Talk:Kukishin-ryū

Hehe, actually, I practiced this on a slippery, rocking boat.

Is this a copyright violation? (i.e., was this copied directly from some printed material?) --Andrew 07:27, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page has inaccuracies

I really wish people within the bujinkan would research before modifying these wiki pages. For example, this sentence: "The Kukishin blood line is still alive today but they left the martial art in Soke Hatsumi's hands to keep it alive." Not only is it uncited and incorrect, it's written in a manner innapropriate for use in an encyclopedia.

I'm deleting the "they left in Hatsumi's hands" sentence, and I will be putting accurate information about Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin ryu, Hontai Kukishin Ryu (Bojutsu), as well as Kukishinden Happo Bikenjutsu. The research I have done on these arts can be verified by browsing available amatsu tatara scrolls or at the Kuki family website (http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/)

Paradoxbox2

---

I'm here too. I'll be adding sections as well when I get around to it. Kudos from www.kukishinden.org Mekugi 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran into a problem a while back with my understanding of ryu-ha while doing some research. I kept coming up with different Soke for what I thought were the same ryu... One thing I discovered was that there were different branches of the ryu that were divided up at different points. So often times you'll see two people with lineages tracing back with different people to one earlier soke, and it became a case of the soke having divided the ryu between two students. It may be important to differentiate between, say, Tenshin Hyoho Kukishin Ryu, and Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken, for this reason.Stslavik 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it is a problem. It's just a branch coming off the main line (the Tenshin Hyoho, for example). They exist, but are seperate. (Mekugi 13:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

One thing that is confusing is that the Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken that is taught in Bujinkan is not actually a branch from any Kukishin Ryu - except for the Rokushaku Bo techniques, that did come from Kukishin Ryu. This is made more complicated by Takamatsu having the scrolls for Kukishin Ryu and helping the Kuki family restore their knowledge. But this is not the Kukishinden Ryu that was passed to Hatsumi. Olabini (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot added

Whew! I have added a lot of content. Most of it is coming from the Kukishinden Tenshin Hyoho Website. There is a lot to edit out, such as the U in RYU is not Hepburn. Help greatly appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I see you are pretty busy right now, however, as soon as you can, please add some sources (citations) of the history of this ryu. Thank you Daoken 07:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving on it for sure...right now i just put in some general placemarks for the references (where the material came from). Later on I plan to provide some APA style citation with page and paragraph. Kudos! Mekugi 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

A bit of advice. The history seems to be well sourced, the Koryu listing also, the etymology as well It could be good if you could source from where are extracted the lists of techniques and the last statement about the existing branches so you don't attract a tag for lack of sources. Then you can concentrate in enhancing the content (always sourcing of course) You are doing a fine work I think Jenny^Len☤ 16:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay...I'll put together a better set of resources. Some of the history comes out of the Kuki family archives, so these are going to be hard to source. It's not my own original research, but someone else's...I just need to narrow it down as to which came from where. At any rate, Thanks to Bradford for giving it an upgrade :-) Mekugi 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that Librarian2 was finding you the Japanese isbn, that girl is one of a kind :) Jenny^Len☤ 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

I've been reading Serge Mol's "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan" and his account of the history, founder, and meaning of the "nine demons" part of the ryu's name is quite contrary to what is stated in this article. I don't have access to all of the other sources referenced in this article, but I was just wondering what everyone else thought about this. If reliable sources are in conflict, then both versions should be acknowledged. Bradford44 03:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I observe that the citation to Mol's book is not in the name section or the founder's section but in the influence of schools, indicating the pages of that citation and not other parts of the book, so it is not conflictive. However, I don't see a citation related with the name of the school which in true should exist ℒibrarian2 18:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You're quite right that they are not conflicting on the points their cited for, I was more concerned with the conflict in a general sense, and was hoping someone had some insight into why Mol's account of the ryu's history would be so different from the story given here. Certainly a published book should be given more weight than a website. Bradford44 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Serge Mol's book is not the greatest of resources sometimes and he mixes and matches some information. It's a good primer, but that's where it ends. For example the "Nine Demons" reference stems entirely from Hontai Yoshin Ryu and a few later writings outside of Kukishin Ryu itself. You'll see in his book that it is merely a sidenote to Hontai Yoshin Ryu on pages 199-202. In the second paragraph of page 200, you'll see a reference to Tanaka Fumon and "his research" to his school "Tenshin Hyoho Soden Kukamishin ryu." What he is talking about here is a document found in the Kuki archives which says that one of the ancestors of Takagi Ryu recieved a document regarding the martial arts from the Kuki family. His passage not very clear and it is misleading in that the Kukishin Ryu taught in Hontai Yoshin Ryu (a Takagi ryu exponent) is a fuzoku ryu (assimilated school) to them, one that was added after Takagi ryu's creation and is passed down in conjunction; however Kukishin ryu is a seperate school, one that predates the creation of Takagi ryu. Mekugi (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was just wondering if the Watatani, Ago, and Takahiro references (currently located at footnotes 2, 3, and 4, respectively) were in Japanese or English. Thanks, Bradford44 12:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The references 2,3 and 4 have (Jpn) after the title indicating the language code (library ref) and the NDLC code as pertaining to the National Diet Library of Japan ℒibrarian2 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the better practice is to use the {{ja icon}} tag in front of the reference. Please revert if you disagree. Bradford44 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All by the contrary, I thank you. I was unaware of that template, I will integrate it to my edits. Thank you ℒibrarian2 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems

To try to keep things simple, I have two concerns for right now. One, the information regarding the kanji 鬼 in the section titled "About the Name" and elsewhere appears to be, in a word, wrong. Likewise regarding the claim at the website cited for that section. Two, should the article mention Minaki Den Kukishin-ryū? Bradford44 02:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Kanji

It's not wrong, it's technically accurate (meaning it's the correct way to read the name). More references can be provided- several in fact, but in Japanese. One can find the exact kanji in the scrolls and documents of the Kuki family plus within many, many reference books here in Japan; but very few in English. I think I can provide pictures of some of the scrolls as well. Kanji Daijiten (Kanji Encyclopedia) also list the kanji and its history, which is an arcaic "writing." Unfortunately, the combination of the two kanji has lost the true meaning in modern references. The Kuki family documents are the oldest in existence that have the correct, re-occuring, writing of the name.

The lineage Tree

The "lineage tree" that was posted on here was in fact the Hontai Yoshin Ryu lineage, not the Kukishin Ryu lineage.

On branches

If we mention "Minaki den" then we have to mention the rest. Why should we clutter this page up and why should they not have their own Wiki pages? My feeling is that this article is supposed to be a general overview of Kukishin Ryu, not on any of the branches. 8-D Mekugi (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change anything before reading the content

It seems to me there are a lot of good-intended people changing the content of the page without first reading it. This has been apperant in the changing of the name definition. It seems that while this is well intentioned, it is simply a product of not reading the page and editing it. So again, please read the content of the page -before- any edits! Much appreciated! Mekugi (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars - What's in a name?

I think that it is time to end the edit wars on this page regarding the reading of the name. It is against Wikipedia guidelines, and it makes for an ugly editing string in the history. Please stop replacing the name's translation with another and using the citation/information I have added to the page along with it. Please cite reliable, scholarly resources or add information to the section entitled "About the Name" if you want to express yourself. Again, please use resources and not only "other websites".

For more information about Edit Wars, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war

"Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content :edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of:Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit."

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one."

Since this is not about only one point of view and the subject is already clearly explained and defined, then there should be no problem. Please cease and desist!

For more information about Citation, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

Thanks!

Mekugi (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kempo is NOT Kenjutsu

I don't know anything about this particular style, but I am confused about some of the links. This school is listed as teaching Kempo as part of its curriculum, but the clickable link leads to Kenjutsu. On the side, the description of Kempo is "sword art." However, this is false.

Kempo is also romanized as "kenpo," so my guess is that somebody confused this for kendo, which is often used interchangeable with kenjutsu.

I would fix the word / link myself, but without being familiar with this style, I don't know if it's the wrong word or the wrong link. Anyway, here is a quick reference for anyone who wants to correct it.

Kenpo / Kempo - Japanese word for any martial art that originates from China

Kendo / Kenjutsu - "way of the sword" and "art of the sword" respectively

BlackMetalWhiteGuy (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

This is a problem with English and Japanese. Kempo, in this case, does in fact mean "sword law" (剣法 Kempo) and is proper. It does *not* mean "sword way" (剣道 Kendo) nor does it mean "fist law"　(拳法 Kempo). The words (剣法 and 拳法) are homonyms, but the Chinese characters make them completely different, so the mistake is easily made. :-) So in summary, there is a Kempo that is similar in meaning to Kenjutsu; this is not the same as Kempo as in "fist law".

As for 拳法 Kempo (fist law) meaning any martial art originating from China, that is unfortunately inaccurate. :-(

Kudos! Mekugi (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

The Kuki family martial arts is historically interesting regarding relationships to several other budo arts inkluding the Bujinkan. I'm not sure how many surviving koryu lineages there is, but those that are alive and kicking should be notable simply for existing. We're not talking about modern arts here, where you or me can create an new "style" and then claim it relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. --90.130.239.143 (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yupps. Also, the article looks verified enough to me. I remove the notability tag. --77.218.233.180 (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There are no secondary references. jmcw (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are stating an opinion which does not have support in facts. Bugei Ryuha Daijiten is most certainly a secondary source.

Serge Mol and his "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan: A Complete Guide to Koryu Jujutsu". I am not aware that he is in any way involved with the Kukishin. If you have other information, please state a source.

Regarding Kiyotaka Ago I understand it as he is not a member of the ryu. The Kuki family website refers to him as "a leading figure in the study of ancient history". I can not really judge that, but Mol and the BRD should be more than enough. --90.129.16.204 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of the 13 footnotes, how many satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Please consider "significant" and "independent" - the current references do not establish notability. jmcw (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kukishin-ryū. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235908/http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/history01_e.htm to http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/history01_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720000237/http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog1_e.htm to http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog1_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722095411/http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog2_e.htm to http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog2_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720000150/http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog3_e.htm to http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog3_e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722095606/http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog6_e.htm to http://www.shinjin.co.jp/kuki/hyoho/catalog6_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)