Talk:Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū/Archive 1

"[TSKS-ryū] is the oldest extant martial art in Japan" and "[TSKS-ryū] is the source tradition of Japanese martial arts"

Those are big claims. Someone care to back that up?--Rustedshuriken 03:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in your mind, but realistically there is nothing 'big claim' about TSKSR currently being the oldest extant martial art in Japan - it is merely a statement of chronological order which would apply to any organisation at any moment in time. Someone has to be the oldest - that's it! No quality judgement, the organisation could be good, bad or indifferent. Biased sensitivy detected.--19:18, 19 May 2006 198.54.202.130

Saying it's true doesn't make it true. See WP:V.

I'll address the claims in reverse order. First, the claim "[TSKS-ryū] is the source tradition of Japanese martial arts" is simply wrong. There are many martial schools which followed TSKS-ryū that claim other origins, who claim independant development, or whose origins are at least unclear. Of the schools listed in wikipedia, Jikiden Eishin-ryu and Shinto Muso-ryu come to mind. Furthermore, the idea that martial discipline did not exist prior to TSKS-ryū is ridiculously arrogant, historically inaccurate, and many schools do claim lineages older than TSKS-ryū.

This leads into the other claim, that "[TSKS-ryū] is the oldest extant martial art in Japan." It's not obvious what the intended meaning here is, but I'll take it to mean "the oldest martial art with an unbroken line of soke," which seems reasonable, but is nevertheless dubious. Daito-ryu and Togakure Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, and Shinden Fudo Ryu of the Bujinkan immediately come to mind as examples of schools which claim unbroken lineages going further back than TSKS-ryū.

I should mention here that the original phrasing was "[TSKS-ryū] is one of the oldest extant martial arts in Japan." It was some later editor that removed the words "one of"--if someone were to reinsert these words I would have no problem with the claim. The second claim however, that "[TSKS-ryū] is the source tradition of [all? -RS] Japanese martial arts" is absurd and should be removed. --Rustedshuriken 09:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's been two and a half weeks since I first marked the claims in the article and no one has cited sources, I went ahead and made some minor (but meaningful) changes. I added the words "one of" to the first claim, to make it "[TSKS-ryū] is one of the oldest extant martial arts in Japan," and added the word "many" to the second, making it "[TSKS-ryū] is the source tradition of many Japanese martial arts." If these changes are unsatisfactory, please discuss it here. --Rustedshuriken 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any of the Bujinkan schools predate TSKSR. Masaaki Hatsumi has refused to present documentation (for whatever reason). Certainly, Takagi Yoshin-ryu and Kukishin-ryu are legitimate koryu, but there is absolutely no evidence to support Togakure-ryu as a koryu. The claim that it was founded in the 12th or 13th century (before martial ryu existed!) is laughable. Many people have pointed this fact out (Karl Friday, Meik Skoss). Daito-ryu existed in its current form only after Takeda Sokaku. Prior to that point, it can not truly be considered a ryu. There is in fact a lot of academic discussion (and a lot of uncertainty) about where Daito-ryu comes from and what it consisted of prior to Takeda Sokaku sensei.

The fact is, there is tons of evidence documenting TSKSR. While it is certainly not the source for all of JMA, nor was it the first martial art, it is undoubtedly the oldest extant Japanese martial art. -- this unsigned comment was left by Drosera99

There is no way to prove the statement, so we must leave it qualified as "one of". —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

spelling

Does anyone know the kanji for Iizasa Yoshisada? Most Internet sources name the current, 20th headmaster as Iizasa shuri-no-suke Yasusada. Also, has someone compiled a list of the various ISBN numbers (are there more than six?) of various versions of the Deity and the Sword book? (I plan to write more about this fascinating, cryptic book in the future but I currently do not own the whole set of three volumes.) jni 10:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've only ever seen or heard it as Yoshisada. How many volumes do you have? User:Peregrine 20:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just received the last one of the three. The vol. 1 spells soke's name as Yasusada both in Romaji and in furigana. I'll put some kanjis in this article when I got time for it. jni 10:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The kanji for yasu I just put in this article is indeed commonly spelt as yoshi, but I cannot find either yasusada or yoshisada with this combination of kanjis in Jim Breen's ENAMDICT nor in any other dictionary I have. Therefore I have assumed that Deity and the Sword spells it correctly, unless other evidence surfaces. Maybe yasu is a reading specific to the family or something, I don't know. jni 14:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

split school

My point is not the ownership of the school but rather that a couple of comments I've heard from the soke have tended to indicate that he'd rather see a reconciliation than a casting out. Though that may also be matter of translating Japanese non-confrontationalism.

The situation with Sugino-ha and Sugawara-ha has been discussed repeatedly in various Internet forums. I don't think we should rehash this topic here. It is sufficient to mention in passing in the article text that there are people operating independent from the Iizasa family (like the article currently says), but I would leave it to that. Let the TSKSR decide on its policy in privacy. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated in any way to any branch of TSKSR but I have been an avid observer of this koryu for a few years. Do you have any closer connection to the TSKSR than I? jni 10:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"I don't think we should rehash this topic here" Absolutely, just feel as currently written goes into this futher than is necessary, Am editing now to bring things more into line with your suggestion. Not much more connection then you, trained for some years with a student of Sugino Yukihiro sensei and shorter periods with a student of Otake sensei and one of Sugino Yoshio sensei. Will swing by later to check what you have to say. About the name, do you know when the current soke inherited the school, just making sure it isn't since '77 (when the books were published). Cheers

Would it be possible for someone with a little more knowledge about the Sugino situation to write something about it? Ilmarinen 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there exists a source about the current status with Sugino that satisfies the criterias spelled out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Internet rumors say they are close to reconsiliation with the "official" TSKSR, even demonstrating together in major embu, but I haven't seen any sources reliable enough for Wikipedia's purposes about that. As of this writing, Relnick's site lists five persons that are eligible to represent the school in West, and I tend to believe this list reflects the current situation as the way Iizasa-sōke wants it for now. That is, everyone else, including the practitioners in Norway and Finland, are part of some schismatic group(s), not the real tradition. jni 09:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Keitoo - lineage

The three volumes do not give the date when he inherited the school, but I guess it happened about when 19th soke (Iizasa Kinjiro) died (another date I don't know). Published material in 2002 (Ellis Amdur: Old School and Skoss et.al. vol2, see koryu.com for detailed references about these books) also indicate the 20th soke is the current one, so there has not been a change between 1977 and 2002. It is unlikely that the status has changed after 2002: there would have been a discussion about it in e-budo.com or in Iaido-L. The lineage of headmasters is (according to the Otake's book, all with surname iizasa, numbers 7-20 with shuri-no-suke as a "middle-name"):
1. Choisai Ienao
2. Wakasa-no-kami Morichika
3. Wakasa-no-kami Morinobu
4. Yamashiro-no-kami Moritsuna
5. Saemon-no-jo Morihide
6. Oi-no-kami Morishige
7. Shuri-no-suke Morinobu
8. Morinaga
9. Morihisa
10. Morisada
11. Morishige
12. Moritsugu
13. Morikiyo
14. Nagateru
15. Moriteru
16. Morishige (Kanrokusai)
17. Morifusa
18. Morisada
19. Kinjiro
20. Yasusada
I try to wikify this better later jni 14:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proper title?

The title of this entry should be "Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu," with "Katori Shinto-ryu" redirecting to it.

Quite right, I came here to post the same thing.

You both are absolutely right, we should use the full title instead of abbreviating it. The members seem to prefer the full form, if Deity and the Sword is to be believed. I have now performed the move. My apologies for not fixing this earlier. jni 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why one has chosen to write Shinto-ryu, as opposed to Shinto Ryu. --Kongoshin 07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is mainly for consistency with articles about other koryu. It would be a very tedious task of changing them all and also futile since it is just a punctuation/romanization issue. Some ruy like Kashima-Shinryu have their own convention about proper romanization and we follow that when there is a clear preference by ruy members to use just one particular spelling. jni 09:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Expanding?

I see alot of reference material posted in the article but very little overall text. I think this article can afford to expand. :) Fred26 07:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sugino situation again

An unverified statement about Sugino branch is yet again being repeatedly included in this article. I think it should be removed until the claim has been documented in reliable sources. Amdur (2002), Skoss (1999) and Phil Relnick's website (which is an official publication of the ryu according to Amdur & Skoss) make it clear they believe the Otake lineage to be the only authentic lineage. jni 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sugino situation - more information

Someone asked about a clarification of the Sugino situation - and I'll try to be of assistance. I entered this statement into the article. My purpose was to inform that Yuishinkan Sugino Dojo (Kawasaki, Japan) is not a rogue school teaching TSKSR without the recognition of the Soke. I know by my own experience (I went to see Soke in April) that the relationship between Soke and Yukihiro Sugino sensei and his students is very good. They meet regularly, and Sugino sensei visits Honbu with his students. I write this, because there are so many statements out there about the illegitimacy of Sugino sensei.

My clear understanding is that Sugino Dojo teaches with the blessing of Soke. The full names of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu and Soke are always spoken before Sugino Dojo does a demonstration. Sometimes they do demonstrations alone, at other times Otake senseis students are demonstrating at the same time. Both under the name of Soke.

Yukihiro Sugino sensei is not trying to portray his teachings as a "Sugino-ha" - rather he is, in a very serious and dedicated way, transmitting the schools teachings as they were given to him by his father Yoshio Sugino sensei. Yoshio Sugino was a student of Ichizo Shiina sensei and three other sensei from Honbu. They, in turn, were the students of Kumajiro Yamaguchi shihan and the 18th Soke - Iizasa Shuri no Suke Morisada. I believe he would think of it as an insult to his late teachers were he to put his own name into the name of the school.

My teacher has the verbal blessing and permisson from Soke to teach in Norway. It wouldn't be proper for her to ask for a written permission - his word is enough. Soke is interested in and happy for the teaching going on in Norway. Kusano sensei has been practicing TSKSR for over 30 years. That's all I can tell you. Other groups must speak for themselves.

Quote:

"I don't think there exists a source about the current status with Sugino that satisfies the criterias spelled out in Wikipedia:Verifiability."

I think that the foreword to Yoshio Sugino sensei and Kikue Ito senseis book (Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu Budo Kyohan 1941/1977) by the 19th soke is verifiable enough:

"...The social situation here no longer allows us to keep the secrets of the Katori Shinto Ryu doctrine within the school. Since the appearance, in the spring of 1935, of the association for the revival of martial arts in Japan, I feel guilty that I have allowed some of our founders' arts to die out, therefore, I have chosen, as a service to our nation, to show the general public, through the handling of the sword, certain parts of Shinto Ryu. At the right moment, Master Sugino suggested publishing, with Mr. ITO KIKOUE's assistance, the existing techniques in order to guide the youngest amongst us. I gave him my support and hence this book has come to see the light of day.

It contains the wealth of the author's experiences, conveys the essential spirit of the martial [art] and explains in detail the Omote Waza techniques. It may be used as a manual for beginners or for those wishing to perfect their knowledge. Being published, at this time when, attempts are being made to popularize the martial arts, I feel certain that this book will be of service to future society.

Lastely I must express my admiration for the authors and the efforts that they have made.

Signed at Katori, Mid-Autumn 1941.

IIZASA SHURI NO SUKE KINJIRO, 19th descendant of the founder."

12:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kongoshin, thank you for your long and informative comment. Now, let me answer to various points you are making:

1. You are mostly referring to your own personal experiences and (inside) information you have learned from your fellow practitioners of Sugino TSKSR and (I'm guessing here) from various postings to Internet discussion forums and such. You have met Iizasa-sensei so you are in a lucky position of learning directly from him. However, while having such learning opportunities is no doubt very valuable for you personally, they still cannot be considered as verifiable, published sources, no matter how many Sugino adherents repeat the same story. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, which says: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
2. Your critique of term "Sugino-ha": I agree you here, using the -ha prefix can form an impression that Sugino has deliberately and formally cut his organization out of the ryu "trunk" (instead of the split being more like a historical accident). Since the term "Sugino-ha" cannot be found from any sources I have read I'm tempted to change it to "Sugino branch" or "Sugino's organization" or something that does not use potentially misleading Japanese terminology.
3. Eri Kusano's verbal blessing to teach TSKSR in Norway: Why is it then that Phil Relnick's website, which we know is a publication of the ryu, does not mention her? In fact we find this directly contradicting statement: in fact, no one is permitted to represent in any way, or teach the techniques of this ryū without a written Shidōsha (instructor) license from Ōtake Risuke Shihan. Note the word written. Also Amdur (2002) takes a very strong stance in defence of Relnick's position, and Amdur's book being a published source we cannot easily ignore it.
4. I'm familiar with this often cited passage from the preface of TSKSR Budo Kyohan book. The standard reply to this is the point that Japanese history professor Karl Friday makes in his essay The Whole Legitimacy Thing (originally posted to Iaido-L list, republished by koruy.com). Quote: Even permission to teach granted by a past headmaster or even by the current headmaster in the past doesn't necessarily legitimize current instruction; the right to teach the ryûha AS THE ryûha is only as good as the current headmaster agrees that it is (kind of the way that having once had a driver's license doesn't necessarily make you an authorized driver, unless it's kept properly renewed). If I remember correctly, G Cameron Hurst III also makes this point in one of his journal articles about origins of the ruy-ha system in medieval Japan (need to research this at some point). Also, Budo Kyohan, cannot tell us anything at all about the current situation since it was published over 60 years ago.

Answers:

1. I understand this, and this is what's causing the problems. I have moderated the statement in the article so that it only states the fact that Sugino sensei teaches TSKSR. I would suggest leaving out the original comment about his status being "unknown". --Kongoshin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Very good. --Kongoshin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Her verbal permission was not to her directly from Soke, not by Otake sensei. Also, Mr. Relnick does not list Erik Loew sensei, who actually has a teaching license from Otake sensei. Loews license is here: http://www.aikidojo.nl/uploads/images/470/holland_kenshinkai.JPG --Kongoshin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
4. "Budo Kyohan" is the last verifiable source from the Soke which states that Sugino is legitimate. All subsequent publications that state otherwise are presenting second-hand information. -- 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So the crux of the problem is that the claim marked by {{fact}}, of Iizasa-sensei supporting the Sugino groups cannot be found from independent, primary or secondary source materials. jni 08:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore I've changed the statement, as it does not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines.

Maybe we could make this page a place for historical information, and not a place for "political" statements of either group.

One way could be to make sections about Otake sensei and Sugino senseis groups - with their history and linage. This way, the reader may judge for themselves. -- 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent change is allright with me. Of course in future someone will change that paragraph to legitimatize his own teach-it-from-videos-sensei as a TSKSR instructor or advance some other extreme point of view, so this issue is really a constant headache. Thanks for the Loew information, it may be that Relnick's list is incomplete after all. As for readers judging for themselves, that is exactly how this debate should be presented. As WP:NOR says: In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. And after this has been achieved, best would be just ignore the rift in ryu completely and concentrate on expanding this article. I'll reply to your private message later this evening. jni 14:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Erik Louw sensei only switched to Otake style a few years ago (having trained with Yoshio Sugino sensei and Goro Hatakeyama sensei for many years). With him a number of his students with their respective dojos in nearby cities and neighbouring countries also made that same switch.

He only received a teaching license from Otake sensei fairly recently, which may explain the delayed update on Relnick's page (which now correctly lists him as an instructor). Being averse to politics, Louw sensei's emphasis has always been on training rather than on official recognition. But maybe a link to his dojo could be added to the external links section?

TSKSR in Holland: http://www.aikidojo.nl/ksr.html (English)

213.118.4.28 05:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

This article needs a few illustrating pictures. All the best ones I have seen in web come with restrictive copyright making them unuseable for Wikipedia. Anyone willing to share a few photos showing TSKSR practise? Ones with Otake-sensei or other senior members would be preferable but anything at all would be better than nothing. jni 15:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a problem. Japanese teachers do not like being photomodels for the Internet. And if you put a picture of one dojo for this world-wide resource, a quarrel "why is it your picture here" will eventually arise. So it's really best without pictures. Keeps things calm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taurvat (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

fakes

i think this article should also address the "false" schools that are found in the US. i believe it is a very controversial topic in the american kenjutsu comunity

Erik Louw IS listed on Phil Relnicks TSKSR site

Phil Relnick has indeed put Erik Louw as an legit and official teacher of the TSKSR-site: [1]. There are still no mentioning of an officially licensed practitioner in Norway though. However, I do know of a Sugino-ha dojo in Finland that recently made the switch (and Keppan) to Otake Risuke. They were, however, NOT allowed to teach new students as they lacked a license. Still legit but also still invisible on Phil Relnicks site, eventhough Relnick and the son of Otake Risuke was in Finland in person to oversee the "rebirth"-ceremony. Fred26 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Who will add more info on TSKSR?

This article has been at a standstill with the exception of minor corrections for the past 4 months. I would really REALLY like to see this article expanded. Surely there must be at least one Katori Shinto-ryu practitioner who can add some info to this article without getting excommunicated by Otake Risuke Sensei?. I can only add shallow information and I too many commitments to be of more use to this article anyways. I would really like for someone to kickstart this article with more info. Fred26 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this is perhaps a bit of an odd thing. But why not contact the teachers that are affiliated with the ryu and ask them if they'd like to update it? They would be the most qualified to do so.

That would be best yes. Unfortunetly its a bit more..complex...TSKSR-people are generally not very "outward" when it comes to talking about TSKSR, and that includes articles such as this, especially when they dont have full control over what is written and the info must be from a very VERY high-level TSKSR-practitioner... Officially writing a book about TSKSR requires a permit from the big boss in Japan..If it is a book we are talking about anyways and not necessarily an article, but still there is alot of hush hush in TSKSR so there wont be many TSKSR-practitioners openly volonteering for editing-work. Fred26 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On the bright side, there's the new book from Koryu Books coming out (Katori Shinto-ryu: Warrior Tradition) that will shed some light on a few new topics that were previously unpublished. I, for one thing, am particularly excited to see what they have written about TSKSR's ninjutsu! (JRK)

I trained in Yoseikan for 25 years, that school was founded by Mochizuki sensei, I was told he stated training before Otake, he had seniority but declined to become head teacher and founded the Yoseikan, defering to the younger Otake. Also in the Yoseikan the history tells it like this; when Otake became head teacher he reinstated the title 'Tenshin Shoden', the Yoseikan used the title Katori shinto ryu only, to differ from the main line. I have no written reference for this that fits Wiki's guidelines, but someone else might. Mochizuki published a master book on all the Katori teachings in the 1980s in Japanese but this book was sent out only to about 30 people with branch ranking at that time. By the Jigaro Kano also held a Menkyo from the school according to Yoseikan history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.185.35 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Change in Head Instructor?

According to this page http://www.aikiken.fi/articles.php?lng=en&pg=106 it states that Kyoso Shigetoshi is now the current Head Instructor of TSKSR. However, this is the only site that I have seen that has made this claim. Phil Relnick's page still states that Otake Risuke is Shihan, and was last updated on April 25th of this year. Is there anyone who can clarify? (JRK)

Hm..now that you mention it, I do remember reading something about Otake Risuke stepping down as the head-instructor in favour of his son (Kyoso Shigetoshi). I was hesitant to update the page as I don't know details like if Otake now holds an official "retired instructor" title or if he is semi-retired. I'm gonna ask around first and then update the page with more info on Otakes retirement. Fred26 08:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, do you suppose it is possible that Kyoso Shigetoshi is acting as a second shihan alongside his father? In Ellis Amdur's book, he mentions that "...some previous generations have had more than one shihan," (Old School 24) so could this be the case now with Kyoso Shigetoshi? (JRK) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.200.153 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

If Ellis Amdur writes it then it's prolly accurate. Unfortunetly I havent gotten a reply to my inquiry yet on e-budo. Either they dont know or they dont care to reply. Until we hear specifically from official sources saying otherwise we should assume Otake Risuke Sensei is still technically the headmaster. Better be safe than sorry. Fred26 08:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please pay attention to dates. The above link gives date of article as "Creation date : 31.05.2006 @ 10:23". In the middle of this april, Otake-sensei still was the head teacher. Which means that the above article is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.27.210 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

You have the advantage here. I dont know anything about Otake Risuke Sensei status but you obviously do. I had no idea that "in the middle of april" Otake Sensei was still the head teacher because that is exactly what we were trying to figure out in the first place. Fred26 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So if you have solid information that Otake Risuke is still the headmaster and that the above article is incorrectly phrased then we'll just leave the article as it is, like I said we would. Fred26 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If my eyes may serve as a source of "solid information" :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.27.210 (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't really see how that changes anything. As I mentioned before, Ellis Amdur has pointed out that in the past they have had more than one person act as Shihan at the same time. The website in question states that Shigetoshi is shihan, while Phil Relnick's website states that Otake is shihan. Both might (emphasis on 'might') be true, and whether one site states a fact before another is therefore irrelevant in this case. But in anycase, I agree with Fred...(JRK) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.200.153 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Let me just point out I never said that I think this is a similar dual-shihan situation with Otake and Kyoso, I'm just agreeing with Amdur. Fred26 12:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyoso-sensei has gokui kaiden certificate issued by Otake-sensei. This makes him "a person who has full knowledge of the school", but Otake-sensei is still the head teacher in honbu, with Kyoso-sensei and Arano-sensei as his closest assistants. There is obviously a mistranslation on the above web-site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.231.27.210 (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Membership

I was reading the paragraph today and it made some claims that could be interpreted as being official. (The 1-4 on the membership as well as stating that these rules have been relaxed.) I'm curious as to where this information was obtained. I just want to make sure it's accurate and no one get's a very false impression. (Maybe the rules have been relaxed in someones point of view, but maybe the official stance is otherwise.) I'll leave it alone for a few days but I think its important not to send a message that runs contrary to whatever the stance might be by the current headmaster and shihan of TSKSR.

I am sure you are curious :-) The problem of getting any 'insiders' of Otake's TSKSR to share any reality information is well-known and has already been expressed before (refer commentaries above). BUT, a request was made for someone who was personally involved with the school to provide some pertinent insights. So here I am (with some years' involvement in TSKSR), being outward. If a moderator, possibly with a vested interest in the school or with a sense of acute koryu-cop-itis (an affliction affecting, interestingly, only westerners by the way), is going to get overly protective, then the request for information will bear little fruits. Unless, of course, that is the strategy - saying one thing (an audit check on existing members?) yet wanting the other. The case in question - concerning the Dojo rules, their application, and the so-called 'official stance' - being used as a rain-check. The rules are official: being part of the content of the written Dojo Rules sheet freely circulated to all prospective trainees/visitors at Otake's Narita dojo. Their application of course is a totally different matter and reflects reality against a so-called 'official stance'; the latter being a political face generally used on those occasions deemed appropriate to buoy up a particularly desirable image. What is relevant to the wider world-wide users of Wikipedia, however, is what is actually happening in the Otake school, not just the 'official stance'. In recent years, particularly over the two popular visiting periods of spring and autumn, the dojo has become increasing crowded at official training classes with the growing numbers of visiting students from a variety of western countries - quite recently 10 from Holland, with further groups from Russia, France, and Ireland on the wing; others having departed. Students line the dojo walls and crowd into the adjacent entrance-hall hoping to get a turn on the dojo floor which can only accommodate 2-pairs of trainees safely at a time. Westerners far outnumber the Japanese membership (the significantly enlarged membership-board abounds with freshly inscribed katakana - more than a hundred in the last year). The latter are not at all happy with this newish trend. Suffice to say, none of these seasonal students are resident in Japan. Many of them, if not the majority, are current practitioners of other arts, particularly of aikido. Only one of the newly appointed, and soon-to-be-appointed, group of shidosha (country representatives) has ever been resident in Japan, and that was decades ago unrelated to Otake's school. I would say it is a very reasonable conclusion for any objective thinker/enquirer to arrive at, that there has been (in reality) a significant relaxation in the application of stated Dojo rules. Any official stance at variance to this is mere political puff. Sadly, any such continued (diverging) pronouncements would stand at risk of projecting an 'official stance' of intentional ambiguity and an underlying lack of moral fibre in the school's obvious rush to embrace the burgeoning market demand. (41.242.67.152 05:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Ah ok, thank you for the clarification. I see your point, it's an interesting predicament.

Image

Beautiful. At last we have an illustration of Sugino Yoshio, a publicly recognised, outstanding master swordsman of TSKSR. Hopefully an image of Otake senior will soon also be posted.

I can include a screen shot of Otake Sensei, from my Nihon no Kobudo DVD of Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, would this be a) acceptable, and b) be within copyright? The fair use for a screen shot say you should not use it if a real non-copyright image could be used. So I guess the question is, is anyone willing to use a personal image of Otake Sensei? If not then the screen shot should be usable under wiki copyright rules(as I understand it). Regards, Grahamwild 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would rather avoid DVD-covers, and in particular this photo. A photo of Sugino or Otake doing a kenjutsu-kata would look better. Unfortunetly I have no idea where to find a good one with no copyright-tag on it. Fred26 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a DVD cover is a good way to get around the fact that images are, as Taurvat pointed out, "a problem (as) Japanese teachers do not like being photomodels for the Internet." Sugino Sensei obviously approved of this image being used, as the DVD is sold around the world, and this is used on the internet already. In terms of the image, the te ura gasumi is great, I don't see why this would be a problem. Having said that I would welcome a better image if it can be found. Regards, Grahamwild 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the photo because it is commercial. But again thats just me. This is the type of photo I preferr. [2] or [3] last but not least [4]. Unfortunetly I doubt those photos are released into the PD. Fred26 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As Fred26 rightly said, that's just him, and most of his examples (the paired-action ones) would not be particularly clear anyway, unless staged, hence also 'commercial'. Grahamwild's choice of image is a good, clear illustration of the likeness of the person it is meant to represent, who, up until his recent demise, was the most senior practitioner of TSKSR. In addition it is not merely a portrait shot but also illustrates one of the fundamental movements of the system. There are plenty of similar photos of Otake senior available from his new book, which obviously have his approval for public circulation through the worldwide marketing currently underway; indicating his happiness to be a photomodel. There should be no practical reason why Otake would not then be happy to approve of their further usage for wikipedia considering the benefits it could add to his book's popularity. Possibly one of his students would do the honour of arranging an illustration of Otake's choice. Maybe students of Yukihiro Sugino, Hatakeyama, and Sugawara could also be encouraged to post clear images of their chief instructors; not forgetting one of the soke of the school, of course. Such a selection would certainly inprove the quality and usefulness of this article for broader reference purposes.

Right. I can see its no use. Use whatever photo you wish. As for Otake Sensei giving permission to use photos of him on this article: I'm assuming that you are training KSR with Charles Louw (maybe you are him) so you will have no difficulty in contacting Otake Sensei and get his permission. All the best. Fred26 19:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not realise you had proprietary rights of photo choice for this article. Who's training? Who's Charles Louw? Who has easy access to Otake? Wrong assumptions as well in this case.

You claimed in your post further up that you had experience of TSKR: (BUT, a request was made for someone who was personally involved with the school to provide some pertinent insights.

So here I am (with some years' involvement in TSKSR), being outward.)

Since you are personally involved with the school then I figured you were training with Charles Louw, the official South African Katori Shinto-ryu representative. And no I dont have the final word on which photographs to choose, but I obviously wasn't getting anywhere in presenting alternatives so I gave up trying. One more thing, its easier to keep track of entries if you type your signature. Type four "~" without the ". Fred26 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse here. But why not use an image of Katori shrine? It has deep connections to TSKSR and is a good way of representing the art without focusing on any individual instructor. 68.185.36.200 (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Keppan

Part of the recent additions to the article concerning Keppan do not comport with the verifiability requirement of a published source. Specifically, in the last paragraph:

1. "Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū variants headed by instructors other than Risuke Otake do not require keppan."

Is this verifiable from a legitimate written third party source? This contains what at best is anecdotal comment and opinion based upon that comment. While the writer may claim to be speaking from personal knowledge, that is not sufficient to support the inclusion of this information.

2. "Even in the case of Risuke Otake, with the recent international spread of teaching centres operating formally or informally under his auspices, the application of keppan is no longer feasible or even required of foreign students until such time as any of those trainees opt to visit Japan to train at the Narita headquarters. The current situation therefore reflects foreign students of all streams of Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū receiving instruction on their home-grounds free of this traditional feudal-period entry requirement."

Same comment as to verifiability in written legitimate third party source. Where is it documented that this practice is no longer required and that keppan can only be administered when the trainee visits Japan to train at the Narita Headquarters? The comment on feasibility is opinion only. The concluding sentence is opinion that is based on unverified comment and is not necessarily the only conclusion that can be inferred even if it is verifiable nor is it necessarily correct.

Phil Relnick's website which represents the ryu's position provides the following: "Even today, the ryū retains the traditionally strict custom in which a candidate for study in the ryū is required to execute the keppan, signing, in the person's own blood, a solemn oath to abide by the policies of the ryū. In this way, the Tenshinshō-den Katori Shintō Ryū has been able to maintain the originality of its teachings, both in spirit and form, precisely as Master Iizasa Chōisai Ienao, the founder, detailed these matters over 600 years ago." This contradicts the above claims and satisfies the requirement of verifiability. This is further supported in Otake's recent book (Katori Shinto-ryu Warrior Tradition) where he states: "To this cay, the teachings of the tradition have been kept secret through the strict requirement that candidates for membership sign an oath in blood, called keppan...(at page 21)" As this is the most recent and authoritative pronouncement from the sole representative of the soke and Shihan of the ryu it should be controlling.

3. "Considering Otake's school one could reasonably speculate that the necessity of what has in reality become a largely (apparently) irrelevant if not unmanageable ceremonial entry-ritual, unless any foreigner actually wanted to train in Japan, would need to be re-evaluated in order to protect its historical integrity against claims of duplicity of standards or exclusionary practices."

This is mere speculation and opinion and should be deleted. Further it is once again based on comments that do not meet the requirements as verifiability and is directly contradicted by the most recent publications of the ryu.

I would like comments from others but would propose that the entire quoted sections be deleted from the article. Tomm27 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that third paragraph is just a personal opinion and should not be present here. Not to mention that there is nothing "unimaginably ceremonial" about keppan. It's actually a quite short and formal procedure (this is from personal experience). It's all about following and preserving tradition, after all.

Based on the authoritative written sources from the ryu both on the internet in Phil Relnick's site and the pronouncements of Otake Sensei in his recent book published in the last month that I referenced above, I have changed the last paragraph in this part of the article to more accurately state the position of the ryu. With regard to other variants, I left that unchanged pending some citation or support that complies with the requirement for verifiability.Tomm27 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kanji for names of kata

Does TSKSR use 面 or 表 for "omote"? Also, someone with proper resources should double-check the kanji and translations in the table. Bradford44 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by Katori Shinto-ryu: Warrior Tradition, they use 表 for omote. In addition, they seem to use the kanji　之 for "no." For example, "Omote no Tachi" (表之太刀). 24.84.200.153 08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If it says so in the new Katori book then it can definetly be considered reliable. Fred26 09:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The book also indicates that 七条 is used for "Shichijo" in the kata names. I'll go ahead and fix that. 24.84.200.153 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Membership - Jon J. Rojas

There was a recent change to the "Membership" section adding the following claim: "Currently the only Non-Japanese instructor teaching outside of Japan is Jon J. Rojas of Los Angeles, California (USA)."

What verifiable written authority exists for this claim. Mr. Rojas' name clearly does not appear on the Mr. Relnick's website which speaks for the ryu as to those who have been licensed to teach. Who has authorized him to teach? Where is it documented. Again do we wish to list every person who may claim to teach for the ryu regardless of credentials or training. For instance those who have been previously listed have a direct connnection through Otake or through Sugino and are quite senior.

Further this statement is patently false as belied by Mr. Relnick's website which lists those authorized by the Ryu to teach. As a result I have removed this edit pending some verifiable proof meeting wiki standards. Tomm27 00:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As the statement is phrased right now I can say that it is 100% false as Phil Relnick is, and has been for quite some time, a non-japanese fully authorized to teach TSKSR. A search for a a "Jon Rojas" in the Los Angeles areas gave numerous results (skateboarders, teens etc) but none of them katori related. I would delete & ignore this entry. Fred26 10:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sugawara branch keppan

This is the oath from the "unofficial" Sugawara branch of TSKSR, verbatim:

When I become a member of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, which has been handed down by the Great Deity of the Katori Shrine, I herewith affirm my pledge of absolute secrecy about matters of this ryu.

I will not have the impertinence to discuss or demonstrate my martial techniques to non-members.

I will never make disreputable use of my martial knowledge.

I will not cross swords with any followers of martial traditions without a full certificate of full proficiency in my art.

I now pledge to firmly keep each of the above articles. Should I break any of the articles, I will submit to the punishment of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu. Herewith I solemnly swear and affix my signature to this oath.

24.249.102.33 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence from the Keppan section: "Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū variants headed by instructors other than Risuke Otake do not require keppan" because it is simply not true, and has no references. Some offshoot schools may not require the keppan, but the Sugawara branch does, making the deleted statement invalid. 24.249.102.33 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

keppan and the "split-school" (again)

If we consider the act of taking keppan as being an oath you take in order to become a member of the Katori Shinto-ryu school, then this entire discussion is moot. "Some offshoot schools" are not part of the official school, and whether or not they require keppan is completely beside the point. To determine which dojo are "some offshoot school" and which aren't, there's a very simple rule: does the teacher have a valid teaching license? If not, they are "some offshoot school".

I don't want to rehash the entire Otake/Sugino/etc... discussion here, but here's what I know for a fact:

1. Yoshio Sugino took his keppan in the 60s and was licensed to teach by the previous soke. Yukihiro Sugino never took keppan, neither did Goro Hatakeyama (the source of all this information is Risuke Otake himself). While soke might have had some contact with either of these two in an attempt at reconciliation, at the moment they are not official members of the school, regardless of their knowledge or skill. Until they take keppan, I doubt they will be. I also don't know of any official teaching licenses they may have received (evidence of which might once and for all settle this dispute). Since Yoshio Sugino's teaching license ended when he died, and no license was presented to his son, I doubt the Sugino dojo is still considered to be an official TSKSR dojo.

2. I know of two people who were members of Otake's dojo, but were expelled ("hamon", their name-tag ritually burned). These are Sugawara and Afaq. It is perhaps ironic that those are the two people still teaching TSKSR while also requiring of their students to take keppan. Technically they are in no position to make anyone an official member of the school since they've been kicked out. Regarding the reason for hamon, I don't know the specifics in Sugawara's case, but suffice it to say this is not something done on a whim. I also take it that on being kicked out, any teaching licenses they may have held were revoked.

While this Wikipedia article deserves to make a cursory mention of the contributions various other people made to TSKSR, it should also be noted that this is all they did. They have no valid claims or official input in the school. The article should also reflect that, in order to - as someone else stated before - prevent any "teach it from videos sensei" to corrupt what has now become an "Intangible Cultural Asset" which soke, Otake sensei and his son are sworn to protect. Going out of your way to mention or include other branch dojo when it isn't needed is therefor pointless and bestowing them with a false sense of legitimacy. If someone chooses not to be a member of TSKSR, for whatever reason, they have only themselves to blame.

As such, I think there's no need to include all the habits, quirks and traditions of "offshoot dojo" in the article. I have therefor removed the parts about branch dojo not requiring keppan, as well shortening the example of the 2007 open European seminar by removing the part "according to Erik Louw, country representative for Holland" (unless this is required to make the article compliant with the citation guideline. 81.246.44.54 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of a contemporary situation (variants of TSKSR instruction being readily and easily accessible to the general public around the world) that actually exists appears to have been actioned on 'political' grounds even though such a consideration had been simultaneously decried. Wikipedia attempts to present issues as they actually are, for all the associated political complexities, and not according to the particular political expediency of certain elements of this martial art system. Any attempt to remove the reality of the modern day availability of instruction in the technical skills appropos TSKSR, offered by a number of other licensed and recognised instructors of the art (whether their 'political licences' are still current or not) smacks of determined discrimination and censorship. I am unsure but certainly reject your covert motivation to PUBLICALLY defame two indiviuals by name, and would suggest an immediate PUBLIC apology be extended to them would lift you out of the mud - when such 'hamon' was not PUBLIC knowledge in the first place, not relevant to your attempt to delete the mention of any other 'variants' of instruction, NOR, the subject (of keppan requirements by organisations) in hand, except to justify the suspected discrimination mentioned or in support of someone's political agenda). Or less, provide the published citations that support your allegations.

Otake is the currently-appointed 'chief instructor' (by Soke), that has never been under question. That there are other technically qualified instructors, verified through the licences awarded to them by Soke at some stage or other, currently teaching the technical skills of TSKSR is also not under question. Their current political status is the only aspect that keeps raising its head ad nauseam . Such imploding political smoke and mirrors do not warrant a place in wikipedia, and should be kept for inter-organisations members' karaoke, instead of demeaning this historical Japanese cultural asset by such barter.

I think the teaching licenses are actually part of what is being challenged here. Do the "condoned" instructors actually have those? About a year ago, someone had to link to an online picture of Erik Louw's teaching licence before people would concede. And even then only after his name finally appeared on Phil Relnick's site. Why not extend the same requirement to some of the "branch dojo" then? Unless we seriously DO want to include every "teach it from videos" clown as well.

But all that aside, I don't think anyone is questioning these people's technical skills, or the value of their contributions. What's being questioned is whether "condoned" instructors have to be mentioned at every conceivable opportunity within this article. Isn't once enough for the sake of completeness (as is being done in the history section)? Then allowing "the layman" to make up their own mind without incessantly hammering on the 'various different branches' and their various different quirks. Nobody is hiding anything from the public here, except to keep the internal political discussion, well, internal, and out of the main wikipedia article, as it reduces the clarity and doesn't add anything. Neither would adding all the names and locations of official Shidosha to the list. Even if there are less than a dozen.

81.246.44.54 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

State the situation as it is for the wikipedia entry - one 'official' chief-instructor heading up his world-wide organisation (requiring keppan); a number of 'condoned' (technically qualified) senior instructors with their worldwide organisations (most not requiring keppan); some 'uncondoned' (technically qualified) senior instructors with their world-wide organisations (some requiring keppan, some not); and I am sure, many 'charlatans' (technically unqualified) 'instructors' riding this bandwagon doing whatever will ego-stroke or attract the most customers.

And this is what's being done IN THE HISTORY SECTION. There is no need to rehash this topic in every other section as well. So there's a few other teachers. Fine. Some of them don't require keppan. Great. It's all there without listing them all by name, branch and serial number over and over again.

81.246.44.54 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The actions, both past and present, of Soke clearly indicate that he condones (whether 'offically' 'stated' is irrelevant) the operation of some of the other organisations to spread the awareness of his fine inheritance. In conclusion, I feel there is every need to make the enquiring supporter of wikipedia aware of the broader availability of the (technical) scope and intricacies of TSKSR while simultaneously indicating that there are official and 'unofficial' variants/organisations in existence around the world.

Hiding the truth (or part of it) smells for one, and insults the layman by inferring he and she cannot decide for themselves. Ultimately it is the quality and (technical)authenticity of the instruction that should be of importance, not the political ploys.

I therefore re-instate the previous entry as it is the simplest, non-discriminatory commentary (as yet) identifying the status quo.

I have responded under this category-heading as it was the place of entry used to justify the original deletion, even though it is not the appropriate place as the subject matter does not relate to Sugawara exclusively but to the broader keppan requirement of various organisations teaching TSKSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.185.129 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-English links need to be moved

Howdy all, except for the link to the official site, the non-English links on en.wikipedia do not adhere to our external linking policy. Please move them to their corresponding language pages (please create a language page, if need be!). I'll clean out the remaining ones at some point in the future. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)