Talk:William Durbin

Article title and translation

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

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

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

Okay,

1. I personally have no problem with that change to the romanization, I would have done it myself but I'm not too adept with the macrons (and when I was taught Japanese, the romanization didn't include them, so I'm not in the habit of adding them).

2. "spiritually positive gentle person" is the translation that Kiyojute Ryu uses in their own literature (acknowledging in their handbook that it does normally mean hand and that the name works perfectly fine when translated like that, but they also meant a double-meaning with a less common translation), "hand" is a far more common translation, I've seen that kanji on rare occasion translated as person, but it is definitely not a common interpretation. Changing it to "spiritually positive gentle hand" seems fine, perhaps with a note that they do also mean for 手 to have a more obscure double meaning, citing the section in the student handbook and maybe a link to an online Japanese kanji dictionary listing such a double meaning [1]. As for system as opposed to style or school, that's fine if you'd rather use "style" instead.

3. As for the name. "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" is used in their literature and website as the full name of the art (the kanji adding "kempo bugei" after "kiyojute ryu" are not on the logo, but they are present on rank certificates, the student handbook, and other documents), but "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo" is used much more often, with "Kiyojute Ryu" used less often. I was treating it much like naming conventions in other articles where the most common name was used as the article name, but the full/formal name was listed in bold at the beginning of the article. --Wingsandsword 14:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Just to be perfectly clear, it seems that Kiyojute Ryu doesn't use macrons in its official publications, so there is no need in this case to use them in the article title, only parenthetically when showing the romanization of the kanji. I don't want you to think that I'm suggesting the article title include the macrons.

2. Yes, I see what you mean, and I certainly don't want to over-complicate matters. I think the whole issue could be avoided if you just remove the word "literally" from the sentence, and leave "person". Additionally, perhaps the section discussing Kiyojute Ryu's philosophy might be an appropriate place to briefly discuss the name's meaning, rather than the lead.

3. I don't have any personal experience with the art, so I'll leave it up to you to decide on the article's title. However, if you're aware of any trademark status that the name has for any of its variations, that might assist in a determination. In any event, the first line should use the {{nihongo}} template and read "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei (気楊柔手流拳法武芸, Kiyōjūte-ryū Kenpō Bugei) is ..." Bradford44 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1. That's clear, I figured you meant the romanization in the main article.

2. Good point, I'll put in a paragraph in the philosophy section about the meaning of the name and remove the "literally" from the translation of the name in the lead.

3. I'll change the way the name is listed in the lead then. As for the trademark status and determining how to list the name, a "TM" is beneath the word "Kiyojute" on the student handbook, that's the only trademark I know them to actively assert is on that word alone, so that isn't too helpful in determining what to do there. Perhaps a redirect of "Kiyojute Ryu Kempo Bugei" to this page would be in order then though. --Wingsandsword 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

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

1. Well written?: The article needs to be gone over for each aspect of the Manual of Style. There are spelling, grammar and other basic errors. There is also inconsistency in the referencing system. Visually, the large blocks of text without proper titles or sub-sectioning is very unappealing to read. These need to be trimmed down and broken up in to digestible chunks.

2. Factually accurate?: There are a vast amount of potentially controversial statements that either lack citations entirely, or lack reliable ones. Statements such as "taught over a thousand peace officers" need independent verification.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is overly detailed in some areas (belt rankings and philosophy for example) and lacking in others, such as the history of the mechanics of how the art spread beyond a single school or teacher. Remember to state the obvious and not overindulge when it comes to the level of detail in the prose. Cover a broad range of topics, and stick to the important facts. Brevity is not just the soul of wit, but of readability.

4. Neutral point of view?: The article contains no counterpoint to the many outlandish claims now present, and has seemingly (to read the prose) been written by an admirer of the founder and the practice. Any nascent U.S. synthesis martial art, disconnected from traditional roots and lineage, has detractors. To be perfectly honest, with the glowing account of the founder and the excessive philosophical detail, this reads like a brochure.

5. Article stability? The article has not been the subject of any recent or ongoing edit wars.

6. Images?: There are properly attributed and well-used images.

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

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

Problems with sources

Quoting from Wikipedia policy,

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

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

Ahem, they are acceptable under the very terms of those policies you quoted, as the terms of those policies with regards to self-published works in topics about them. The claims are cited, and that included books which have been through outside editorial review by non-vanity presses, which are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. --Wingsandsword (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you derive from those policies that the references are acceptable? I can't see how you derive the exact opposite of what the policies state. I think we could open this up for discussioin in the martial arts group on Wikipedia, but before we do that, I'd like to see a better explanation from you. The claims are cited, but the references aren't acceptable by policiy. The policies don't differentiate between vanity and non-vanity press, so I don't know why you think that's relevant. (though, I must say, I can't find any source which states whether or not Human Kinetics is a vanity press, so that's a red herring anyway) -198.97.67.57 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone writing about their own art it a primary source, so use for contentious claims like endorsements is not good. I know nothing about the quality of the books, Paladin Press covers speciality topics especially martial arts, & related areas but I don't think it's a vanity press but I also don't think it has a wide peer review policy, see the article. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071001044323/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids=100247292:100247292&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=May+5%2C+1992&author=FRAN+HENRY&pub=The+Plain+Dealer&edition=&startpage=NOPGCIT&desc=In+self-defense+hit+your+attacker+where+it+counts+Callers+to+our+everywoman+hot+line+have+asked+for+information+about+how+to+protect+themselves.+We%27re+happy+to+oblige. to http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/plaindealer/offers.html?url=%2Fplaindealer%2Faccess%2F100247292.html%3Fdids%3D100247292%3A100247292%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DMay%2B5%252C%2B1992%26author%3DFRAN%2BHENRY%26pub%3DThe%2BPlain%2BDealer%26edition%3D%26startpage%3DNOPGCIT%26desc%3DIn%2Bself-defense%2Bhit%2Byour%2Battacker%2Bwhere%2Bit%2Bcounts%2BCallers%2Bto%2Bour%2Beverywoman%2Bhot%2Bline%2Bhave%2Basked%2Bfor%2Binformation%2Babout%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bprotect%2Bthemselves.%2BWe%2527re%2Bhappy%2Bto%2Boblige.

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)