Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 6

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.

Contents

Puh-Leeze

Now you're placing tags on the basis of my sanskrit knowledge ?? Do you even know that Mallayuddha can mean fighter war, art of many moves, combat wrestling and even intelligent fighting depending on the variation ???

And why mention the details of the disputes in the article, which would prompt me to give counter arguments in the article itself resulting in the article being turned into talk-page-lite ??? your notes are enough, the reader can always (and will always) navigate to the bottom to get the alternate POV.

Please do not get into an argument with me about the scope of my train of thought in the karate community, if you do then let's have a challenge (if you accept), I'll bring in my websites and you bring yours, the one with more mentions wins, lemme know.

I agreed to the mentioning of dissenting POVs and for now have even left the official mention from shaolin out as a peace offering, isn't it about time the article is left unsabotaged ??? Freedom skies 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of latest edits:-
1) Cited the influence of dravidian martial arts on Indianized kingdoms
2) Removed "Factual Accuracy" from the "Decline of martial practices" part

Freedom skies 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome

Do you even know that Mallayuddha can mean fighter war, art of many moves, combat wrestling and even intelligent fighting depending on the variation ???

Let me guess: you're going to start translating Bharatiya kushti as "Indian death-duel" next?

let's have a challenge (if you accept), I'll bring in my websites and you bring yours, the one with more mentions wins, lemme know.

Hell, I could find a million websites backing the claim that Walt Disney is frozen in a block of ice awaiting reanimation.

Doesn't make it true.[1]

Google results are not a yardstick of truth.

Again, that's why peer review is the Wikipedia gold standard for credibility.

I am not stating that "India is the home to every martial art on the planet", "India was IT, end of argument" or that "India is the only influence".

From Indian martial arts 21:41, 9 August 2006 Freedom skies

“ Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts ”

Not "vital influence" nor "founding influence" nor even "one of the founding influences".

"the origin".

India being a founding influence is the overwhelmingly popular point of view, the view held by two people Kenny (who says he practices kung Fu) and JFD (who says he knows it) is strictly held by a couple of people with an affinity for Kung Fu and who can't bear to think about it's origins being outside of their comfort zone, no matter how microscopic their train of thought is.

Someone who replaced Roy Porter's 1st/2nd century dating of the Caraka Samhita with 'The science of medicine originates in ancient India as "Ayurveda"'[2] without providing a source and has repeatedly done the same on other topics has NO moral authority—NONE—to lecture anyone else about their "comfort zones" or "microscopic trains of thought".

Summary of latest edits
  • Changed "Dravidian" to "Indian". Sources cited do not specify whether Indian influence was Dravidian or not. Moreover, the majority of Indian cultural transmission to Southeast Asia occurred during the Gupta dynasty, which was not Dravidian.
  • Changed "Indianized kingdoms" to "Malay peoples" with wikilink. Though Indian influence had reached the Philippines, there was no Indianized kingdom on its territory.
  • Replaced some of the external links with footnoted quotes.
  • Credited Marion Manzo and Richard C. Brown, the co-authors of, respectively, Cezar Borkowski and Hidetaka Nishiyama.
  • Miyagi, Funakoshi, Nishiyama and Goodin are rightly respected as teachers, fighters, even organizers, but not one of them has the reputation of a Tang Hao, a Matsuda or a Henning as a historian of the martial arts.
  • Expanded quotations from Henning.
  • Updated "Shaolin kung fu: The legend of Bodhidharma" wikilink.
    JFD 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies response

Inconsequential mumblings based on suppositions, flashbacks taken out of context, confusion routines and whatnot, you sound kinda tired this time though. Anyways, nice job on placing the malay line and thanks for mentioning the Miyagi, Goodin etc. in the notes, I did'nt think of it but thanks for going the distance anyways.

I'd love to argue out the flaws in your Roy Porter outrage thing but this is not the place for discussing ancient medicine, you just keep repeating that outrage routine because I won't respond to what I believe is an off topic confusion routine.

The idea of mentioning edit patterns on talk page is good too, I'll try to follow it.Freedom skies 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

compromise?

Ok read this before you revert... we all agreed freedom skies that if you want to put your opinions on here that we can put our opinion on here. You have yet to prove one document which supports your mullayuddha idea or that the british were instrumental in the destruction of indian martial arts. Further... if we have a dispute on the factual accuracy of a section... then we should put a FREAKING disputed tag on it -- so quit removing the freaking tag !!! you act as though their is no dispute when everything that you have written online so far has been disputed. so i offer a compromise.... we place your views and our views and state that their are two beliefs... and we do it as fairly as possible. this happened with the Taj Mahal dispute on whehter it is a vedic or muslim temple and on the history of hinduism dispute where people were trying to use archae astronomy to date hinduism back to 8,000B.C. or so... therefore... we have a religious interpretation of your history of india and a historical interpretation... Kennethtennyson 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I did just what you said, read your lines before I reverted.
Both opinions are mentioned in JFD's notes, including the mention of POV which differs from his own, for which I'm appreciative.
Like I said, my family has a background in international diplomacy and my relations have even had direct authority over the management and maintainence of the Taj mahal in Agra. I can't believe that you think that dispute is settled, the argument ender i.e. the carbon dating to pinpoint the age of the monument, which many believe predated Shah jahan, was (still is) postponed indefinitely by the central government of India, as for Hinduism, people in India believe it is approx. 5000+ years old according to the carbon dating of findings like statues and inscriptions in the Indus valley and mehrgarh, which depict hindu priests and meditators, substantiated by authorities like the British Museum in London, as for the exact age, well, that'll come as soon as someone authoritatively deciphers the Harrappan. Anyways, no arguments will be accepted on drawing parallel with Taj Mahal or any off topic subject, the routine of drawing parallels and asking for two compromises in reply of one is simply unacceptable.
And your article writing is atrocious, it's like a multimple personality disorder on the article itself.Freedom skies 08:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, buddy, no one agrees with anything that you have written so far. I could care less if your family is involved in the maintenance of the Taj mahal or in diplomacy. As far as I can tell, you have none. we will unfortunately have to lock this page up again, as I have a funny idea that you will not accept anything except your skewed view of the world. All that you have compromised to do so far after this long discussion is accept the fact that other wikipedians have a right to edit the article and add their opinion and that you should cite reasonable sources for what you write (not random web sites) which is the normal policy of wikipedia, which i don't call a true compromise... even then you are going back on your compromise as you seem to not want people adding things that add another view point to your skewed view of the world... so leave the freaking disputed tags on their ok???!!! Kennethtennyson 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

skewed........shkewd, inconsequential as always.
You write so much and yet the content is so low in those ramblings, I compromised on not mentioning the official shaolin website, the "List of websites substantiating India's influence" (In which I place like a hundred sites from institutions around the world, a wikipedia page of links and internal link provided on the main article page) page being linked to "Also See" section and the agreement to dissenting POVs on the article page even when the language is "martial art experts" vs. "specialts".........need I go on ???
No more edits without reaching consenseus in the talk page, The latest compromise I did was stop a mention from Jhoon Rhee just so I could set an example by following the "no edits without consenseus" rule.
And if you want articles published, try writing anything other than what resembles to talk page lite Freedom skies 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

no compromise so far

Look, why are you so eager to only put your version of the edits on the article?!! You won't allow us to put our edits on it and you delete our edits whenever you feel it contradicts your view of the world... you have never been able to dispute one iota of reference that we have put on the article yet you are eager to remove it so that the article represents your views only... I'm placing a disputed tag on this article... please leave it here or else the article will be locked... you've already had it locked already. and please don't mention that no dispute exists because one obviously does... further, your citations are out of context... many of those citations that you've placed on the article actually support our view not yours... they confirm that everone believes that this bodhidharma legend is b.s. Kennethtennyson 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"The decline of martial practices"

Would both POVs be satisfied by the following?

  1. Reference to the use of Gurkhas by the British Raj
  2. Reference to the virtual extinction of the dronambolli lineage of kalarippayattu due to active suppression of Nairs in southern Kerala

I already have a third-party academic reference for the latter and I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find one for the former. (But I've got a way overdue thesis to finish and a girl who's only in town until Monday so it won't be me that does it.)
JFD 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gurkhas are considered the best mountain soldiery in the world in the Uk and India (both I know for a fact) but I won't associate them with any martial arts as such. They are experts in weilding knives and modern mountain warfare as well, they captured several important peaks in the Kargil war which the Sikh regiment failed to do so.
The nair clan, as great as they might be are not what the jyesthimallas are to Vajramushti or the Ghulam family was to Pehlwani, the art of Kallari is just one thing, overtaking the princely states and riyasats which patronized the Kshatriya martial fighters and organised the dwands, the Indian equivalent of PRIDEfc (I should know, my lineage is part Kshatriya and part Brahmin, the caste of the administrators), led to the downfall of martial arts. Without patrons, the Kshatriya champions were left to fend for themselves as their new british rulers were now too busy shipping the wealth out of India and the old ones were either in a british prison in Burma or on a pension or died fighting against the british (in which case the kshatriyas fought to the last breath too, eg. in Rajputana and Bundelkhand).
The british empire saw the Indian wealth trasported to Endland's museums and tresury, Indian Kshatriyas left unpatronised, Indian farmers forced to grow Indigo and buy expensive european salt which made them even poorer.............Ah, don't get me started on this, in a nutshell if you take a look into the economic history of India, it was the largest economy on the planet according to Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, India had the world's largest economy between the 1st century and 15th century, from a 32.9% share of world GDP in the 1st century to 24.5% in 1500, when China overtook India with a 25% share in that same year.
Tell me, if that did'nt kill Indian arts, what did ??
And before someone accuses me of being a racist again, I've lived for a couple of months in North London, I keep visiting and love it, I have friends there and my grudge is against the Raj and not against the present govt. which I support for the war against terror. Save the not-all-white-people-are-bad-have-you-ever-seen-any routine.Freedom skies 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Indian martial arts article is not really the place for a discussion of the economic policies of the British Raj. Thank you at least for letting us know about the Maddison. I'm heading to the university library sometime in the next couple of days and I wouldn't mind looking this up—for my own interest, you understand, nothing related to the entry—if you don't mind giving me page numbers or chapters.

Tell me, if that did'nt kill Indian arts, what did ??

The following quotations are Phillip Zarrilli's account of the decline of kalarippayattu under European colonialism.

“ After the introduction of firearms, and especially after British colonial rule was fully established in the 19th century, kalarippayattu underwent a period of decline but was preserved by the few families which continued to practice. ”
“ When Rama Varna Maharaja formed an alliance with the dispossessed rulers of Malabar and Cochin, and sought the help of the British in 1792, this alliance brought further erosion of Nayar influence, especially in southern Kerala.

More European modes of organizing police, armies and governmental institutions, and the increasing use of firearms, gradually eroded the need for traditional martial training associated with caste-specific duties. Like some other traditional occupations, the majority of families practising kalarippayattu eventually had to fend for themselves in the emerging marketplace economy. Some families abandoned their traditional practice of kalarippayattu. For others kalarippayattu necessarily became an avocation rather than a vocation. In southern Kerala where there was active suppression of the Nayars, by the mid 1950s Chirakkal T. Sreedharan Nayar notes, the unique southern dronambolli style was virtually non-existent. In northern Malabar in particular, and to a lesser degree in central Kerala, kalarippayattu continued to be practised, and some masters continued to make a subsistence living by maintaining their medical practice and teaching local children. For the majority of masters who continued to practise kalarippayattu, it became increasingly divorced from practical use as a fighting art; therefore, masters often stopped teaching meditation and secret practices used to gain access to 'higher' and more dangerous powers in combat or duel.

It was in Tellicherry that the resurgence of public interest in kalarippayattu began during the 1920s as part of the wave of rediscovery of the traditional arts throughout south India which characterized the growing reaction against British colonial rule.

 ”

Zarrilli stresses firearms as a leading cause of the decline of Indian martial arts, but also acknowledges societal and economic upheavals, as well as outright suppression in the case of dronambolli.

However, I don't think that economic immiseration and the decline of martial arts are necessarily correlated. Another scholar, Meir Shahar, makes a very good case for saying that conditions of poverty actually advance the development of martial arts.

“ Scholars have pointed out the significance of endemic violence to the history of martial arts on the North China plains. Predatory economics transformed the martial arts into an integral element of rural society throughout much of Henan and its neighboring provinces. ”

JFD 19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Added something new, then removed it, now mentioning them and then asking for opinions

I surf the NYT and the BBC sites regularly, since the argument was on my mind I searched the sites and came up with something, I changed the article till I realized that I was the one who asked Kenny to build a consenseus before new edits. Well, here is the part which I want to mention in the article :-

Bodhidharma and his legacy have also been mentioned in articles by news organisations such as the New York Times [3][4][5][6] and the British Broadcasting Corporation[7].

The mentions are legit, and wikipedia loves NYT, it seems, so I plan on mentioning them. Anyways, if anyone wants to suggest any rephrasing, please do. Freedom skies 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of Bodhidharma's place in East Asian folklore really belongs in the entry for Bodhidharma, not the one for Indian martial arts.
As for the articles, only two of the NYT articles deals with martial arts (and one of them gives both the traditional legendary and conventional historical accounts).
The BBC article is beyond shit.
According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago.
Differing primary sources date Bodhidharma's arrival in China to either the Liu Song Dynasty (420–479) or the "third year of Emperor Xiaomingdi's Xiaochang reign period," i.e 527. According to all accounts, Bodhidharma had either died or left China by the Tang dynasty.
He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples.
It is only the youngest of the primary sources that makes any kind of connection between Bodhidharma and the Shaolin Monastery. In it, the Shaolin Monastery has already been built by the time Bodhidharma reaches its environs. Moreover, it contains no reference to Bodhidharma teaching martial arts.
But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe.
This sounds like an extremely bastardized version of the story of Jee Sin[8], which is as ahistorical as the story of Bodhidharma. And if it is, his story took place about 200 years ago, not 100.
The one thing I've noticed about British journalists is, what they gain in brevity and concision, they more than pay for in accuracy.
JFD 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing your contributions to Jee Sin Sim See, and keeping in mind the opinion about the the extremely bastardized version, the BBC thing is canned. I will mention the NYT versions of Bodhidharma in the article though, since they deal with the Indian figure (who occupies, like 70% of the place in the influence section) and are from the NYT. Freedom skies 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The line of "even found mentions" is strictly a personal POV of disbelief, the NYT simply mentions the impact of bodhidhamrma and should be put down as such.

Any signs of personal disbelief should be kept away from the article itself, the NYT mentions the man and his impact in the articles.that's all. To say that "the mentions even found" makes it look like the NYT did everything right but just committed one holy mother of all mistakes, Bodhidharma, for which their stupidity must be insinuated. Freedom skies 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tea leaves growing from a man's severed eyelids? I'd have to say I disbelieve that.
But the purpose of the "even" was not to express disbelief, but to stress that Bodhidharma has such a place in East Asian folklore that it has even reached the Western media.
JFD 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

no compromise so far

Look, why are you so eager to only put your version of the edits on the article?!! You won't allow us to put our edits on it and you delete our edits whenever you feel it contradicts your view of the world... you have never been able to dispute one iota of reference that we have put on the article yet you are eager to remove it so that the article represents your views only... I'm placing a disputed tag on this article... please leave it here or else the article will be locked... you've already had it locked already. and please don't mention that no dispute exists because one obviously does... further, your citations are out of context... many of those citations that you've placed on the article actually support our view not yours... they confirm that everone believes that this bodhidharma legend is b.s. Kennethtennyson 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC

I won't even go into discussion of economics of the indian subcontinent before the british came.. you cite one book but most other books state that China had the world's largest economy for most of the christian era... especially when you factor in the Yuan dynasty...

finally, you have still to give any reference to support your preposterous view that Mallahyudhha was a martial arts or that the british were instrumental in the fall of all indian martial arts... which i take as a blatant view of your prejudiced view on the world...Kennethtennyson 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What the ??

Being poor helps learn martial arts ?? 200 years of tourturous foreign occupation that saw the end of Kshatriya culture, downfall of princely states and the Kings who patronized the Kshatriyas had no effect ?? modernization lead to ending of unarmed martial arts in India while the same modernisaztion worked in japan ???
And the mention of Bodhidharma is written to indicate the mentions in the NYT, the view of him being either a legend is not mentioned, there have been legends based on the man, but his influences on martial arts of relevance are subscribed to by a school of thought, anyways neither POVs find their way into the article and all the article says is he has been mentioned in the NYT, that's it.
Anyways, I'll have to run right now, as soon as i come back, more rounds of aimless arguments over proving blatently the obvious, I guess.
Freedom skies 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, my only concern right now is that we need to leave the disputed tag on the article... you can do whatever wacky things you want with the article but you need to leave the disputed tag as we are currently compiling a nice book here on our views of the world... after we leave the disputed tag we can continue to discuss the merits of your citations... by the way = have you read any of these articles that you cite? Kennethtennyson 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mallayuddha

The Mallayuddha issue could be resolved with the relevant quotations from the Rgveda, Mahabharata, etc.
Doing so would also provide a source for the statements. JFD 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

the quotations in english are equivalent to the following... "this god-king fought that god-king and they wrestled... and they wrestled for a very long time... and earth and the sky shook.. on and on... and finally this god-king defeated that god-king" you can find any version of the mahabharata at your local university library... they will all say the same equivalent thing...Kennethtennyson 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming legitimacy instead of malice

The works from mahabharat will be mentioned, sourced and everything.

That should be done in the talk page, building a consenseus before changing the article, that is.

Anyways, the consenseus from my understanding is, I waited for JFD's opinion before I altered, now I have till my next turn to cite, until then if anyone has any grievances, they should be mentioned on the talk page, in case of either reaching a consenseus or breakdown of arguments, alteration to the status quo will be done, if that fails, it's an unwanted free-for-all once again. Freedom skies 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

it already is a free for all as far as i can tell... you don't agre to anything... you don't listen to reason... and you keep on reverting and getting rid of disputed tags.Kennethtennyson

Tiresome as it has been citation for Mallayuddha is done[9], complete with the four methods of practicing it (which take out the generic argument) and the tag removed. Oddly enough, you'll also find the view of foreign occupation's role for the end of martial practices was not my imagination, forign rule does have it's disadvantages, it's another one of the obvious facts you'll have to live with instead of revisionist history. Freedom skies 22:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

that's an opinion submitted by a user online on kalari world... anyone can submit their beliefs...not a citation or even a book. I believe that i have cited books in the past that state that mallayuddha is just a generic term for wrestling... you have erased those citations.Kennethtennyson 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The books were written by foreign authors who unlike Mr.R.Venkatachalam, did not practice the art first hand. if Funakoshi's mentions were enough then Mr.R.Venkatachalam 's mentions should be enough too. No shifting of goalposts now. Freedom skies 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tiresome as it has been citation for Mallayuddha is done
It doesn't matter how tiresome it is.
Without citation, Kennethtennyson—or any other editor—has every right to remove unsourced material from the article.
Hold off until you have a third-party source before adding material to the article.
Otherwise things are just going to spiral into an edit war again.
you'll also find the view of foreign occupation's role for the end of martial practices was not my imagination
Source it! There are reams of material on the effects of the British Raj.
The books were written by foreign authors who unlike Mr.R.Venkatachalam, did not practice the art first hand.
“ mallayuddha may be literally translated as "wrestling combat."

…
In 1977 I affiliated with a wrestling gymnasium under the guruship of Dr. Shanti Prakash Atreya and was introduced to Indian wrestling as not only a sport but as a way of life, a complex system of physical fitness, exercise techniques, dietary prescriptions, personal character traits, devotion, discipline, and a host of ethical values.
Alter, Joseph. The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India

 ”
JFD 23:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tiresome it has been, to state the blatantly obvious that fighting systems like Mallayuddha ,which have four distinct forms, are not generic forms of wrestling, the source is available on the descripton of four forms at the link I provided and the article in wikipedia itself. Apart from the diversity of forms laying waste to the generic wrestling claim, an arena from the times of kuru dynasty which served as the breeding ground for the Jarasndhi variation is well known to exist in Rajgir, India.[10][11]

“ The term Indian wrestling is translated directly from the Hindi phrase Bharatiya kushti. Kushti (generic wrestling) is regarded as having a uniquely Indian form. In North India there are two other terms that are used interchangeably when referring to Indian wrestling. The most common of these is pahalwani.

The second term is malayuddha, which may be literally translated as "wrestling combat." The term mallayuddha is used very infrequently and is regarded by most wrestlers as an archaic designation. On account of its classical derivation, it is used primarily by people educated in Sanskrit. The root word malla, translated simply as "wrestler," is used in conjunction with two other common terms. Mallakala is translated as the "art of wrestling," and mallavidya as the "knowledge of wrestling." Both terms are used somewhat more frequently than mallayuddha.

Alter, Joseph. The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India

 ”
JFD 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

follow wikipedia rules

Look, the only reason we let you put Funakoshi's opinion - personal opinion mind you-- is because he is someone we can verify and also we just got tired of arguing with you on why fact is derived from research and evidence, not personal opinion... secondly i don't know who the hell this Mr.R.Venkatachalam is - for all i know, it could be you... that is an editorial page on a private website that states that it will teach you the "secrets" of kalaripayattu... anyone even you or i can write a letter stating that we are this Mr. R. Venkatachalam.... Finally, i'm tired of you turning this article into your own POV rant... If you want to be fair, you should agree to this...

1) for every one statement, paragraph or idea that you provide, I or JFD would like to write a statement, paragraph or idea that presents our view. Both of us have to provide verifiable sources - not personal or private websites - and you can't quote people or articles out of context or snippets of articles like you have been doing...if you look at my edit on August 30 at 2:55 that is what i attempted to do. Beleive it or not, this is not your personal soap box to present your whacky biased and possibly racist personal ideas... you're currently discounting people who are academics in their fields because they are white (your quote not mine), blaming the brits for the supposed downfall of indian martial arts, claiming a version of history where indian martial arts is the progenitor of all martial arts, and then making up the history of indian martial arts...and then using private websites to support your beliefs... fair's fair... one paragraph for you one paragraph for us..

2) if we disagreee on a major idea, then we should place disputed or pov tags on the article. Quit removing the disputed tags. Kennethtennyson 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this due to edit disputes and warring, please settle the issue here. Yanksox 00:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)