Talk:Silat Harub

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added much more info to qualify as a stub. Please remove the Speedy deletion.

An administrator will be around to decide if the article should be deleted. Until then, please leave the speedy tag on the page as well as your hangon tag. Also, please remember to sign each of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 05:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As an experienced editor not involved with the creation of the page, I judged that speedy deletion was inappropriate. However, this article has several problems that keep it from meeting Wikipedia's standards. Here are some of them:

  • No context. There is not a single sentence in the article which directly states "Silat Harub is a martial art" or even "Silat Harub is a "silat." The article needs to be rewritten for an audience that does not already know these things.
  • No sources. The article tells us that Silat Harub "is steeped in 1400 years of Warrior Culture and Battle tested principals" (it should be "principles", but that's another issue.) But how do we know this is true? If someone makes a claim such as "this goes back 1400 years", it could be coming from someone who knows what they're talking about ... or it could be coming from someone who thinks they know what they're talking about but don't. It could even be from someone deliberately lying. How are we supposed to know, when we don't even know who it is making the claim?
  • Not neutral. The article needs to be written neutrally -- not advocating the subject, and not opposing the subject. Statements that Silat Harub is "brutal", "precise", "intelligent", "comprehensive" -- these are not neutral statements. If these were opinions being expressed by reliable sources then they may be worth noting in the article, but currently we have no more idea than "someone, somewhere, thinks these things."

These problems need addressing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the lack of sources looks very significant to this article. Apart from Wikipedia, there are zero Google hits for Silat Harub - whether main Google, books, scholar, news - and this is also the case with Pencak Silat Qutuz/Pencak Silat Qutooz. This makes them pretty non-notable; they appear to be neologisms, borrowing terminology from trad Silat systems, coined by the operators of tacticalcombat.org for the combat courses they sell.



BTW, this also appears to be a conflict of interest situation if Tacticalcombat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Shadowman77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are anything to do with tacticalcombat.org. Tearlach 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - First, being new to Wiki, thank you for your comments and suggestions. Silat Harub is the Civilian Course of Pencak Silat Qutuz. The curriculum of Harub and Qutuz is a modern one and is explained on the tacticalcombat.org site. Therefore you will not find much info of it on the net yet. The names were given to me By Ustaz Hussein Udom in assistance as a name for our modern silat. The Warrior Culture mentioned is the Culture as exemplified by the Warrior Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) dating back over 1400 yrs. We can see this in Islamic hhistory over and over. This is a culture lived out by many Muslims who walk the path of Futawa (Chivalry)yesteryear and daily. Just as the Knights Templars had their code of Chivalry, the Muslims do as well. The statements used to describe Silat Harub are in fact a truthful description of the Silat system. Silat Harub has been proven in the battlefield by today’s soldiers, LEO, and private security operators. Battle proven is a correct term. Terminology has not been borrowed. We keep much of our terminology as original in Arabic. Although its Chivalry (Futawa) is traditional, its Qital (Combatives) are not. Our Silat is NOT a martial art. They are a system of combatives and self defense. This is why we do not mention it as a martial art. Now if you wish to delete this article, I understand. it does not conform to the Wiki standards at this point as I have learned. However, the article is in fact accurate. Feel free to email Shadowman77 or tacticalcombat.org with any questions.