Talk:Angampora

Angan Pora or Ritigala Angan Pora??
The name is somewhat confusing in searches I did. A native of the Philippines could probably disambiguate the whole thing. It would also add to the clarity of the article. Cheers! Stormbay (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the correct name of the technique is Angampora (both the YouTube links refer to this name). See also this. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Promotion to B Class
It may have not quite passed GA but the improvements nudge it into B-class. I would think one or two more pictures to flesh out the Practice section would be good and some attention to the GA comments not yet taken care is still necessary. I think that the push for GA was too early. Usually the article needs some time to evolve and grow. I suggest a Peer Review in a couple of months follwed by another GA attempt.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is well-sourced but it still has a few major issues.

1.Capitalisation, and in some cases italicisation, is a very common mistake with martial arts and with non-English words in general. As noted here, only the names of specific schools should be capitalised. Words like karate, or in this case angampora, should not be capitalised. This article consistently both capitalises and italicises the word angampora. Other Sinhala words are also capitalised unnecessarily like "Ethunu Kaduwa", "Maru Kala", etc. Think of it this way. When writing in English, you don't capitalise terms like "boxing" or "kick", so why should equivalent foreign words be capitalised?
 * Done

2. Too many grammar mistakes. One glaring example: "origin of Angampora dates back to over 30,000 years", which should correctly read "angampora dates back over 30,000 years".
 * Done, could you point out the others.

3. The Embekka Devalaya woodcarving picture is good for the history section but it makes a poor lead image. There are much more appropriate photos for the infobox given in the gallery at the bottom of the article. Why aren't one of these used instead? And speaking of the gallery...
 * Done

4. The captions in the photos are terrible. Most are not even necessary because the pictures are self-explanatory. We don't need to say "fighting with sticks" or "sword fight display" when the photo speaks for itself. I won't mention the grammar in those captions either. And perhaps other editors on this article are unaware that pointing out a female practitioner's gender is "politically incorrect".
 * I've changed the title, but I think captions are necessary, I agree some of them could be better.

5. A reference book is meant to be that: a reference book. It is not an example of angampora in popular culture. This seems more like an advertisement than telling how angampora has influenced pop culture.
 * Fixed

6. Angampora is not and has never been restricted to Buddhists. This claim comes from a certain user who stretched the connection with Buddhist temples to imply that "The Sinhalese language source suggests that practitioners have to be Buddhists." Angampora's origin predates Buddhism and this is corroborated by the sources given. Speaking of that sentence..

7. It does not need to be mentioned that angampora is open to "men and women" (male and female would be more accurate) because this is always assumed to be the case unless there is some restriction. In other words, you only mention if a certain gender cannot learn the art, you don't mention if both can.
 * Done

8. "Its most distinct feature is the use of pressure point attacks". This sentence is not even sourced. How is this angampora's most distinct feature? Pressure point attacks are found in many Asian countries and are not at all unusual. Besides, unacquainted observers tend to notice the agility and acrobatics as the most distinct feature.

9. The first paragraph of the history section belongs in an etymology section.
 * Done

Morinae (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made some fixes according to your list above, however I will address the rest later. If there are any more changes you think should happen please write them. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the liberty of making some simple changes myself. You can check them and point out if any are unsatisfactory. I won't make any major changes to the writing yet, but even if every grammatical error is fixed, the article is generally written to a very low standard of English. Facts are often just jumbled one after another with little connection to each other. Looking at the article objectively, much of it really does have to be rewritten to improve the prose. One change I'm making which I thought I should clarify is the infobox. For one thing, I personally feel that [|this] or [|this] would make a better lead picture. More importantly, we don't say "historic" or "prehistoric" for a martial art's lineage in the infobox. This was common a few years ago but it isn't supposed to be done. As it says here, you don't specify a creator unless there is one. Obviously, "prehistoric" is not a creator. Also, when you say the system's focus, you only say the one thing that the art focuses on. For example, judo is all about throws and boxing is punch-based. Fencing focuses on weaponry while karate is mainly strikes of various kinds. A system like angampora is a little too difficult to categorise and I would personally leave it blank. Besides, it really depends on the practitioner (or sometimes the teacher) what aspect they want to focus on. Some may prefer weapons, some might go with strikes, others may be better at locks. If you are determined to fill the parameter in, I would either recommend strikes or weapons. Angampora definitely focuses more on these aspects than it does on pressure points or grappling. And as for the book mentioned at the end, that entire section has to go. No other martial arts article here has a section for a reference book. That honestly seems like some advertisement. If the book was used as a reference when writing the article, it should be listed among the references. We simply cannot have a paragraph saying "this book written by this author includes this information and the author's achievements are so and so". Morinae (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect facts and make-believe
I cleaned up the grammar and the flow of the article (the english was atrocious at some points, very patchy), and i came across something interesting. Someone with a very nationalist axe to grind seems to have put in a few edits, implying the Brits killed practitioners. While that may have been so, the pdf they cited for this has no mention of anything beyond the punishment of crippling. Seriously, keep these people off pages like this.91.109.47.11 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angampora. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312234213/http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/09/01/spo20.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/09/01/spo20.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake ban?
Sadly, there seems to be no surviving copy of the supposed gazette that promised gunshots to the knee to offenders of the supposed ban. Instead, the available sources on the ban uncritically report hearsay from today's practitioners, who have a vested interest in promoting their arts as sensational, ancient, effectively dangerous, and as a matter of national pride that has only now been re-discovered. Unless older sources from the 19th or 20th century can be provided, we should consider the whole alleged ban as a suspiciously unconfirmed legend. I'm not saying that persecutions, burnings or gunshots to knees didn't happen, but I just saw no evidence that this was ordered, decreed or done at any level.

There is one source (Mr. Akram) that presents an old document apparently from 1818 which states that two official positions (court champions ~= chief gladiators) are to be abolished and their departments are to be reorganized. That is not a ban, and importantly also doesn't spell out punishments. The text by Mr. Davy in 1821 however corroborates that the practice of the same "court champions" was now discontinued. Yet the whole context and reasoning is rather different: These fighters were not outlawed because they posed a danger to the occupation; but they were deemed unnecessarily driving up unrest between their two polarized factions within the population.

So the British probably removed the lucrative job incentive for these fighters, nothing else. That would also threaten this martial art, but would also explain much better how it could have survived: as a leisure art form. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)