Jump to content

Talk:Asian martial arts (origins)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article

[edit]

Conversation by editors to date

Conflicting theories deserve to be mentioned as such. NPOV tag or not. Freedom skies| talk  05:56, 30

December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I was always under the impression that WP:NPOV requires that conflicting theories deserve to be presented with objectivity. Labeling an opposing viewpoing "revisionist" simply b/c you disagree violates the principles of wiki. Either rewrite the opposing viewpoints section or keep the NPOV tag on. Djma12 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. This is not a view and counter view case. This is a case where all of these researchers tried to disprove a traditionally endorsed version and arrived at different conclusions thereby harming their own cause. Conflicts do not arise in the traditional manner here but a manner of different results for the same subject. The attempt has not met with sucsess presumably due to the conflicts in the various researches and is written as such. Freedom skies| talk  19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come now. If no coherent argumentation exists against this article's claim, why does another well-cited wiki article on the same topic exist to disprove this article? I am reapplying NPOV and applying for arbitration. Djma12 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, welcome arbitration.
JFD 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've got it backwards. This article exists to disprove the other one as the majority held POV was overshadowed by an overwhelming minority. They also corrupted the Yi Jin Jing article. Freedom skies| talk  20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, any opinion that has enough support to generate another well-cited article should not be considered "an overhwhelming minority." Djma12 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well cited? Kindly compare the individuals involved numerically and the authority they weild in the other article with his one. Freedom skies| talk  20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that is not your sole decision to make. Djma12 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Not Quite. If you're telling me that the Discovery channel, martial arts institutions, martial artists, historians and the Shaolin are disputed by half a dozen people who have yet to come up with coherent theories then common sense dictates that I doubt your argument. Freedom skies| talk  21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I living in a ditch, or were these citations conveniently overlooked in your assertion of "half a dozen people ... (without) coherent theories." Djma12 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, half these the citations on THIS page are to sources of poor authenticity -- since when did a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu dojo become a spokesman for the history of Shaolin?
Check again on the ditch. Check those citations and come up with the names of the authors. Compare their numbers and significant contributions to martial arts history to the ones here. The BJJ dojos are additional (not primary) references meant to demonstrate the extent of the penetration of the point of view. Gracie Barra, International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation, Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu hold more credibility in martial arts then any of those men combined. The extent of this POV is such that it has additionally been accepted in such prestigious institutions. Freedom skies| talk  21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're obvious not getting anywhere with this conversation. I'll await 3rd party input. Djma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should. Maybe they'll take your disrearding of grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit's citation by "since when did a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu dojo become a spokesman for the history of Shaolin?" seriously. Freedom skies| talk  22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed Merger with Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

  • Incidentally, I feel that the second article would make an excellent "Opposing Viewpoints" section for this article. It would streamline both articles while helping with POV. Djma12 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justifying the NPOV of this article with the NPOV of another article is hardly a sound rationale. As for joining the two articles -- yes that may be difficult, but BOTH articles as they stand are merely soapboxes for various pet theories and and subject to deletion per WP:NOT.Djma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not quite. The article you're trying to have this one merged with started off as a POV fork. This one was formed later to balance it. This article deals with seperate issues. Batuo, Similarities, Bodhidharma's origins in detail are not covered by the other article. When the content differs then how would you use the other article to present an opposing POV is something you'll have to explain. If two soapboxes exist then both should get deleted. The case here is different though. Freedom skies| talk  23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider:-

  • The article provides an internal links to Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection.
  • The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not mention the conflicts within the theories. The conflict is only mentioned in this article of all the places. Additionally, the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not have the slightest mention of Mesopotamian, Greek and Egyptian influences, the similarities between the arts, Establishment of the Shaolin under Batuo, The views from the martial arts community and media. The article deiregards the views from the Shaolin and established martial artists.
  • The "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" is well cited.
  • The opposing POV is covered in detail in the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. This is in addition of another article the Yi Jin Jing. The two mentioned articles cover only one POV in detail while disregarding the other POV.

Let the reader be privy to both the POVs in all their strength streched across three articles. The " Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article" is full of grossly POV words like "Lay historians" (this is not a decision for anyone to make who's lay and who's not).

The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article is balanced by the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article. Removing both would remove the two prominent POVs since they both suffer from the same flaws and strengths.

The two articles should remain. Both POVs must be represented in all it's strength.

Best wishes for the coming new year, by the way.

Freedom skies| talk  13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge any and all prospective arbitrators to

  1. Verify sources - Does the text of the article accurately represent the source cited for that text?
  2. Assess the credibility of the sources cited according to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources - Was the cited material published in a peer-reviewed journal, by a university press or other academic source?

Thank you.
JFD 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also urge prospective arbitrartors to assess

  1. Whether the treatment of differing viewpoints satisfies WP:NPOV.
  2. Whether there is a high content of weasel words within the article.
  3. Whether this article is a candidate for deletion per WP:NOT#SOAPDjma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also:-

  1. Check citations.
  2. Compare the content in this article and the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and see if you can come up with enough related topics to merge. The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not cover Batuo, Similarities, views of the martial arts community etc.

Freedom skies| talk  23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the page freedom skies created has 82 citations (I've even cross-checked some of them) which puts it in FA class (at least in # of citations). Arbitrators? Are you guys insane? They will reject this case at the snap of a finger. Its merely a petty 3RR, with muted racial overtones. Its not even religious warfare (all at the table besides me are Buddhist I think) you actually think ArbCom's gonna waste their breath? If arbcom was for petty disputes like this, wiki would have shut down by now.Bakaman 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be premature at this point to raise the issue of a merger, but I nonetheless think that the involvement of an arbitrator would be very, very valuable.

Somehow the page freedom skies created has 82 citations (I've even cross-checked some of them) which puts it in FA class (at least in # of citations).

Quantity is in no way a substitute for quality.
JFD 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Quantity is in no way a substitute for quality.

You seem to have this mistaken the article for the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. This is not the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article talk page yet.

Quality of citations in this article:-

I emphatically give my consent on bringing more such citations on request.

Compare the citations with the The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article.

The quality of citations provided in the The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article both overlook the official and the majority held version. Why overlook what Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit (THE official Shaolin authority) has to say ?

If both the articles go then the reader will go to the internet where he'll only find the version which are pro-foreign connection and use "origin" instead of "influence".

Freedom skies| talk  13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a refresher of Wikipedia's standards of quality for citations, that is, academic publication and peer review.
JFD 14:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to direct me to a single source in your article that has more credibility than the The Discovery Channel, The BBC (docmentary used "Kalari; The Indian way"), and the New York Times.

Freedom skies| talk  14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third party input

[edit]
Object I object to the merge. The merge seems to be very POV focused.--D-Boy 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Per my staements above.Bakaman 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Refocus on the RfC

[edit]

This conversation is getting a little more heated than it needs to be, so let's refocus on what's being asked.

Basically, the RfC is NOT about whether this article should be merged or not, but about whether the article is NPOV or not. I had suggested merging as a possible solution to NPOV, but that is not a primary issue.

Freedom skies, I commend you on the bulk of citation that you have dug up for this article. However, an article, even well-researched, that only presents one side of scholarship is still NPOV. And yes, you may think the contending side is poorly citated in comparison, but that does not mean it should not be presented objectively. Give people the benefit of the doubt. They can figure out for themselves which citations to believe and which are less reliable without comments on "overwhelming minority of scholarship", "revisionism", etc...

Given the rich history of philosophical and religious trade in Chinese history, it is probably absurd to claim that there is NO foreign influence on Chinese martial arts (though the degree can be debated.) However, academic and encyclopedic presentations should always include the opposing viewpoint, especially if there are citations to the effect. It is not for us to decide which ideas are "fringe" ideas and which ideas are "mainstream." (Even the Apollo Program article contains links to Moon Landing Hoax articles, something we'd all pretty much agree is fairly nutty.)

Present the facts, and the truth will attend to itself. Best regards, and Happy New Year. Djma12 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, The article emphatically does not deal with only one POV. Internal links to an entire article containing the opposing POV in a formidale fashion have been provided thereby making sure that the reader will read the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. Freedom skies| talk  17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Solution?

[edit]

Why don't we do something like this?

  1. Since it would be impractical to merge the articles, we can insert a "See also" link at the top of the article along with a synopsis of relevant points from the second article within a "Disputes" section.
  2. I know Freedom Skies has some issue with the citations used in the second article, so why doesn't he add criticisms towards its scholarship within a "Criticisms" section he will create in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. If the original authors of that article give you trouble on adding a Criticisms section, let me know on my discussion page and I'll back you up.
  3. We can remove the NPOV warning from both articles aftewards.

Does this sounds reasonable? Djma12 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd really welcome the involvement of an arbitrator.
JFD 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution you mentioned has already been implemented.

  • Both the articles, presenting their POV in formidable strength, have internal links to the other article. Since they deal with different aspects of the issue (You'll notice that the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article also overlooks the views from Greece, Egypt, theories of early Mesopotamia etc. and is directly aimed to disprove India only) they cannot be merged.
  • The conflicts in the theories are only mentioned in this article. Mention them in the other one and you would reduce it's strength. They only belong in one article in my opinion.
  • The NPOV tag must be removed from both the articles. They have accomadated the opposing POV adequately by providing very prominent internal links to an entire article dealing with the opposite POV.

Freedom skies| talk  17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that this situation would benefit from the scrutiny of an arbitrator.
JFD 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the edits by Djma12. The edits leading to a final solution are appreciated. Freedom skies| talk  16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problems with the article

[edit]

Sorry it took so long for me to take a look at this article. yes, this article would benefit from an arbitrator. Freedom skies is against it becuase most likely an arbitrator would suggest changes to make this article more Neutral. The article suffers from a POV issue. At the heart of the problem is the origins or influences on a martial arts. Many people have written on this and there are many opinions - this does not mean that they are true. Historians have already weighed on this issue and most would state that the whole bodhidharma legend and the transmission from India to China flies in the face of the fact that there is martial arts in china going back to 1000-2000BC. It also flies in the face of the fact that martial arts is mainly self defense and all humans since the dawn of time have been engaged in self defense in one way or another. Further, china has multiple legends on the origins of multiple martial arts. Lay authors tend to get this issue mixed up and depending on the lay author will write one way or another. What freedom skies has done is SELECTIVELY cited people who support his view without allowing for citations of any other view. That makes this article POV. He further in the past has misquoted authors or quoted them out of context to support his views. This is similar to someone quoting only books written by lay authors that support the view that there was a conspiracy theory and another group of people who shot John F Kennedy as opposed to the majority view by historians that Kennedy was shot by a crazy lone gunman.

He also keeps on quoting a website that claims to be the "official" shaolin temple that states that their martial arts come from India but the site itself says that their soft qigong was present in China for many "thousands of Years". This claim should be removed.

He also states that martial arts historians claim to support his theory on the India and China connection but that is not true. The authors who write on the INdia to china connection are mainly all lay authors and not historians. No historian of merit believes in his version of the connection and it should be removed. Before the historians actually started studying this, everything was passed down orally as legends hence the discrepancy in many of the oral traditions of the origins of martial arts.

He also keeps on talking about bodhdiharma and the relationship to martial arts. ALL historians believe that this is legend and not a relationship. Further, most historians do not believe in the bodhdiharma theory on the origins of Ch'an (Zen Buddhism) even. Most will tell you that even that is a legend and Ch'an buddhism (Zen) existed before bodhidharma.

He also tries to twist the article to state that historians are in disagreement with each other on the origins of martial arts and the attribution the Yi Jin Jing. This is an untrue argument. It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars, but all are in agreement that the Yi Jin JIng is a document that cannot be trusted for its authenticity. He also tries to state that the historians are in disagreement on bodhdiharma's existence. It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is unfounded.

He also states that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views. That is not true either. if you just google scholar or google search books written by martial artists or lay authors (and not selectively search for bodhdiharma and martial arts) you will find that the lay community and martial arts community has a plethora of views. Most believe in the first legend of the origins of the martial arts with The Yellow Emperor in 2600B.C. as fact, others will talk about Bodhidharma, others will talk about the martial arts being present since prehistoric times. Others will get it right and talk about Bodhidharma and martial arts connection and the Yellow Emperor story as legend... There is a whole plethora of views. Freedom skies has just cited and talked about one view by the lay community and SELECTIVELY quoted people who support his view of the India Connection. None of these people are historians.

From above, We might as well write another article about all of the lay authors and web sites (including third party organizations) who believe in the historical view of the Yellow Emperor as being the progenitor of martial arts (just kidding)

We should get arbirtration because this article is quite POV. Attempts in the past at placing a POV tag has resulted in Freedom skies removing the tag repeatedly. Kennethtennyson 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"there is martial arts in china going back to 1000-2000BC.."

This article explicitely states that "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma. "

"Lay authors tend to get this issue mixed up and depending on the lay author will write one way or another."

So, suddenly the Discovery channel and grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit of the Shaolin temple are "Lay historians" in your mind ?

"What freedom skies has done is SELECTIVELY cited people who support his view without allowing for citations of any other view. "

This article has a prominent internal link to the very odd Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article deals with the opposing POV in malicious strength. Also consider the Yi Jin Jing article.

"This is similar to someone quoting only books written by lay authors that support the view that there was a conspiracy theory and another group of people who shot John F Kennedy as opposed to the majority view by historians that Kennedy was shot by a crazy lone gunman."

Kenny has been known to do martians before. And now this.

"No historian of merit believes in his version of the connection and it should be removed."

Very keen on removing the opposing POV, are we, Kenny? I challenge you to compile a list of figures supporting your POV and then I'll bring mine. the one with the exponentially smaller list leaves Wikipedia forever.

"ALL historians believe that this is legend and not a relationship. Further, most historians do not believe in the bodhdiharma theory on the origins of Ch'an (Zen Buddhism) even."

More lies. The Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with Kenny's very personal opinions.

"It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars"

What else does the article say ?

"It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is unfounded."

You lie again, Kenny. Do you really want to challenge me that they "all" support your POV when the very small list you compiled comprises of jailed communist criminals like Tang Hao ?

"He also states that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views. That is not true either. if you just google scholar or google search books written by martial artists or lay authors (and not selectively search for bodhdiharma and martial arts) you will find that the lay community and martial arts community has a plethora of views."

You continue, Kenny. First, stop labelling Shaolin authorities as "lay people" (your definition, highlighting your malice and desperation) and second, read this section before you advertise your ignorance here.

"Most believe in the first legend of the origins of the martial arts with The Yellow Emperor in 2600B.C. as fact, others will talk about Bodhidharma, others will talk about the martial arts being present since prehistoric times."

This article is about anything but the origins of Chinese martial arts, Kenny. You attempt to cause confusion to serve your agenda.

"Freedom skies has just cited and talked about one view by the lay community and SELECTIVELY quoted people who support his view of the India Connection. None of these people are historians."

As has been done in the very odd Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article ? To which I provided a link from this article in the begining and went on to provide dual links in other articles so that people get to see both POVs extensively?

What exactly are you suggesting ? That the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article covers only one POV in detail and we leave it alone then we have this article cover both POVs and additionally have a link to the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which again covers the opposing POV in a malicious fashion?

"We should get arbirtration because this article is quite POV."

Actually, we should slap an AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which can't even get people other then communist convicts and international pariahs to support it's POV. But then again, that can wait for now.

"Attempts in the past at placing a POV tag has resulted in Freedom skies removing the tag repeatedly."

The tags belong in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and the Yi Jin Jing. But that too, can wait.

---

On a completely unrelated note, those interested can see in here for detailed chronicles of Kenny.

Freedom skies| talk  14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... you must really not get along with anybody freedom skies... anyways, this sounds like a broken record. This article was changed since the last time that I saw it... the claims that " a majority of historians" support your view should be removed as it is untrue. The vast majority of your citations are from lay authors. You can make the claim "many authors" or "many writers" but you should not make the claim that historians support your view because no historian does. Also, you can state that some in the shaolin community believe your view, but you can't state that the "official" shaolin monks support your view because it is not true. Kennethtennyson 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we should slap an AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which can't even get people other then communist convicts and international pariahs to support it's POV.
....
Do you really want to challenge me that they "all" support your POV when the very small list you compiled comprises of jailed communist criminals like Tang Hao ?

The following information on my sources is from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:

Tang Hao

He is viewed as being the greatest Chinese martial arts historian that ever lived. Second, many of his comments and criticisms regarding martial arts history and martial arts writing are still valid today....He advocated applying modern scientific methods to the study of Chinese martial arts history and to the practice of Chinese martial arts themselves....His writings include Taiji Boxing and Neijia Boxing, A Study of Shaolin and Wudang, Neijia Boxing, The Qi Qi Fist Classic, and A Study of Chinese Martial Arts Illustrations.

Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folk tales corrupted and tainted people's thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.

In 1920 (sic) he wrote a book called Study of Shaolin and Wudang, which was published by the Central Guoshu Academy. He used lots of historical material to prove that Bodhidharma and Zhang San Feng knew nothing about martial arts, and that the theory that Shaolin martial arts started from Bodhidharma and that Taijiquan was invented by Zhang San Feng was incorrect.

Matsuda Ryuchi

Matsuda Ryuchi [is] a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts. According to his biography included in An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts, Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts.

Stanley E. Henning

Stanley E. Henning is an American scholar and martial artist who has published a number of articles concerning the early history of Taijiquan. Some of his articles—in particular, one titled "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan"—raised heated debates in certain martial arts circles. In his own words, his goal was "to extract Chinese martial arts from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research." One of his major theses, he says, is "the fact that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including boxing, are rooted in military, not religious practice." That idea did not sit too well with some sectors of America's Taiji community and, for a while, Henning was a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community. Be that as it may, Henning went on to write a number of scholarly articles on the history and development of Chinese martial arts that have done much to lift this study out of the realm of pulp fiction and into a more serious, accurate, and scholarly domain.

JFD 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's Sources

[edit]

Source 1: Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, 4th generation successor of the Southern Shaolin Monastery, set up The Shaolin Wahnam Institute.

His lineage traces right back to the Southern Shaolin Monastery through two patriarchs: Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam. Ho Fatt Nam's teacher was Yang Fatt Khuen, whose teacher was Venerable Jiang Nan, the monk who escaped from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in Fujian Province. The legacy that Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit holds is over 150 years old.

Today, Wong Kiew Kit has over 2000 students world-wide through various branches of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. Certain forms of hard qigong are taught, again, differing from the soft, internal qigong that was taught in the former Shaolin Monasteries of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Shaolin arts, as taught at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute, purport to be of the soft, internal kind. They are comprised of: Shaolin Kungfu, Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin Zen.

Source 2: Eminent journalists from the New York Times. In this case I have chosen a citation coming from Howard W. French:

Howard W. French (born 1958) is a New York Times reporter as well as an author. French taught at a university in the Ivory Coast in the 1980s before becoming a reporter. He has reported extensively on the political affairs of Western and Central Africa. These reports were the basis for the book A Continent for the Taking.

French has also reported on the political and social affairs in China, where he reported on the government crackdown of dissent in the Dongzhou protests of 2005. Most of his current work for the New York Times is centered on China.

French became Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times in 1999. He is a senior writer for the Times, and has served as Shanghai bureau chief since 2003.

Sorce 3: Encyclopedia Brittanica

The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelled with the æ ligature) is a general encyclopedia published by the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.. Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the encylopedia was first published progressively from 1768–71 as Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan. It was one of the first printed English encyclopedias and today is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.

From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, Britannica's articles were often judged as the foremost authority on a topic, and sometimes included new research or theory intended for a scholarly audience. During this era, the Britannica gained its erudite reputation and had a unique position in English-speaking culture.

The Britannica has survived fierce competition from an ever-increasing number of alternative information sources.


Self explainatory. In this case, the concise addition.

+

More will be provided on request.

Compare the sources and judge the quality of each by yourselves.

+

Tang Hao - arrested communist

Stanley Hennig - A pariah among the Western Taijiquan community

+

The AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which is full of overly malicious language, and misrepresentation of sources, can wait for now. It's not an issue yet. So calm down.

And

"This article was changed since the last time that I saw it... the claims that " a majority of historians" support your view should be removed as it is untrue."

Get a citation that they don't, Kenny. I got a citation for my claim and you know my policy on getting more on request or provocation, whichever extended first. Better yet you could get people other than jailed communist criminals to support your claim (which is supported by how many ? 9 or so people in the list)

"The vast majority of your citations are from lay authors."

Encyclopedia Britannica is not lay, Kenny. Your malice dose not change things. Tang Hao, on the other hand was just a lay communist criminal.

"Also, you can state that some in the shaolin community believe your view"

I got a citation from grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself, did I not ?

Incesscant, repeated lies Kenny. Nothing else.

Freedom skies| talk  15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Shaolin.cn.com" is not the official website of the Shaolin temple. Instead it's shaolin.org.cn which appears to be down. Shawnc 19:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The site used in the article is the "Official English Shaolin Temple Portal" Freedom skies| talk  08:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done

[edit]

This is done. The changes Djma12 made are accepted by me and a solution reached. Time to live with it. Freedom skies| talk  16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early martial arts in China

[edit]

As far as I'm aware there has not been theories which attempt to attribute early practices of wrestling in China such as jiao di and jiao li to external influences. Omitting this entirely is arguably POV or original research. Shawnc 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the article more thoroughly. The article explicitely mentions that "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma." However, at sone points these martial arts may have been influenced by martial arts of other cultures and to cover the foreign influence on Chinese martial arts is the objective of this article. Your information was placed in a section which covered details of proposed centres of influences. If you would have placed the info next to the "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma." line then it would have been a welcome addition. Freedom skies| talk  19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid the appearance of original research, we can note the indigenous nature of the martial arts near the beginning of the article. Shawnc 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR vios involved here. The martial arts of China have to exist in order to be influenced by foreign culture. This article does not claim otherwise. Freedom skies| talk  19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That information should be used as a framework for the other information to follow. A good place would be the intro paragraphs. If you do not prefer this placement, I await comments by other editors. Shawnc 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should do then ? :-

In an article by published in the New York Times Travel section in 1983, Christopher Wren asserts that organised martial traditions predate the establishment of the Shaolin Monastery by centuries.<name="NYTIMES">"Of Monks and Martial Arts"; Sept. 11, 1983; New York Times

The article had it in it's original form. Freedom skies| talk  20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Follow that with a statement that at some point these martial arts may have been influenced by other cultures, and the context would be complete. Shawnc 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section that follows does the job adequately. Freedom skies| talk  20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rickson's photo

[edit]

I don't think Rickson himself has significantly influenced the modern Chinese martial arts. Why should his photo be kept in this article? Shawnc 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rickson is used as a reference. Freedom skies| talk  19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Rickson is primarily known as a jujutsu practitioner, not someone who has directly impacted the culture of Chinese martial arts. When the reader sees his picture, a reaction may be "what does he have to do with kung fu?" Shawnc 20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not make an issue out of it. The Rickson pic was that of an involved reference. A reader who would have read the article instead of just watching the pics would have realized it. In any event, the pic is gone since it seems to mean so much to you. Freedom skies| talk  20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not a big deal, it just seems a bit odd. We could have a picture of say a reputable author who is known for extensive commentaries about foreign influences on the Chinese martial arts. Shawnc 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done

[edit]

It's done. I put in the line. The intro originally had that line to avoid misunderstanding and the Rickson photo is gone. Freedom skies| talk  20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read it again and this is how the intro currently goes: "organised martial traditions predate the establishment of the Shaolin Monastery by centuries. [Statement followed immediately by:] Early martial arts can be traced to Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt."
The first statement does not specify whether "organized martial traditions" refer to ones in China or elsewhere in places such as Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, though the current construction may indicate the latter interpretation, which can mislead the reader up until the latter part of the article that states "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma." A more informative intro might state "While organized martial traditions in China predate the establishment of the Shaolin temple, foreign influence was vital on Shaolin's approach to institutionalized martial arts in China." (This combines a previous sentence into one sentence.) By the way, Christopher Wren did not specifically use the phrase "by centuries" in his article, but instead that "the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators". We probably don't need to mention Wren's name and article specifically in the sentence, other than citing the source as a footnote.
In the second statement, the word "trace" may potentially imply lineage, despite the lack of evidence linking earlier, less institutionalized martial arts in China to those regions; how about just "Early martial arts can be found in Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt."? Shawnc 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we also have Grandmaster Wong Kiew kit's quote right before the paragraph:-

It was during this time that the Venerable Bodhidharma came from India to China to spread Buddhism. In 527 CE he settled down in the Shaolin monastery in Henan province, and inspired the development of Shaolin Kung Fu. This marked a watershed in the history of of Kung Fu, because it led to a change of course, as Kung Fu became institutionalized. Before this, martial arts were known only in general sense.

In any event, I will try to put in your statement without any unnessasary POV flashing.

Freedom skies| talk  07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for The word "trace", we have to consider that the martial arts of Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt may have influenced Chinese martial arts at some point. The influence is traced to these civilizations and is written as such.

In any event, I have reworded that as well. Freedom skies| talk  07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for confusing them with ancient Chinese martial traditions, the section explicitely mentions the transfer during the time of trade and Alexander's invasion. Any reader will know the difference. Freedom skies| talk  08:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware there has not been theories which attempt to attribute early practices of wrestling in China such as jiao di and jiao li to external influences. Omitting this entirely is arguably POV or original research.


Not quite,

Chinese wrestling has been heavily influenced by external influence of Mongolia.

You should see the following sources:-

  • The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Zhongyi Tong, Tim Cartmell
  • Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey By Brian L. Kennedy, Elizabeth Guo

I was (and am) so short on time that I accomadated your concerns right away without voicing any of my concerns.

That's all.

Freedom skies| talk  08:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian influences are often mentioned, yes -- this should be noted in the article -- but is there data that suggets Mongolian wrestling itself can be traced to other sources as well? Shawnc 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "The Method of Chinese Wrestling". The book mentions the practice of wrestling by Manchurians and Mongolians, but states that Jiao Di by Qi You is the origin of Chinese wrestling/"all martial arts". Shawnc 17:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs: mention of early wrestling in China, and the extent to which Mongolian wrestling influenced it. We will need good sources on this. Shawnc 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit should suffice.

This marked a watershed in the history of of Kung Fu, because it led to a change of course, as Kung Fu became institutionalized. Before this, martial arts were known only in general sense.

Also consider:-

Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma.

and the opening line:-

Both versions agree while organized martial traditions in China predate the establishment of the Shaolin temple, foreign influence was vital on Shaolin's approach to institutionalized martial arts in China.

Also consider that "The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Zhongyi Tong, Tim Cartmell" explicitly states that :-

Chinese wrestling is the oldest fighting system in China. With roots in the grappling styles of Mongolians and Tibetians, the practice reached a high degree of sophistication before most other Asian martial arts were concieved, and it remains influential even today. The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Zhongyi Tong, Tim Cartmell

I'll add it despite the already existing repeated mentions then. Freedom skies| talk  07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiu-Jitsu

[edit]

A Babylonian copper stand, dating from the third Millennium B.C., shows two men applying grappling a technique found in Jiu-Jitsu. The men are trying to unbalance each other by controlling the hip

This technique is generic and is found in many wrestling traditions, so we don't need to mention Jiu-Jitsu specifically. Shawnc 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

[edit]

I'll replace it with with something Shawn might find more palatable. Here:-

Chinese wrestling is the oldest fighting system in China. This practice was later influenced by Mongolian sportive practices. <>The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Zhongyi Tong, Tim Cartmell<><>Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey By Brian L. Kennedy, Elizabeth Guo (248)<>

Now it's done. Freedom skies| talk  08:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solving it

[edit]

I saw Shawn's work in Shuai Jiao and linked the words "organized martial traditions in China predate the establishment of the Shaolin temple" in the opening line to Shuai Jiao. We have Shuai Jiao and earlier versions covered in formidable detail and no one is going to miss the link.

Now the article has a somewhat gigantic link in addition of a clarifying line in the intro to accomadate a potential reader who might not read carefully. The article is defaced to some extent, but Shawn's concerns are addressed in blaring loud clarity. All done in good faith.

The article had to change dramatically to adress some potentially careless reader. If these solutions are rejected despite my incessant efforts to address seemingly trivial concerns then we might just as well revert this version to earlier ones and wait for third party input.

Instead of the hostilities and attempts of one upmanship that usually follow in arguments like these, we have had good faith and I have accomadated Shawn.

It would be good to have those sentiments and actions reciprocated and to have Shawn's views on whether he feels a solution has been reached or not.

Freedom skies| talk  09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts"

[edit]

The title itself of my message and the title of this page should give a clue as to what it is about. If that is so (let me define: Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts}, then please people, do not remove items on martial arts from India. Doing that now, makes this article a POV one. Therefore, information from all sides must be presented including from India, Iran, Japan, Africa and so forth. Just as long as the information is provided with a referenced source it is fair game. For the sake of providing a fair and balanced article on Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts please stop deleting information in regards to India. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Influence on CMA: Suggested improvements

[edit]

(Note, this was moved from my discussion page.)

Alright, finally have the time to sit down with the article. Freedom, I know that you're a bit busy right now so there is no rush. Also, all these items are, of course, up for discussion.

1. The use of the Gracies is appropriate in the current context. (i.e to establish prevelance of the claim.) However, the "Views" section should be streamlined and some less known practioners (such as Tank Todd) can probably be excluded. I think your suggestion of putting the items into external links is a good one.

2. Along this note, "Historian" should be reserved for academic historians who research some form of asian affairs at reputable universities. Journalists, authors, and martial arts practioners are appropriate for citation, but should not be identified as a historian.

Now to go through the article section by section

3. Centres for Foreign Influence

  • This section needs some work. It starts by listing a wide variety of martial arts/dance forms (everything from Mudras to Babylonian wrestling), but then only provides citation on how GREEK forms influences Chinese martial arts (i.e. Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama.)
  • It is not enough simply to mention how martial arts existed before, and then cite that trade existed between China and her neighbors. Rather, a firm argument would provide a direct citation on how EACH of the centres mentioned directly influenced Chinese martial arts. Otherwise, the evidence is circumstantial.
  • Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama are not historians and should not be listed as such.
  • Cites 11-13 do not fit CITE qualifications. Therefore the statement it supports should be removed until a more solid citation is found.

4. Establishment of the Shaolin Temple

  • This section is good. However, it does bring up a points. For one thing, it takes up more than half the article. Also, I think part of this ongoing conflict between Freedom and JFD is an ambiguity between which sources cite for foreign influence in general, and which sources site for Bodhidharma specifically. Since I think Freedom has enough citations within this section to make another article, it might be clearer to include a synposis of your argument plus a link to the new article here. This is a well established wiki precedent.

5. Similarities

  • A sentence should be included in the beginning stating that similarity does not imply causation (as the section currently implies.) The process may have been convergent evolution, or the flow of ideas could have been reversed. Similarity in of itself is notable, but is not proof.
  • The first few sentences noting similarities in culture and mythology should be removed. No one disputes the cultural exchange between China and her neighbors and the addition of the sentences only provides circumstantial evidence for the thesis. (i.e. you can't say "B/c Chinese mythology shares similarities with XYZ, therefore Chinese martial arts resembles XYZ.")
  • Citation 42 does not fit CITE standards and the sentence it supports should be removed.
  • Citation 53-55 do not fit CITE standards. 52 is fine though, and is sufficient for the statement.
  • This sentence: "The pavillion named after Bodhidharma is in the main building..." belongs in the prior section.

6. Views (see above discussion)

So a lot to chew on for the time being. As always, these points are up for discussion. Furthermore, there's no rush, so good luck on your exams, Freedom Skies.

Djma12 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time for the thorough inspection and the excellent recommendations! I also suggest an expansion of the Mongolian, (possible) Tibetian, Middle Eastern, African and European influences complete with their own subheadings (=== ===). I basically do not have any problems with the above and will be able to craft a specific reply in a just a few hours. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should actually belong on the page itself, not on your talkpage. I suggest we move it there... I do not know if you have had time to look at my statement on this but i placed it in the discussion area in january after I read your request for discussion.... The gist of it is this...

the origins of martial arts within each culture are murky, however it is highly unlikely that one person or group "invented" the idea of self defense and then it spread throughout the world... Freedom skies has taken one approach to it and states that it originated in one place and then spread. This is disputed by historians because you see forms of wrestling and self defense in every culture and society on earth since antiquity. Further, the connection between Greek, Indian, and Chinese Martial arts is tenous given the fact that each of the three cultures had prior existing self defense forms. Historians (real academic ones) do not believe in this theory of migration.

Although Freedom skies uses Gracie's website as a source (in relation to the bodhidharma legend, india and chinese martial arts,) if you read the book by Renzo Gracie (another BJJ practioner,) he disputes the bodidharma connection.[1] This Gracie questions that theory.

Further, if you read various lay authors, they either state the bodhidharma legend as a legend, state is as a fact, or state some other legend on martial arts origins in China as fact (such as the Yellow Emperor Legend). Lay authors are not historians. If you read websites and various books on the history of chinese martial arts or any martial arts by lay people, you get different versions of how they started. The historians have already placed their theories on what the origins of martial arts in china are and they have already discussed the bodhidharma claims and the claims with Buddhist Monks (and they state that the bodhidharma story is a legend.) He also tries to suggest that historians are in disagreement with each other on the historicity of the Yi Jin Jing. This is an untrue argument. It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars, but they are in general agreement that the Yi Jin JIng is a document that cannot be trusted for its authenticity. He also tries to state that the historians are in disagreement on bodhdiharma's existence. It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is considered part of legend.

He also seems to state that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views, which is not true. There are various views of this within the lay community as you can see with the Two versions of BJJ history by the two Gracies.

Kennethtennyson 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So noted. I think the solution to this would be two-fold.
a) Expand the Criticism section to include a list of martial arts experts who dispute this theory.
b) Tone down the "Views" section. Quality over quantity.
Would that work? Djma12 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the origins of martial arts within each culture are murky, however it is highly unlikely that one person or group "invented" the idea of self defense and then it spread throughout the world

Kenny, You have called me a nationalist. If I am one then it would be pertinent to presume that I would try my hardest to resist any influence on the Indian arts? I should find the theories of Babylon, Egypt, Greece etc. influencing the arts of India unacceptable then. Yet I persist in accomadating this point of view as well for the simple reason that it exists and the article is about the foreign influences. I will expand these sections.

No one claimed that any one person "invented" all martial arts. The martial arts of several countries were influenced by the several other ones (India and China included). Martial arts such as Capoiera and Sambo are not even covered in this article and I'm begining to think that you take every single martial art to be just Kung Fu.

---

Kenny, Renzo Gracie has mentioned the Shared Conditions theory and other theories.

Oh, on Page 4 there is also an interesting mention of "purported influence of the Shaolin temple on the Japanese fighting styles." Something which should be interesting to note in the context of a certain "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article.

Something to think about.

Freedom skies| talk  11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) --- ---[reply]


The other points Kenny makes are covered in a somewhat malicious fashion in the "Bodhidharma ." article. Now does he want them to be covered in here as well ?

---

such a book is a novel — and if it is, why is a work of fiction being cited as a reliable source?

[2]

A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan. Subjects discussed include new religions in postwar Japan, beliefs about fox-possession in the Heian period, and the religious life of the first shogunate in the late twelfth century. The essays offer fresh insights into the rich religious traditions of Japan, many of which have been previously neglected in the English-language writing on Japan.

---

Djma12, In any event, I have the festival of Holi, my practical exams and my vacations to attend to as well. The opposition will not agree with this article and I will not agree with the opoosition's article. I have chosen to leave their article alone though your involvement would have certainly rid it of some mailce. I will edit to a new version which will take into account the earlier discussion. This should take three days. If you feel that enough has been done to have a WP article that can be left alone for now then the matter will be closed. If you feel otherwise then I'll edit till you feel that the article is good enough and can do for now. I'll let this message remain on your talk page and I'll request a future thorough inspection from you soon so I can get back to my taxing routine in real life without having to worry about here.

My apologies for the hasty, unrefined message. Many regrads,

Freedom skies| talk  08:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that some substantial edits need to made on the page, but I also think that the issue is not pressing. I am willing to go through the article with you at your leisure so that we can arrive at a consensus on what to change. Djma12 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made minor corrections to my earlier post specifying which section was directed to whom. Freedom skies| talk  21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

[edit]

I modified the "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" article. The new changes do not include anything drastic at all. I'll provide a list of changes below:-

  • I made the sources more verifiable by providing Publishers, ISBN etc. for them. [3]
  • Added a line:- "Indian Buddhist infusion was vital in the development Asian fighting systems. It is possible to trace the history of Buddhist influence on martial arts from India to Japan."
  • Further reading :- Added a This_article's_sources section and Related info section. I have yet to interfere with the other article (even though the opposition sometimes seems to violate the norm) but it accuses the sources of this article to be "lay." This should actually let the reader judge for himself.

That's about it. I was about to leave the article for a long time and thought it best to edit it to WP standards in representation. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  09:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented improvements

[edit]

In response to suggested improvements as put forwards by Djma12 :-

  • Modified the intro as the article covers elements of CMA outside of the Shaolin (Mongolian and Manchurian influences).
  • Created a section for Mongolian and Manchurian influences using existing sources.
  • Created a section for possible greek influence using existing source.
  • Removed portions from "Similarities."
  • Changed "academic authors" to "Authors."
  • Added Nat Geo cite. I wanted to add a whole lot of material but in the present scenario, I can't find time to type up from multiple sources.
  • I made the sources more verifiable by providing Publishers, ISBN etc. for them. [4]
  • Added a line:- "Indian Buddhist infusion was vital in the development Asian fighting systems. It is possible to trace the history of Buddhist influence on martial arts from India to Japan."
  • Further reading :- Added a This_article's_sources (information about sources used to craft this article) section and Related info section.

Freedom skies| talk  11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved discussion

[edit]

i copied the discussion on the talk page to here; all of our discussion should be here because it is getting difficult to follow people's train of thought. as for Freedom skies response, we go back to our old argument again... As i stated before, many lay people have many theories... historians have already weighed down on the issue. The idea of transferrence from one culture in ancient almost prehistoric times of physical self defense methods doesn't make any sense given the fact that self defense methods existed in every culture on earth and weapons for that self defense existed in every culture on earth. Prehistoric man in every part of the continent knew how to wrestle, shoot a bow and arrow, and fight with clubs and sticks. And I'm pretty sure it didn't take them a long time to make it an organized fighting method. Although i appreciate you modifying your article to make it somewhat closer to accepted beliefs and with less biased statements, you are still selectively quoting authors who support your belief. I guess some change is better than no change.

As for Renzo Graycie, a representative of the Graycie family, he wrote in his book "this is somewhat suprising because there is very little hard evidence or inherent credibility for the claim that one person or one group laid an original or unprecedented foundation for the fighting arts..." in regards to the idea of diffusion from one center or country all the way across the world to another. And he isn't even a historian. I merely use this example to show that lay authors all have different view points and that selectively quoting someone's website probably is not a great idea and just reflects his personal beliefs or the beliefs of his website creator. Kennethtennyson 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

many lay people have many theories... historians have already weighed down on the issue.

First of all, we don't get to decide who is lay or not. Calling authors like Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki lay because they venerate Bodhidharma is not sound rationale. Secondly, historians have weighed down the matter admirably. The lists exist for everyone to see and judge for themelves.

-

The idea of transferrence from one culture in ancient almost prehistoric times of physical self defense methods doesn't make any sense given the fact that self defense methods existed in every culture on earth and weapons for that self defense existed in every culture on earth.

Sure it does'nt. I'm sorry but this deals with the foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. What does the "martial art of every civilization on Earth" has to do with it? Martial arts like Glima and Sumo wrestling are not even covered here and they existed independent of the influences we talk about. Why do you persist in misrepresenting this article as one that aims to establish a connection between all of the world's arts?

-

Kenny, Renzo Gracie has mentioned the "Centralized origins" and the "Shrared conditions" thoeries. On Page 4 there is also a mention of "purported influence of the Shaolin temple on the Japanese fighting styles." Something which should be interesting to note in the context of a certain "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article.

-

In any event, I have submitted the article to the scrutiny of Djma12. A verdict from a neutral, third party held in high regards by all involved ought to decide the matter admirably.

Freedom skies| talk  01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am currently working on:

  1. Some minor rewording of sections for more neutral language. (i.e. "is influenced by" to "possibly influenced by", etc...
  2. I am also adding an intro paragraph to the "Similarities" section to clarify it's intent.
  3. Finally, I think we can remove the "Origins of Bodhidharma" section, and that the whole Bodhidharma section can be merged into the "Establishment of the Shaolin Monastery" section more fluidly. However, this would be a major change, so I will await Freedom Skies' return to active editting before I pursue that. Djma12 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


sigh

[edit]

I'm not sure if you actually read what I am writing freedom skies nor if you clearly read the authors you are quoting. Suzuki has written a volume of information on Zen and you really need to take a religious history course before you google random statements and extrapolate from what he has written on the history of zen from those statements in regards to what you believe is the history of martial arts. Read all of what Renzo graycie has written. He flatly states taht between the two "theories" your belief on the theories is the least likely. regardless of what Renzo writes, he is not a historian and I merely quote him to make an example that you shouldn't randomly quote websites of martial artists because there is a diverse view of how various martial arts started in the general lay community. Anyways, as I've stated before, this article suffers from bias, selective quotationns of authors, exagerrations, and in some cases false statements. You continue to state that I belong to a "Chinese Cabal." I'm not even Chinese! yet if one looks at your actions on wikipedia and all of the edit wars that you have been part of, it's pretty obvious that the nationalist and prejudiced person that we are dealing with here is you freedom skies. However, I must state that you are more reasonable than other nationalists on wikipedia. Kennethtennyson 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennethtennyson's knowledge on martial arts can be judged here. He has left a note here.

All his points have already been answered in detail here and here.

Kennethtennyson has also engaged in talk page disruptions here, here and many other pages.

Freedom skies| talk  11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

[edit]
We've discussed this merge issue before. The ironic thing is that the "bodhidharma/martial arts" article existed about a full year before freedomskies wrote his article on the "foreign influence on chinese martial arts". Currenlty, I favor not merging because both articles because the "bodhidharma/martial arts" article discusses bodhidharma whereas freedomskies articles on "foreign influnece" goes on and on about other theories. Kennethtennyson 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as long as you don't get to edit it, i'm all for it.--D-Boy 06:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_martial_arts_(origins)/Archive_2&oldid=1136293583"