From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Talk:Belt factory 1.1 Merging 2 Talk:McDojo 2.1 Merged 2.2 Problems with Bullshido/McDojo entry 2.3 McDojo Indications 2.4 Martial arts skepticism 2.5 Bullshido's "BJJ-only" Forum 2.6 McDojo do imply a standard 2.7 Substantial Edits 2.8 NPOV and Verification 2.9 Krav Maga equipment restrictions 2.10 Belts

Talk:Belt factory

How can I tell if my school is a belt factory? What guidelines can I use? It has a lot of kids, and it also charges for testing at every belt level. Is this normal, or only typical of belt factory type schools?--mOO 05:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of factors, but these are paramount: Did you have to sign a contract for a period of time longer than 1 month and if so do they send collection agencies after those who stop paying on the contracts? Do they give black belts to children under 14 or so? Do people actually have to pass rigorous tests or just show up and fork over the cash? These questions are a good place to start. Fire Star 04:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the brief checklist in McDojo article and the external links there for more information. Charging a moderate fee per belt is typical in credible schools also; that practise in itself is not a sure sign of a fraud. jni 07:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the language used in this section. I re-iterate the points of Jni above; I have belonged to two associations that have charged for testing, and in both instances this was because we weren't graded in the dojo, but in a regional leisure centre that got invaded by all the association's clubs. They, of course, required a hiring fee. Now bearing in mind I pay very minimal dojo fees, I find this completely reasonable.

A quality school charging a moderate fee for testing is fairly low on the scale of McDojo. A school charging $1000 for a black belt is very McDojo, and it's also Bullshido if the belt is awarded on an ability to pay rather than martial skill.

--Scb steve 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I'm going to merge this to McDojo...there isn't a terrible lot in either article, and I think it makes a lot more sense. --MikeJ9919 04:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine — but why did you also meddle with my signature, to remove "color"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:McDojo

Merged

Merged here from Belt Factory...on its own, it was basically just a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Both articles were relatively light on content alone. I think this organization make a lot more sense. I'm actually tempted to merge the whole thing into Bullshido, or merge that into here.

As "McDojo" is something that falls within the scope of the term Bullshido, if there was going to be a merge, it should have been done accordingly. However, Mel is apparently disregarding the votes in favor of keeping the article the way it was, and is continuing to have it redirected here. Phrost

For those confused about the above, it was posted by 70.246.79.251 (talk · contribs), who seems in fact to be Phrost (talk · contribs). He's referring to the fact that I merged Bullshido with this article, and made it a redirect, in line with two VfDs: one (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido/Archive1) resulting in a vote for redirect with no merge, the second (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bullshido) — The result of the debate was - should be merged. Phrost insists, aggressively, that we should ignore the result as determined by the admins, but instead accept his verdict. He appears not to have read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion, to which I've directed him.

My attention was attracted by his recreation of the Bullshido article. I've reverted it to a redirect, and protected it. If at any future time there is consensus to recreate it, it can easily be unprotected, but for now Phrost seems not to accept the VfD process, and I don't want to get into a revert war over the redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no issue with the VfD process. What I take exception to, "aggressively" or otherwise, is the outright dismissal of multiple votes in favor of keeping the article as it was. This has not been addressed. --Phrost 22:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, yes, 70.246.79.251 is me. I work on several different computer systems, not all of which are logged in to Wikipedia. I'm still waiting to have the outright dismissal of votes in favor of keeping the article properly explained. --Phrost 22:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of waiting, try doing something; read Wikipedia policy on VfDs, in particularly the explanation of voting. I've given the link here, at Talk:Bullshido, and on your Talk page. You might also talk to the admins who closed the VfDs. What you shouldn't do is unilaterally act against the verdict, and attack as prejudiced the admin who simply acts on those verdicts. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a healthy dose of irony in your use of the term "unilateral". The verdict was clearly that the article should remain. The fact is that an admin chose to "interpret" the results as he saw fit and dismissed the votes for leaving the article as it was. You, Mel, are complicit in this by your inaction and blatantly obvious intention of passing the buck. As I've stated, FireStar, another admin, had stated that there were sufficient votes to keep the article, and so the action that was taken was arbitrary, subjective, and very likely, hostile.

And you wonder why I've responded the way I have? --Phrost 15:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, there's no irony in it at all. And from your comments, I take it that you still haven't bothered to read Wikipedia policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the policy. Perhaps you'd like to be less vague and actually specific which part of it includes the outright dismissal of votes by the admins? I seem to have missed that part. I couldn't be the bit about Wikipedia not being a democracy, as there was a clear consensus that the article needed to be left alone (yet again, as evidenced by FireStar's comments). I suspect you're being purposefully obtuse in your denial of the irony of the situation, either that, or they don't teach you the meaning of the word "Unilateral" at Oxford. The community's consensus was that the article should stay as it was. Action was taken contrary to this consensus. And yet again, you've failed to respond to this fact. --Phrost 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of counting votes — it's an attempt at community consensus. That's why anons and new users are generally either not counted or given little weight, because they're not taken to be part of the community yet. Moreover, if the reasons given by one side are good, and those by another bad, then the admin might be influenced by that. There are many reasons for an admin to go against the simple voting numbers. If you don't like the result, call for an RfC, or ask for a poll on this page to gauge support for your position. Just stop pestering me for following policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel I was "pestering" you. If you'd given that answer several days ago without me having to drag it out of you, I imagine you wouldn't have had to waste nearly as much time. Thank you for explaining that Wikipedia Admin's decisions are mostly subjective. I understand completely now. --70.248.75.68 07:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) ..Phrost, not logged in.

If you'd read the policy, which you say that you did, you'd have seen that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Bullshido/McDojo entry

Problems with Bullshido entry

The article says that a McDojo can be identified by looking for the following characteristics:

Not from a known school or ryū

The instructor looks to be about 30, but claims a title of shihan, sōke (soke), hanshi, hachidan, Great Grandmaster, or other designation of senior status.

Claims to be a synthesis of many arts (very few of these "hybrids" are legitimate); especially if one instructor claims to hold high rank in multiple arts

Then the Bullshido entry uses Bruce Lee to support the idea that forms and board breaking are 'filler'.

The problem here is that 1) Bruce Lee was for all intensive purposes the 'grandmaster' of the Jun Fan system of martial arts, which was a synthesis of other arts (including Wing Chun, boxing and fencing, etc.) as are all martial arts originally. 2) Bruce died in his early thirties and 3) his system was not a known ryu or school.

On a different note these entries seem to assume that fighting effectiveness is the sole purpose for people training mertial arts. This is simply not true. What about the other benefits such as fitness, self confidence, co-ordination, flexibility, sense of community, etc. Schools that train 'serious fighters' are no where near as popular or numerous as those that concentrate on the other benefits.

As such the McDojo and Bullshido entries are projections of the typical mentality of the 'serious fighter' school of martial arts. Afterall their training methods are of no use to the elderly who find grat health benefits from practicing the largely 'form' based martial art of Tai Chi Chuan. Tai Chi Chuan incidently has a long history, many famous teachers (many of whom trained military and security personelle in their day)and is the most widely practiced martial art in the world (200 million people practice it daily). - Unsigned comments by User:202.173.144.102

If you're more interested in the therapeutic aspects of martial arts, please see the Martial Arts Therapy article recently added to Wikipedia.

The McDojo/Bullshido article (as they were merged) reflect the value that martial arts instruction/learning is primarily about the acquisition of techniques for combative purposes. Hence, the term "martial." A tai chi school for fitness that does not lock its students into long term contracts and does not claim they will become unbeatable warriors is neither Bullshido nor McDojo - it does not make fradulent/inaccurate claims as to its benefits, and does not have business practices that are viewed as inappropriate by some.

There are numerous documented instances where an instructor, through belt factories, diploma mills, and the like, will assert a high rank in another system of martial arts that may or may not be similar to their primary style. For example, a TKD instructor may watch hours of BJJ videos and claim proficiency in that system (when they don't have any established rank).

McDojo Indications

The indication that a school may be a McDojo if there are under 15 year old black belts I believe to be false. In my taekwondo club, I managed to achieve my black belt after 5 years of hard work at 14, and other's have achived their 2nd dan's at 13 with 6 years of training, yet my club shows no other signs of being a McDojo according to this article.

You might be confusing the concepts "McDojo" and "Bullshido." "McDojo" refers to economic aspects of a martial arts school. For example, mandating that students can only spar with gear purchased from the school or charging a "belt fee" for every time a student advances in rank is considered McDojo. This has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the quality of instruction, although they can be interrelated.

Your concern touches upon a more gray area - The merits of receiving a Black Belt in a given martial art. In some martial arts, such as Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), Black Belts are more rare than in other systems. There are less than 40 2nd-degree black belts documented on the bjj.org webpage (note this page is generally outdated, but it should give a reference). The requirements for receiving a black belt are predicated on being able to "roll" with other people of that rank and competing at a high level.

On the other hand, when a 1st degree black belt is given to a 15 year old or a 13 year old, that belt implies that they have as much skill and capability as a 1st-degree black belt 25 year old or 35 year old with the belt, and that in competition or sparring, they would be able to hold their own. In every martial art, I think it would be a tremendous (or impossible) feat for a 13 year old blackbelt to successfully compete against a 25 year old of the same rank.

A black belt rank implies a high level of proficiency, accomplishment, and capability. In some cases, they allow for the ability to open one's own school. Rather than give black belts, some schools have alternative belts to give youths of high caliber until they age/develop into adulthood.

Schools that confer black belt ranks on little kids or pre-adults generally do so with hefty fees. This also strays into possible Bullshido, as a school which confers black belts without properly teaching self-defense gives kids a false indicator of their abilities in a self-defense situation.

This speaks to general concepts. It does get into the area of opinion and values at a certain point, but unless you believe that a 13 year old TKD black belt can credibly spar against a 25 year old black belt, then you can see there's a qualitative difference between the black belts that can possibly stem from financial or fradulent aspects. Therefore, when the article says that a school MAY be a McDojo, it's not saying that all schools are, just that schools with this trait might be so.

I hope this addresses your concern.

- scb_steve

Martial arts skepticism

What needs to be created is a "Martial Arts Skepticism" (or similar) page with either entries (or links to main articles if enough content exists) to McDojo, Bullshido, Belt factory, Radki, Neo-ninja, Dim Mak and every other activity to do with Martial Art's that is considered BS by mainstream Martial Aritists. Plus we need a category for all these psuedo-martial arts and questionable Dojo's to group them all toegther. It's a bit silly at the moment to stuff everything that mainstream Martial Artists are skeptical of in one article titled "McDojo". What do you think? - UnlimitedAccess 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. "Bullshido" is the term that describes all of those things from a Skeptical point of view, and the fact that it's included as sub section of a single aspect the term covers (McDojos) is only a reflection of the misunderstanding of several Wikipedians, the outright hostility to the term by several others, and the issues a certain administrator has taken with me personally. The article should stand on its own and point to sub articles such as you described (Radki, Dim Mak, McDojo, etc). --Phrost 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Martial Arts Skepticism" would be an excellent title for the article, and one which would better describe the topic. It would also be a good fit with the scientific skepticism page. Bullshido would be a good alternative title, though perhaps a bit unclear for the unitiated.

Also, the article needs more depth, e.g.

• a history of asian martial arts in the west, and the popular mythology that grew around them
• a definition of "aliveness" -- if martialism gets its own page then aliveness should at least deserve subtopic status
• a comparison of the sport-based mma community with the RBSD community
• at least a brief description of bullshido.net -- I think that the site has achieved sufficient notability to merit this

I'll change the title myself if there aren't major objections. Blowfish 00:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Bullshido's "BJJ-only" Forum

I am the official site representative for Bullshido.com. The individual with the IP address "24.110.105.32" is a member of the site who was temp-banned for making edits regarding Bullshido.com without permission. Asides from the owner, "Phrost", I am the only individual allowed to make edits concerning Bullshido.com as a website on its behalf.

24.110.105.32 refers to a new sub-forum on Bullshido.com that was created as a highly-modded subforum devoted to grappling and groundfighting in martial arts. It IS administrated by someone with a high devotion to BJJ, but is open to grappling-centric discussion of all types. This forum, called "Department of Homeland Security" has a striking-centric counterpart called "Strikeistan." The DHS forum includes mostly BJJ-centric discussion, but as of today, includes threads on judo tactics, general groundfighting drills to improve performance, and a thread on kenpo's groundfighting.

See the following link for the two subforums:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15

And here are links to the two subforums:

DHS: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56 Strikeistan: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=57

As can be seen, 24.110.105.32 incorrectly states that there is a BJJ-only forum on Bullshido, and incorrectly asserts that the site's mission includes education in martial arts. This is erroneous, and as the official site rep, I will continue to edit any changes that incorrectly describe the website.

Scb steve 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats cool, I misunderstood its intent. and I should have brought it to the Talk section first. Warning to anyone who disagrees, you will be banned from Bullshido for updating this section with opinions, leave it to SCB steve to update this section.

24.110.105.32 = isol8d. I had to figure out my password to identify myself.

You are absolutely wrong. Members of Bullshido.com who misrepresent the site anywhere on the internet will be temp-banned from that website.

Scb steve 20:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent. Understandably, given the nature of the interweb. I'll email or PM to explain rather than clog this section.

You can email me at Asheater -(at)- hotmail (dot) com if you'd like. Make sure "Bullshido" is the subject line.

Scb steve 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In case Erika Nagai's belt is for real, then she must had got it from a McDojo.

McDojo do imply a standard

Bullshido is more about fraud. McDojo, on the other hand, is more about commercialism. Two condept do interact but these two are not always the same. I believe, Bullshido article should concentrate more on typical fraudulent claim made in martial arts (lineage, self defence and so on). MacDojo article should make more serious effort to describe the conflict between commercialism and art. And one should consider the possiblity that commercialism/professionalism can be positive influence on martial arts. Another useful information may be about difficulty earning living from martial arts if your chosen field is not an olympic sport. FWBOarticle

McDojo IS about commercialism. However, the standard it refers to has little to do with martial proficiency, and everything to do with business practices. The article already refers to the rationale and need for McDojo practices for business purposes, such as long-term contracts (guaranteed income) or running kiddie & cardio classes to generate revenue from non-martial activities. --Scb steve 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mc not only imply commercialism, it also imply "fast food", cheap, high fat, high carb and low in vitamine, hence symbolising unhealty life style. It is all part of McWords. Hence it does refers to standard and quality. Otherwise, we would be using DojoInc or DojoCorporation or IBMDojo instead. Apple Coporation is run under commercialism like any other poublic cooperation but no one would consider iMacDojo to have negative connotation. FWBOarticle 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your typos in the update aside, the usage of the term, both in common and on the McDojo.com/Bullshido.net website where it was popularized, make NO claims on teaching quality or martial proficiency of the school. That is why the Lloyd Irvin example was specifically used. In fact, one of the site staff members (omega) explicitly claims that his school is a McDojo (namely, because they offer cardio-kickboxing and kiddie classes). However, since he is a former UFC fighter and an accomplished martial artist in other venues, no one could credibly claim that his school lacks martial proficiency.

The fact that something is commercialized or administered with a high emphasis on profitability and business efficiency makes no claims whatsoever on the quality of the product. For example, Godiva Chocolatiers and other providers of luxury items provide high-quality items, but are focused primarily on turning a profit for the company and its shareholders. Martial arts schools that use some of the business practices listed in this article use McDojo practices or are de facto McDojos, but that would make no claim on the ability of their schools to successfully impart martial proficiency. McDojo practices are not inherently bad because with their usage, a martial arts school can successfully stay in business and continue providing instruction to its students. In other words, cardio-kickboxing and kiddie classes can help subsidize the costs of more serious instruction by more serious students

I believe bullshido and McDojo articles were merged for two reason. One was that bullshido article violate wikipedia offical policy banning use of wikipedia as a a soapbox. Another was that two terms are alike and two separate articles are unnecessarily. For this reason, there appear to be a motive for some (and I'm suspecting some=bullshido.net participants here) to differentiate the meaning of the term more than the prefix Mc imply in general usage. The lingustic meaning of prefix Mc was not invented by Bullshido.net or whoever run that site. Whoever used McDojo appropriated exisiting usage of McWords. Therefore, the general linguistic meaning of Mc prefix ought to take precedent over the view propagated by one website.

Having said that, NPOV state that the minimum requirment of inclusion in wikipedia article is that view are supported by "significant" minority. And the context of minority ought to be overall content of marital arts, not in term of martial arts internet forums in English language. The view from that particular website cannot be considered as a reliable and singnificant source of information in term of Wikipedia verifiability and NPOV criteria. If both articles become soapboxes of bullshido.net, it ought to be deleted. In my view, McDojo might survive as long as it adhere to general linguistic usage of McWords. On the other hand, the usage of the term Bullshido appear to linked to Bullshido.net. Then it ought to be submerged into the article about bullshido.net. Please try to make neutral presentation free from POV originating from Bullshido.net. Otherwise, this article will not survive. FWBOarticle

1. The term "Bullshido" was essentially brought into common usage by the Bullshido.net and its director/owner "Phrost." However, usage of the term has spread beyond the confines of the website into the general discourse of evaluating the merits of a martial arts school or instructor[1] [2] (October 7th, 2005 entry). Beyond this, the article addresses a historical, non-English phenomenon about how societies dealt with Bullshido schools in their midst, and contrasts it with how that option is not available today due to legal differences. Bullshido as a term has escaped the confines of the website and is used by the general community, therefore making an article about it worthwhile.

2. I've already stated my case for the justification of McDojo's definition in how it was coined. Even the McWords article on Wikipedia acknowledges that not all McWords have a negative connotation. A McMansion is such because of a highly efficienct, standardized method of construction and a lack of variety in appearance from other mansions built in such a way. It deals with "supposed focus on maximizing profit over what the user of the term regards to be "quality" architecture." The issue of quality is a subjective one, and the usage of McMansion does not automatically mean that it is of low or poor quality. Given the subjective nature of the "McWord" lexicon, having variability in how the words are used is completely justified.

3. Bullshido and McDojo are related, but completely distinct topics. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous, as would claiming "managed care" and "medical care" are the same. The former refers to a set of business practices that some consider to be detrimental to the effective practice of medicine, but makes no claims as to the quality of care itself by the doctors within the system. "Medical care" refers specifically to the quality of medical attention provided to a patient by a medical practitioner. Merging "managed care" and "medical care" because they both deal with quality of medicine is as ridiculous as merging McDojo and Bullshido because they both deal with quality of martial arts.

4. Until you point out where presentation is non-neutral, there are no changes necessary. I have consulted with the admin FireStar regarding what made the Bullshido/McDojo articles get merged in the first place, and taken his guidance into consideration when recrafting these articles.--Scb steve 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me state that I'm familiar with the site bullshido.net Use of the term bullshido is common among people who 1. practice martial arts 2. frequent martial arts forum (which significant portion of martial arts practioners don't) 3. tendency to be young, (male) and juvenile. 4. Came across the term in bullshido.net. For example, in e-Budo, Japanese martial arts site, the term bullshido is used only four times despite the fact that the forum has a section which specifically deal with fradulent (Japanese) martial arts. [3] The same patterns are repeated in amature wrestling, judo, fencing, TKD forum. Exception is MMA, which tend to attract the same demographic group as in bullshido.net More often than not, "bullshido" is used to refer to bullshido.net. Verifiability also demand that source come from somewhat reliable/credible sources (if not New York Times or BBC, then maybe salon.com but probably not BlackBelt matazine). I do not believe publication in minor internet sites amount to view representing significant minority which are published in a reliable source.

As of McMansion, the introduction of the article state "The term "McMansion" is sometimes used to make pejorative reference to the size and ubiquity of certain houses." And my edit specifically state "it (McDojo) does somewhat imply", hence making proper disambiguation. Bullshido and McDojo are related more than "managed care" and "medical care" because two terms have been propagated by bullshido.net in closely linked context. McDojo, due to it's association with McWords, might gain more general acceptance. On the other hand, the term bullshido, due to its unfortunate use of the term "bullshit", may not gain such popularity because it is a swear word and so juvenile. The fact that the term is strongly linked to bullshido.net might help advertise bullshido.net but at the same time, make it very difficult to use the term bullshido in neutral context free from POV and attitude propagated in bullshido.net. Ideally, we should create a new separate article dealing with common fraudulant and questionable practice in martial arts (which incorporate the most of the content of bullshido and McDojo article), then insert a edit which state that bullshido (or McDojo) is occasionally used to refer to these practice. FWBOarticle

Right, only "juvenile" people use the term "Bullshido" to refer to fradulent martial art practices. This is the discussion page for "McDojo" and you're complaining about "Bullshido" when you have a whole other page to use (which you have). You're complaining about usage of the term "Bullshido." The fact that Bullshido.net has propagated both terms does not mean that they haven't promoted the terms as separate, distinct entities. They have, and they are. Nowhere does Bullshido.net or its staff state that McDojo and Bullshido are inherently related. A school can be McDojo w/o being Bullshido; a school can be Bullshido without being McDojo. Bullshido is as popular of a term of usage as McDojo, and it is used free of the POV and attitude in Bullshido.net. You are making a disagreement based on your subjective evaluation of the website (your biased, subjective evaluation, in terming users of the term as "juvenile"), as opposed to the facts, which bear out the information I've put here and the justification for separate articles on each: Bullshido.net, Bullshido, and McDojo. Each are unique and substantiated enough to merit their own explanation.

The fact that terms are strongly linked to a specific source is irrelevant if the terms are popular in discourse(which McDojo and Bullshido both are). --Scb steve 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Juvenile" is an accurate description of general ethos of that site. Afterall, the title of the site contain a swear word "bullshit" and one of sections in bullshido forum is "Aikido Suck Month". On top of that, one of the admin, "Lord Asia", started a thread called "THE LOVE ASIA THREAD!!! COME SHOW YOUR RESPECTS TO THE GREATEST ADMIN OF ALL!!!". [4] Am I biased. Yes, I'm biased toward neutral point of view. :)

Anyway, you no longer try to delet "McDojo imply standard" edit so the issue is dead. My problem was with an edit which insist that McDojo does not imply quality or standard of martial arts. This was an attemp to differentiate McDojo and Bullshido concept beyond what Mc prefix warrant, hence allowing Bullshido article to survive. To make matter worse, this appear to be done by people from bullshido.net who wish to propagate the term "bullshido", which clearly violate wikipedia official policy which ban use of wikipedia as a soapbox.

Google search or few internet articles/essay/blog is not acceptable standard of popularity or acceptance of the term in wikipedia. Bullshido.net should not be used as a reliable source as specified by verifiability criteria. Only acceptable way to present bullshido.net POV is to present it in bullshido.net article. I tried to cleanse McDojo article of bullshido.net bias. I believe the current state of McDojo article is o.k. but bullshido article is still on probation. FWBOarticle

Substantial Edits

If anyone is planning substantial edits to this page, put them here before editing. --Scb steve 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In wikipedia, it doesn't work that way. We are expected to be be bold in editing. (Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages) Anyway, collection of "examples" are not appropriate encycropedic style of writing. Encycropedia is suppose to present coherent and synthesised summary of particular concept. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). For this reason, I reorganised article under three core concept of Mc prefix, (over)emphasis on advertising and image, standarlised mass production (i.e. overemphasis on form learning) and commercial packaging of product (such as revenue rainbow, long term contract, equipment tie in and so on). If you have objection to this editing direction, please state the reason for it in accordance with wikipedia policy and guideline. However, if your revert is simply about "I don't like chage", that is not constructive editing process. FWBOarticle

Please don't talk to me like I haven't read Wikipedia policies. Your "bold" editing from your cited policy page says "being bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion." While this article isn't nearly as complex or controversial, it does have controversial elements to them that merit deliberation and discussion prior to making the massive edits you did.

Your edits substantially diminished the significance and detail of McDojo features/policies that schools offer, and unnecessarily played up the features in McWords that you personally think are most important in defining this term. My edits are purely based on how the term has been promoted by the site that popularized knowledge of the concept and how it is commonly used. Your attempts to force a more stringent McWord definition is more of a "soapbox" than the usage of the terms as Bullshido.net has done.

From the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day page, you might argue that since McDojo isn't the topic of a formal scientific work or paper, it doesn't deserve inclusion. My response to this is that the term has become used and described by mainstream martial arts institutions, including the International Kickboxing Federation[5]. Other references incluse ezines[6] and a history of combat sports/martial arts at an online peer-reviewed journal[7].

If you want to throw around the rules to prove me wrong, as in providing the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page, how about providing concrete examples instead of vaguely suggesting I'm in violation of some rule? Stop making this article and the Bullshido one conform to your sense of properness and opinion and base it on a factual basis as I have repeatedly done. And to repeat, STOP SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OF RULES WITHOUT PROVIDING SUBSTANTIATION.

Given the size of this article being barely a page, "substantial" or "massive" is an exaggerated claim. It simply an attempt to stifle active editing which is not what wikipedia is about. Your comparison to "abortion" or "Palestine-Israeli" is not valid, given the size and the debate of many serious and controvercial articles, which McDojo article isn't. Secondly, I am not in opinion that McDojo article ought to be deleted (bullshido article on the other hand is different story). On the other hand, POV which is specific to bullshido.net ought to be deleted because Bullshido.net cannot be an acceptable source of information or opinion in wikipedia as specified by verifiability criteria. If you don't believe this, we can simply put this into arbitration process. IMO, excessive amount of juvenile content in that site would likely to convice others that the site fail to satisfy verifiability criteria. I clearly sourced my edit to generally accepted meaning of McWords which is not something made up in school one day. My edit to cleanse POV from bullshido.net while sourcing it from McWords is appropriate Wikipedia edit. Moreover, listing examples in faq format is not encycropedic presentation. As of your clear violation of rule, "Wikipedia is not a sopa box" [8] to propagate bullshido.net opinion. You also use CAP shouting which clearly violated wikipedia guideline. So please behave. And please learn more about wikipedia. FWBOarticle

You have had at least 3 opportunities to make specific references to violations of rules as opposed to vague references. You have failed to do so. I have provided a diversity of sources outside of Bullshido.net to justify the statements and attitudes expressed in this article, including the external links at the end. Bullshido.net's investigations have been included in a federal case against an alleged felon. For proof, see the David Race Bannon article.

Go ahead and nominate the article for arbitration. --Scb steve 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, your profile state you are the designated representative for Bullshido.net and you have indeed acted as such. That is a major violation of key policy (wikipedia is not soapbox) though I appreciate your and bullshido.net's honesty. Then you have resorted CAP and bold shouting. That is another major violation of key policy and guideline (respect others). Thirdly, your "diversity of source outside bullshdo.net" doesn't qulify as valid source in wikipedia. Among all the reference provided, aside from bullshido.net, only one actually use the term "McDojo". That reference is "Top 10 Signs You Are In A McDojo" which has been authored by "Anonymous". So your sources are (1) bullshido.net which is agenda driven hence disqualified as reliable source. (Reliable source for David Race Bannon is not bullshido.net but federal record.) (2) online articles which doesn't even mention the term "McDojo" hence being valid sources for "Commercialism in martial arts" but not "McDojo" (which bullshido.net has agenda to propagate) and (3) A top ten list wirtten by annonymous, which violate NPOV, Verifiability and No original research all at once. I somewhat made attempt to make this article agenda free (if not up to Wikipedia citation standard) by making more well established and neutral reference to the concept McWords. You should either argue that bullshido.net is agenda free (which, in my view, is patently untrue) or provide sources outside bullshido.net which both mention McDojo and pass Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. Lastly, it is responsibility of each editor to read policies and guideline then debate edit on the merit of such policies and guideline. It's not the place for each person to demand "I want it this way". Please make case based on verifiability, NPOV and no original research criteria. Any arguments not based on wikipedia policies and guideline are meaningless. FWBOarticle

You're saying that a webpage of the main sanctioning body for kickboxing and a peer-reviewed e-journal are not reputable sources? Apparently, I'm not the one who misunderstands what constitutes a viable source on Wikipedia. I have already provided sources that have used McDojo outside of Bullshido that fulfill those rules[9][10]. Note the lack of reference to Bullshido.net in those sources.

Go ahead and nominate.

Ah, you got to be kidding me if you think "self proclaimed" international kickboxing organisation amount to verifiable source. There must be dozens of self proclaimed "international" Karate organisation out there. Even the website itself appear to be built by amature. Plus, peer-reviewed usually mean peer-reviewed by academic. Anyone, including Ashida Kim can create peer reviewed journal. Please find reference from general news sources or publication peer reviewed by academic which mention McDojo. Anway, despite the lack of citation from verifiable source, I intend to leave McDojo article on probation though I can't stop other from nominating this article for deletion. So you might want to keep looking for the holy grail (of verifiable source). FWBOarticle

NPOV and Verification

I should also add that either my edit or previous version does not have citations from reliable/verifiable sources. Because wikipedia encourage free editing, policies and guidelines are invoked when someone object to particular type of edit. I have somewhat tried to make this article neutral relying on McWords reference. However, I find it difficult to cite content of McDojo article from source which is acceptable to Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. So strictly speaking, this article is also on the boarderline of deletion. It is much preferable that "McDojo" article is replaced with something like "Commercialism in Martial arts", which allow much wider and neutral sourcing of contents. FWBOarticle

I'll let admins be the judge of that. --Scb steve 04:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I let you be the judge of whether any source provided here are (1)agenda free (2)mention McDojo (3) pass verifiability criteria. Reverting while avoiding debate is not a constructive editing process and considered as vandalism. My edit which largely base it on reference to McWords only fail at criteria (3). But I have stated that the article should be changed to "Commercialism in martial arts", which allow reference from agenda free verifiable sources. FWBOarticle

I read sources provided as external links. Only articles which might pass verifiability criteria appear to be those written by Wayne Muromoto and Karl Friday. And their article is not about McDojo at all. It's about cultish behaviour and legitimacy of martial arts school. Other source provided within main article merely show example of what some martial arts school does. It says nothing about what is or what is not McDojo. FWBOarticle

Hello. I get 59,400 google hits for "bullshido" 23,400 for "mcdojo" and 2,120 for a combination of the two. Since they both come from the same place, that seems unusual. The terms do seem to have some currency as internet culture memes, the degree to which they have been adopted into western martial arts culture is difficult to determine though it seems safe to say that western martial artists use them more than other groups. We should avoid the appearance of original research on our part, but I'd say it is alright to report bullshido.net's original research. So, there are three things we can do with the article at this point. 1. Leave it alone; 2. Change it to some degree, from slightly to completely; or, 3. Nominate it for AfD. Listing the individual bits of the article that seem objectionable, the wording or the facts, would be a place to start. Regards, --Fire Star 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied to the same comment in Talk:Bullshido. FWBOarticle

One print media citation I came across is from the letters page of The Cairns Sun, 1 March 2006. Its from a letter sent by John Babet in regards to "the Cairns Sun letters to the editor (February 22, 2006) by Cain Hartigan on 'Don't rush journey to black belt' about one of my students, Hannah De Boom, and her achievement of earning a black belt at age eight." The specific mention is where he says "I lose more students than I keep in my schools, because we're not just a 'belt factory' or 'McDojo' (as some are commonly called)." Slideyfoot 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Krav Maga equipment restrictions

I have been training at the Krav Maga National Training Center in Los Angeles for more than 2 years now, and the ONLY requirement for students as far as apparel or training equipment goes is that when you take the test to advance to the next level, you must wear a Krav Maga tshirt. All of my gear (boxing gloves, wraps, shin guards, groin protector, mouthpiece, head gear, shorts, etc.) comes from outside vendors. No one has ever reprimanded me or insisted that I purchase "official" Revgear manufactured Krav Maga equipment. The INSTRUCTORS, on the other hand, must wear Krav Maga pants and shirts when leading a class; but again, they can get their protective equipment whereever they choose.

Please edit the entry to reflect this information. There is enough unsubstantiated snipery about Krav Maga online already. Nodestination 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Belts

The page currently says "number of ranks between a white belt and a black belt can be anywhere from 4 (BJJ – Blue, Purple, Brown, Black)." Including the white belt would make that five. , Absent any objection, I'm inclined to change this to "number of ranks between a white belt and a black belt can be anywhere from four (Goju-Ryu – White, Green, Brown, Black)," which is how the ranking system worked in Goju-Ryu when I was studying it. I'll wait a little while for comments, then make the change if there's no substantive objection.
I know about Be Bold, but I'm also trying to be courteous. If there's a good reason not to do this, I want to know before I get into an argument.
Septegram 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The page can be edited to incorporate the white belt. I'll do so now. --Scb steve 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but I think that still leaves Goju-Ryu as a better example, with only four belts.

Septegram 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't the least number of belts; the issue is a relevant contrast between styles/practices involving a relatively low number of belts (for systems that use them) and those that use fairly high numbers of belts, along with testing fees for each one. --Scb steve 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and figured a four-belt system would make the point (slightly) better than a five-belt system. However, it's not worth getting stressed about, so I won't. I'll leave it with the BJJ reference.

Regards,

Septegram 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"... the use of nine levels in the colored belt and black belt systems, while attributed to a belt factory mentality, is in fact rooted in Korean numerology and has been explained by General Choi. The increased number of smaller goals provided by nine levels of colored belt rank likely satisfies the need of many American students for immediate gratification."- from wikiepdia ATA page (under critisisms)- I've heard this argument several times... praetorian02 link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taekwondo_Association http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Taekwondo_Association#Criticisms

it may be true but do you have a source (other than wiki itself) the statement that 'it likely satisties....' is just an opinion and saying 'as General Choi explained' is not help without saying where and who he is. A link to criticisms of the ATA might be more appropriate than just copying info from the page. --Nate1481 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

General Choi:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Choi_Hong_Hi http://www.itf-information.com/information01.htm Ranks:http://www.itf-information.com/information07.htm

That makes sense if you want to write it in keeping it brief & referring to the section of ATA article might be best. if you use the ref tags (<ref>http://www.itf-information.com/information07.htm</ref>) it puts a number in and the link at the bottom of the page. wiki-linking General Choi Hong Hi would also be good.