Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 4

wow
wow, so I'm gone for a day and all of this happens. Jeez. Look Freedom Skies... the problem with your view is that it is not held by the vast majority of historians and professors out there. This is very similar to the P.N. Oak "debate" over the Taj Mahal being a Vedic temple instead of a muslim one, in which there really was no debate... there are P.N. Oak followers and then there's the rest of the academic community on Indian History... You will find very few academic scholars out there that will follow your train of thought and believe that a legend of Bodhdiharma equals fact. In your article you even mention that the Bodhidharma tale is a legend, so how can you state that as fact or even mention it as possible fact? Further, your use of the religious indian textbooks and the mythological stories are out of context. You can't use religious textbooks that describe one god-king fighting another god-king (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you - but most of the protagonists in these religious textbooks were kings and they were described as reincarnations of gods.) only in general terms and then using that as the birth of indian martial arts. You even agreed that the religious texts only describe wrestling and archery in general terms with no description of anything that approaches martial arts. In the end, you can have your views on the history of indian martial arts, but you must allow the rest of us to edit and add to the article to allow for a balanced view... You can't just delete our additions to the article at whim...Kennethtennyson 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Doss is a veterinarian!!! Oh, my gosh... that really lends credence to what he has to say about indian and chinese martial arts! Look, like i said before, everyone can have their ideas and beliefs and tons of people have their own little websites, but it doesn't mean that they are an authority on the matter. Good job JFD... you must be some sort of Ph.D god or something... how did you find him on line? Anyways, i'll post more in the future... I'm currently on a speaking tour. Kennethtennyson 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply by JFD
On the website Tamilnation.org, which hosts a copy of Doss' article, there is a comment from 17 May 2004 in which one Alex Doss describes himself as "a student at San Diego University".From Alex Doss, President of Tamil Sangam SDSU, San Diego, USA 17 May 2004 Vanakkam, I am a student at San Diego State University. I have formed the first Tamil Sangam on campus. Recent events was a guest speaker from India by the name of Dr. Sethuraman. I have also had the first Tamil New Year Celebration with a live performance of Bharatha Natayam. Our goal is to promote Tamil language and culture at San Diego State University and to address the issues of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and India. The Alex Doss who is a San Diego-based veterinarian may appear to be too old to have been a student at SDSU in 2004, especially given the sixteen years of veterinary experience he claims, but the Alex Doss who wished LTTE leader Velupillai Pirapaharan a happy 50th birthday in 2004 was at the time in the "30 - 35" age range and also located in San Diego.

Even if there is more than one Alex Doss running around San Diego, I have not uncovered evidence that any Alex Doss has the qualifications to speak with authority on the history of martial arts.

Alex Doss is a Tamil nationalist, not an academic and not a martial arts expert.

as per Freedom skies Doss's works will be cited, if you want to strip him of his posts and accomplishments, do so in court.

From Verifiability: In other words, those who wish to attribute "posts and accomplishments" to Mr. Doss are the ones who must provide evidence.

Live with it.

So please, stop with the BS about Alex Doss being a "a scholar at San Diego State University" or about his "posts and accomplishments" unless you're referring to his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine.

The following information on my sources is from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:


 * Tang Hao

He is viewed as being the greatest Chinese martial arts historian that ever lived. Second, many of his comments and criticisms regarding martial arts history and martial arts writing are still valid today....He advocated applying modern scientific methods to the study of Chinese martial arts history and to the practice of Chinese martial arts themselves....His writings include Taiji Boxing and Neijia Boxing, A Study of Shaolin and Wudang, Neijia Boxing, The Qi Qi Fist Classic, and A Study of Chinese Martial Arts Illustrations. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)

"Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folk tales corrupted and tainted people's thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.

"In 1920 (sic) he wrote a book called Study of Shaolin and Wudang, which was published by the Central Guoshu Academy. He used lots of historical material to prove that Bodhidharma and Zhang San Feng knew nothing about martial arts, and that the theory that Shaolin martial arts started from Bodhidharma and that Taijiquan was invented by Zhang San Feng was incorrect." (Kennedy and Guo 2005)
 * Matsuda Ryuchi

Matsuda Ryuchi [is] a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts.

According to his biography included in An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts, Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)
 * Stanley E. Henning

Stanley E. Henning is an American scholar and martial artist who has published a number of articles concerning the early history of Taijiquan. Some of his articles—in particular, one titled "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan"—raised heated debates in certain martial arts circles. In his own words, his goal was "to extract Chinese martial arts from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research." One of his major theses, he says, is "the fact that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including boxing, are rooted in military, not religious practice." That idea did not sit too well with some sectors of America's Taiji community and, for a while, Henning was a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community. Be that as it may, Henning went on to write a number of scholarly articles on the history and development of Chinese martial arts that have done much to lift this study out of the realm of pulp fiction and into a more serious, accurate, and scholarly domain. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)
 * JFD 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the two alex doss's are the same... the veterinarian would appear to have gone to undergrad also at the same school.. what are the chances that two south asians with the same names would go to the same schools over a similar time frame? Steelhead 20:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure that they are but ultimately the only thing that matters is that author of "Thamizhar Martial Arts" Alex Doss—whether he's a veterinarian or not—is a Tamil nationalist, not a scholar, not a martial arts expert and, most important to Freedom skies, he does not have the "official" authority to speak on behalf of a martial arts institution.


 * The burden of evidence lies with those who contend that he is, and they're just going to have to deal with it.


 * JFD 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

waiting
Waiting for a reply from our 20 something year old devoted boxer Freedom skies. Unfortunately, with the number of POV nationalists running around the web, I don't think that this page will ever be unlocked. Kennethtennyson 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay
The trip took longer then expected, and the incessent rains did'nt really help all that much either.

As for the replies,

''wow, so I'm gone for a day and all of this happens. Jeez. Look Freedom Skies... the problem with your view is that it is not held by the vast majority of historians and professors out there.''

The thing with my point of view is that it is officialy endorsed by institutions which played a major part in the development of martial arts themselves, really sorry I missed your Kenny-is-the-ultimate-authority-on-the-opinion-of-vast-majority-of-profs award, would love to see a picture of you with the trophy though.

This is very similar to the P.N. Oak "debate" over the Taj Mahal being a Vedic temple instead of a muslim one, in which there really was no debate... there are P.N. Oak followers and then there's the rest of the academic community on Indian History

The downfall of legitimate argument comes with the drawing of parallels, my family has a background in international diplomacy and the one thing which one never actually does in serious arguments is deviate from the central issue and draw paralles, in parallels one always cites his actions as being comparable to a historically heroic incident and the opposition is always compared to incidents of stupidity or such. Don't draw parallels, stick to the issue of why won't you let me mention what the Shaolin says ? ? ?

You will find very few academic scholars out there that will follow your train of thought and believe that a legend of Bodhdiharma equals fact.

In case you missed my what I've been trying to scream all this while, I'm not citing random authors praised by some Chinese newspaper or such, that would be plain stupid. I'm citing directly from the source, the official ones. The authors have varying point of views and DO NOT either agree on any one school of thought or authoritatively trace back the origin of relevant martial arts, in which case we have to assume that the official versions of institutions, which have played such an instrumental role in the development of martial arts are THE authoritative source.

You can't use religious textbooks that describe one god-king fighting another god-king (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you - but most of the protagonists in these religious textbooks were kings and they were described as reincarnations of gods.)

The text book in question is called the Ramayana, from which I have'nt taken one sentence or mention, except one image caption that Lord Hanuman is worshiped by the wrestlers in India, which is true. Furthermore, your knowledge is severely limited, it seems, since there was no "God King fighting God king", there was just one "God King" fighting the demons.

About Alex Doss

Agreed, the mention of Doss can go, that means that the part dealing with Doss name goes and the mention of IMA on the arts stays.

In fact, I request cowman to delete the Alex Doss, President of the Tamil Sangam at San Diego State University, claims India to be a founding influence for the development of martial arts [5] such as Bando, Lethwei, Muay Thai (kickboxing), Bersilat, Silambam, Pentjak Silat, Kali , Escrima and Dumog (wrestling) citing that these arts developed either in Indianized kingdoms or in kingdoms having very close ties with ancient India. portion even before I come up with the alternative, which should take about three days.

This would be in the intrest of the users who read the article as it comes up in the internet searches.

About Stanley E. Henning, Matsuda Ryuchi and Tang Hao

The random historians have their own personal opinons, which are not endorsed by the official ones.

Citing random authors writing books in which no one disputes them does not change the outlook of either the Shaolin.

Try living with that.

''Waiting for a reply from our 20 something year old devoted boxer Freedom skies. Unfortunately, with the number of POV nationalists running around the web, I don't think that this page will ever be unlocked. ''

My intrest is in the maintainence and publication of a good article on IMA, unlike the one you wrote. and not in any POV thing.

''Tasks that I will do as soon as I find enough time"

I've just come back, here are some tasks that will be done ASAP (somehwere in the next three days).


 * Will compile a database of websites mentioning India and the influence of Indian physical culture on martial arts, though I know that most of the people will reject it as random or such, but it will be done to show the fact that this train of thought is subscribed not only by the official authorities but many institutions in general, and in conclusion is a widespread one in addition of being an official one.
 * Will get more official citations.
 * Will provide a rewriting suggestion for the Doss article, this will be backed up by official citations by credible sources and not by random authors.Freedom skies 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

15 mins
A cup of coffee and a sandwich, that's about as much time it took for me to establish a list which is gven below :-

http://www.did-you-mean.com/Bando.html#History_Of_Bando

http://www.martialguide.com/articles/overview-ma.htm

http://www.ykkfindia.org/history.htm

http://www.manghoma.com/index.cfm?page=6

http://www.1kick.net/index.cfm?page=6

http://www.whitetigerkarate.com/history_of_the_martial_arts.htm

http://www.martialartsites.com/mafc/index.cfm?page=6

http://www.shimakarate.com/history_karate.shtml

http://www.kempokan.com/Glastonbury/KempoHistory.html

http://www.sda-md.com/index.cfm?page=6

http://www.shubukanryu.com/history-martial-arts.html

http://www.americanblackbeltacademy.com/dojo/MartialArtsHistory.htm

http://www.c-m-a.com.au/index.cfm?page=6

http://www.shaolinarts.com/pages/history.html

http://www.spiritualminds.com/articles.asp?articleid=1889&Start=141

http://www.renigarkenpo.com/history.html

http://www.martialarm.com/history/karate.html

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/6968/temple.htm

http://www.thefightgame.tv/MAHistory.htm

http://home.kc.rr.com/shinshi/history.htm

http://martialarts.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=martialarts&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fottawakungfu%2F100Shao002.htm

http://www.atlantamartialarts.com/styles/silat.htm

http://www.cassmagda.com/Hsilat1.HTM

http://home.stny.rr.com/iama/az.html (Press CTRL+F to find the influence of IMAs on arts like JOGO DO PAU, KARATE (SHURI-TE, NAHA TE, TOMARI TE), KUNTAW etc)

http://www.culturecentric.com/Life-B/Bando.php

On request a list of websites twenty times as large as this one will be made available, the idea of this little exercise, though I know it will be condemned and ridiculed by my fellow editors, is to display the extent of this particular train of thought, the scale on which institutions from different countries believe in the influence of IMAs.

It's a fact that won't go away just by trying to ask me to "be a nice chap", it'll stay, especially when endorsed by the officialy authorities such as the Shaolin. Freedom skies 04:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In case you missed my what I've been trying to scream all this while, I'm not citing random authors praised by some Chinese newspaper or such, that would be plain stupid. I'm citing directly from the source, the official ones. The authors have varying point of views and DO NOT either agree on any one school of thought or authoritatively trace back the origin of relevant martial arts, in which case we have to assume that the official versions of institutions, which have played such an instrumental role in the development of martial arts are THE authoritative source....this will be backed up by official citations by credible sources and not by random authors.


 * This is  Wikipedia , not Freedom skies' little fiefdom, so let me remind you what  Wikipedia 's standards of credibility and reliability are."From Wikipedia:Citing sources: What sources to cite Prefer credible third-party, peer-reviewed English-language sources.""From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Evaluating reliability Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case by case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next."
 * These are the official Wikipedia standards for credibility and reliability.
 * Try living with it.


 * Now I concede that two of the three sources I've listed are not English-language, but all—unlike commercial websites—are third-party publications and, of Stanley Henning's articles, "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts" appeared in China Review International and "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective" appeared in Military Affairs, both of which are peer-reviewed.


 * Now if Freedom skies wants "official," Tang Hao held an official post at the Central Martial Arts Academy and Stanley E. Henning is included among its "Researchers & Authors" by the Hawai'i Karate Seinenkai, which describes him as "an expert on Chinese martial arts history". (Scroll down to "Added April 20, 2006")
 * JFD 01:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm.... So, I go to the site that you mentioned and come up with this :-

Daruma is based upon an actual historical figure -- Bodhidharma, the 28th patriarch or successor to Buddha according to Zen (or Chinese Ch'an) Buddhism. Daruma is the Japanese pronounciation for Bodhidharma. A woodblock print by Yoshitoshi Tsukioka (1839-1892) from the Series One Hundred Views of the Moon shows Bodhidharma practicing zazen (sitting meditation). Paintings and woodblock prints of Bodhidharma typically emphasize his thick facial and body hair, dark skin and Indian features.

When I studied Kenpo Karate in Hawaii during the mid 1970's, we were taught that Bodhidharma traveled from India to China in 525 A.D. to teach the true meaning of Buddhism to Emperor Wu (Wu-ti). Upon arriving in China, he found that the priests and peasants were being attacked by armed bandits. He meditated on the situation and told the people that fighting and killing are wrong. However, a person must be able to defend himself. Thus, he taught them Go Shin Jitsu Kenpo Karate (or Shorinjiryu Kenpo), an unarmed system of self-defense in which the hands and feet became weapons.

- Charles C. Goodin

Anyway, this time I would like to tell you my private opinion regarding, of course, karate as follows.

I have heard that it is not sure but there is a martial art called "Three Hand" in India. I don't know the original Indian name. "Three Hand" is the direct translation of Chinese language from Indian language. I suppose maybe such a martial art was brought to China from India by Darma during the Emperor Wu dynasty, and it became the origin of Shaolin Temple.

- Chojun Miyagi

The Shang Wu style founded by Chang-san Feng places primary emphasis on the power of Chi (Japanese Ki). Tai Chi (Chuan), Xing-I and Baqua are good examples of schools exhibiting characteristics of this style. In appearance, their movements have in them an explosive power which, effectively applied, can easily knock a man down. The Shaolin style looks upon Ta-mo Lao-tsu (Bodhidharma) as its founder. In this style, which stresses the practical application of hand and foot techniques for blocking and attacking, are seen hard-soft and long-short techniques, that is, both thrusting and short, snapping techniques. (Funakoshi, 1988, p.20.)

Looks like people on the source you mentioned while gleefully doing the "These are the official Wikipedia standards for credibility and reliability. Try living with it " routine (don't get me wrong, it was entertaining, especially the This-is-Wikipedia-not-Freedom skies'-little-fiefdom part, do keep at it) seem to point towards a certain country you attempted so hard to argue against, and a certain patriarch of zen buddhism you think will go away just by wishing that he would.

So, if this is your interpretation of the "official Wikipedia standards for credibility and reliability.", then besides providing comic relief in the talk page by doing the "Constipated George Costanza blurting little fiefdom" routine, you're not really contributing to your argument, especially when your own sources are contradictory in nature.

By that I mean that Stanley E. Henning, Matsuda Ryuchi and Tang Hao say one thing and Charles C. Goodin, Chojun Miyagi and Funakoshi another. Just what part of "In case you missed my what I've been trying to scream all this while, I'm not citing random authors praised by some Chinese newspaper or such, that would be plain stupid. I'm citing directly from the source, the official ones. The authors have varying point of views and DO NOT either agree on any one school of thought or authoritatively trace back the origin of relevant martial arts, in which case we have to assume that the official versions of institutions, which have played such an instrumental role in the development of martial arts are THE authoritative source....this will be backed up by official citations by credible sources and not by random authors." was so hard to understand ???

And as for the reliability of sources, mine are official, try living with it, the official mentions directly from the Gracie family, the Goju Ryu and the shaolin institutions etc. are as reliable/verifiable as it's going to get on wikipedia.

Don't worry too much though, In time you'll learn to live with it.

Freedom skies 09:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From Talk:Indian martial arts 06:54, 16 August 2006 Freedom skiesThis topic is not controversial at all, the official citations (cry yourselves hoarse all you want about their credibilty too, and act as if you know more about their history then they do) stand and will be stated. Live with it. Freedom skies 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, I go to the "official" sites that you mentioned and FOUR of them come up with this :-The origin and history of Martial Arts is a controversial issue. One can see signs of martial arts in Egyptian, Greek, African, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, as well as other cultures.
 * And then there was this:Elements of Chinese Martial Arts originated more than six thousand years ago as the first cavemen learned simple blocking, and striking techniques to protect themselves.

The first documented form of Chinese Martial Arts, Shuai-Chiao (pronounced Swhy Jow), is variously known as The Mother of All Martial Arts and Classical Chinese Wrestling, is described in texts written by and about the legendary Yellow Emperor, Huang Ti, in the first half of the third Millennium BC. During the ensuing years, other forms of Chinese Martial Arts evolved. In 1600 BC a sub-art, Shaolin Chn'in-Na (Chin-Na) also known as Chen-Na, emerged. The hard syle of Chin-Na is called Yee Ch'uen, also known as Karate. It consists of kicking, punching, and open-hand techniques for striking vital points of the body with skill. The soft style of Chin-Na is called Chi Chi Shu. Examples of this style include Ju-Jitsu, Judo, and Aikido. Techniques in these arts consist of twisting, locking and breaking of joints, muscle splitting, submission holds, throws, and takedowns.

The purpose of intermingling the hard and the soft styles of Chin-Na is to stabilize your opponent's body for strikes or throws when necessary. The Chin-Na student must learn to attack and defend with skill using weapons as well as the empty hand. In the old days, Chinese Kung-Fu was divided into four main categories: i.e., empty fist, weapons, archery and Shuai Chiao. The founder of Kung-Fu was Confucius, who started Confucianism. In about 525 AD, a holy man named Bodhidharma left his monastery in Southern India to spread the Buddhist faith to China, later called Ch'an Buddhism. (Ch'an is the Chinese translation for the Sanskrit word "Dhyana" meaning yogic concentration, also know as Zen.) Chin-Na was introduced in the 9th Century to Japan and to Okinawa in the 12th Century. In 1084 Taijitsu (Body Art) was taught and in 1200 AD Daito Ryu Aiki Ju-Jitsu. All were forerunners of Ju-Jutsu (which became the official name in 1534).

"All the Martial Arts information obtained in this reference came from the Martial Arts Dictionary and the Martial Arts Encyclopedia as well as other sources and can be produced upon request from interested parties. Signed by Kyoshi Sensei Edward E. Wilkes, Doshu of the Goshin Budokan U.S.A. and Dojocho Shubukan Martial Arts Center of Henderson, Nevada 89015. Phone/Fax 1-702-558-7171." http://www.shubukanryu.com/history-martial-arts.html
 * While you were gleefully doing your "There is no controversy, Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin of martial arts" routine, it looks like Wilkes Sensei pointed towards a different country as "The Mother of All Martial Arts".


 * So, if this is your interpretation of "these are official versions and will be put down as such," then besides providing comic relief in the talk page, you're not really contributing to your argument, especially when your own sources are contradictory in nature.


 * By that I mean that Mang Ho Martial Arts Federation, Extreme Martial Arts Academy, Martial Arts and Fitness Centre, and Self-Defense America say one thing and White Tiger Karate, Shaolin Arts and Renigar Kempo another. The "official" sources have varying points of view and DO NOT agree on any one school of thought, in which case we have to use "sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative." In case you missed what I've been trying to scream all this while, I'm not citing random websites, that would be plain stupid. To quote Reliable sources, "Anyone can post anything on the web." I'm citing directly from third-party publications, much like Wilkes Sensei cites the Martial Arts Dictionary and the Martial Arts Encyclopedia.


 * Just what part of "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is so hard for you to understand??? That's a quote from Verifiability, one of those pages that says "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia" in bold print at the top of the screen. So it's official Wikipedia policy and not something I just pulled out of my ass.


 * And as for the reliability of sources, Stanley Henning's articles in the peer-reviewed academic journals China Review International and Military Affairs meet Wikipedia's best practices for credible sources. Try living with it.


 * Wikipedia's standards of credibility aren't going to change no matter how many tantrums you or anybody else goes into.


 * Don't worry too much though, In time you'll learn to live with it.


 * By the way, Sanjeev Bhaskar called. He wants his shtick back.
 * JFD 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Did I hear you right ?? did you go to the "official" websites I mentioned ?? or did you just do those little comic relief routines you seem to do all too well ??? and with personal imitations too, well since imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I can't complain, and as usual would ask you to keep doing those. They're entertaining.

Anyways, I did'nt point towards these websites as being "official" in nature at all, the websites which I bought to the table and claimed to be official in nature belonged to The Gracie Family, Goju Ryu and the Shaolin temple, you just went to the array of websites I bought in to substantiate the claim that apart of being officially endorsed by the Shaolin etc., this train of thought was also popular and the mentions of India as a founding influence can be seen in these articles of various institutions as well.

This topic is not controversial at all, the official citations (cry yourselves hoarse all you want about their credibilty too, and act as if you know more about their history then they do) stand and will be stated. Live with it. Freedom skies 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is being taken out of context, I was wondering how you'd weasel your way out of this one, with your sources being contradictory and all, but did'nt expect the flashback-take-it-out-of-context thing to happen so soon. The "no controversy" was directed at the tag on the article which directly disputed the mentions as put by the Shaolin etc., I said since the Shaolin says so there is no controversy, and there is none where official citations and the extent of the penetration of this view is concerned, oddly enough the paras you mentioned mention Bodhidharma and India and the story of the Shaolin, odd endorsement, eh ??


 * So, if this is your interpretation of "these are official versions and will be put down as such," then besides providing comic relief in the talk page, you're not really contributing to your argument, especially when your own sources are contradictory in nature.

Actually my interpretation of "these are official versions and will be put down as such" was not this, it was From the Gracie family and the Shaolin etc., the others were a list of websites indicating the populatrity of the official version, which you tried to take out of context while simultaneously doing the carneyboy-imitation-routine.

You just assumed a thing and gleefully answered yourself, but since you did it in a cute little imitation routine, I'm really not complaining, like I said before, You're good, do keep at it.


 * By that I mean that Mang Ho Martial Arts Federation, Extreme Martial Arts Academy, Martial Arts and Fitness Centre, and Self-Defense America say one thing and White Tiger Karate, Shaolin Arts and Renigar Kempo another. The "official" sources have varying points of view and DO NOT agree on any one school of thought, in which case we have to use "sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative." In case you missed what I've been trying to scream all this while, I'm not citing random websites, that would be plain stupid. To quote Reliable sources, "Anyone can post anything on the web." I'm citing directly from third-party publications, much like Wilkes Sensei cites the Martial Arts Dictionary and the Martial Arts Encyclopedia.

They all point to India as a founding influence of martial arts, somthing they all have in common, and something which you seem to try and attempt to argue against. They do agree on the fact that India is a vital influence on many martial arts, and they substantiate the claims made by the Gracie family and the Shaolin.

They all mention India and they do so in the sense that I intented in my article, as a vital influence, that's about it.


 * Just what part of "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is so hard for you to understand??? That's a quote from Verifiability, one of those pages that says "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia" in bold print at the top of the screen. So it's official Wikipedia policy and not something I just pulled out of my ass.

The credibility of my sources is undisputed, they're official in nature, like the Gracie family, the Shaolin and Goju Ryu official websites.

As much as you do your little I'll-confuse-them-by-mixing-official-sites-and-the-non official- ones routine, the fact is that there are three sets of information which are available in this article, the official ones, which I bought to authoritatively end your sqealing, the profs from the source you mentioned, who don't either agree on one thing or authoritatively trace back the history of martial arts and finally the list of websites which I bought in to show that India being one of the founding influences on relevant martial arts is endorsed by many, many institutions.


 * And as for the reliability of sources, Stanley Henning's articles in the peer-reviewed academic journals China Review International and Military Affairs meet Wikipedia's best practices for credible sources. Try living with it.

Try living with that height of idiocy ?? Come on, even with the imitation-prancing-around routine you're not even funny this time.

Why live with a confused prof's version when the OFFICIAL Shaolin version is at hand, huh ??? Come On, Just which part of "I'm not citing random authors praised by some Chinese newspaper or such, that would be plain stupid. I'm citing directly from the source, the official ones" was so hard for you to get through your head ???

+

Tantrums ?? who talks like that??? how old are you anyways ??

And I checked on this Sanjeev guy, funny, someone accused me of being a tamil, then anti-white and now I'm accused of being someone like that with an accent. It's really something when someone goes all I'll-try-and-find-a-stereotype-and-try-hurting-the-guy-so-he'll-go-away. The funny thing is you guys are nowhere even close to identifying who I am. Listen, if I had to make arrogant claims about family standings, fianancial status, international reputation, friends, personal achievements and such I'd have shut you up long ago, but I don't do that, nor do I try and figure out a stereotype for you. I guess that comes with having a life + seeing the world and not sitting in a dark room while advertising ignorance on Wikipedia like some people.

Anyways, as long as those people bring arguments that weak to the table and make a idiots out of themselves by doing comedy routines for me, I guess I can live with it. Freedom skies 16:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I said since the Shaolin says so there is no controversy, and there is none where official citations and the extent of the penetration of this view is concerned....The credibility of my sources is undisputed, they're official in nature, like the Gracie family[22], the Shaolin[23] and Goju Ryu[24] official websites.
 * Third-party publication and peer review remain the OFFICIAL Wikipedia gold standard for credibility and no amount of crying yourself hoarse is going to change that.And I checked on this Sanjeev guy, funny, someone accused me of being a tamil, then anti-white and now I'm accused of being someone like that with an accent.
 * I'm not accusing you of having the same accent, just the same attitude.
 * Your edits have included the statements "Ancient India is widely considered to be the origin [nice backtracking into "vital influence" and "one of the founding influences" by the way—smooth] of martial arts,"" and "The science of medicine originates in ancient India as 'Ayurveda'"—both unsourced—the latter of which replaced a citation from Roy Porter. So you're an expert on the history of martial arts and the history of medicine? And you're a more credible authority on the latter than Roy Porter? Color me impressed.Tantrums ?? who talks like that??? how old are you anyways ??
 * Who talks like that? You do, Freedom skies. YOU DO. And you're 22.


 * From 23:12, 16 August 2006 Freedom skies

the thing you're going to have to live with is that the official versions mention India and it'll be stated with no downplaing of official information no matter how many tantrums you or anybody else goes into.
 * It was more of that "cute carneyboy-imitation-routine" you find so entertaining.
 * JFD 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)