprit and finding a solution, I am going to be rapped on the knuckles and stopped from editing. Remember, if anything of the sort ever happens, believe me, I will quit Misplaced Pages forever. And I mean it - I don't make empty threats. I can see all the whiffs of dirty politics and canvassing here. I smell a strong filthy stench, so it will be best for me to avoid this discussion as of now. AnkitBhatt_LifEnjoy 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Editor reported to WP:WQA. These types of attacks are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages and are especially not tolerated here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why you taking everything so seriously? After all, your sig does say LifEnjoy. BollyJeff || talk 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the updated rating from Rotten Tomatoes has been increased to 88%. But then again, it is not something very relevant. Ra.One is primarily a Hindi movie and RT mostly uses American reviews (in the same manner as south indian reviewers, majority of whom have panned the film, are not very relevant). IMO, there are generally three types of verdicts; positive (favorable, hailed), negative (unfavorable; panned) and average (mixed; lukewarm). And "mixed" is being used by almost all major Indian news outlets including Hindustan Times and CNN-IBN. @ Ankit- Calm down buddy. While I agree Guru coolguy's behavior is not very appreciable, Ashermadan too is almost the same. Just my two cents. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Some related discussions on Talk:Ra.One#Critical reception section. Thanks.

• Having a look over this thread, it's evident to me that this is primarily an issue with conduct, and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Content issues will never be resolved if you are at each others throats. Now, if you will all agree to refrain from personal attacks I will refocus this discussion and we can work on getting the issues here actually sorted out. Steven Zhang 05:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the conduct in this thread, by several parties, is unacceptable. Any further personal attacks warrant a block.

However, Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) has declared I have quit Misplaced Pages. I make no intention to return - so, is there any further need for dispute resolution here?  Chzz  ►  06:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Ratnam concept school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Repeated addition of text by User:202.83.18.229 and User:Geetha devi (whom I assume to be the same person) which is promotional in tone and a violation of WP:ARTSPAM. I have tried initiating discussion on both talkpages, as well as on the article talkpage, but as yet, neither user has responded. I can no longer remove the text without violating WP:3RR.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Yunshui (talk · contribs)
• 202.83.18.229 (talk · contribs)
• Geetha devi (talk · contribs)

It would appear that these two editors (or possibly one editor) also have a conflict of interest; the text they add refers to the school in the first person plural.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ratnam concept school}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on both userpages and talkpage; no reply from either editor except to continue edit warring.

• How do you think we can help?

Administrator warning to both users, remove text from page, 3rd opinion.

Yunshui 雲水 08:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratnam concept school discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Hi there Yunshui, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I've reverted the edits there myself, as they do seem to be spam and advertising; you've done well not to engage in an edit war. I think this is more of a conduct issue than content, as the problematic users seems to be disruptively editing. I suggest that you go to WP:ANI to resolve this, as they will be able to deal with the editors causing problems. ItsZippy 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.