Talk:Sumo/Archive 2

Footnote broken

The following link:

http://web-japan.org/kidsweb/virtual/sumo/history.html

which is footnote #1, is broken. Whoever put it up needs to fix it, take it down, or replace it. Bradford44 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sumo Rituals

Hello, we are trying to make an entry on Sumo rituals. To avoid redundancy, we may have to delete and edit current sections that has already mentioned rituals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Group10_sumosplash (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2007

Open hand striking

There is a reference to this oin one of the captions. Could someone please edit the body of the article to describe what is allowed/practiced? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which caption are you referring to? It's usually called harite in sumo and refers to slapping the opponent's face. It's in the rules (striking with a closed fist is banned though) but often frowned upon as it can be considered disrespectful. Takatoriki was a recent wrestler well known for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not in the caption, it's just under the caption of the first photo - in the info box: "Focus: Grappling, open-hand striking" David from Downunder (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that while it exists it is defiantly not a 'focus' of the sport and should probably be removed from the box a& discussed in the text. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sumo in the arts

I've just undone the reversion of my addition of the section "Sumo in poetry". It is important that the broader context is encompassed within an encyclopaedic article, and there can be no reason to suppress information regarding Japanese wrestling in Japanese poetry.
--Yumegusa (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it is deserving of its own section here. It's hardly surprising that Japan's national sport has been a subject of Japanese poetry and I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of sumo. Would it not be better off in the Haiku article? Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when has something being "hardly surprising" been a rationale for excluding it from an article?! Though this fact may not be of interest to you personally, that is clearly not a reason to assume that to be the case with all readers. Your suggestion to include it in haiku rather than here is in any case impractical - not every kigo could possibly be listed there.

How about List of kigo then? Seems the obvious place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is "Sumo in the arts" not "Sumo in Haiku and Renku". Obviously there is room for additional broader information in that section, beyond what I have added. There is no reason for this information to be excluded from an encyclopaedic article.
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it was of no interest, simply that it may not be deserving of its own section. (And it was called "Sumo in poetry" when I made my first comment). As it is now, it seems a bit out of place. I will wait for other opinions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The section is certainly out of place and I have removed it. Polyamorph (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, apologies for misreading you. But can you please explain how mention of sumo in the arts is out of place in an article on sumo? Need I remind you that WP is an encyclopaedia, therefore articles need to be broad rather than narrow?
--Yumegusa (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This section that was removed was not about sumo per se, but another medium where it happens to be used. A similar section, "sumo in popular culture" or the like, was taken out some time ago. There are songs and poems about baseball, but I doubt wikipedia's main article has sections for them. FourTildes (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I can only say your logic is very iffy. By the same token, wrestlers' salaries and Shintō are not "about sumo per se". Do you disagree that an encyclopaedia article should be broad and comprehensive as well as deep? Have you never read a 'real' encyclopaedia?
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as "iffy" as all the other editors who have also told you that the poetry does not belong in any of the other articles you added it too as well, including Falcon, Sumo, Camellia sasanqua, Daikon, Milky Way, and Morning glory where everyone has given you the same message. Please stop before you get blocked. David from Downunder (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith. I am not trying to be in any way disruptive, but rather to broaden the scope of some articles to make them more encyclopaedic. The sarcasm and threatening tone of the last contributor are quite out of place (see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). The 'everyone' he refers to above, amounts to one single editor who stalked me across WP, reverting all of my edits.

There's been several emotive responses here, but thus far no-one has been prepared to substantiate their position. My mind is open, and I am prepared to be persuaded that you are right and that I am wrong, but thus far your substitute for logical debate has been mere repetition of your positions ("I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of sumo", "The section is certainly out of place", "not about sumo per se"). There's a serious point at issue here: Is there a place for a section "X in the arts" in an article on X? Reading through WP:WIN I can't see a case for excluding it. On the contrary, mainstream informed opinion has it that an encyclopaedia article should be comprehensive and well as deep, horizontal as well as vertical, if you will. Some calm and fair debate would be most welcome.
--Yumegusa (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<-I'm sorry, but you cannot go around telling people to assume good faith when you yourself are not assuming good faith. For a start, checking Special:Contributions/Yumegusa for other recent changes, which essentially amount to vandalism, is not stalking. I suggest you listen to the people's comments rather than point blank ignoring them just because you think you are right. As user:David from Downunder suggests, if you continue this path of continually adding inappropriate material to wikipedia articles you will readily find users who will revert your edits. Polyamorph (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. in fact I did assume good faith. And I didn't "threaten" - I didn't even put a warning message on your talk page - I just let you know what the likely outcome is if you persist (a 24 hour block from an admin.) As to your claim that The 'everyone' he refers to above, amounts to one single editor who stalked me across WP... well, that is patently false: there are FOUR editors on this thread alone who are telling you the same thing. Now, if you want to continue the debate by introducing patently false claims, then I will stop assuming good faith. Oh, and could you please indent your responses as per normal practice so that the thread can be followed? Thanks. David from Downunder (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nate's form of sumō
Wikipedia dohyō
hell bent to indent.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the topic of inappropriate tone, I really don't think anyone here needs reminding that this is an encyclopedia or to be told "have you ever read a real encyclopedia". Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I also thought that
But did not say it myself
'nuff said already.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, we could argue back and forth till the cows come home about who did and said and implied what, but I think everyone will agree that it would be less than productive. You are quite right that my tone was inappropriate (downright rude, even) in the case cited, and I apologise unreservedly for that. I also apologise for misreading the tone of DFD's post. But this is all peripheral. We got off to a bad start, but I hope we can now draw a line under that.

I'm a relatively inexperienced editor (you'd never have guessed, right?) and I am actually looking for an understanding of what is and isn't appropriate in an article. I honestly believe that a section "X in the arts" does have a place in an article on X. If I am correct in thinking that you disagree with me on this fundamental point, I am asking you to explain your thinking (rather than just repeat your position!) so that I can be persuaded that you are right. As I said earlier, my mind is open, so please help me understand why such a section should be by definition inappropriate. My understanding of an encyclopaedia article is that it should be broad as well as deep. I have read carefully through WP:WIN and I have been unable to find a case there for excluding it. Thanks in advance for your assistance
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say
That your most reasoned response
Was not a Haiku.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I could
'nt fit it - try as I might
into a haiku!
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 "To express oneself
  in seventeen syllables
  is very diffic"

Wikipedia works by following a set of guidelines, but even moreso by consensus. It's clear that consensus is against your inclusions. Four editors have made that clear. The fact that other editors have not reinstated any of your inclusions adds further weight. It is not our responsibility to go into any further detail as to why. The fact that WP:WIN does not specifically exclude such cases is of no great relevance. It is detrimental to have articles become too broad or too deep. David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and in fact if you check the WP:WIN, it clearly states "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So policy and consensus are both clear and in agreement on this point. Thanks.

Thats the way the mon-
ey goes. Its surely time that
this discussion closed. Polyamorph (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, consider it closed. Passing quickly over the disingenuousness of your parting shot, let me just commend you, Jdrewitt, on your poetic license in referring elsewhere on WP, to this exchange as a 'resolution' (Care to take up haiku?<g>). Meanwhile, if any one of you actually feels able and willing explain why you feel there is no place for 'X in the arts' in an X article, you know where to find me. I guess sometimes we hope for too much.
--Yumegusa (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that there is no place for 'X in the arts' in an X article, including the Sumo article. It could certainly be worthwhile, however I do not think that your contribution was worthwhile. For one thing, it did not cover the topic of 'Sumo in the arts' in any sort of worthwhile depth. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear response. I don't disagree that the section i added did not cover "Sumō (or daikon, sasanqua etc.) in the arts" adequately, but would have thought that the constructive reaction to a worthy but inadequate section or article is to expand it rather than delete it.
--Yumegusa (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if it's something worth expanding on to start with. --David from Downunder (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"It could certainly be worthwhile..."

(Wasn't the gohei erected several posts back??)--Yumegusa (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sumo articles needing help

Hey guys. (And yes I left this deliberately unindented, it is getting too short to read easily). I have been editing the sumo page since at least 2004, under this user name, anonymously, and under my previous User name, Malnova. I have seen this kind of unconstructive jibing back and forth on other pages, but this is the first time I have seen it on the sumo page. May I make a suggestion? How about we spend our energies on other aspects of sumo on wikipedia? The Natsu basho just ended and I, Pawnkingthree and ASCE just finished updating all the active wrestlers' tournament records. That job is finished (for this basho anyway), but there are still wrestlers who need their articles fleshed out, tournament records added, etc. I am currently at work on fleshing out the List of past sumo wrestlers article, and Pawnkingthree and ASCE are hard at work on individual wrestlers' articles. There used to be more helping us, but they have moved on. A very good place to start on the works in progress is WP:SUMO. And to be honest I have just scratched the surface with what we are working on and what else can be done. What do you think? It's a big task. Thanks for listening. FourTildes (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)b

Images of May 2009 Makuuchi wrestlers

Images of all participants of the first day Makuuchi division of the May 2009 tournament are available for use in articles. See [1] on Commons, or look for the image name based on the scheme of File:Sumo May09 Homasho.jpg (just replacing the rikishi name accordingly). -- Arcimboldo (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH! I skipped out of the basho this month, and didn't get any pics. Priceless! Thanks again. FourTildes (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

some great pictures there. Hearty thanks from me as well.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism under Origins

Someone has inserted a questionable first statement under Origins. The sentence read, "The World Heavyweight title has been one by the world's fattest man: Cameron Daffro n" I am planning on removing it. I will sign that edit page as well ShinobiNoKami (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) ShinobiNoKami

Thanks for that, but you need to check the edit history, as that piece of vandalism also removed a paragraph. I'll restore it now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Same arguments against same counter argument

"According to their research, the next tournament in which the two wrestlers met, there was a significant advantage to the 8–6 wrestler over the 7–7, regardless of the performance of either wrestler. The previously 7–7 wrestler would win only 40% percent of the rematches with the 8–6 wrestler. The authors suggest that winning 80% in the first match and then only 40% in the rematch (and back to the expected 50% in subsequent matches) between the same wrestlers suggests a rigging of the bouts"

This new argument may be more complicated, be the same problem occurs against the counter-argument, although less obvious. See it this way:

___________________________________________

x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|| More determined 7-7 . . . . . | Less determined 8-6

___________________________________________

7-7 and 8-6 are equal in ability||7-7 tries harder and wins . . . | 8-6 sees no point and avoids _________________________________________________|risking too much injury

8-6 is slightly better . . . . . . . .||7-7 ties, slightly less moral in | 8-6 wins in rematch simply

.________________________||rematch THAN IN REGULAR MATCH | because he's better

173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point I just propose taking out any counter-arguments to the freakonomics findings. Just discuss the current match fixing scandal, and then have something in the past there have also been allegations of match fixing, one of which is the freakonomics one. XinJeisan (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Seems weird that controversies takes such a huge chapter. Match fixing etc is totally overstated and makes it seem like Sumo is an American sport like WWF. Maybe someone should review this and take note that the controversy here is large presented by writers and authors that have a western background. That is a misrepresentation of the sport because it totally ignores the eastern tradition of discipline, respect, and tradition not even mentioning the spiritual aspect of Sumo. I would accept the paragraph as written but as it applies to the WWF. To westernize the sport by headlining controversies and corruption is rather condescending and should be censored. Let the Japanese people speak on behalf of their sport but they cannot defend it! Wiki power is in the hands of westerners with loose fingers at the QWERTY keyboard. User:CuJ@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.5.49 (talk)

I live in Japan and I've noticed that the match fixing scandal has been featured at the top of every news show since the story broke. From what I've read (in both Japanese and western sources), this scandal has the potential to put the Sumo association out of business, or at least change it drastically forever. So, I don't think it has undue weight in the article. Also, the Japan Times is one of the major sources used, but if you'll look at the citations, you'll notice that most of the reporters have Japanese names. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the March Honbasho has been canceled, the first time that has happened for 65 years,a problem, and with the Japanese Wikipedia has its own article just on the current match fixing scandal, which I believe the English Wikipedia does not, I don't think this article dedicating a section to controversies such as the current match fixing scandal is a problem. The article also has a section on Sumo and Shinto, which you are free to work on if you feel it is not comprehensive enough. XinJeisan (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the honesty and sorry to hear this sad news. Yes, separating the good from the bad would be a graceful solution.

USER Cju@ February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.199.12 (talk)