Talk:Bullshido/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido

Hi, I nominated this particular article for votes for deletion, because it does not really meet the criteria for what should be included on wikipedia. Valuable other contributions to the martial arts articles or any others would of course be very welcome. - Taxman 23:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think this article is just the same as the bullshit article. I think it is okay to keep. If this should be removed, why shouldn't the bullshit article be removed too? Kowloonese 23:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. The results of the debate were to redirect to McDojo without merging any content. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido for a record of the votes and discussion. Postdlf 14:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Bullshido.com websites

In the hopes of averting an Edit War between Wikipedia and the owner and members of Bullshido.com, I'd like to fill everyone in on some happenings. I am a Bullshido.com regular and Supporting Member so I've made myself involved in this issue.

Here is a summary of the story so far:

Phrost, owner of the Bullshido websites, portal and forums, recently found that his original Bullshido article had been deleted. Unfamiliar with the VfD procedure, and probably most Wikipedia policies and standards, he took offense and suspected foul play, and wrote an entirely new article and published it. This article itself didn't much concern me (it is interesting, if POV), but what did concern me was that he encourages Bullshido members to monitor his article and to always make sure it contained his text (which he now supplies on his site) should anyone edit it.

Obviously, as Wikipedian with at least a basic knowledge of our standards and policies, I was against this, and tried to reason with him.

His post and our following discussion can be found here:

http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=19970

I attempted to inform him how and why the Bullshido pages was removed due to VfD policies and proper procedure, showed how I had been part of the VfD discussion, and tried to assure him that there was no conspiracy to silence him. I also told him to expect heavy edits to his new article, per the NPOV policy, and I asked that he not turn this into an Edit War.

If you read the thread, you can see that almost all of my aims backfired at first: He read some of the Wikipedia:NPOV policy and took offense to it, denounced Wikipedia as a failure, and openly declared he would edit the page daily if anyone tries to change its message. The part of this he takes offense to is also having to neutrally present the other side of the argument too, since he is so convinced of his own argument.

Thankfully, other members joined the discussion and helped cool him down. Phrost has asked me to be the "official" Bullshido liaison to Wikipedia, which I accepted, since I had been doing "unofficially" own my own. My first "official" action was to post this notice. It is my belief that if Bullshido really wants its message to be known on Wikipedia, it must work within the policies and framework here, as purposely breaking rules and disregarding NPOV will not succeed.

I am still working to recruit some Bullshido members to Wikipedia, since many are very well informed in martial arts, but I have yet to really campaign for this, since I'm too worried about the heavy POV we at Bullshido tend to bring to any discussion.

Anyway, just consider this a huge FYI.

--Aesopian 20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Discussion

Apparently when I posted the original article (which along with the thread Aesopian references was admitedly written in about 5 minutes after noticing Bullshido had been redirected to McDojo) I hadn't had my morning coffee.

Let me just say that I am militantly Pro-Science and Pro-Reason (though obviously not always so pro-reasonable). My original interpretation of what Aesopian was explaining the Wikipedia standards to be was that Wikipedia's policies were to present completely subjective arguments on equal footing with those that have evidentiary support and are (as much as anything in Science can be) essentially considered factual by rational people.

I remaim skeptical of Wikipedia's policy with regards to this, however I can and will respect the standard of presenting an article with an NPOV. The difficulty of this is in defining Bullshido without presenting the things that the word represents. It is much like trying to define "Snake Oil" without mentioning the dangerous and sometimes toxic oils and elixers that were fraudulently sold to the public as cures for ailments.

As to the argument of whether or not there is a need for this definition in the first place: A McDojo is a school that teaches Bullshido, but Bullshido is not limited to the confines of a Dojo ("Mc" or otherwise.) The general public has a misunderstanding of what the Martial Arts are, and what they can teach a person to do.

There is no specific interest to use Wikipedia to market Bullshido.com (anyone can Google the term and it's the first site listed in the index). However, the purpose of the site is specifically to identify and discuss the state of Bullshido in the martial arts. Bullshido.com(.net, .org, etc) and McDojo.com (.net, all different URLs for the same website) are the primary source for information on the subject on the internet. To leave links to the website out of the articles for Bullshido and McDojo would be like leaving the link to NASA off of the article for Space_Travel.

Phrost 15:22 31 Dec 2004

As a professional martial artist I can say that I believe bullshido.com is indeed notable enough for its own article, and I voted that way on the Bullshido VfD way back when. They are rowdy and raucous, but they have a point that wasn't effectively addressed to my knowledge in an organized way before that site was started, which is to say, they are pointing out publicly that there are hundreds of little Ashida Kim's and Mantak Chia's out there bilking soccer moms out of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of charges for qigong psychic healings or belt fees every day. There is also a valid distinction to be made between martial artists who choose not to fight and those who can't fight. I choose not to fight every day, but if I really don't have a choice, well, it's time to fight. I will support and expand this article a bit in the future. Fire Star 05:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is much, if any, conflict between Wikipedia policies and pro-reason personal philosophy. Wikipedia aims to be the largest encyclopedic compendium of human knowledge ever produced and to be successful (that is, to be a base of knowledge that can further be used to enhance human understanding and quality of life by continuing application of human reason) it needs to contain factual information that can be verified. However, topics that are supernatural or pseudoscience are also part of the sum total of our knowledge and thus need to be included. Actually, the example you cite, snake oil, is a good illustration of an article that is quite NPOV but still firmly details the quackery and fraud in question. There are many more such articles in Category:Fraud. I think you should take a look at some of them for hints if you intent to write more about fraud in martial arts. Here's a list of MA related articles currently in that category: Bullshido, McDojo and belt factory (and I personally don't mind if someone adds Ashida Kim, Frank Dux and Saito Ninjitsu to that category also; although Saito Ninjitsu should probably be submitted to VfD).
Note that your original text was heavily edited by Fire Star and I not because of any great disagreement over the concept of bullshido, but because it was editorial in style and opinionated. If you wan't to express strong opinions for or against something, use Talk-pages or your own User-page(s), bias/essays/rants and other kinds of unsubstantiated non-encyclopedic passages will be edited away from the main article namespace. I concur with you that the external link to bullshido.com should remain in these articles, it is notable enough website, warranting a link and few sentences of text. jni 13:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discuss direction for article.

Greetings everyone. The article as it stands needs to be more encyclopaedic and less anecdotal if it's going to survive. I believe it is possible while retaining an accurate report of the concept. Also, the current article is Japanese specific, but this is a problem in other styles that don't use words like dojo or kata. Comments? Fire Star 21:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Discuss direction

Japanese terminology tends to be generally understood by most martial artists (so much so that some Chinese Martial Arts schools even use it themselves... which is another rant). Generic terms such as "School" (instead of Dojo, Kwoon, Dojang, etc) or "Forms" (instead of "kata", "poomse", etc), could probably be used as this article was written more for a Martial Arts audience instead of one that might not know what a "Dojo" is to begin with.

Phrost 20:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changing the primary references to generic English terms would do it for me. Because of dialect and family differences there isn't one good word, even in Chinese, that we can use for a school, but a link to dojo, or even an explanation in the article as to the word's Japanese origin, should be kept as most people interested in the subject do indeed understand the term. It will be good to keep a couple of layers of info in there for newbies too, because good reliable information is the cure for "Bullshido." The style I do is probably the most bastardized martial art in the world, and I am on Wikipedia solely to put good info out there to thereby make things just a little bit tougher for the hundreds of frauds claiming to be "masters" if I can. Fire Star 21:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quick Question

I'm not sure who added this:

"Or she may have learned to hit hard and fast to enable her to escape." The idea of an average-sized 16 year old girl hitting a full grown man with enough force to actually deter him from physically imposing his will on her is borderline Bullshido itself. It reeks of the "one hit one kill" mentality which pervades most McDojos that supposedly teach self defense. Even groin shots, eye gouges, and other "dirty" techniques do not magically incapacitate all attackers, especially those under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Granted, fighting back might cause an attacker to break off his attack if his intentions were to find a helpless target. But it's irresponsible to teach smaller, weaker people an unrealistic assessment of their skills, especially without the caveats that not everything works 100% of the time, and the best self defense is being aware enough of your surroundings to avoid being a target in the first place.

Phrost 20:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit

I have re-read the article after a month and have moved the following section from the article, as the examples and their sources aren't apparently verifiable they thereby violate the general Wikipedia policies of no original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

"Often discounted by some self-described "traditional" martial arts instructors and students who have no sincere desire to actually get hit in their quest to be a martial arts master, a lack of hard contact, limited rules sparring, or competition also has a dangerous drawback: an unrealistic assessment of one's personal skills which can lead to an overestimation of them in a dangerous situation.
For example: Consider a 16 year old girl who has "earned" her black belt after a dubiously short two or three years through diligent practice of forms and learning a foreign alphabet. When faced with a larger male attacker, alone in a parking lot, instead of running or screaming for help, she might decide to rely on her "Black Belt expertise" to subdue the man who outweighs her by up to 100 lbs, using techniques learned through unrealistic drills or inefficient kata practice alone. Such a choice is likely to result with the girl being further victimized if not severely beaten, raped, or murdered.
However, had said girl trained realistically, by competing with less restrictive rules (as real fights do not stop when you score a "point") against larger opponents in a dojo, she might have chosen to run instead, having a more realistic understanding of her limitations. Or she may have learned to hit hard and fast to enable her to escape. Obviously this is all allegorical. But it is still a consequence of having an unrealistic assessment (or none at all) of one's martial skills due to an unwillingness to actually "fight" in the course of seeking to become proficient at the martial arts.
Additionally, such concepts as "Martial Arts are not for fighting" are considered Bullshido as well by some people. In many cases they are the shields behind which McDojos that negligently teach poor or impractical skills, seek to hide when questioned on their fighting prowess. Often quoted is a line from The Karate Kid in which Daniel LaRusso answers Mr. Miyagi's question on the subject of the purpose of training in the martial arts as: "so I don't have to fight". Unfortunately, many of the concepts and ideas from this movie have been used to spawn hundreds of McDojos across the country. Learning how to avoid fights can be done in a psychology course, or through simple common sense in avoiding high-risk areas. You do not practice punching and kicking, and other ways to injure another person, as a means to avoid doing so. Martial arts techniques were preserved, taught and trained so that if the need arises, they will be effective."

There isn't anything wrong with reporting on these concepts in the context of this article, but they should be reports of actual published news stories or articles, not hearsay or hypothetical, inherently POV examples. An encyclopaedia requires real examples and remember to cite your sources. Fire Star 06:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lots of edits without comments.

Are we now in an editing war?

Links other bullshido.com and text other than that promoted by bullshido.com seem to be appearing and disappearing.


Paul from Atlanta

There is a new article at Wikipedia, Martialism, and there is a history of friction between the two groups so they are trolling each other a bit, but that is because they are all relatively new here. I feel there is room enough at Wikipedia for us to report both sides (and their alleged biases) accurately and without bias on our part, warts and all. IME, as far as edit wars go, this one is pretty mild. Fire Star 02:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


--

There is no "friction" between Bullshido (the site) and any "Martialist" fringe groups. Any attempts to portray it as such is done specifically to try to legitimize their point of view. Bullshido's mandate is to critically examine all aspects of the Martial Arts, and those who make excuses to try and avoid proving their skills as effective are our primary targets. It just happens that these people fall under this category, and apparently do not like to have to defend their views against critical thinking. Phrost

Well, to demonstrate my "bias" I've also insisted that Bullshido's review of their website stay on their article. Any article on a cultural phenomenon should have pro and con reviews (if such exist) to establish notability. If there are more criticisms of Bullshido by notable groups, fringe or frauds or whatever, then they should also be linked to the Bullshido article. If there are positive reviews of Bullshido by notable groups, they should be linked, too. Why not? Wikipedia is not paper. You guys opened the door by criticising others, you can't be legitimately offended when your targets repay the compliment.
Personally, I don't agree with either one of you about martial arts, but that doesn't matter, I do agree that both of your viewpoints are notable enough for viable articles (especially considering the loads of incredibly trivial crap that Wikipedia does have articles about), but to stay here unmolested they will have to be encyclopaedia articles. You don't want to call what you guys are engaging in "friction" that is your prerogative, but I still see anonymous editors (and now you) removing critical reviews and nothing else from the articles. Elmore has agreed to not contest the criticism of him and his website from Bullshido that is linked to the Martialism article. As well, we have links to Bullshido's critical reviews of other groups (Ashida Kim, for example) on their articles, so it is normal practice to link these things to existing articles, not intended as bias. It is just to provide info for people researching these issues. If you are interested in critical thinking, why not allow as much information as possible to be available (available, not endorsed) to potential thinkers? Fire Star 21:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How many of the websites "reviewed" by Bullshido have entire FAQ files devoted to them at the site?


Hostile Editing and Irrelevant Garbage

This is mostly directed at FireStar, who's taken it upon himself to hack this article into pieces as a result of his own bias from training in impractical fighting arts like Tai Chi Chuan.

There is no "Martialist/Bullshido" rivalry. Bullshido's members review dozens if not hundreds of martial arts websites, and the only editorial criteria for such involve presentability, and verifiable sources. The problem is that those of the "martialist" persuasion seem to have taken the most exception as of late to having their ideas examined critically.

You, FireStar, are abusing your position as a Wikipedia administrator to further your agenda. It's transparent and morally repugnant. Adding in links to sub-sub-niche sites that take issue with having their ideas filtered through reason, science, and empiricism is asinine. The articles on James Randi,CSICOP, and Consumer Reports do not include links to those who are disgruntled at being criticised, so why, if not for reasons of bias, are you so insistant on interjecting such into this article?

Well, 24.58.63.228, I'm sorry that you feel that way. I really am agreeable, and quite happy to go over every point to reach a consensus if you'd like. So far, there hasn't been much interest in discussion from the Bullshido people. You are the first one to address me directly since January. If you feel I am abusing my position as an admin (although I have performed no administrative functions for this article, any editor could do what I have been doing), there are channels you can take your complaint to. It may interest you to know that since the article has already been voted to be deleted and redirected once, I am within my rights as an admin to simply delete it at any time, no questions asked, and block anyone who tries to recreate it. I don't because I believe that the concept is notable and deserves a chance. That being said, it has to be an encyclopaedia article if it is going to stay, not a promotional puff-piece for Bullshido's unique MMA point of view. Please see our Wikipedia:NPOV policy. The articles on James Randi, CSICOP, and Consumer Reports certainly could have links to rebuttals if the editors of those articles so wished. Why not? There are criticisms at Reiki, qigong, Ashida Kim, Bruce Lee and Mantak Chia for example, even in the main body of the article. Including any criticisms doesn't mean they are justified, or that Wikipedia in general thinks the criticisms are. I don't agree completely with Elmore's criticisms, myself, I have an entirely different set of personal opinion about Bullshido or James Randi or network television, etc., that won't ever be in the respective articles because I am not notable, and we have a policy of no original research. The links are simply more public information and our readers can take it with a grain of salt. The only thing that such links prove objectively is that someone is out there talking about Bullshido, which makes it that much more notable in my book. As I said, if this article gets too much attention it may very likely be simply deleted, as any other admin who wants to hit the delete button can do so without a legitimate objection from me. Fire Star 14:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Odd, 24.58.63.228 is me. I was apparently not logged in at the time I posted it. What you're saying, essentially, is both that Bullshido is an article because it is being discussed, but if it's being discussed too much, it's worthy of deletion? That makes absolutely no sense. The irony about this one-sided "rivalry" between "Martialists" and the members at Bullshido who they apparently take exception to, is that they essentially espouse the same viewpoints with but one difference: the value placed on actually testing the skills that can be tested, through sparring. Regardless, the fact that there's a FAQ at Bullshido about Elmore and his cohorts reflects the efforts of a small group of members who took exception the Elmore group's unwillingness to spar, and dubious credentials (such as creating a martial art of his own with admitedly very little direct martial experience, and then paradoxically awarding himself a less-than master rank in said art). The only reason it was formatted into an actual FAQ was to test the functionality of the software, and not as a reflection of any editorial point of view. Elmore has always been welcome to rebut his comments on Bullshido without fear of being banned, having his comments edited and/or deleted, or threads locked for anything other than pure spamming. In fact, he has posted there in the past, and these posts were generally recieved with respect, unlike the censorship and labeling of nearly all criticism on his own forums as "Trolling". Regardless, there are dozens of websites that discuss Bullshido, good and bad. None of them, save Elmore, take the time to register domains and construct websites in bad faith attempts to retaliate at what is legitimate criticism of someone who refuses to defend his own views without being in an environment over which he has absolute editorial control. Fighting unfairly is one thing. Arguing unfairly to defend your ideas from criticism and then claiming to be an Objectivist, makes you a hypocrite. --Phrost 04:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Others have already decided that they feel the article is worthy of deletion. I was responding to the accusation that I was biased against having an article on the topic (somehow based on the fact that I train T'ai Chi Ch'uan?) by saying that if I did want to remove this article from Wikipedia, all I have to do is press one button. I've opened myself up to potential criticism by not deleting it as soon as it was recreated, actually. And if there were a complaint lodged against me over this, then the other admins or moderators who would consider the complaint could very well just say "Why is this still here?' and redirect it back to McDojo after blanking the content. So, I'm not an enemy, I'm not here to trash Bullshido.com, I'm here to make sure there is a balanced and fair article on the subject. Others may have a different idea of "fair," so that is why we have to work towards consensus over time. Personally, I've nothing against whatever martial art mixture any group out there cares to whallop each other with, but I'm not intimidated by other styles (or rhetoric) either, FWIW. Wikipedia is a valuable tool for getting good, reliably documented info about all styles of martial arts out there to a comic book reading ninja-crazed public who might otherwise think that David Carradine or Crouching Tiger actually had something to do with learning martial arts somehow.
My defense is that I allow the article to exist at all because: 1. I agree with the concept that many, especially Western, martial arts instructors nowadays are hacks pretending to be something that they aren't, and (more importantly): 2. I know from personal experience that Bullshido.com is well-known to many English speaking martial artists who have internet access. I mentioned this but abstained from voting in the original VfD, so I avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest that would now arise if I had voted to keep the article. No single person or POV, not you or I, nobody, can exclusively dictate the content of any article on Wikipedia. These things are done by consensus, and I am willing to meet you or Elmore or anyone halfway, or more than halfway even, as long as doing so doesn't violate WP policy. For example, I haven't put the Elmore link back in because you object to it, and anyone interested could find it with just a little extra effort on their part anyway. If there is a link to or citation of a source that has what you would say is a more credible criticism of Bullshido.com's philosophy or methods, it would be a good thing to have in the article, however. Fire Star 06:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Fair enough. The fact that you can actually respond to criticism rationally and without losing your head over it is good enough to earn my respect. The main point from our side in the removal of a link to Elmore's gibberish is that of all the dozens of individuals or groups on the fringes of the martial arts that have been discussed at Bullshido, Elmore is on the bottom of the list. There are no open investigations on him as it only takes a cursory examination of his credentials to understand what he's about. Hell, if you get down to it, aside from his own writings, he and I probably have the exact same books on our shelves because we share a lot of the same ideas. But Bullshido (the network of websites) is somewhat like Wikipedia in that consensus of thought guides editorial decisions. Martial Artists from every background have had the red carpet rolled out for them to explain their views and defend them if necessary. We don't censor for anything other than spamming, blatant racism, or over the top trolling, explicitly in order to allow all POVs to be represented. It's just that the consensus (for the moment at least) seems to be against not what Elmore says, what qualifies him to say it.
Again, we're working on bigger and better things, and it'd be irreponsible (and I say this not pejoratively, but figuratively) to misrepresent a small group of people who all agree with each other and hang out in a shanty in the backwoods of the Internet, as on the same footing as a large town made up of thousands of people with diverse and often divergent opinions and backgrounds. To use a different analogy, the former is a support group, the latter is a convention. But if you feel there is merit to including a paragraph on Bullshido's detractors, I'll write it myself and do my best to keep it NPOV. I just think that doing so would turn the article into an advertisment for both Bullshido and Elmore's website (among others), as it'd require either off-wiki linking to various articles/reviews, or reworking of all related Wiki articles to include information in the interests of being thorough. It's just easier to keep this article as a definition of the concept of Bullshido, with a little information on where the term comes from at this point in time.
As far as a link to this article over on martialism, it makes me no difference. I've never commented on anything over there and frankly have no interest in editing that article. I'll defer to your judgement on that. --Phrost 14:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kewl. We definitely don't want to turn it into advertising, so I agree to keep things more neutral we don't have to be a link AFAIAC to any other site on the main article page. You could just run up a two or three sentence "criticisms of Bullshido" from some of the bigger groups you have come across, a sort of "list of excuses" if you will, and provide the citations here on the talk page, if necessary. More later... Fire Star 17:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A reference to criticisms would not need to focus on Phil Elmore or any particular critic. Nor is "rivalry" the most appropriate term for the relationship between Bullshido.com and the sites mentioned most frequently on Bullshido.com, as Phrost correctly points out. On the other hand, some sort of balance here is needed. We've got no citations for the history of such challenges that Bullshido.com is said to be based on and documentation would be appropriate. Nor do you have look to Martialists etc. to find recurring patterns of criticism of methods, tone and accountability on Bullshido.com. I suspect someone other than Phrost would have to compile those criticisms if you want balance. paulfromatlanta 04:03, 22 Apr 2005
There are some statements at the Bruce Lee complex of articles along the lines of a traditional response to JKD that may be what we can work from. This isn't an easy issue, I've been thinking about how to keep a balance with this one. So far, Elmore's response is the only one I personally know of in the public domain, and should be mentioned somewhere, dispassionately of course. Has Ashida Kim responded at all to Bullshido's criticism of him?
The following is from the Jeet Kune Do article:
"Bruce Lee's comments and methods are seen as controversial. Many teachers from traditional schools disagree with his opinions on these issues, especially seeing what Lee described as their lack of strategic flexibility due to "rote" teaching methods to be a misunderstanding on Lee's part. Most, if not all, traditional martial arts teachers say "fluid" strategy is a feature of martial training that is indeed addressed in the curricula of most traditional styles at advanced levels, when the students are ready. The schools Lee criticized tend to see their initial conservatism as a safety feature; a legacy of practical experience passed down from generation to generation, said to ensure that their students are thoroughly prepared for advanced martial training, skipping nothing and developing intangibles such as good character, patience and discipline. The hierarchy of the traditional schools is said by this reasoning to provide a level playing field for all students by instilling respect and care for one's seniors, peers and juniors, so that everyone, not just the physically gifted, has an opportunity to benefit from the training provided in a martial art school."
Now that isn't exactly applicable in the specifics of the case, I'm not saying JKD and Bullshido.com are the same thing by any means, but it is a good general example of how to report a widespread divergence of opinion. In this case, the traditional opinion is a paraphrase taken from the martial arts teachers in Hong Kong that I have studied with (including people associated with Yip Man, who presumably had a notable opinion of Bruce). It's like saying "Most Muslims believe this while most Christians believe that" and leaving it. No implicit or explicit value judgments, no offense meant or taken. In this case, since Bullshido is itself a criticism of various groups, their response is going to sound critical, but our presentation of it shouldn't be. We have to emphasise that we are giving as many sides of the story as are notable enough to give readers a better reference. Fire Star 15:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it comes down to a question: Is the term "Bullshido" as referenced in this article seperable from Bullshido.com. If they are not seperable then the article is not really reflective of the web site - Bullshido.com does not engage in rivalries, it is an attack website - that is the sole purpose. Sometimes the attacks are fair and well researched and do expose serious problems. At other times the attacks mis-aimed, poorly researched and mainly reflect the bias of the senior members. The latter sort does harm particularly since whenever there is a problem, the site's most likely position is that they can't be responsible for the members. I have seen this happen here in Atlanta even when a moderator was intimately involved in the investigation/challenge. The article has none of that balance if it is intended to be about Bullshido.com. On the other hand, if "Bullshido" as portreyed in this article is considered seperate from Bullshido.com then why is only the view from within the admin side of the web site being really reflected? paulfromatlanta 15:37, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)
That would be a good topic for a paragraph in the article itself. Does the term bullshido have viability with martial artists beyond referring to the website? We have more or less established that McDojo does. The website is the provenance for the term, however, so at least we can keep the distinction clear. Fire Star 20:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renominated for VfD

I've renominated this page for VfD. The point has been made by User:Fire Star that any admin would be within their rights to execute the previous community consensus. Thus, I am asking the community to reconsider that consensus. --MikeJ9919 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

I've merged and redirected this article, in line with the VfD result. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... there were more than enough votes to leave the article as it was. What the hell is your problem, Mel? --Phrost 14:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I've UN-redirected the article. How you can dismiss the votes to keep the article outright and claim to be impartial is beyond me. Google shows 46,000 hits for the word Bullshido, and only a fraction of those are about the Bullshido website. It is an established concept in the martial arts and deserves its own article. If anything, "McDojo" should be redirected to Bullshido as it falls within the term's scope. However, yet again we're dealing with rabid bias here. --Phrost 14:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
In case there was some confusion, here's the record of the vote:
[Here Phrost appended the whole of the second VfD discussion, including everything except the admin's report of the result.]
  1. Calm down; that's the last time I respond to an aggessive message from you. If you stay within Wikiquette (or just non-Wiki good manners), then we can discuss this further.
  2. Why have you chosen to omit the result of the VfD, which was: "The result of the debate was - should be merged"? That's what I'm acting on, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. You can't not have noticed the result, so your position here is clearly bad faith. I've protected the redirect to prevent you reverting again against community consensus. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
You continue to insult me, and then expect that I should respond politely?
  • Bad Faith? I copied and pasted everything below the header. The only thing I left out was the statement that the "consensus" was to redirect. Nowhere on that page is there any evidence to support this consensus. However, there are more than enough votes to keep the article the way it was. It was never demonstrated that the individuals who voted to keep it were "sock puppets", but their votes were still dismissed outright. Even FireStar concluded that there were enough votes for the article to remain unmerged. You need to explain this. I didn't "chose to omit the result" of anything. The result of the vote was clearly to keep the article.
  • And as I said, if there should be a merger, the content should be merged under the Bullshido article, as the term encompasses both McDojos and Belt Factories, amongst many other examples of fraud, pseudoscience, and unethical practices in the martial arts. This is the only logical way of merging the article if you, Mel, aren't acting in "bad faith" yourself. --70.246.79.251 19:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC) Not Logged In, Phrost.

I'm acting in accordance with the result of the admin who closed it, not with the verdict of an interested party who recreated the article against consensus. For a better understanding of the VfD process, read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion, esoecially Discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


NPOV / Accuracy Concerns

I think that there are some problems with this article. While it does address disagreements with "anti-bullshido" proponents, it only does so in a cursory way so as to dismiss them-the article is essentially an essay in favor of the bullshido concept. I'm no fan of bullshido, but I am a fan of NPOV. Also, the source cited regarding the forbidding of training in other martial arts is actually inappropriate-all that website says is that their dojo is for aikido practice and aikido practice only, not that their students are forbidden to take classes at another martial arts school. There are other schools that do make such rules, so I think another example should be found and substituted for the one given. I will do so, if no one has a problem with that. I believe that the rules and regulations listed at http://www.hwarangdo.com/rules.htm are a much better example of extreme (and legally unenforceable) legalism in martial arts schools.

If you can provide instances where you feel there is not enough "disagreement" with Bullshido as a concept, I'll be happy to try to help adjust the article as appropriate or address them here. As for the example I provided, if you feel that a better example exists, it will only help the article. I think it's worth noting that even if someone wanted to train something else at that facility (for example, using Aikido against Greco-Roman wrestling), that would be disallowed, as GR-Wrestling would violate the rules of that school. Aikido could only be trained against Aikido, limiting its generalizability against other methods of attack.
I think that still merits inclusion in the article as an example of Bullshido in a different context (forbidding outside techniques in a place, even during free time and not in class). It would be no different than if during a class on using MS Word, the professor got angry at someone who was already finished for the day, and was using Adobe Photoshop to try to learn it hands-on. Learning PS does not inhibit the learning of MS Word, and the professor forbidding the acquisition of new knowledge on one's own free time. Once someone is done for the day with the lesson, the professor has no right to stop them from learning new lessons or to criticize them for that. --Scb steve 19:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This term is exclusively associated with Bullshido.net. [1] For this reason, it violate two of key official policy, "NPOV" and "Wikipedia is not a soap box". Fraudent martial arts practice or claims are simply described as such, fraudulent, not bullshido outside bullshido.net. For this reason, this article should be nominated for deletion (again). McDojo, being a part of McWords may survive provided that clear break is made from POV of bullshido.net. FWBOarticle


You are incorrect that the term is exclusively associated with Bullshido.net[2] [3] (October 7th, 2005 entry). It enjoys common usage outside of the website[4] [5]. The word "Bullshido" is hardly the first or last creative term used to describe a general concept or idea. For example, the term Ambulance Chaser refers to a certain type of lawyer. We could say "Ambulance Chasers should be deleted because unethical lawyer practices are simply described as such, unethical lawyer practices." Or we could be more open to new possibilities and acknowledge the coining of new words and terms to describe a phenomenon.

Ineed, he's right you know. I'd have to say Phrost knows the terminalogy of the phrase he coined, the usage of which he hasn't objected to himself at all. But apart from my speculation, yes, it's used commonly. As bullshido is a popular site amongst martial artsists, the word is as well. Ah, and there's one thing I am a little sceptical of. I don't see how thinking you can take on armed opponents falls under bullshido, or being able to handle multiple attacker situations. Someone who doesn't train for this, isn't properly preparing themselves for chaotic street situations. The example was accurate. Unless you think you're Bruce Lee on steroids, you certainly won't be in a very fortunate situation if ambushed, in a dark alley, by a gang guys who are much bigger than you, with lead pipes. But, weapons are easily disarmed, if you know what you're doing. And multiple attacker situations can be controlled. The point is valid, as I know it's usually dealing with very unrealistic claims in regards to those abilities normally gained through the martial arts. But I believe that section needs more detail and clarification. Other than that, the entire article looks excellent. --Waenishikusu 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Regarding the issues of taking on armed or multiple opponents, it is true that some systems of martial arts prepare for such things (personally, I train in Krav Maga, and this is one of the scenarios it prepares for). However, the context for doing so is when there is no other option except to engage. In my experience, every system of martial arts or combatives has emphasized running away or avoiding such encounters. As for weapons being "easily disarmed", that introduces a whole argument into the effectiveness of unarmed combat against an armed assailant without knowledge of their training or intent.
I'm not aware of any martial art or combatives system that credibly and vocally expresses that training in their style will give you a near-guaranteed victory against armed assailants. The only such expressions I've seen are from TRSDirect "learn by tape" series that combine Bullshido with excessive overconfidence (the double-modifier is intentional). The Bullshido part comes in when there is a claim of guaranteed victory, as opposed to the concept of training for such encounters.

My use of the term "exclusive" is incorrect. It had to be "heavily". Still, there are problems. Wikipedia NPOV state that significant minority view ought to presented. My example of google search still shows that use of bullshido is pretty much dominated by bullshido.net. While bullshido occasionally pop up in some websites or by posting of individual forum user, some of them no doubt user of bullshido.net, this does not satisfy Wikipedia criteria. The term "ambulance chaser" do not have association with particular website like the term "bullshido" does. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If someone in bullshido.net want to popularise the term bullshido, they can do so in that site, not here. FWBOarticle

The fact that the highest ranking Google results in your search predominately oriented around the website does not mean that the usage of the term or word Bullshido has not moved beyond its confines. I provided at least 3 examples of guaranteed non-Bullshido.net usage of the term to illustrate the usage of the term in general discourse on martial arts. The term "Bullshido" has been popularized already; it's not in a stage of infancy. The website has been in existence for over 3 years, and it has become popular, and this article covers that popularity. If you feel that the term "Ambulance Chaser" isn't linked to a particular website, how about the use of the term "Freeper" or "Freepathon"to refer to members/ideas of the website "Free Republic?" That term is used in common discourse, even though it is heavily linked to the site of origin.
As Fire Star (a Wikipedia admin) said in January 2005, "As a professional martial artist I can say that I believe bullshido.com is indeed notable enough for its own article, and I voted that way on the Bullshido VfD way back when. They are rowdy and raucous, but they have a point that wasn't effectively addressed to my knowledge in an organized way before that site was started..."
Wikipedia threshhold for inclusion is not google search. It is verifiability. Being used in internet forum discussion or personal blog/website is not enough. If bullshido is used in reference to bullshido.net, then it belong to bullshido.net article. Wikipedia require proof which pass it's own criteria. I added new section below. Please list whatever source you can come up with. FWBOarticle


Though, in actuallity, street based fights are so chaotic, you'd have to be extremely skilled to have a "near garunteed" victory. Weapons.....it depends. There's methods in some reality based combat arts to deal with common weapons, like knives, and stick or saff like weapons. But, the best coarse of action is to slow them down, and run. I probably should have embelished more on my "easily dissarmed" comment, as it only becomes easy once you've trained that particular area, in live, simulated attacker situations. So yes, this certainly needs editing, if it attempts to remain realistic. And on a side note, I think I might add that merging bullshido with the mcdojo article, wouldn't make much sense, seeing as mcdojo's can be included as a part of bullshido, while bullshido doesn't always involve mcdojos. If this is merged with the mcdojo article, I feel it will be misrepresenting bullshido. Well, that's my two cents, anyways.--Waenishikusu 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that referring to Kata as a "filler" training method cannot in any way be described as a NPOV. Come on, there are World Championships in Kata. I enjoy practicing Katas for their meditative component alone, but then again, on a personal note the author of that claim surely has no intention to slow himself down with "spiritual stuff" while learning "to kill people". While I recognize the need to talk about the quality of martial arts schools and while I also accept the idea that some people only want to learn to hit other people, I'd like this article to be deleted because it has no neutral point of view. For example: AFAIK, in Germany its a general requirement by Germany's largest Karate association that earning an advanced dan grade requires writing a scientific essay on components of the art, often the history of certain forms. People who generally only want to learn "to defend themselves" simply do not advance to a trainers degree for this reason alone. Do the current proponents of this article want to argue that this practice is bullshido because it doesn't help the student in a parking lot brawl? --Jmaurus 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that those are the views of Bruce Lee and Jon Bluming, and not that of the article or article authors. --Scb steve 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Substantial Edits

If anyone is planning substantial edits to this page, put them here before editing. --Scb steve 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make up a rule. Wikipedia encourage free and active editing as long as it follow wikipedia criteria. FWBOarticle
It's a reasonable request, given that this page seems to be a frequent target of vandalism. Also, would it be too much trouble for you to add a time stamp to your signature? Blowfish 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You're about 4 months too late. Please notice my time stamp of March 23rd. --Scb steve 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV-Wikipedia:Verifiability-No Original Research

Please provide a source (1) which actually mention the term "bullshido" (2) which does not have a agenda including the agenda to propagate the term (i.e. bullshido.net) (3) can pass Wikipedia:verifiability requirement for reliability (no advocacy site, no personal blob/website). If none turn up, I will renominate this article for deletion or merger with bullshido.net. If this article is merged with McDojo, then I will ask the same questions over there. FWBOarticle

The fact you would nominate for merger with the Bullshido.net when the term has been used frequently outside of its confines shows that you have a personal prejudice against articles that explain popular terms that disagree with your beliefs. A google search will turn up frequent use of the term outside the context of referring to the website[6], [7], etc. These constitute independent secondary sources that mention Bullshido and use it in the same popular method that Bullshido.net does. Had this term not been popularized before the creation of this article, you would have a leg to stand on.
However, the term Bullshido has come to mean fradulent practices and claims in the martial arts, popularized by the site, but not exclusive to it.

Claim without verification is meanigless. As I understand it, this is the policy adopted in bullshido.net as well, which use "Throwdown" as the ultimate standard of verification. In wikipedia, the standard are set by trinity of Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verification and No Original Research. Personal comments in internet forum, personal blog, personal websites and personal publication are not accepted source of verification in wikipedia. Otherwise, how are wikipedia suppose to say no to people who try to use Asida Kim's book, website and forums as sources in an article about ninja? Afterall, the term "ninja" get 28,200,000 google links. But that has zero relevance to wikipedia policiy of Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verification and No Original Research policies. We know large number of people know and use the term ninja. But if wikipedia article about ninja are constructed without source the article will be deleted. If the article has been constructed using source using Ashida Kim website, then the content will be shifted to Ashida Kim article. We both agree that some people do use the term bullshido. But so far, the term is not used in reference which wikipedia considere to be acceptable, i.e. it fail to prove itself in wikipedia throwdown. That is why this article, at this point, should be merged with bullshido.net article. In bullshido.net, people are expected to respect throwdown. Please do the same here in wikipedia. I'm happy to put McDojo article on probation because it doesn't use a swear word like bullshit and it has better reference to much more widely recognisable linguistic usage. FWBOarticle

Hello. I get 59,400 google hits for "bullshido" 23,400 for "mcdojo" and 2,120 for a combination of the two. Since they both come from the same place, that seems unusual. The terms do seem to have some currency as internet culture memes, the degree to which they have been adopted into western martial arts culture is difficult to determine though it seems safe to say that western martial artists use them more than other groups. We should avoid the appearance of original research on our part, but I'd say it is alright to report bullshido.net's original research. So, there are three things we can do with the article at this point. 1. Leave it alone; 2. Change it to some degree, from slightly to completely; or, 3. Nominate it for AfD. Listing the individual bits of the article that seem objectionable, the wording or the facts, would be a place to start. Regards, --Fire Star 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the key to this dispute is "the degree to which they have been adopted into western martial arts culture". In Wikipedia, litmus test is verifiability criteria regarding reliability of the sources. Internet phenomenon, such as Chuck Norris Facts or All your base are belong to us reached the level of mainstream acceptance to the point where it get mentioned in mainstream media. The evidences are here and here The term bullshido, on the other hand, hasn't. The proof is here It is not all right to report bullshido.net's "original research". Bullshido.net's original research should be reported in the article about bullshido.net. Or if the article titled "Fraud in Martial Arts" are ever created, then it might be mentioned in passig that "occasionally the projetive word bullshido is used to refer to this practice." I'm not saying the term bullshido doesn't deserve a separte article ever. I'm just saying that at this point, it is not good enough. And lastly, I don't believe BlackBelt magazine to pass verification criteria.
My lenient attitude toward McDojo article is due to the facts that (1) it derived from accepted use of Mc prefix so it can pass NPOV criteria if not verifiability criteria as long as the article stick to accepted meaning of McWords (though the article about "commercialism in martial arts" is preferable) (2) the term is not directly related to the title name of a advocacy website (soapbox violation) (3) it doesn't use swear word so it has "potential" to attain reference from mainstream media or academic research (which, IMO, is lacking in Western Martial arts), (i.e. probation for now). FWBOarticle

P.S. I raised the same issue in martialism article. That article is worse than this one. And the same "google search" defence has been raised before. If reliable source fails to turn up, I will nomiate martialism article for merger. FWBOarticle

Balance

This does seem like a bit of a self-serving article. I believe for one thing, we need a balance with negative criticism towards Bullshido; a link to a Phil Elmore article responding to Bullshido was deleted, for example. Let's just balance this out - to make an article like this we need to be familiar with common arguments coming up against the Bullshido mentality

There are arguments presented in the article justifying or disagreeing with the presented arguments. For example, the "school exclusivity" criticism is off-set by the response that instructors may feel that a student can learn best (or even learn at all) by only restricting themselves to one school of training. From that point on, it's a value argument, which moves past the scope of the article. Your desire for "common arguments" against Bullshido has already been addressed.
Plus, please keep in mind that this article deals with a popular concept in martial arts, not the Bullshido.net website. Unless Phil Elmore made a specific article or specific argument against Bullshido as a concept, his views would be irrelevant.

Ah yes sorry, wrong article

Bullshido as its own concept, separate from Bullshido.net

We have an article at McDojo which discusses this same kind of issue. Can anyone show me some evidence that Bullshido is a term that has attracted its own independent usage? if not, then I think this article should be merged back into Bullshido.net. Mangojuicetalk 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshido refers to fradulent or non-effective methodologies in martial arts, such as people making false claims about their experience or school programs that claim to teach you how to be an invincible fighter. McDojo refers to the business side of practices that makes no direct claims on program quality, such as the use of long-term contracts or equipment embargoes.
Just because a school forces you to buy their equipment doesn't mean the instruction is bad, and just because a teacher doesn't have a contract system at his school doesn't excuse his false claims of learning how to fight from Bruce Lee and Mike Tyson. They can be related, but they are primarily distinct concepts that deal with different features of the martial arts world.
As for independent usage, you can search the term on www.technorati.com to see its penetration among the blogosphere, and see sections 10 and 11 of this page to see the responses to a similar inquiry. (btw, this article was never part of bullshido.net, as far as I know. It used to be combined with McDojo because prior authors had not sufficiently distinguished the terms.--Scb steve 18:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
All of the references provided for independent usage are self-published (e.g., forum posts and blog posts) and as such fall short of Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. This is currently an article on a protologism with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notable usage outside of the bullshido.net community. --Muchness 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is way too much of a rant. A wikipedia article is not a discussion board. Most of the material here belongs on the bullshido.net site, not in a wikipedia article

I've removed the template due to the fact you've neglected to provide specific instances of violations of Wikipedia rules or principles. This article discusses the specific phenomenon of fradulent practices within martial arts and provides a listing of the most common practices. --Scb steve 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Page content

Seems that the page content has been edited to a critique of the website "bullshido.net". While many of the comments now in place are factually accurate (or at least based on factually accurate information with a subjective spin), this is clearly not the place for it. However, some of the criticisms probably belong on the page for the website, so someone with a little more time than I currently have might want to consider merging the two and reverting this article to a discussion on the word bullshido in isolation of the website by the same name.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.45.229.234 (talk • contribs).

I reverted it because I'd gotten a slew of emails overnight after the vandalism. We have solid evidence that the idea for mucking up the article(s) came from Martial Arts Planet's restricted supporting member forum, over sour grapes at being the target of some recent criticism and discussion. What's funny is that it was asinine to deface an article on the term "Bullshido", instead of the article on Bullshido.net when the latter was the actual source of their frustration.
It's the stated policy of the Bullshido websites that we support Wikipedia's efforts and will always work within the system to achieve community consensus. Had there been NPOV edits to the article on .net with valid criticism, anyone from our own site that engaged in a hostile edit against community consensus would face consequences for not working within the guidelines laid down here. We've banned several people for defacing articles here, as a matter of fact. The defining concepts behind the site itself are that everything is open to discussion in order to achieve an objective perspective on the various subjects in the Martial Arts, and preventing/censoring/impeding such discussion is contrary to how we do things.
But this here is a simple case of vandalism. --Phrost 18:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


The source of those comments is irrelevant, some of them were factually accurate and deserve to be reposted in the bullshido.net article. Certainly people should have advanced warning about a website where 14 year old girls have been asked about their underwear by members, and that this behaviour has actually been defended by others!
You can't just gloss over facts like this if you want a neutral article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.45.229.234 (talk • contribs).
The facts are hardly glossed over. The specific interests of some anti-Bullshido.net members are not compliant with the policies and regulations of Wikipedia to include noteworthy content. The hostility of some Bullshido.net members is already noted in the article itself, and doesn't merit including information such as that raised by you, Mr./Ms. 84.45.229.234. This is the last that should be mentioned concerning the .net article here, as the .net article is distinct from this article on Bullshido as a term/concept. --Scb steve 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Made some coments aobut reasent edits by User:Bigzilla on his User_talk:Bigzilla page Nate1481 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid neologisims

"Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.
Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." [8]

I'm suprised to see that this article still exist. Anyway, I'm quite sure this article will be subject of constant renomination until it get deleted or clear verification criteria. I'm also not so found of wikipedia being used for a soapbox but I guess I will wait and see. Oh, I'm FWBOarticle. My ID is currently being wiped. Vapour

I don't really see that wikipedia is being used as a soapbox in this instance. Blowfish 22:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Unreferenced Template

The Bullshido article contains 7 external citations as well as several references to other Wikipedia articles to explain or bolster the views expressed in it.

Creating a references section and adding an “unreferenced” tag doesn’t make as much sense, given these facts, and I would certainly like to hear the rationale for adding the tag in light of this. --Scb steve 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The citations provided a) do not meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines, and b) do not substantiate all of the article's assertions. In particular, in order to meet Wikipedia's neologism guidelines, citations that meet WP:RS need to be provided to establish that this term is currently in usage outside of the Bullshido.net community. Please do not remove the maintenance template until this concern is addressed. --Muchness 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole page of Bullshido should be deleted. This is all misinformation, with no basis in fact. Most members of this site can not hold up to their own standards, and I doubt the owners of the site can. This site totally misses the point of martial arts, in many ways. --Bigzilla 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The merits of the page have been discussed and voted on regarding deletion twice already; the last time was a near-unanimous vote to keep the article. Your opinion against the value/worth of the site isn't enough to challenge that reinforced precedent. --Scb steve 14:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/l/Talk%7EBullshido_Archive_1_2889.html"