Talk:Kalarippayattu/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Disputed history 2 Source citation/NPOV rephrasing needed 3 POV 4 Kshatriyas masters of the Kalari 5 Similarities between Kalrippayattu and Tamil martial arts 6 Citing sources

Disputed history

We need to leave the dispute in the history section of kalaripayattu. We have spent nearly a year now on this subject and every two months, someone comes along and tries to state that kalaripayattu is the origin of all martial arts or all chinese martial arts. Along with that, every other month, someone else comes along and tries to prevent discussion of the topic that there are people who are misinformed about kalaripayattu's history. Kennethtennyson 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not read all the messages in the archive, but if I'm correct, what is disputed here, is not the history or the origins of kalarippayatu; but the history of the Chinese and Japanese martial arts. So I dont see what is wrong with my cleaned-up version of the history section.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section should directly address the controversy, if only briefly. As Mano1 put it in the archive, "It is vital that we leave that section in the history because it is still an ongoing debate".JFD 11:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The point here, is that this so called "disputed theory" has absolutely nothing to do with the "history of Kalarippayattu". It could merit inclusion in perhaps the influences of Kalaripapyattu section. To this effect, the page titled as Disputed history of Kalarippayattu contains text irrelevant to the topic. It is not the history of Kalaripayyatu that is in question. Of course, I might be completely wrong, and could have interpreted something incorrectly here. Please let me know your thoughts. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is whether the controversy needs to be addressed or not. And, as Mano1 and Kennethtennyson point out, neglecting it means that the controversy will rear its ugly head again.

Last year Mano1 and Kjrajesh had pretty much the same discussion you've brought up now. It was Kjrajesh who came up with the title "Disputed history of Kalarippayattu" after breaking the text out from the main "Kalarippayattu" article into its own page.
JFD 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

<de-intending> I just sat and read through the entire talk page archive. The controvesy does need to be discussed in the article. But not in the "history of Kalaripayattu" section, but in the "influences" section. And a single line would do, stating that there are certain accounts that describe Kalaripayyatu to have been the origin of Chinese martial arts. It has to be written in an encylopedic way, with a neutral viewpoint. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors of this article have repeatedly made the claim that Kalarippayattu is described as the origin of the Chinese martial arts by "ancient references" and "historical texts" without ever naming those works or their authors in accordance with the Wikipedia policy of citing your sources. To attribute such a claim to "certain accounts" would simply be more of the same, neither encyclopedic nor NPOV.

You yourself acknowledge the importance of this by noting that the statement "Modern historians trace the origin of Kalarippayattu to the Vedic times" needs a citation.

If you re-read Disputed history of Kalarippayattu, you will find that it cites its sources, including scholarly sources such as translations of primary texts and academic works.

Looking at the article, the controversy has much more to do with the content of "History" than with "Cultural influence," which really ought to be re-titled "Related arts of Kerala". The case with many articles on Wikipedia is that the article is organized into titled sections after the content has been written. That is the case for both "Disputed history of Kalarippayattu" and "Cultural influence". Your criticism about text's relevance to title really ought to be directed at the titles rather than the texts.

Also, "in the beginning of the Sixteenth Century" is part of the proper title of "A Description of the Coasts of East Africa and Malabar in the beginning of the Sixteenth Century"
JFD 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! Every few months, we have the same discussion here with the same people who continuously make the same erroneous argument about how old Kalaripayattu's history is! There is no evidence to show in any written or printed or any form whatsoever that kalaripayattu predated the 15th century AD! there is no evidence to connect kalaripayattu to Bodhidharma or to Shaolin Kung Fu. Kennethtennyson 03:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Source citation/NPOV rephrasing needed

Bodhidharma's Jati is clearly stated as Brahmin and/or having a Brahmin father. Kalari Payitu was only practised by the Nair caste whose women had loose relationships called sambandham with the ruling class Nambhothiri Brahmins.Thus he could easily have been of the ruling class and a warrior.

Can we get a citation on the hypothesis that Bodhidharma was the product of a sambandham marriage between his Brahmin father and a Nair mother? Also, the statement that kalarippayattu was practiced only by Nairs conflicts with information in the main page that Kalarippayattu has also traditionally been practiced by others.

Was Bodhidharma born in present-day Kerala or in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu is a question asked by opposers, which is irrelevant because south western Tamil Nadu and south eastern Kerala have historically been the same region

"Asked by opposers" is NPOV phrasing. Regardless, the location of Bodhidharma's birthplace in either Kerala or Tamil Nadu is not in the "Transmission of the Lamp" texts, which say only that Bodhidharma was "South Indian," getting no more specific than that. From what source do these birthplace claims come from?
--JFD 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

There are four references to Bodhidharma's caste being brahmin in this article.

From the Kalarippayattu page

"Until the 19th century, this martial art could be practiced only by the warrior castes. All children of such castes were sent to a Kalari at the age of seven, where they learnt the art of warfare as a primary occupation."

If Bodhidharma was from erstwhile Travancore or southern Tamil Nadu as hypothesised in the article, he would have to have been of the Nair Warrior caste ,the only warrior caste at the time,to have practiced Kalarippayattu.

From the Nair page - "Sambandham (Relationship) was a loose form of marriage prevalent among the Nairs......For Nair women, Sambandham can be conducted with the Nairs, Nampoothiri Brahmins, other Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Ambalavasis."

This shows the possibility that Bodhidharma could have been of both Brahmin and Nair Caste ,in relation to the question on the main article of the confusion of his caste.This page is on the disputed history of Kalaripayyitu - so both sides of the argument can be shown.A prevalent cultural custom creates the possibility fo this classification regardless of a citation.

There are three refrences to Bodhidharma having come from Kanchipuram or South Western India in this article. Again this article is about the disputed history of Kalarippayattu,both sides of the dispute requires representation.

The distinction wether Bodhidharma was born in present-day Kerala or in Kanchipuram in present-day Tamil Nadu as asked in the article, is irrelevant because south western Tamil Nadu and south eastern Kerala have historically been the same region - this can be seen in the prevalent Tamil influences all over Travancore, including architechture, language and culture..

From the Travancorepage - "...in A.D. 1954, the Travancore Tamilnadu Congress launched a campaign for the merger of the Tamil speaking regions of Southern Travancore with the neighbouring area of Madras."

From the Kalarippayattupage - "....the southern style is closely related to the Tamil martial arts practiced in Travancore and Kanyakumari. Compared to Kalarippayattu, these arts place more emphasis on empty-hand techniques and less on weapons. These arts claim descent from the rishi Agastya and variously go by names such as ati tata (strike/block), ati murai (way of hitting), varma ati (Tamil)/marma ati (Malayalam) (literally, hitting the vital points). Other Tamil empty hand martial arts include Kuttu Varisai and Varma Kalai. Tamil weapon arts include Silambam (staff fighting), Madhu (deer horn dagger), Surul Pattai (steel blade whip called Urumi in Kalarippayattu), and Val Vitchi (sword fight)."

The article seems to firmly conclude that Chineese martial arts could not been influenced by Indian martial arts - is that not biased considering the article is on the 'disputed' history of Kalarippayattu.

Further more in direct relation to Kalarippayattu and Kumfu, no refernces have been made, to the similarities between the two Martial Arts. They both have systems of traditional herbal Medicine, the study of which is necessary to the martial art. Both Kumfu Masters and Kalarippayattu Asshans and Gurukkal used to be doctors and martial artists at the same time, playing a fundemental role in society. Study of Marmams and animal stances are also similar to the two styles.The Mystic - 15:59, 25th July 2006

Bodhidharma could have been of both Brahmin and Nair Caste ,in relation to the question on the main article of the confusion of his caste.This page is on the disputed history of Kalaripayyitu - so both sides of the argument can be shown.A prevalent cultural custom creates the possibility fo this classification regardless of a citation.

I refer you to the official Wikipedia policy on Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references."

What I'm doing here is giving you a chance to provide references.

The article seems to firmly conclude that Chineese martial arts could not been influenced by Indian martial arts - is that not biased considering the article is on the 'disputed' history of Kalarippayattu….this article is about the disputed history of Kalarippayattu,both sides of the dispute requires representation.

If you wish to present the other side of the dispute, make sure to cite your sources when doing so.
--JFD 19:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

when was the Pillai discussed war questioned and rejected, sources?

I was the one who removed the questioning and rejection of the Pillai-discussed war precisely because there were no sources.

You are just acting like the article is your own personal essay
it's still npov and the tone hasn't been cleaned up either

Instead of repeatedly slapping POV tags on an article, why don't you contribute to the article? Please make your edits using a Wikipedia account instead of an IP address so that it's clear which contributions are yours.

In addition to NPOV, Wikipedia content is guided by two other official policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Wikipedia:Verifiability in a nutshell::

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

--JFD 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you find that almost all of an article is POV and requires cleanup, one POV tag and one cleanup tag for the entire article will do instead of one for each section.

Kshatriyas masters of the Kalari

Why does the article fail to mention Nambiars Kurups Unnithans Nayars as being the masters of the Kalari? Kshatriya knight

Similarities between Kalrippayattu and Tamil martial arts

Ive added a sentance on the similarities between Kalarippayattu and tamil martial arts on the main page. Ive included the reference from the main Kalrippayattu page below.

"The southern style involves very rapid economical, yet powerful movements, is practiced mainly in the Travancore area, and is associated with the Maravar, Nadar and Vellala castes of the Tamil community as well as the Nair community of South Travancore. The southern style is usually practiced in a "thara kalari"," a piece of land next to the home of the teacher ("asan" or "guru"). In the past, learning Kalaripayattu was compulsory for all male members of the warrior Nair caste. It was also practised by some Ezhava families.

The southern style is closely related to the Tamil martial arts practiced in Travancore and Kanyakumari. Compared to Kalarippayattu, these arts place more emphasis on empty-hand techniques and less on weapons. These arts claim descent from the rishi Agastya and variously go by names such as ati tata (strike/block), ati murai (way of hitting), varma ati (Tamil)/marma ati (Malayalam) (literally, hitting the vital points). Other Tamil empty hand martial arts include Kuttu Varisai and Varma Kalai. Tamil weapon arts include Silambam (staff fighting), Madhu (deer horn dagger), Surul Pattai (steel blade whip called Urumi in Kalarippayattu), and Val Vitchi (sword fight).

Bring attention to marma or varma in tamil techniques(pressure) points, and animal stances being similar in both of these south Indian martial arts.

I have not heard of Alex Doss and I do not believe that he is a historian. He just happens to be a president of an orginization that promotes Tamil self-independence. Hence, his belief that Kalaripayattu stems from a Tamil martial arts is circumspect. I have not heard of this martial arts and htere is no evidence that it even predates kalaripayattu.

Citing sources

I (finally) got a hold of the Zarrilli book and I'm sourcing what I can to that. Please don't remove or modify sourced statements. Zarrilli has published articles in peer-reviewed journals about the arts of Kerala including kalarippayattu and his book was published by Oxford University Press. Not all martial arts on Wikipedia are lucky enough to have an academic source for verification. JFD 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Making outlandish claims even if supported by a book is not going to help. You cannot transfer the southern style of kalaripayattu to Varma Ati just like that.Finally adding that "chinese" connection to "chinna ati" makes your POV very clear.Bharatveer 09:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1. So what suggestion do you have for making sure the two aren't confused?
2. Don't throw around accusations of POV. It's not civil.

JFD 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Which of the two topics are getting confused here??
2. I did not 'throw around' accusations; I said you are bringing in your POVS which can be seen very clearly from your edits on bodhidharman , Varma Ati articles etc..Bharatveer 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Northern style and southern style. Northern style is attributed to Parasurama, uses Ayurveda medicine, is practiced in a covered kalari. Southern style is attributed to Agasthya, uses Siddha Vaidyam medicine, is practiced in an uncovered kalari. Most of this article is applicable only to northern style. I'll try and make the distinction clear within one page, but it'd be easier with two.
2. I cite reliable sources for just about every edit I make. And that exchange between me and MichaelMaggs is how disputes should be resolved on Wikipedia rather than throwing accusations of POV around. "Comment on the content, not the contributor," remember?

JFD 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

it seems to me taht you are biased bharatveer... there were tons of people in 2005 claiming that kalaripayattu was the origin of all martial arts in teh world... we left that section at the bottom because of that.. further, the chinna attai wording is truee... there is a hitting technique in kalaripayattu called chinna attai...Kennethtennyson 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zarrilli does attest to the name chinna ati defined as "Chinese hitting" on page 27 of his book.

JFD 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)