From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People who come under the subject of this article (Martial arts) may be found at Category:Wikipedian martial artists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martial arts article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archives Pre-Revamp

Contents 1 Revamping the Article 1.1 External Links 1.2 Modern History Move 1.3 Examples 1.4 Modern history Reduction - Catch Wrestling 1.5 Hung Gar 1.6 African martial arts 1.7 History 1.7.1 Asian Origins

[edit] Revamping the Article

There seems to have been some consensus among a number of editors to go ahead with serious revision of this article. To make life easier for every one (and to follow suggested WP guidelines) I have archived the old talk page. It is still available via the archive box above.

Now that we know we want to revise the article, what are we going to do about it, and how will we go about doing that? Lets try and get together on a common goal for the article before we start making edits. Specifically - we know it is supposed to be about martial arts. But how detailed should this page become? How should the information be displayed? Regionally by type of martial art, or chronologically? Or chronologically by region (and type?)? There is a whole lot of information here, and I believe picking a standard format to display it in will be crucial to overall cohesiveness of the article. Obviously, different people will have different ideas, so lets talk them out, and see if any of them end up seeming more appropriate than others. I'll chime in with my ideas at some point - I've yet to fully consider the possibilities. - xiliquiern^talk 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, something of some debate that may be at least worth discussing before we begin: What constitutes a martial art? Many dictionaries give definitions similar to this:

Martial art - any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

Obviously (and sadly), that is an absolutely horrible definition, in my opinion. It totally neglects any modern art outside of Japan and China, more or less. I would certainly like our use of the word to be both more broad, but more specific. Perhaps we should even have a section on the interpretation of the term explaining multiple definitions and uses of the term - it seems confusion in terminology is part of the nature of the subject, and might bear reflecting in the article. Some people view only martial arts involving serious intent for learning how to kill a martial art. I would say that somewhere on the opposite side of the field, other individuals include spiritual arts designed entirely for calming, relaxation, and meditation (from my own admittedly poor understanding) as martial arts. Others don't call the latter a martial art, but still place it under the umbrella term - making it a martial art, but more specifically, a spiritual art. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion here. If possible, I believe any consensus at all on this matter would certainly benefit the article. - xiliquiern^talk 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO!!! Martial- Wiktionary: 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war warlike 2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms or military life. 3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior; having a military bearing; soldierly, soldierlike, warriorlike.

All that other stuff applies very much to DANCE and SPORT, and I have loads of respect for these other art forms, and the spiritual value- BUT IT IS NOT MARTIAL!!! The reason why Öriental forms" is often mentioned, is because European and Middle Eastern Martial Arts were based on horsemanship. Equestrian tournament events like jousting are the only activities that evolved sufficiently to be called "martial arts" without specifically becoming sports. All other althletic feats of Western activities were became part of dance or sports. Finally, the spread of Firearms throughout the West mostly destroyed the "martial" value of organized hand-to-hand combat, while in the East (and specifically Japan) the warrior classes and rebels followed a different route. I don't like the wishy-washy direction of some of this article, which equates physical movement with martial arts. Next someone will add ballet or yoga to the list!!! Maybe I should turn in my Gi and put on a freakin'tutu. Cuvtixo 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a comprehensive definition of MA. Personally, I like the current definition that's present in the article. It acknowledges that MA are systems of combat for the purpose of defeating an opponent, then acknowledges that this has been altered into several forms for the modern day - military arts, combat sports, performance arts, and so on.

My take is that any definition of a martial art should place a primary emphasis on demonstrated and utilized combative ability. My understanding of English usage of the term "Martial Art" is derived from the Japanese term "Bugei" - "Bu" referring to warrior things (Bushido, Budo, etc.) and "Gei" referring to elite performance of something to the point of artistry (think "geisha"). People frequently conflate artistry in terms of elite performance with "artistry" referring to things like sumi-e paintings, dance, and such. My understanding of these matters is that the emergence of philosophy, artistic accomplishment, and such came in Japanese arts when there was not as much of a need for warriors. So they devoted their pursuits to non-combative things. Martial arts was first and foremost for fighting, then for the more cerebral pleasures.

How does one reconcile a full-combat kickboxing match with a TKD point-sparring match? My sense is that the kickboxing match is representative of combat sport, whereas the TKD match is not particularly representative of martial ability at all.

I think that the presence of specific martial arts in the main article should be substantiated by prominence in peer-reviewed press and popular literature. That Aboriginal staff fighting art that made an appearance in a 2003 movie, I don't think that merits specific mention. On the other hand, karate certainly does, with brief mention to some notable styles (Kyokushin, Shotokan, etc.) For another example, Russian martial arts could get lumped in with European arts and have SAMBO and/or Systema mentioned, as those are the most popular arts from that country, though other arts may exist.

For a third example, we could mention Filipino arts like Kali and Escrima without getting into particulars about different schools and methods; just give the readers an overview of what's prominent and present, and create sub-pages for further interest. If someone is really interested in FMA, they can visit the Kali or Escrima page. For less-notable arts, they could be encompassed under a more general page. For example, indigenous arts of Africa could be on an "African Martial Arts" page.

That being said, citations and sources are key. --Scb steve 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. The guidelines are WP:REF and WP:Notability. Also, since these kinds of pages are magnet for every instructor who starts their own "complete" style by combining underwater basket-weaving with Balinese dancing, we should also keep in mind WP:OR. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you make some very good points. Along with the definition coming from the Japanese Bugei, we may wish to also stress the use of the originaly english terms in passing Kunst des fechtens and Art and Science of Defence. Obviously, an etymological lookup on the structure of "martial art" should also be done, discussing the use of Mars, god of war. I also share your desire not over specialize. This act, I believe, largely contributes to the current pages rather disconnected tone. By sticking with major styles and forcusing on general aspects, I believe we may get a lot further than trying to provide examples from a wide variety of schools. Sources and citations - excellent! - xiliquiern^talk 14:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I made a few changes that someone else can go over. I cleaned up the part of the Asian forms of address and changed the examples given for what various martial arts focus on. If the styles I put aren't good enough then replace it with a proper example. There is no reason for listing judo, aikido and jujutsu as well as hapkido to give an example of a syle based on grabbing. Wrestling was also used twice and there were three Japanese weapon styles listed. We should try to keep it neutral and not focus on just one country or area. Qin na is not a style and "kung fu" does not apply. We should also mention that not all styles focus on just one thing (like kicking). Another thing I tried to fix was the part on non-East Asian martial arts. It drones on and on with irrelevant information. It isn't necessary to say "British boxing comes from bare-knuckle boxing". Anyway, See what you think

I just want to say that I'm glad to see this page cleaned up. It was a -horrible- mess before. It needed a Great Flood sort of revision. Hopefully, with a stronger foundation, it can regrow into a better form. --GenkiNeko 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the earlier rant. Personally I don't think Capoeira belongs as a martial art. In Brazil, it is more of a dance, where dancers are given credit for particularly athletic moves, not too different from break-dancing. If a specific combat art tradition was continued in Angola, I'd like to see some historical information about this.

Why is "kung fu" listed here again as a kick-based style. I thought it was obvious and didn't need explaining but there is no such style as kung fu; it is an umbrella term for Chinese martial arts and not all of them are based on kicks. This could easily be replaced with the name of a Chinese style. Muay Thai is also not kick-based. Although its kicks are its claim to fame, Muay Thai focuses on elbows as much as kicks. Calling it a striking style would be more accurate even though it has grabs as well. Morinae 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then do as you did - things sometimes just sneak in when they really should not be there.Peter Rehse 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

It was a good idea to trim all external links that were not referenced in the text - one (to a FAQ) remained and one was just added (to a newly created wikisite). My feeling is that we should keep these down to zero as a matter of course. Martial arts is just too general a subject.Peter Rehse 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the two - and would like to make a call for more in line citations.Peter Rehse 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- I removed a new one as well- there will be enough external link opportunities in the sub-pages. Alex Jackl 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern History Move

I moved the William Fairbairn data down to Military History as it was too detailed to match any of the surrounding paragraphs which, for the most part, did not mention people or styles but were providing an overview. That who section should be de-people-ified. There are many historical figures that could arguably be more significant... but I think that is not the point of those paragraphs- they are an overview piece. Always happy to discuss.Alex Jackl 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

The examples of striking grappling & kicking arts at the top of the list seem to be getting steadily longer, should it be limited to 3 or at most 4 articles, ideally ones that are GA's or FA's if possible or high rated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts as it is new readers might not find the list helpful. I've done some edits but they probably could with checking. --Nate1481 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern history Reduction - Catch Wrestling

I took out a large chunk of detail on catch wrestling that was out of proportion to the detail on all the other martical arts here. This is a survey page. I recommend that that content be moved to a catch wrestling article if there is enough content and interest. Nothing against catch wrestling- just trying to keep the level of detail balanced.Alex Jackl 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Scb steve 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hung Gar

Hung Gar Wushu is not a kicking style. I repeat, it is not a kicking style. There are such attacks in this style, but they are far rarer than elaborate hand and arm motions. Hung Gar, as I know it, is an art focused on the upper body, using the lower primarily for added power to the punches, tiger claws, and various other hand and arm strikes.

142.166.228.154 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] African martial arts

I have a suggestion about how this article should be organized. First, the continents should preferably be listed in either alphabetical or chronological order. The current order of Asia-Europe-America doesn't really have any base. I would have liked to include all the major regions of the world but Middle Eastern martial arts aren't that well known. At least a part on Pacific martial arts could include Mau Rakau and Lua but more than anything, I think there should definately be a section on African martial arts. The list of martial arts has a few of these and they seem to be more widely known. I'd write it myself but I'm not much of an expert on the subject.-Morinae 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

This sections introduction seems to make the assumption that martial arts are primarily Asian, and that they could not develop independently, is there any factual support, I.e. a source for this? --Nate 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Origins

Martial Arts ARE primarily Asian in their roots. There is tons of controversy on this... there is all the talk about Alexander the Great bringing Greco-Roman fighting to China that is not bs- there is real scholarship behind it but there are also scholars who disagree. There are lots of local fighting traditions that never became formal "styles" and who were then integrated with international (and usually Asian) arts that were imported. I need to look up some references but martial arts are, I think, primarily, Asian in origin. *SIGH* Alex Jackl 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the Asian origins of boxing or fencing? Did the native Americans have a large influence from Asia in there systematisation? The common view of MA is that is they have to come from an old far eastern man (ideally with a beard) who has had it passed down by generation is not necessarily the case. People have always borrowed ideas from trade, but ignoring the possibility of parallel evolution and/or convergent evolution of ideas, is a fallacy. I won't argue that Alexander took the idea of MA to China but I will argue that the Macedonian and Greeks may well have developed some formal system of teaching combat skills without significant outside influence. --Nate 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. If "There is tons of controversy on this..." then would it not be best to put the uncontroversial bits in, note that there is a controversy & link to the articles discussing it such as Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts and Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection. Nate 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree By the way- I did not mean to imply (though on re-reading my post I certainly sounded that way! :-) ) that it was solely Asian. I only mean that systemized hand-to-hand fighting as an "art" or studied set of techniques was primarily asian (if you count India as Asian)- and there are clearly native arts that have sprung up elsewhere.... so no problem form me. It is only 95% of the "arts" are Asian. Alex Jackl 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, however this comes down to how you define a martial art...

The more you look emphasise the art aspect the less you emphasise the martial aspect. If you use a general definition, the wikticonary one above is good, its the 'study of combat'. Taking this, while Asian based are the most associated with the term, I don't feel that a generalisation should be the fist part of the history section. Say in the Asian section that it has spread since and is best known, but a statement that all MAs originated in India as an introduction is misleading. --Nate 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)