Talk:Martial arts

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.
Article policies
Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Good article

Thought is was about time we get this to GA status and figured the best place to start was this:

[edit] Auto review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

[edit] Done

[edit] To do:

  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481(t/c) 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA ready?

OK anything that needs doing before this goes in for a proper peer-review & GA-nom? --Nate1481( t/c) 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly citations - it'll never make it through GA while there are so many unreferenced or sparsely referenced sections. Bradford44 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
sigh. Thought it was likely to be that, I have one or to books that I may be able to use to fill in some gaps, but edit from work @ moment so sitting here with an MA book open flicking pages would be a bit obvious... We really should try & get it to GA @ least as it's thw project flagship. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion as a martial artist - there are a lot of missing concepts here, and a lot of stuff looks and sounds anecdotal. Unfortunately I think I started in the wrong place because my edits were rejected. Really I was just looking for reading material, but I figured I could help. I think the section between "weaponry" and "history" needs to be rewritten. Maybe there could be a section labelled "training" and one called "the martial-arts-healing-arts connection". Many martial artists I know who attain high levels also learn some sort of healing art along the way, for various reasons. Unfortunately for me writing seems easy, and providing 3rd party references is a lot more work. Scott.toderash 03:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This will never make it thorough without at least one citation per section and that is weak. I unfortuantely don't have the time to hwip out reference books and do that work right now. Is someone up to it? Alex Jackl (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Arts 1.0 or Martial Arts 2.0 discussion

First post on Wikipedia so excuse mistakes.

Just attended a seminar on development of Web 2.0 use in schools (UK). Teacher arrived with group of year 6 students (age 10/ 11) who answered questions on colaborative learning and the flexibility of Web 2.0.

Just came to me that Martial Arts are undergoing a major revision in a similar vein. In fact close comparisons can be drawn so I wonder if an article of the differences would be seen as development or criticism of established teaching patterns?

Martial Arts 1.0 (MA 1.0) Grandmasters Kata Pre-arranged World wide syllabus (rather than sharing developments) Non resisting opponents Closed Networks Focus on grade achievement List of skills to learn

Martial Arts 2.0 (MA 2.0) Resisting opponents Drills Coaches Colaboration Open Networks Individual skill development

All clubs / associations show elements of both MA 1.0 and MA 2.0 but prospective students could then find the form of training they preferred.

Just an idea. Merseytripod 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Merseytripod

it's an interesting idea, sure, but it would count as original research, so not appropriate to wikipedia. you might find this article interesting, though: Kata and Etudes: Pattern Drills in the History of Teaching Swordsmanship. Whateley23 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


This is my second post on WP, so I'm not much more experienced here. However, your observations sound like a theory, not encyclopedic reference. Personally, I don't agree with your assessment of current training methods vs. methods popular in the past 40 years. I don't think you're examining methods used prior to that, but all of this is off topic for an article, I think. I wonder if this edit will get deleted too. Hmm, this is just an experiment for me really. Scott.toderash 02:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, with most styles starting to delve into other martial arts it occured to me that maybe we are seeing a return to earlier material that was "forgotten" or "hidden" in the past to reduce student injuries? I have noticed that military combat training is evolving along similar line to MA 1.0 & MA 2.0. I will go back to the drawing board.

Merseytripod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.30.87 (talk) 11:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It is important to note that it was the norm until the 20th century for martial artists to regularly test themselves against others to improve technique and determine superiority of individual skill. The outlawing of dueling in the west and the fall of a large part of asia (particularly China, Japan and Korea, where many martial arts originate) into a series of wars that continued for the better part of a century moved martial arts away from this model. Since the return to the use of resistive drills is not, in fact, a new innovation I don't see any need to differentiate it from earlier martial arts. Especially not those who have histories that can be verifiably traced to before 1900. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point Shooting

I re-added point shooting to the On The Modern Battlefield. Martial arts by definition is the refined utilization of martial (military) means. I cite "The Secrets of the Samurai" (ISBN 978-0785810735) where the author mentions several Japanese schools taught tactics in addition to techniques. Of course this is too ambiguous and this article is more restrictive, sticking mainly to the modern sport notion referring to the use of body and hand-held weapons. In any case, guns remain completely relevant as they are both martial in nature and hand-held.

Lucas.yamanishi 07:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I would like to add this external link AKBAN-wiki, it is the only martial art encyclopedia with actual documentation in video of Judo, Muai Tai, Capoeira, Iaido, Ninjutsu/Budo Taijutsu And Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It is free, and open to all to edit and share. As I noticed, some editors agree that it should stay, while others just delete the link without bothering to explore. Gingihan

[edit] =====================

I was thinking much the same, of adding a link to [1] as they're preparing an index of martial arts that could come in handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downix (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again...

Links being spammed, please read WP:External links before adding any. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-added the Akban wiki link

Until such time that Wikipedia fully adopts Kaltura this is the only free community project that has any academic intentions.

[edit] Removing useless info

It's good that some of the tedious parts of this article have been fixed but I don't see why the paragraph about the Chinese and Indian influence on Asian martial arts was removed. For anyone who doubts this fact I can assure you that most Asian styles have been influenced to a certain degree by one or both countries. The few styles that have no influence from either one are obscure and practiced mostly by certain tribes. For those who think this isn't worth mentioning, it's certainly more noteworthy than giving the word for teacher or master in every Asian language. Speaking of weeding out the articles, I thought I'd point out that every weapon/ martial arts-related article has a list of fictional users. This may have been a way of giving people a place to see the style or weapon in use even if the depiction isn't accurate. However, they list down every comic, video game, movie and TV show where any one-shot character may have used a certain art or implement mentioned in the respective article. These lists do not improve the articles and just waste space. Unfortunately they are too popular and any attempt to remove them is resisted. In theory it's not hard to imagine entire articles being made up of these lists, especially for the more well known styles which are frequently portrayed. I would suggest that these are done away with since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a fan site. Finally, I think that this article should be organized by region in either alphabetical or chronological order. Both of these would require some adjustments to the article but I don't see any basis for the current order. Morinae 09:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Core Contest‎

This article is on the list for the 'Core Contest' the main thing that needs work is sourcing as while large amounts are good info the sourcing is terribly bad, to remove all the unsourced would reduce the article to almost nothing of use please help! --Nate1481( t/c) 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. see also the #To do: section above

Part of the problem with sourcing is that martial artists, as a group, often aren't the best writers of books and few academics are studying the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ==Re-added the Akban wiki link==

Until such time that Wikipedia fully adopts Kaltura this is the only free community project that has any academic intentions.Gingihan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There's Asia and East Asia

Great pains have been taken by a certain user to make sure that any mention of Asian martial arts should be separated into East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, etc because nirvana forbid taekwondo should ever be seen together with something like bando. Not only that but East Asia always gets priority while other sub-regions are either sidelined or discarded so that "someone else" can write about them later. Since I haven't heard the reason for the alterations yet I haven't reverted or changed any of these articles but I plan on doing so and I might as well say why. First of all, this article is a general introduction to martial arts by continent. Any further division is too specific. Similarly, the list of martial arts is just a list and it would have been sufficient to sort them according to country and perhaps continent. Listing the sub-regions is absolutely unnecessary because now if a person wanted to look for a particular style or country they first have to look up its continent and then what area the nation is located in. This is not making things any easier and is certainly not improving the articles. The only article where such classifications make sense is in the one on Asian martial arts since it focuses specifically on styles from Asia. Aside from that, I would also say that differentiating between Asia and the Middle East is justified because the latter is located in between three continents and is therefore not properly part of the former. Let's remember that none of the other continents are divided in the martial arts articles. You don't see Northern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean under the section on Europe. You don't see Africa split up into North, South, East, West and Central because we shouldn't need to. Even North and South America are put into one category. This is only ever done with Asia both on and offline. The reason is obvious but I won't get too mean spirited until I hear the other side of this story. Morinae (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New martial art

has anyone ever heard of Karate tech? Im in germany right now and I just found out about this, it is a new martial art that was started here in germany, I am currently taking lessons from the founder of this. It is a combination of 8 different martial arts including jujitsu, taekwondo,karate,sumo, and kickboxing. It is not worldwide yet, but there is a couple schools in the states as well as in Germany. <font color="red">Vandal</font><font color="black">fighter101</font> (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New martial arts are a dime a dozen. Every time some ex-soldier or some karate instructor with a questionable lineage wants to set up a school it's a new martial art or a new "system" or what have you. Until such time as a martial art actually accomplishes something noteworthy it shouldn't be included. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akban Link: Keep or Remove

There appears to be an edit war brewing with regards to this link. Why don't we poll the waters and see whether people support or oppose keeping this link in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the other links but previous consensus was that some media links were relevent, this article regularly gets spam links to MA forums and specific martial arts sites, i don't mind one way or other with the remaining two. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in Bodidharma legend

I removed the sentences regarding the Bodidharma legends since it is historically incorrect, and added more accurate info based on the Zen-Chan and Bodidharma wiki articles. Intranetusa (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)