Talk:Asian martial arts (origins)/Archive 2

message: :Object  I object to the merge.  The merge seems to be very POV focused.--D-Boy 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Object - Per my staements above.Bakaman 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party input

message: This conversation is getting a little more heated than it needs to be, so let's refocus on what's being asked.
Basically, the RfC is NOT about whether this article should be merged or not, but about whether the article is NPOV or not.  I had suggested merging as a possible solution to NPOV, but that is not a primary issue.
Freedom skies, I commend you on the bulk of citation that you have dug up for this article.  However, an article, even well-researched, that only presents one side of scholarship is still NPOV.  And yes, you may think the contending side is poorly citated in comparison, but that does not mean it should not be presented objectively.  Give people the benefit of the doubt.  They can figure out for themselves which citations to believe and which are less reliable without comments on "overwhelming minority of scholarship", "revisionism", etc...  
Given the rich history of philosophical and religious trade in Chinese history, it is probably absurd to claim that there is NO foreign influence on Chinese martial arts (though the degree can be debated.)  However, academic and encyclopedic presentations should always include the opposing viewpoint, especially if there are citations to the effect.  It is not for us to decide which ideas are "fringe" ideas and which ideas are "mainstream."  (Even the Apollo Program article contains links to Moon Landing Hoax articles, something we'd all pretty much agree is fairly nutty.)
Present the facts, and the truth will attend to itself.  Best regards, and Happy New Year. Djma12 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend, The article emphatically does not deal with only one POV. Internal links to an entire article containing the opposing POV in a formidale fashion have been provided thereby  making sure that the reader will read the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. Freedom skies| talk  17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Refocus on the RfC

message: Why don't we do something like this?
#Since it would be impractical to merge the articles, we can insert a "See also" link at the top of the article along with a synopsis of relevant points from the second article within a "Disputes" section.
#I know Freedom Skies has some issue with the citations used in the second article, so why doesn't he add criticisms towards its scholarship within a "Criticisms" section he will create in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article.  If the original authors of that article give you trouble on adding a Criticisms section, let me know on my discussion page and I'll back you up.
#We can remove the NPOV warning from both articles aftewards.
Does this sounds reasonable?  
Djma12 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Solution?

message: Source 1: Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit
Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, 4th generation successor of the Southern Shaolin Monastery, set up The Shaolin Wahnam Institute.
His lineage traces right back to the Southern Shaolin Monastery through two patriarchs: Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam. Ho Fatt Nam's teacher was Yang Fatt Khuen, whose teacher was Venerable Jiang Nan, the monk who escaped from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in Fujian Province. The legacy that Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit holds is over 150 years old.
Today, Wong Kiew Kit has over 2000 students world-wide through various branches of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. Certain forms of hard qigong are taught, again, differing from the soft, internal qigong that was taught in the former Shaolin Monasteries of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Shaolin arts, as taught at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute, purport to be of the soft, internal kind. They are comprised of: Shaolin Kungfu, Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin Zen.
Source 2: Eminent journalists from the New York Times. In this case I have chosen a citation coming from Howard W. French:
Howard W. French (born 1958) is a New York Times reporter as well as an author. French taught at a university in the Ivory Coast in the 1980s before becoming a reporter. He has reported extensively on the political affairs of Western and Central Africa. These reports were the basis for the book A Continent for the Taking.
French has also reported on the political and social affairs in China, where he reported on the government crackdown of dissent in the Dongzhou protests of 2005.  Most of his current work for the New York Times is centered on China.
French became Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times in 1999.  He is a senior writer for the Times, and has served as Shanghai bureau chief since 2003.
Sorce 3: Encyclopedia Brittanica
The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelled with the æ ligature) is a general encyclopedia published by the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.. Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the encylopedia was first published progressively from 1768–71 as Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan. It was one of the first printed English encyclopedias and today is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.
From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, Britannica's articles were often judged as the foremost authority on a topic, and sometimes included new research or theory intended for a scholarly audience. During this era, the Britannica gained its erudite reputation and had a unique position in English-speaking culture.
The Britannica has survived fierce competition from an ever-increasing number of alternative information sources.
Self explainatory. In this case, the concise addition.
+
*the BBC
*the New York Times
*The Hindu
*Discovery Channel
*American Oriental Society
*Jhoon Rhee, Taekwondo pioneer
*Doshin So, the originator of Shorinji Kempo
*Chojun Miyagi
*Funakoshi Gichin
*Tadashi Nakamura
*Carlos Machado
*Rickson Gracie
*Gracie Barra
*International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation
*Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
More will be provided on request.
Compare the sources and judge the quality of each by yourselves. 
+
Tang Hao - arrested communist
Stanley Hennig - A pariah among the Western Taijiquan community
+
The AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which is full of overly malicious language, and misrepresentation of sources, can wait for now. It's not an issue yet. So calm down.
 
And
"This article was changed since the last time that I saw it... the claims that " a majority of historians" support your view should be removed as it is untrue."
Get a citation that they don't, Kenny. I got a citation for my claim and you know my policy on getting more on request or provocation, whichever extended first. Better yet you could get people other than jailed communist criminals to support your claim (which is supported by how many ? 9 or so people in the list)
"The vast majority of your citations are from lay authors."
Encyclopedia Britannica is not lay, Kenny. Your malice dose not change things. Tang Hao, on the other hand was just a lay communist criminal.
"Also, you can state that some in the shaolin community believe your view"
I got a citation from grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself, did I not ?
Incesscant, repeated lies Kenny. Nothing else.
Freedom skies| talk  15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article's Sources

message: This is done. The changes Djma12 made are accepted by me and a solution reached. Time to live with it. Freedom skies| talk  16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done

message: As far as I'm aware there has not been theories which attempt to attribute early practices of wrestling in China such as jiao di and jiao li to external influences. Omitting this entirely is arguably POV or original research. Shawnc 18:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the article more thoroughly. The article explicitely mentions that "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma." However, at sone points these martial arts may have been influenced by martial arts of other cultures and to cover the foreign influence on Chinese martial arts is the objective of this article. Your information was placed in a section which covered details of proposed centres of influences. If you would have placed the info next to the "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma." line then it would have been a welcome addition. Freedom skies| talk  19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid the appearance of original research, we can note the indigenous nature of the martial arts near the beginning of the article. Shawnc 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no OR vios involved here. The martial arts of China have to exist in order to be influenced by foreign culture. This article does not claim otherwise. Freedom skies| talk  19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That information should be used as a framework for the other information to follow. A good place would be the intro paragraphs. If you do not prefer this placement, I await comments by other editors. Shawnc 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think so. Follow that with a statement that at some point these martial arts may have been influenced by other cultures, and the context would be complete. Shawnc 20:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that follows does the job adequately. Freedom skies| talk  20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early martial arts in China 

message: I don't think Rickson himself has significantly influenced the modern Chinese martial arts. Why should his photo be kept in this article? Shawnc 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rickson is used as a reference. Freedom skies| talk  19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is that Rickson is primarily known as a jujutsu practitioner, not someone who has directly impacted the culture of Chinese martial arts. When the reader sees his picture, a reaction may be "what does he have to do with kung fu?" Shawnc 20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll not make an issue out of it. The Rickson pic was that of an involved reference. A reader who would have read the article instead of just watching the pics would have realized it. In any event, the pic is gone since it seems to mean so much to you. Freedom skies| talk  20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not a big deal, it just seems a bit odd. We could have a picture of say a reputable author who is known for extensive commentaries about foreign influences on the Chinese martial arts. Shawnc 20:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rickson's photo 

message: A Babylonian copper stand, dating from the third Millennium B.C., shows two men applying grappling a technique found in Jiu-Jitsu. The men are trying to unbalance each other by controlling the hip
This technique is generic and is found in many wrestling traditions, so we don't need to mention Jiu-Jitsu specifically. Shawnc 16:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jiu-Jitsu 

message: I'll replace it with with something Shawn might find more palatable. Here:-
Chinese wrestling is the oldest fighting system in China. This practice was later influenced by Mongolian sportive practices. <>The Method of Chinese Wrestling By Tong Zhongyi, Zhongyi Tong, Tim Cartmell<><>Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey By Brian L. Kennedy, Elizabeth Guo (248)<>
Now it's done. Freedom skies| talk  08:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually

message: I saw Shawn's work in Shuai Jiao and linked the words "organized martial traditions in China predate the establishment of the Shaolin temple" in the opening line to Shuai Jiao. We have Shuai Jiao and earlier versions covered in formidable detail and no one is going to miss the link.
Now the article has a somewhat gigantic link in addition of a clarifying line in the intro to accomadate a potential reader who might not read carefully. The article is defaced to some extent, but Shawn's concerns are addressed in blaring loud clarity. All done in good faith. 
The article had to change dramatically to adress some potentially careless reader. If these solutions are rejected despite my incessant efforts to address seemingly trivial concerns then we might just as well revert this version to earlier ones and wait for third party input.
Instead of the hostilities and attempts of one upmanship that usually follow in arguments like these, we have had good faith and I have accomadated Shawn.
It would be good to have those sentiments and actions reciprocated and to have Shawn's views on whether he feels a solution has been reached or not.
Freedom skies| talk  09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Solving it

message: The title itself of my message and the title of this page should give a clue as to what it is about. If that is so (let me define: Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts}, then please people, do not remove items on martial arts from India. Doing that now, makes this article a POV one. Therefore, information from all sides must be presented including from India, Iran, Japan, Africa and so forth. Just as long as the information is provided with a referenced source it is fair game. For the sake of providing a fair and balanced article on Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts please stop deleting information in regards to India. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts"

message: I modified the "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" article. The new changes do not include anything drastic at all. I'll provide a list of changes below:-
*I made the sources more verifiable by providing Publishers, ISBN etc. for them. 
*Added a line:- "Indian Buddhist infusion was vital in the development Asian fighting systems.  It is possible to trace the history of Buddhist influence on martial arts from India to Japan."
*Further reading :- Added a This_article's_sources section and Related info section. I have yet to interfere with the other article (even though the opposition sometimes seems to violate the norm) but it accuses the sources of this article to be "lay." This should actually let the reader judge for himself.
That's about it. I was about to leave the article for a long time and thought it best to edit it to WP standards in representation. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  09:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

message: In response to suggested improvements as put forwards by Djma12 :-
*Modified the intro as the article covers elements of CMA outside of the Shaolin (Mongolian and Manchurian influences).
*Created a section for Mongolian and Manchurian influences using existing sources.
*Created a section for possible greek influence using existing source.
*Removed portions from "Similarities."
*Changed "academic authors" to "Authors."
*Added Nat Geo cite. I wanted to add a whole lot of material but in the present scenario, I can't find time to type up from multiple sources.
*I made the sources more verifiable by providing Publishers, ISBN etc. for them. 
*Added a line:- "Indian Buddhist infusion was vital in the development Asian fighting systems.  It is possible to trace the history of Buddhist influence on martial arts from India to Japan."
*Further reading :- Added a This_article's_sources (information about sources used to craft this article) section and Related info section. 
Freedom skies| talk  11:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implemented improvements

message: i copied the discussion on the talk page to here; all of our discussion should be here because it is getting difficult to follow people's train of thought. as for Freedom skies response, we go back to our old argument again... As i stated before, many lay people have many theories... historians have already weighed down on the issue. The idea of transferrence from one culture in ancient almost prehistoric times of physical self defense methods doesn't make any sense given the fact that self defense methods existed in every culture on earth and weapons for that self defense existed in every culture on earth. Prehistoric man in every part of the continent knew how to wrestle, shoot a bow and arrow, and fight with clubs and sticks. And I'm pretty sure it didn't take them a long time to make it an organized fighting method.  Although i appreciate you modifying your article to make it somewhat closer to accepted beliefs and with less biased statements, you are still selectively quoting authors who support your belief. I guess some change is better than no change. 
As for Renzo Graycie, a representative of the Graycie family, he wrote in his book "this is somewhat suprising because there is very  little hard evidence or inherent credibility for the claim that one person or one group laid an original or unprecedented foundation for the fighting arts..." in regards to the idea of diffusion from one center or country all the way across the world to another. And he isn't even a historian.  I merely use this example to show that lay authors all have different view points and that selectively quoting someone's website probably is not a great idea and just reflects his personal beliefs or the beliefs of his website creator.
Kennethtennyson 01:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved discussion

message: I'm not sure if you actually read what I am writing freedom skies nor if you clearly read the authors you are quoting.  Suzuki has written a volume of information on Zen and you really need to take a religious history course before you google random statements and extrapolate from what he has written on the history of zen from those statements in regards to what you believe is the history of martial arts.  Read all of what Renzo graycie has written. He flatly states taht between the two "theories" your belief on the theories is the least likely. regardless of what Renzo writes, he is not a historian and I merely quote him to make an example that you shouldn't randomly quote websites of martial artists because there is a diverse view of how various martial arts started in the general lay community. Anyways, as I've stated before, this article suffers from bias, selective quotationns of authors, exagerrations, and in some cases false statements.  You continue to state that I belong to a "Chinese Cabal." I'm not even Chinese!  yet if one looks at your actions on wikipedia and all of the edit wars that you have been part of, it's pretty obvious that the nationalist and prejudiced person that we are dealing with here is you freedom skies. However, I must state that you are more reasonable than other nationalists on wikipedia.  Kennethtennyson 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sigh

message: ::We've discussed this merge issue before. The ironic thing is that the "bodhidharma/martial arts" article existed about a full year before freedomskies wrote his article on the "foreign influence on chinese martial arts".  Currenlty, I favor not merging because both articles because the "bodhidharma/martial arts" article discusses bodhidharma whereas freedomskies articles on "foreign influnece" goes on and on about other theories.  Kennethtennyson 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as long as you don't get to edit it, i'm all for it.--D-Boy 06:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?