Talk:Asian martial arts (origins)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Disputed NPOV
It seems like an argument is being phrased and weighted towards one side. Regardless, no citation is give to certain ideas. What are the Indian (or Chinese) texts that describe Bodhidharma's origin as a Southerm Kschtriya? What are the texts that show the monastery was founded prior to Bodhidharma's arrival? Finally as a point of logic, one author seems to be claiming that because a text has been discredited that means Bodhidharma could not have contributed to Shaolin Kung Fu. A Daoist priest forges the prefaces according to the information submitted by the author. The priest claims "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real." Why would a text used to discredit the monks be used by the monks themselves to define their history? The monks themselves are claiming the origin of martial arts from Bodhidharma, and the author claims that this has been from the forgery of the text. It seems spurious that anyone would take a myth denigrating them as fact when up till then they did not believe the myth. Arch7 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, per the discussion below. Merges can be discussed separately. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection" is an enormously awkward page name. It should be moved back to "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts". JFD 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed, the current title is cumbersome; and the proposed title seems better, but does it best reflect the article's contents? – Marco79 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment if renamed as such, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts might need to be merged there. Also "Disputed origins of East Asian martial arts" as there are other arguments two". --Nate1481( t/c) 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Text Improvement Suggestion
The two paragraphs, one starting "Shaolin monastery records state..." and the following one starting "Years before the arrival of Bodhidharma..." contain essentially the same information and statements. Perhaps someone familiar with the references could combine and improve? Is "...the tin staff." referenced by both 11 and 13? DAG 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Replacement vs Merge
Just as a disclaimer, if individuals will check this article's edit history, it will reveal that I've tried hard to keep this article well sourced and NPOV.
I know that this article began as a large POV fork for hindu nationalists, and that there was a proposal to merge it with its counter-article has been there since March. (Heck, I was the one who placed the original merge proposal.) However, there is a whole scale difference between merging articles and replacing the article. This especially doesn't make sense when the replacing article began life as criticism article.
Can someone explain to me what was wrong with the version of the article from last month? I agree that contents that currently take up the article's entirety should be included, but it shouldn't be exclusive.
Djma12 (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the version you have mentioned has been included now as it is quite well presented and makes the subject coverage wider JennyLen☤ 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asian MA
If neither you nor Djma12 have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Asian Martial Arts (origins) sounds good. However, be aware that the article refers to East Asia martial arts not all Asian Martial Arts...JennyLen☤ 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure this was a smart move. The article doesn't touch upon the various Southeast Asian martial arts. You may have widened the scope more than is appropriate. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think other articles of this type could also be re-named or merged so that they refer to all of Asia instead of over-emphasizing the sub-regions. Information on Southeast Asian martial arts could always be added in. Morinae (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar was just published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.
What this means is that we finally have in English a comprehensive academic source (as opposed to more narrowly focused journal articles) and therefore ought to start distinguishing material which can be attributed to reliable sources from material attributed to unreliable ones.
