Talk:Martialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Controversiality and suspicious authoring?

Given that all evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.2.190.138) seems to point to Phil Elmore writing this page himself, I felt the addition of would-be to the phrase 'controversial author' appropriate. ~Jekyll

The trouble is that I don't know whether he is controversial or not. I've never heard of him, and he seems like a bit of a no-hoper, but the world's full of no-hopers who succeed in being controversial. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whilst the label of 'controversial' is always going to be subjective, describing one's self as such makes for an objectively would-be controversial. Having said that perhaps deletion of this page would be less problematic. Jekyll163.1.81.40
Maybe, though I'm in general oposed to deletions; it's a big encyclopædia, and if we've got room for articles on every character from comic books, Pokemon, and computer games, then I'm sure we have room for real people like this. I just don't want Wikipedia to become a small-ads board for people selling their somewhat dubious writing services. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the business, so to speak, and I have heard of him before, once or twice. In the field of martial arts, Eastern and Western, everything is controversial! Personally, I'm convinced that the only way to stay uncontroversial is to never talk to anyone else about any aspect of martial training, ever. However, the guy can write English fairly well, which by itself takes him notably beyond the crowd of psychotic survivalist thugs who like to call themselves "martial artists" in the West. I don't agree with him about some things (mostly philosophical), and I do agree with him about other things (the utility of "fighting unfairly" in self-defence) and believe him to be at least competent martially as far as I can tell. He has a tendency to think that the ideas he publishes are original (they aren't) but if we have articles about complete charlatans like Mantak Chia and Ashida Kim I see no harm in having an article about an outspoken martial artist who can probably actually fight, who seems honest enough, and whom I had heard of before the question of having an article on him here came up. Just my 2 fen. Fire Star 22:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss changes here

Please discuss changes to this article here first. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia where consensus rules, see WP:WIN. The article can be protected if undiscussed reversions continue. Fire Star 16:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit OTT? Most editors make most edits without explanation or discussion on the Talk page; it's only controversial edits that need to be discussed first. I agree that, if we get to the point that Elmore (or 209.2.190.138 as we fondly know him here) keeps reverting, we might have to get heavy, but I don't think that we've reached that yet. I doubt that a decent case for page-protection could be made yet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only changes I've made are A) honest editorial disagreements with Mel; and B) responses to and removals of hostile and biased comments inserted by my "fans" at Bullshido. I've tried to retain the most current version based on some unspoken consensus between Mel, Fire Star, and myself. -Phil Elmore

Greetings Phil! Thanks for responding. We can certainly help with a "Bullshido watch." As I said, I think the concept of martialism is notable enough for a good article for people curious about the subject. I don't intend any disrespect to your group or Bullshido, and Wikipedia is certainly big enough for all of us. Cheers, Fire Star 17:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the concept of "martialism" is actually a new concept at all. It's just a new name. Self-defense "experts" and martial artists have been positing the idea that citizens have the right or responsibility to learn how to defend themselves and/or maintain an aggressive attitude or fighting strategy in self-defense situations for decades. A much better idea would be to include martialism (possibly in its own subsection) in an article about the "self-offense" that Fairbairn and Applegate wrote about.

[edit] Buddhism, etc.

I removed the religious 'see also' entries — I can't see any justification for them in the article. I don't really see what Qi is doing there either, to be honest, but I've left it for the moment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put them in so people would be able to get a context for the statements made and claims presented in the article. The Buddhism, Qi and Taoism links were just referential, but especially important I think is the Legalism (philosophy) link which Martialism in some ways seems a restatement of. Cheers, Fire Star 18:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm — I think that that's doing it rather more than justice, to be honest. I removed the reference to 'martialism' being a philosophy largely because it didn't seem to be philosophical in any except the loosest, most journalistic sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you e-mail me a shipping address, Mel (and you too, Fire) I will gladly mail you a copy of my booklet, "Be a Martialist," which outlines precisely why I consider it a philosophy as such. - Phil
I've done some reading on Phil's websites, and I do believe there is a demonstrable underlying philosophy, a world-view, associated with Martialism. It reminds me very much of that of Legalism (philosophy) (which Wikipedia article, though serviceable, doesn't yet convey the exact meaning I'm speaking of). Legalism is also based on Taoism (as are many Chinese martial arts) and uses much the same rationale (as far as I can see) for the use of force when necessary as Martialism, that it is ultimately for the greater good. I have a slightly different view myself, but my personal stance shouldn't affect the editing of the article. Fire Star 01:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martialism is not a philosophy anymore than man's natural instinct at self-preservation would be. That's essentially what he argues: That man should be able and must defend himself from attack. Hardly groundbreaking or interesting enough to warrant its own entry. -Unknown (Phil Elmore?)

Well, as a philosopher, I can see little that would make any of this philosophical, either in the Western of the Chinese sense, but let it pass. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not a Martialist and have had a number of (polite) disagreements with Phil Elmore on a variety of topics but I have come to understand that the bulk of people identifying themselves as Martialists do present a system of thought derived from a critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs surrounding the rights and responsibilities of humans. That's gonna meet most people's definition of a philosophy, even those of us who disagree with many of the conclusions. In fact, I suspect that is part of what makes Martialism seem threatening in certain quarters. To say that it reflects or coincides with natural instincts does not invalidate a philosophy unless one wishes to claim that philosophies must be unnatural. paulfromatlanta 04:27, 21 Apr 2005

[edit] Critical FAQ

I agree the FAQ is biased against the subject of the article, but it is outside of Wikipedia (which means it doesn't have to be encyclopaedic) and I see such public criticism as evidence establishing Martialism's and Phil's notability. For Wikipedia's sake, it is much worse to not be talked about at all than to be talked about critically. Fire Star 02:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's fine by me; I ask only that my response to the FAQ be included if the FAQ is going to be included. - Phil
Definitely. I also think that your response to Bullshido's review of your website should be appended to the Bullshido article. Fire Star 14:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For that to happen, they'd have to be better at pretending to be objective. - Phil
I should be able to keep it linked there. If they don't let it stay, that would be tantamount to admitting that their article is simple advertising, which would allow us to eventually delete the entire article, again. Fire Star 19:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, references to simple advertising should be made with caution in this context, given that we're dealing with two articles, one on Phil Elmore, one on his 'philosophy', both created by him, both created with external links to an advert for his 'authoring services'... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a redirect from Phil Elmore to this article? There should only be one or two sentences to merge, if any. Fire Star 14:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martialism in Dictionary

The Oxford English Dictionary already contains references to the word Martialism going back to the 1600's. Elmore's use of the word is inconsistent with the accepted definition and he did not coin the word at all. This entry should reflect the accepted definition of the word according to the OED and not Elmore's interpretation. 69.129.13.204 (talk • contribs)

The accepted definition is an old word. Many words, truthiness for example, have gained a new meaning often due to popular culture, slang, or use. I think adding the classic definition as a mention, heck, make it the first mention, would add to the article, but do not remove the modern usages of it. I'm sure there are usages even beyond Elmore's site, probably in the military, among other martial artists, or other people involved in martial arts, martial law, or potential violence. Research! Tyciol 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
It's shame that the editors of this site feel that an entry should exist for a word that is clearly at odds with the accepted definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary. I would propose re-writing this article to more closely reflect the actual meaning of the word as defined in the OED. 69.129.13.204 (talk • contribs)
  1. Dictionaries give common usage; encyclopædias often differ from dictionaries.
  2. This isn't a dictionary, and a set of past uses of the word aren't appropriate here.
  3. Nevertheless, if there's a past use of the word that is appropriate for an encyclopædia article, then fine — write it, but not in place of this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've again removed the anon's attempts to change the article. Not only was the English poor, but it again confused what might be said about the world with the concept with which the article is concerned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article fails Verifiability criteria?

Just because it pops up in google search doesn't mean the term deserve an article. It has zero reference in Google scholars and Google news. Given that this article fail to have verifiable sources which even mention the term "martialism", the article should be deleted and content transfered to the article about Phil Elmore. I wait for a while if someone can come up with reference which pass Wikipedia criteria of npov, verifiability and no original research. If none turn up, I will nominate this article fof VfD. FWBOarticle

This article is completely unneccessary. I think that Phil Elmore may be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but "martialism" is not-we don't need an article for every novel term coined by every barely-notable author in every subject. -Halloween jack 15:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, having an article for a term is much more useful than an author, although both may be relevant. Since Phil (it is supposedly him, someone should e-mail to verify) is editing Wikipedia himself, a link to his user page rather than a page in and of itself would probably be far more valuable, we rarely get to interact directly with the subjects of author articles, which is why they are normal articles rather than user pages. Any buzz-phrase should get an article, especially one that is growing in popularity (if you look at the subscribers to the forums, or purchasers of the material, if Mr. Elmore will provide a sales receipt of it or something, it's value is shown. If we add classic definitions as above, that will further solidify the usefulness of the article, in comparing the past and present definitions. Tyciol 19:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

IT HAS BEEN SAID:"Any buzz-phrase should get an article, especially one that is growing in popularity"

MY CENT´S WORTH: I live in Spain, I use the term "Marcialismo" talking with my friends and with strangers. I suppose that qualifies as "growing in popularity".

Besides: I knew about Phil Elmore through the Wikipedia, one of the biggest "gold mines" I ever had stumbled upon by the wikipedia. Both articles sare very useful, and should not be deleted.Randroide 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid neologisims

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. "

"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." [1]

This article is in direct violation of above mentioned guideline. Vapour

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/Talk%7EMartialism_a890.html"