Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 7

message: Mallayuddha as generic wrestling
*Joespeh alters translates it into wrestling combat, not generic wrestling.
*Joeseph alters describes as archaic, which indicates it's ancient origin.
*Arts which have four forms are not called generic, since you're a fan of drawing parallels, the first one that comes to mind is shoot wrestling, an art which has four original variations in RINGS, Pancrase, Shooto and Shootfighting, so this system is generic wrestling too ??
*The mentions of Mallayuddha are found in the Mahabharata, the battle between the Bhimseni and the Jarasandhi variations, which are two of the four variations of Mallayuddha.
The argument that Mallayuddha is a form of generic wrestling is absued, the Alters translation is literally "wrestling combat", the art has mentions in the epics of vedic India and is practiced in four distinct variations, Kenny just dreamed of the generic wrestling thing and has been making a pest of himself since.
Impact of foreign occupation
*The prof did write this, I'm not going to even argue that poverty helps in martial arts, the point of view is plain sick.
*Modernisation does not end unarmend martial arts, Japan is a modern country with a tradition of martial arts, the removal of kings who patronized the national warrior sect does.
*The british empire took over the patrons of the Kshatriyas, without the patrons, the remaining Kshatriya clans were left to find other businesses and could not engage either in physical maintainence or the regular Dwands. Kshtriyas in the military, were also killed in large numbers in encounters with the invading british armies.
*Gurkhas are not martial artists, they're mountain soldiery.
*Widespread poverty, and the resulting ill effects of the Raj, which saw one of the biggest economies on earth grow abjectly poor, contributed to the decline of martial practices. The Kshatriyas, Knights, Samurai, as martial as they might be, need fianances to practice their arts.
 for every one statement, paragraph or idea that you provide, I or JFD would like to write a statement
Not good enough, discuss it on the talk page, build consenseus and then edit. The article is not talk page lite.
you're currently discounting people who are academics in their fields because they are white (your quote not mine)
I said that ?? really ?? direct me to where I did, Kenny.
blaming the brits for the supposed downfall of indian martial arts
The brits occupied the country and the results of the Raj can be found in Company rule in India, the foreign occupation for 200 years resulted in the effects that I've mentioned leading to the downfall, it happened, try living with it.
claiming a version of history where indian martial arts is the progenitor of all martial arts
Paraniod, and childish.
It does'nt say that in the article, neither does it claim it, the version  deals with Bodhidharma, Indianized Kingdoms and the influence of india in these area, which has been backed up by citing instituions and authorities.
if we disagreee on a major idea, then we should place disputed or pov tags on the article
If we disagree, which seems to a bit too premature for someone who singlehandedly starts a revrt campaign. I notified the last few edits to JFD and even let go of the BBC mention, try building a consenseus on the talk page before you go all crazy like that next time.
Also, my compromises seem to have gone unappreciated, the withholding of the mention of the official shaolin website, the refraining from building a database of the institutions supporting the majority (and official) POV, refraining from mentioning BBC because the other editor felt it was not proper and letting the "specialists" line stay undisputed for now .......and so on.
All this is about trying to make an art, with four variations, mentioned in epics and described as "wrestling combat" by an academic look generic ??? and insinuating that the occupying british did not harm the warrior sect by chopping off their patrons and killing them in wars too ???
Idoitic.
Freedom skies 09:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: The economic history of india should more than provide the backdrop for what happened to the country after the native rulers were deposed.
I handed you—on a silver platter, mind you—a source on the role of Western colonialism in the decline of kalarippayattu. The source was a professor, and the material came from a book published by the Oxford University Press.
I even took the time to type out the pertinent paragraphs from the book, word for word.
Now, if you don't wish to use it, that's your prerogative.BUT AT LEAST CITE A GODDAMN SOURCE FOR THE MATERIAL YOU DO WISH TO USE!!What? Did the library run out of books on the social impact of the British Raj?You're at a university, for heaven's sake!Try breaking in that library card—or at least JSTOR—instead of Google once in a while!JFD 03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Western colonialism 

message: Alter also describes mallayuddha as a term that is used interchangeably with pahalwani and Bharatiya kushti.
If you want to say that mallayuddha is something distinct from pahalwani or that there are four styles of it then, as with any material you wish to add to Wikipedia, you have to cite a source for it.
According to the official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
Which means that, as long as you don't provide a reputable source for your material, Kennethtennyson has every right to remove it.
What that also means is that no editor is under any obligation to allow unsourced material to remain in an article while he waits for the contributor to find a source.The editor has every right to remove it immediately, and the contributor can add it back in once he has found a credible source.
I chose not to as a peace offering and another compromise.But Kennethtennyson is completely within his rights to remove any material for which you have not cited a reputable source.JFD 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallayuddha 

message: There you go—Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia himself.
NOW STOP WHINING AND START CITING!!JFD 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any material that has no source may be removed by any editor 

message: JFD: source for this version of the Bodhidharma legend is everyone's favorite cat doctor
Freedom skies: Correction. It's the Shaolin, and a thousand other souces in case you'd like a list.
Then I propose a challenge (if you accept).
The article says that Bodhidharma was born in Kanchipuram to the Pallava king Sugandan.
Show me that "the Shaolin, and a thousand other sources" say that Bodhidharma was born in Kanchipuram to the Pallava king Sugandan and I, JFD, promise to never make another edit to this article again.
If you can't, then every reference to Bodhidharma in this article must be removed, NEVER to return.JFD 03:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge 

message: I agreed to your "specialists" having as much authority to speak about martial arts as official Shaolin temple, Jhoon Rhee or Funakoshi simply as a as a peace offering and another compromise.
And I agreed to sources that weren't peer-reviewed, so long as they were third-party publications, which www.kathinayoga.com most definitely isn't.
The idea that they are in any way superior than any ones I mentioned, and eligible for a "specialist" status about institutes whose versions of their own history differ from theirs is absurd…Not good enough, never was and still is not.
Freedom skies, what you fail to grasp—YET AGAIN—is that Wikipedia standards for credible sources are NOT YOURS TO DICTATE.
Official Wikipedia standards consider peer-reviewed sources to be the most credible.
That doesn't just make my sources "good enough," as a matter of fact it actually does make them "superior," certainly in comparison to the ones you cite.JFD 03:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromises 

message: ::=== Check multiple sources ===
::Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
::However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion.
::==== Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus ====
::Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. Many articles are excluded from peer-reviewed journals because they report what is in the opinion of the editors unimportant or questionable research.  In particular be careful of material in a journal that is not peer-reviewed reporting material in a different field. (See the Marty Rimm and Sokal affairs.) 
::The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true.  Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)
::Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the  prevailing "scientific consensus".  Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.
::There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy.  Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.) 
Here, I'll narrow it down for you:-
*The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true, especially when the journals subscribing to your personal POV are very, very rare.
*of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources', like official websites, like that of the Shaolin. I'll find as more soon as I have free time.
 
As for the "Check multiple sources" rule, Let's have a challenge, your version of non contribution of Bodhidharma, against mine of his contributions. I checked a LOT OF  multiple sources and at the drop of a hat will mention the mammoth extent of this train of thought in a large database in case you demonstrate the extent of yours. Anyone who even attempts a bluff like that vast majority thing has NO MORAL AUTHORITY WHATSOVER to dictate others about their sources.
Another one of the compromises I made early on, make NO mistake, mentioning three books and three old profs DID NOT cut it, I ALLOWED IT TO STAY AS A PEACE OFFERING. 
Your sources and views are strictly microscopic, even then I allowed you to carry on with the "specialist" mention, which reflected a very personal and microscopic train of thought, NOT endorsed by the martial art community and people who actually contributed to martial arts like Jhoon Rhee and Funakoshi.  LIVE WITH IT.
As for Mallayuddha, the translation is "wrestling combat" and will be stated as such, not generic combat, no matter how many bizzare POV interpretations of an independent term are done.
And, try going here, The people who 
provided patronage to the martial artists were taken over by the british and had to either surrender and get a pension or just get killed in the field or get sent to Burma in a prison. The lack of royal patronage made all the difference, want me to cite more battles in which the Kshatriyas were slaughtered/dethroned by the invading british ???
And Kenny,I saw some of stuff you said about me on talk pages which made me wonder if you were crazy, i always attributed the overly confused anti indian thing to the excess caffine and maybe lack of sleep but wow, from what you said, you're plain sick. Buying people off with barnstars for past contributions was a move I did'nt think would work on JFD, but anyways, can't argue with what works.As disgusted as I am, here are the responses:-
1) no evidence in any indian religious text of anything that approximates martial arts... the greeks actually had documents, statues, historical evidence of greco-roman wrestling maneuvers and styles that you can correlate with current greco-roman wrestling.
The martial art mentioned in mahabharata is called Mallayuddha, translated as "wrestling combat" by Joe alters, has four forms known by common public in India an described in the website i sourced.
anyways, I would like to see some citation regarding  those ancient manuals of greco roman wrestling, I kinda tried that art too, and contributed to the wikipedia article on that as well.
2) the use of a generic term mallayuddha as a specific type of martial arts with no evidence that it existed (don't use e-mails to private websites as a source please)
I'll use articles written by practitioners of Indian martial arts, they would know about what they're practcing, would'nt they ??
3) continued blaming of the british for the downfall of indian martial arts with no evidence of that as a fact or even a mention of other factors extraneous to the british
In case you missed the JFD's reference, try reading the effect of the Royal patronage on Indian martial artists and the removal of it by the british and I can cite more Kshatriyas falling to the british.
4) in many of the citations that you have written to support your view that india was the source of shaolin kung fu, some of the articles that you used also stated that the middle east was the source of indian martial arts... yet you never mentioned this at all and tried your best to suppress this... why is that? You still have not answered this question.
Now you're talking, if we chart the route of martial arts such as karate from Middle East, India, China, japan to the rest of the world, I'm very intrested in the project.I have a lot of other martial arts websites which have similar charting done, since you will of course endorse the POV, we could chart all those from alpha to omega.
Lemme know.
5) your inability to compromise or to let anyone edit the article except you...
I let JFD speak his mind, and still feel that we could have worked if you did'nt go ballistic and interfere.
I had a lot of respect for JFD, but the barnstar changes an academic, the way where he has to tell you to lighten up and let him handle the detalis and that kind of reminds me of an odd Scientist-Gremlin partnership, which is , as you'll understand, sick from my POV.
6) your continued reluctance to let anyone place a disputed tag on the article even though it is pretty obvious the article was in dispute.... and then your inability to admit that we are disputing about facts in the article... which i find sort of ridiculous...
The disputes exist in your head and not in the article. The article is sourced and you have a history of messing with sourced articles. 
The other editors are known to have settled some disputes amongst themselves until you went plumb crazy.
Freedom skies 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another reply