This page 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.
Karate was needed, as there was only one userbox for Shotokan, and one this user is a karateka, which was a non-standard size, though. Taekwondo was non-present (apart from WTF membership declaration). Some other martial arts are missing... Also, we could discuss a possibility of introducing a one standardized form of userbox to display rank/belt, similar to the one used in BJJ already. cheers Pundit|utter 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend renaming these to "Template:User Karate" and "Template:User Taekwondo" to distinguish them from templates used in the main namespace. Also, if you want to standardize the use of ranks in these infoboxes, why not add a parameter that can add optional text indicating the specified rank? --Scott Alter 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved & tweaked, these might want categories integrating --Nate1481( t/c) 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I haven't thought about that. Adding a rank is a good idea - I'll think about adding it in some non invasive way. Pundit|utter 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I just created this specifically for the template. It's large enough to manipulate if you want to pull it off and re-edit it.
Karateka.
Hopefully it will work for you!
Mekugi (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm having problems with a disruptive editor over at Wing Chun and Wing Tsun. Koonleg50 (talk·contribs)
has been engaging in disruptive editing practices for the past week on wing chun and WingTsun. This includes consistently adding WP:OR, and altering references and referenced sections. I have tried to help and compromise by working in some of the material in to a non WP:OR and a WP:NPOV format, yet he continues to revert and push more WP:OR. He also keeps insisting on wikifying a group of words on the WingTsun page, even though he's been told by other editors and my self that no such page exists, please stop per the established guidelines. He has been engaged via the talk pages for those entries as well and has had it explained how he needs verifiable references. He responded with more WP:OR, followed by more reverts on the main pages along with an addition of a link to his personal blog for a reference. The user has also used multiple anonymous IP's. I'm requesting administrator intervention at the administrators notice boards, but could use some additional input from this group on the talk pages for those sites. Maybe someone else could get through to him. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has stopped and become an edit war (one user trying to satisfy a fact tag using a wikipedia link, and re-editting the chinese characters over and over) - someone with experience of dealing with edit wars want to step in? -- Medains (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This article on a Dutch MMA has just been created - really needs some work. Anyone who can expand or source please consider doing so. Exxolon (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources?
Are books which are self serving to the author and make claims about other people and do not appear to have gone through an editorial review reliable sources?
I'm looking for input regarding the article Kiyojute Ryu Kempo. Specifically, the creator of the system wrote a couple of books in which he claims that several notable people in the martial arts community have endorsed him. I can find no independent source to support these claims, but the article is written as if these claims are factual. This problem was identified by another user here
This problem was identified in the article's discussion page (see hereand there was no response. Later, the article was edited to be in line with the comments in the discussion page. Then the article was reverted and Javascript was inserted to lock the article down in its earlier versionhere.
Personally, I consider this to be an abuse of editing rights by a specific editor, but I'm looking for comments from more editors - particularly those familiar with the martial arts. I'd prefer to resolve this through discussion, but I need people to participate who are going to engage in discussion.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
From what you've said sounds like a Primary source (founder writing about his art) so cannot be used to support contentious claims, I'll have a look. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Had a look needs a clean up as it's either way there are big chunks which read like an advert --Nate1481( t/c) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Template: Karate Styles
I ask for your help in going through this list, and AfDing and removing the non-notable styles that are currently included. RogueNinjatalk 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Where is this list? Could you add a link? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It seems that there has been a proliferation of AfD lists - I was worried I had missed one<g>. jmcw (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have been nominating lots of styles. There has been lots of growth of non notable karate styles. I just nominated two more. See the list hereRogueNinjatalk 10:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with "nominating lots of styles". It takes a few minutes to nominate something for deletion but it takes hours to do research. One deletionist needs dozens of researchers for balance. Could you prioritize your nominations to get the best use of the researchers time? To expedite the process, could you propose here the less cited or less notable articles? I think cleanup is important but let us start with the dirt. jmcw (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ive just been jumping through the template list. Keep in mind, that because it is alot of work (and btw, I do research the articles before I afd them), that AfDs can go on for a while. As a favor to you and anyone else who feels the same way, I will begin asking admins to leave the Afds open for a bit longer than usual. RogueNinjatalk 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Why the rush to AfD? We have this project page, we can mark articles as needing citations, we can choose articles for research here. The AfD process is sensitive to google hits: we need people who have history books. jmcw (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Shotokan has been marked as needing citations for over 6 months now. Shotokan, not one of the tiny unknown styles, but one of the largest and best known ones, still lacks citations. Tagging things for citations gets nothing done, certainly not on the tiny, less notable styles. At least with AfD, articles get a discussion. RogueNinjatalk 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This would be a better use of this page: ask for Shotokan citations. AfD does not get things done: it take researchers time, it gets things purged or it asks for changes. Better to first ask for changes here. What would happen if you proposed all the karate styles at the same time? Who would have enough time to participate properly in the AfD processes? jmcw (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess both of us show how little we know about wiki culture<g>.
These issues have been considered before us: "The threshold is verifiability, not truth." jmcw (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Those pages are essays, not guidelines or policies. They dont represent all wikipedians, nor is anyone obliged to obey them. RogueNinjatalk 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Question about reliability
I was working on citing some facts that required citations on Mac Danzigs page. One of the citations needed is that he is a member (and also an instructor) at Legends Gym. While looking for sources, I found a youtube video of him actually teaching a class there. Would this be deemed as a reliable source to cite as evidence for him being a part of this gym? --Xander756 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Depends, does the video clearly identify him and the gym or do you recognise him and it? Who made the video and why? If it's a promo-video for the gym showing their instructors then it would be citable, some random video of him teaching there is not a reliable source that he's an instructor there (he could have been instructing as a one-off guest instructor for example) -- Medains (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I just came across this guy via youtube while looking at all videos posted by someone with a lot of systema videos. Anyway, he's got a ton of books on MA and dvds. Would anyone be willing to improve this?
http://www.geoffthompson.com/listAllDvd.asp
I don't want to make the article in to an advertisement, but after seeing how much work he has put in to the martial arts self defense community during his life, maybe we should boost his bio a bit. Thoughts? 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
also, how do you tag it with the wp:wpma project template? Tkjazzer (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Copy the tag from the talk page of another wp:wpma page and put it on the target talk page :) -- Medains (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be some debate (see Talk:Kenpo) over the scope of the article and the level of inclusion for specific styles and their founders, any input would be helpful. Thanks!--Nate1481(t/c) 12:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
There's an obvious edit war going on over at Ryuei-ryu, which had overwise been a quiet near-stub about a non-mainstream okinawan karate style. Both people involved have never edited another article. What is supposed to be done in such cases? --Cubbi (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've told all involved about the three revert rule so if they keep at it the may get blocked. As to actually solving it oen posted on my talk page & I suggested that they agree to dissagree. Oh the joy of linage wars, one has sited a sokeship council (how may of those things are there i've come accross at least 5 now) which is a source if a potentially contentious one. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Technique names for all martial arts related articles
It's been suggested in the discussion of judo technique names that the following should be the approach for all technique names: "technique names should be un-capitalised, un-hypehenated, and italicised. e.g. kami shiho gatame. Only the foreign words like "judo" and "aikido" that have entered the English language should not be italicised." Shawnc (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Video links for Judokas
Hi, I would like to add a link to video clips of Judoka's on Wikipedia. Next to the info on Wikipedia itself, people can see moving images of the Judoka too.
Now I am the owner of the site Judovision, and Yes ofcourse it will bring traffic to the site. But this is not the reason I wish to add the links. The reason is the same as why I set up the site, it is to share Judo videos and information with all those who are interested.
Next to that, Judovision is well known in the Judo world, and does not 'need' traffic.
Could anyone let me know how to get permission to add these links to Judoka profiles on Wiki?
I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Martialartsproject: Articles of unclear notability
Hello,
there are currently 40 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)
I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.
Could use other project member's input (more specifically those familiar with Chinese martial arts, history, tradition, etc.) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yuan_Kay-shan. RogueNinja, who does not appear familiar with the subject matter, is insisting on getting the Yuen Kay San article deleted. Likewise, he appears to now be leaning towards calling for other historical figures to have their articles deleted as well. The article is in stub format, and certainly needs expansion. But I feel that warrants a tag on that rather than a call on notability and AFD. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate technique articles
Some Judo techniques such as Ude garami already exists in non-Judo articles such as Armlock: Ude garami. Other techniques such as juji-gatame have long been merged already. Having a separate article creates redundancy, albeit allowing for art-specific focus. Should such articles be merged, kept separate, or merged until the art-specific subsection becomes too large? Shawnc (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, in a perfect world, we'd have one article for each mechanically possible technique, describing its names and minor variations across all martial arts that implement it. But it's just my wishful thinking. This one article, I think, could be merged, it's not that large by itself. --Cubbi (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks any way ;D It has to be said that only 6k are main space & 1-2k of those are AWB or fixing my own mistakes... but I really do spend too much time on here.
Dave: Not quite, but I was thinking of learning to ride this summer... --Nate1481(t/c) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, thanks for all this work! JJL (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations Nate1481, and keep up the good work! - Nmnogueira (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ashida Kim
There is a huge POV problem on the Ashida Kim article. It reads like it was written by a guy that was stabbed in the back by Kim. In fact, I don't think it meets the criteria for notability. His claim to fame only comes from his secretive nature, the fact that martial arts sites like bullshido.net make fun of him, and that Kim openly criticizes wikipedia on his site. Yes, he has written several books, but being an author does not automatically make someone notable. Since no one seems to know who he really is, it would be impossible to balance the article out with material describing his early life, training, and actual accomplishments. Whether good or bad, reviews of his books could be included. What do you guys think? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Created this a while back and forgot about it, would it be worth moving to the main space and starting to use? Equivalents for the other main areas could also provide some more continuity --Nate1481(t/c) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Come on, what do you think... Nate1481(t/c) 10:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks nice and useful, I think it should be moved to main space and used. Good work Nate1481 - Nmnogueira (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Kenshiro Abbe
Hi all, I've been working on an article about Kenshiro Abbe I'd appreciate some comments if you have a sec... Corky1979 (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Had a look through and adjusted & tidied some stuff, still needs a few more references, I'd suggest leaving a message for Peter Rehse as I know he has a big interest in aikido and helped get the article to Featured status, but I'm not sure if he's been on for a while. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
However, on closer inspection, the page has no section for mentions of the style in various forms of media. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ku Yu Cheung/Gu Ruzhang
I think it's a good idea to start an article on the founder of the Bak Sil Lum (northern shaolin) system: Ku Yu Cheung. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. NJMauthor (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wuxiá to Wuxia
Requested rename on the article for the martial arts fiction genre from Wuxiá to Wuxia - see Talk:Wuxiá70.55.85.177 (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration Request
With the Medicine Workgroup and make an article about possible injuries from martial arts and how training can prevent specific injuries
I propose that WP:WPMA collaborates with wikipedia project medicine (wp:med) and creates an article that talks about the injuries possible in martial arts and how specific training techniques and guidelines have been proven to prevent those injuries. Thoughts? Tkjazzer (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation is asking that user projects (and user pages, etc.) avoid decorative and unofficial uses of WMF logos and trademarks. As a trademark issue, they want to avoid the confusion that projects, like this one, have some official relationship with the Foundation. With that in mind, could you remove the Wiki globe from your project logo. Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you point me at the exact discussion that mandates this, as I couldn't find it on his or your talk page and the tag on the image states
"Permission is not required for use on any part of a Wikimedia Foundation project."
Shall we not start a user page sandbox to collect the most fanciful edits that we come across in our martial arts editing? jmcw (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Might be a good sub page for venting frustrations on, but we need to keep it on the extreme end, i.e. not common errors; China vs Japan origins of karate et al. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me what article the romans in Okinawa material was found on. That is priceless! I have heard the theory before that some people in southern China (if I remember correctly) were descended from these soldiers because of their fair skin and green and blue eyes. However, most scholars believe these traits derive from middle eastern ancestors. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was one of the recent edits for the lead of Karate, such as this one --Cubbi (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have left a comment in the current discussion of this matter on the Karate talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget the recent one about Helio Gracie inventing jujutsu about the same time that the Romans were in Japan. I wonder if Helio fought the Romans? Maybe that was why the Roman Empire foundered. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The funny bit was that was 500+ years after Roman gladiators were non-existent... --Nate1481(t/c) 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
He had a source form the history channel! Who wrote the stuff on there site half of it is complete nonsense! --Nate1481(t/c) 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Human weapon indeed is full of bullshido, but I don't think even would go so far - I think it must be a simple misunderstanding, e.g. mishearing/writing an original phrase on death matches fought like gladiators in Rome, or such. Pundit|utter 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. I just wished to call attention to this new martial arts article, which has nothing linking to it except a few redirects. It appears to be in need of some serious work, but I figured that this was best left to those with more expertise in the field. Thank you for your time. --Finngalltalk 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've wikified it, but more work is needed. David from Downunder (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Oom Yung Doe page has recently suffered from some very serious changes that includes the deletion of all previous writing and sources. It has gone from defining Oom Yung Doe as a Martial Arts cult with several leaders that have served time in federal prison, to a style with a 1500 year history and no federal prison record. I have made a small effort at merging the two vastly different articles, but expect that a lot of help/mediation will be needed pretty soon. Cjim63 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a hack but left it tagged as it needs more work. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder how much of the article would remain if the material from the site www.oomyungdoeschool.com was not accepted as a valid reference? jmcw (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A single sentence! That is one horrible article. I just went through and did some revisions myself. There was an entire paragraph discussing the origins of "bagwa chung," which is, of course, Baguazhang. The editor discussed if it was actually someone's name. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has been heavily edited by what appear to be instructors in this line of martial arts. Thus the inclusion of many items that can only be found on www.oomyungdoe.com and the discussions on the origin of "bagwa chung." Note that if you compare "Bawga chung" (check youtube) with Baguazhang, that they are not similar at all. The same goes for all of the different styles taught by Oom Yung Doe; OYD Kung Fu, Jiu Jitsu, Kom Doe, etc. are only superficially similar to the martial arts that bear the same names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjim63 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just took a look and I concur strongly. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It would have been great to limit them all to above start-class, except it would eliminate everything. I think at some point this template was structured with "japanese styles" and "okinawan styles" separate, but it didn't work out well. How about age differentiation? Break them up by styles founded in 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries? --Cubbi (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Splitting into Koryu and gendai budo would be a good start logical. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we ever tried to split it by origin (Okinawan and Japanese). I suggested it a few months ago, but it was never acted on. I think this would be better than koryu and gendai budo, since all karate would be considered gendai budo. Additionally, I think most kenpo schools could be removed - at least the ones with no lineage to karate. And there were some recent additions of Shorin-ryu branches - which should be solely in {{Shorin-ryu styles}} and not here. --Scott Alter 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone oppose to renaming this to Template:Karate (after fixing redirects to the current userbox)? This template is now more than just karate schools. Also, wouldn't styles better describe the list than schools, per our definitions? --Scott Alter 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Categorization hierarchy
Category:Do is a relatively new category that contains many martial arts. Category:Gendai budo is also within Category:Do and Category:Japanese martial arts. Currently, these categories are not well integrated into the rest of the martial arts categorization hierarchy. Can anyone come up with a good way to categorize these categories? Should this schema be separate from the rest of the martial arts categorization? I think this should be supplementary to the existing categorization. The appropriate articles should be added to these categories, without removing them from existing categories. For example, Category:Kendo would be in Category:Martial arts by type (type of art), Category:Japanese martial arts (place of origin), and Category:Gendai budo (date of origin). --Scott Alter 17:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't this category violate the principle of naming primarily in English? -- Medains (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a slow edit war going on here. User with no other contributions keeps adding unsourced weasily comments on how CKM is the most powerful martial art in the world etc. I remove. He tried reporting me to AIV, but it was declined. Can I get some help on this article? RogueNinjatalk 00:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by AfD, (if the link above goes blue it may want a check) --Nate1481(t/c) 09:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Broken links at BJJ.ORG
A number of Wikipedia martial arts articles cite pages at bjj.org as a source. The links are broken because bjj.org has been decommissioned and content moved to onthemat.com. Please search onthemat.com to look for replacement pages. Unfortunately, most of the articles have become wiki articles at onthemat.com so they are no longer suitable to cite as reliable sources. Further information about content transfer is outlined here. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
We can probably still site a historic link to the original version and site the up-to-date one for more info, dont' know the policy on it but it would be a good start. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Korean Martial arts
Manacpowers is now going though every korean MA article and reworking them to show less influence form Japanese arts, in some cases this is unfounded or tenuous, referring to the Bodhidharma legend as the origin of Hapkido is stretching things. (Next its Alexander the great & pankration again) clean up of the unsourced an tenuous comments will need help. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There is evidence that people believe Hapkido invented in india, Morihei Ueshiba just systematized Aikido. Some claim that It is possibly originated from Shilla person who goes into exile to Japan in ancient time. and as there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. I am explicelty NOT saying that we should include "Hapkido = India" as a fact. I am specificaly saying we should report that these views exist.Manacpowers (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It is widely know that Ueshiba learnt and taught Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu, the origins of the various jujutsu' ryu are wide and they addapted them to thir perpuses, the Bodhidharma>China> all marital arts is an old and currenly unresolveable argument in its self please lets not get started on that! If you acknolage Ueshiba, you acknolage Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu as part of the linage. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
well. all martial arts influenced each other. I am specificaly saying we should report that these views exist. Someone believe, linage of Hapkido is India, China. Cleary, Hapkido made by Korean. although founder learned aikido. However, Hakido affilited Korean say, linage of Hapkido(not aikido) is India, China. I just point out that we should report that these views exist. Manacpowers (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes they can but implying a direct link when it is continuous is not helpful. I really can't be bothered to try & reason with you any more, in my option you are not trying to form a consensus on anything, you are just trying to have your own way, consequently I have posted this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive153#Taekwondo_edit_war-_and_expansion on the Admin notice board. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
i read various informations of Hapkido. I just point out that we should report that these views exist. According to Official Homepage of Hapkido say, Their root is possibly China origin.
Choi learned aikido. However, It is unclear Choi really studied Daito-ryu. Becauese Daito-ryu faimily officialy denied this. Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with aikido. Because it was already modified by various instrutors.(eg. Ji han Jae) In korea, Hapkido is refer to various integrated martial art. for example, any martial arts founder said, My art is "(????) Hapkido".(even it is no relation with hapkido and aikido) This hapkido name is very common name in s.korea. This "(????) Hapkido" word used Like "Not TKD, However, Martial arts" "any combatant sports" noun itself. Not every Hapkido is Daito-ryu. so, I suggest that all "(???) Hapkido" named martial arts in s.korea are not link with Daito-Ryu. so, i try to refer to Hapkido is Various Martial arts. and it is not direct link with Daito-Ryu. I know Choi Yong Sul learned Aikido. But Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with Daitoryu. (even Daitoryu admit this) It is very hard to believe that Nowdays Hapkido is Daitoryu.
GongKwon Yusul founder, when he founded this martial arts, He advertised like a "Choi's Hapkido". Because, His martial art was a unacquainted martial art. but Hapkido is well known Martial arts brand, so He advertised like His art is Hapkido. However, This martial arts is a definitely not hapkido. Later, Founder Changed name as a GongKwon Yusul. I just point out 2 points. Modern Hapkido is not direct link from Daito-ryu. Hakido made by Korean. Founder learned Aikido. There is evidence that people believe Hapkido invented in india or China, Shilla. there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. Manacpowers (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Aikido finds its origin in ancient China, but the concept of “ki” is connected with Shinto and has a peculiarly Japanese development. A martial art without weapons, Aikido makes it possible to overwhelm and throw opponents by grasping and twisting their hands, feet or joints, without resorting so much to strength. It’s effective for one’s spiritual cultivation and is practiced to maintain good health as well.
Subtitled "Its Fundamental Relations", this first in a two-volume set attempts to draw parallels in the fundamentals between the ancient arts of Kung-Fu, and the more modern art of Aikido. There is much discussion of origin and background, and the book is well illustrated.Manacpowers (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate (What? debate in the Martial Arts community??) as to if Aikido Master Ueshiba was influenced by the circular Chinese arts such as Bagua or elements within the Tai Chi Chuan forms. They certainly share the spiraling and opening/closing, Yin/Yang feel of those arts. Furthermore, Chin-na joint locking may predate the Japanese systems. This is a small part of a very well researched article by Ellis Amdur at "Aikido Journal". The entire series of articles, some with lineage that is clearly over my head- ("Inside Aikido") can be found at http://www.aikidojournal.com/?author=8Manacpowers (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's in a POV/edit war storm again, any calming input appreciated. Ive tried to put together a compromise version to present both sides, but it may need a clean up.--Nate1481(t/c) 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Isnt that page in mediation? RogueNinjatalk 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried [1]. Only one of the four other editors responded to the mediation request for info., though all had agreed to mediation. It was closed for lack of interest. I am at a loss. The editors at TKD were unwilling to discuss the sources, claiming they had been dismissed before; informal and formal mediation, including an RFC [2], went nowhere. All these attempts at compromise were initiated by me due to stonewalling by a couple of editors at the TKD talk page. I'm happy to accept mediation; I'm confident that the sources indicating a Japanese origin of TKD (academic journals) outweigh those indicating a Korean origin of TKD (TKD web sites). What we have now is blind reversions by Manacpowers, continually re-introducing broken sentences that have been patched and continually breaking references, all supported several less active editors. I encourage an opinion from disinterested editors. JJL (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
JJL. you have a big mistake.
Most mediator NEVER accept your edit.
2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) opposed your POV
3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) opposed your POV
4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) is neutral. He was not accpeted your POV.
5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs) it's me. I'm opposed your POV
even Omnedon said, "JJL, I'm suggesting no such thing; I'm involved. What I am saying is that I don't like the attitudes displayed by either you or melonbarmonster. I'm also saying that I feel a compromise could be reached, and I've said so several times; but you seem to insist more and more stridently that, in a nutshell, Taekwondo is essentially Japanese. It's not. That has not been demonstrated. There must be something between "Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts" and "Taekwondo is Japanese" that we could agree upon, even if grudgingly." He was not accpeted your POV.
also he said, "The present dispute started in late 2007 over JJL's edits which were designed to reduce what he described as Korean POV in describing the history of Taekwondo. Some other editors, myself included, felt that his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV."[3]
Cleary, 4 member declined your edit.(1 member is neutral. but He never permit your POV edit)
mediators rejected your POV edit.
read carefully Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4. no one permit your POV edit.
if you still rv from your POV edit. it is cleary violate of rule of wiki. Manacpowers (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Cough actually JJL adjusted MY attempt at a neutral version that included the majority of info both of you have posted, you have just reverted to a highly POV version, please can you read the version i have reverted to and make edit from there. It now states both cases, rather than ona one POV. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Was turned into an advert, I've Done the basics fixes but wondering weather to revert the whole lot --Nate1481(t/c) 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 703 of the articles assigned to this project, or 36.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
MA nav boxes
With the introduction of C-class should our inclusion criteria for the main {{Martial arts}} and {{Manav by country}} be tightened to c-class and all the articles in these assessed on this basis? as both ar gettign quiet large, and since start can cover brand new articels that may be in a poor state C seems a better line. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Any one? --Nate1481(t/c) 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that C-Class should be the threshold for inclusion. As I recall from when we were initially developing those templates, the rationale was always that having a standard that would require at least a minimal amount of substance and polish (by prohibiting stubs) would go a long way towards weeding out stuff that was non-notable or only controversially a type of martial arts (as opposed to a style). We also always intended to raise the bar to B-class once the template got full enough. This new C-class will provide a great transition state, and even better, requires some citations without requiring the comprehensiveness of a B-class article. Bradford44 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And I've just noticed that it's been nine days since your original suggestion and no objections. No reason to wait any longer to get started. One thing to keep in mind though is to start with the worst articles and then move to the ones close to the line. Also, some may be due for promotion to C-Class, or could be improved to avoid delisting from the templates. Bradford44 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That was the plan, review the starts to see which were C-class (as most haven't been reviewed with it as an option as it's new) or could be brought up quickly then remove the excess. I didn't just want to go a head with on my own though. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit hasty on some, but in general, all rubbish that needed cleaning RogueNinjatalk 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ninja fun
Dispute on Bujinkan about if they are a ninja org or an org teaching ninjutsu... RfC posted comments would be useful. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sherdog as a Source
Recently one of the members of this group has called into question the reliability of sherdog to be used as a source. Sherdog is an official MMA website that fans of all organizations go to for news and updates so I never thought these references would be called into question. What are your thoughts on this as a group? --Xander756 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As a source for fight records, news and stuff, its great. Just dont use the forums. RogueNinjatalk 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Found this in orphan category, seems to fall into this project, but doesn't look like notable style to me, though as I don't know much about subject area thought I should check here. Any ideas if it should be improved or just deleted? -Hunting dog (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I just AfDed it. RogueNinjatalk 17:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I couldn't find any sources when I looked but wasn't sure if I might be missing something, concurred with delete and voted - Hunting dog (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
New graphic for project?
RisingSunWiki has taken issue with the use of the taijitu as our graphic for the martial arts project, replacing it with an image of a boxing match. That doesn't make any sense to me, but RisingSunWiki's efforts appear to be in good faith, so it is appropriate to discuss the merits of the change. What say anyone else? I oppose. Bradford44 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Since when does the Taijitu represent martial arts as a whole? It comes from Chinese philosophy. The Chinese psyche looks at the world in terms of yin and yang; so yes, Chinese martial arts incorporate the concepts. So yes, the symbol can be used to represent Chinese martial arts. But the taijitu is being used at various places on Wikipedia to represent all martial arts worldwide. This is an incorrect use of the symbol. Krav Maga (an Israeli Jewish martial art) does not incorporate the concepts of yin and yang, nor does Pankration (a Greek martial art), nor does Sambo (a Russian martial art), nor does Savate (a French martial art). I used to live in South Korea, and Korean culture and martial arts do incorporate the concepts of yin and yang. However, Korea represents these concepts differently than do the Chinese. In the Korean yin-yang symbol (taegeuk in Korean), the lobes lie horizontally, not vertically, they are blue and red, not white and black, yin does not have a drop of yang, and yang does not have a drop of yin. Koreans are very sensitive about Korea or Korean things being portrayed as Chinese or Japanese. I'm sure that all 48 million South Koreans would be upset if they knew taekwondo and hapkido are being represented on the English Wikipedia with a Chinese symbol. --RisingSunWiki 22:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
How is (western?) boxing representative of world martial arts? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
We could replace all of the symbols in the wiki globe with the names (ie. characters) of various martial arts all over the globe (or just the phrase "martial arts"). I'm sure there are enough notable styles out there to fill it up. Just a thought. However, I still support the current yin-yang based emblem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that western boxing is representative of world martial arts. What I do claim is that a picture showing hand-to-hand combat is more representative of world martial arts than a symbol representing Chinese philosophy. The Turkish Wikipedia appears to use this symbol: --RisingSunWiki 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The symbol used by the ma project doesn't NEED to be representative of all martial arts - it's a representation for the PROJECT team; as such I don't really care what symbol we use (how about a focus mitt with the WP globe on :P ). -- Medains (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Debate on if the Bujinkan are a ninja organisation or an organisation that teach ninjutsu, any input welcome. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Requested moves of tai chi chuan-related articles
Below are a number of requested moves of articles related to tai chi chuan, part of Category:T'ai Chi Ch'uan. Some of these are uncontroversial and some might not be. I've presented them together here for interested parties. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Support as nominee. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose should be moved to Category:Taijiquan. Hanyu Pinyin is the Wikipedia standard and the international standard for transliteration of Chinese. Also, most new books on the subject in the past ten years use Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Support most common usage form in english. 70.55.84.60 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move with no prejudice against any future merging. JPG-GR (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line blah, blah, you know the drill...
Oppose should use Taijiquan, not Tai chi chuan. Hanyu Pinyin is the Wikipedia standard and the international standard for transliteration of Chinese. Also, most new books on the subject in the past ten years use Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Support "tai chi chuan" is the most common usage form in english. 70.55.84.60 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
24 (Simplified Form) tai chi chuan, 42 (Competition Form) Tai Chi Chuan
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move both. JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the best title of these two but it seems disambiguation is not needed to this degree. At a minimum, hyphens should be added and the capitalization should be corrected for the latter.
Survey and discussion
should use Taijiquan, not Tai chi chuan. Hanyu Pinyin is the Wikipedia standard and the international standard for transliteration of Chinese. Also, most new books on the subject in the past ten years use Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Support since no one has explained why a straightforward grammatical title shouldn't be used. — AjaxSmack 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Chen (Old Frame, First Routine, Lao Jia Yi Lu)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi Chuan
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
At a minimum the capitalization should be corrected. I suspect incorrect pinyin too.
Survey and discussion
should use Taijiquan, not Tai chi chuan. Hanyu Pinyin is the Wikipedia standard and the international standard for transliteration of Chinese. Also, most new books on the subject in the past ten years use Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Single Whip
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Wu/Hao style tai chi chuan
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Support as nominee. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
should use Taijiquan, not Tai chi chuan. Hanyu Pinyin is the Wikipedia standard and the international standard for transliteration of Chinese. Also, most new books on the subject in the past ten years use Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Jiu jitsu spelling
I've made a proposal to make Jiu jitsu (and variants) into redirects to Jujutsu on Talk:Jiu jitsu. Please express your opinions in the matter. – Leo Laursen – ?? 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
There is currently the main Kalarippayattu article and a seperate Revival of Kalarippayattu stub, this seems unnecessary and the small amount of content would be better included in the main article so i have proposed a merge, please discuss if this is a good idea here: Talk:Revival of Kalarippayattu#Merge proposal --Nate1481(t/c) 08:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There is some contention over it the article should be rated as a C or Start class further opinions would be appreciated. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! Anyway, my arguments why it should be a C class:
Yes it has no English references but it all was referenced and translated. I sat the whole day and made shure every claim has a source, I brought the quote, and translated the quote.
The article is to big to be a start.
Because it's a Russian folk sport, in Russian when you write it's name in Google you get a huge number of references. In English there are smiply none, so the claim that an article without English sources cant get to a C class already theoreticaly kills it's chances to become a C class, and that is not fair, esspecialy if I translated all needed quotes.
When the previous user reverted me the article was realy weak. But now all the quotes were brought and translated. Now the claim that the general Englsih speaker can't check it is not true, for who I translated all for few hours? It's all in English now.
It's not a FA, not a GA, and not an A. But it's for shure a C. Kostan1 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hakkoryu
I need to ask for the titles of Soke_shodai and Soke Nidai be allowable, Hakkoryu, (like most Japanese Ryu-ha) is a family art and as in the Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu schools, the Son of Ryoho Okuyama Soke-Shodai has taken up his pen name Ryoho, so now Ryoho Okuyama ( Soke-Nidai) is the head of Hakkoryu, but I believe in this case this rule applies:
In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. For example, the honorific should be included for "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin), the 1930s priest and broadcaster; Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.
the titles Soke-Shodai and Soke-Nidai are commonly attached to both Ryoho Okuyama's to help explain that it's not the same person. input please Tenteisai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenteisai (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This page 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.
The Karate Portal
--RisingSunWiki 01:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
