Talk:Kenpō/Archive 1

Behave
I was responsible for a major edit designed to make this article accurate, relevant and informative. Every single time I return, I find it vandalized be self-promoting wankers. As a result, I have removed "notable schools of kenpo" and will continue to do so. If you want your sect/ryuha/kai/style listed, that's for a category page.

Furthermore, I do not care how important you believe your school of kenpo to be:
 * Kenpo Kai is not relevant to the article. Shorinji Kempo and Nippon Kempo are distinct and notable martial arts that demonstrate the range of definitions.
 * Ed Parker is not relevant to a discussion of the *origins* of Hawaiian Kenpo. It is redundant to list both him and Chow, since Chow was his teacher. Chow and Mitose are *only* listed together because there is controversy as to who learned what from whom, and they are both *universal* figures for every branch in that stream. Parker is not. Go talk about how cool he was in the American Kenpo and Ed Parker articles.
 * Elvis is not relevant to this article. He was a casual practitioner of American Kenpo. Write about him in the Elvis Presley article.
 * Nobody cares about your offshoot studio or organization except for you. This is an article about the various meanings of a broad martial arts term. That's it. I have cut the most abused heading.
 * This is not an article intended to discuss techniques except to the minimum extent necessary to distinguish different streams. I do not care how important you think vital point strikes are. Write about them in another article.
 * What your fifth generation Shaolin Kuhrottie teacher told you about this term is not relevant. Ken/mpo is a term in this article, not a distinct style of martial arts.

If you want to be more specific, edit individual style articles or create style family articles based on the scheme in this article.


 * You have very definite taste in what is kenpo. Could you supply some references to support these facts? For instance, when I go to google and search "kenpo", Parker's name appears on the first page of results. I would expect to read about him here: if he is a fraud, please supply some references. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Parker was not a fraud, but he was a student of Chow. For the purposes of a broad discussion it is redundant to mention Parker and Chow together. Mitose and Chow are only mentioned together because the student/teacher relationship is in dispute. Parker's Kenpo descends, historically speaking, from the Chow line and for the purposes of a broad discussion, including him would compel the inclusion of too many other figures out of fairness for the article to succinctly support, and would provide disproportionate coverage of one usage of the term compared to the Japanese and Okinawan usages. In th interests of balance, this is to be avoided. In any case, there are already articles about American Kenpo and Ed Parker that cover these subjects, so Wikipedia does not lack information about these topics. The Kenpo article discusses a cross-cultural term used by multiple martial arts, not the specific popular usage of one school or category of schools.


 * Basically, this has nothing to do with what I consider to be kenpo, but the requirements of a useful article.


 * Once again, I have removed the "notable schools" heading because it is inherently biased. There is no universal agreement as to which schools are "notable" and no way to reliably acquire this information. And once again, I have removed the badly written and irrelevant Elvis section.


 * I can understand your passion about Elvis, given that he is notable but not as a kenpo practitioner. But Ed Parker is notable as a kenpo practitioner: when I searched google with 'kenpo', Parker is the first entry. Could you expand your meaning of 'for the purposes of a broad discussion'? I tend to think of an encyclopedia as being 'specific discussion' rather than 'broad' discussion. The list of "notable schools" are schools that have a wiki article: it seems reasonable to indicate them. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Parker's Kenpo is part of the American/Hawaiian line of usage. Parker was a student of William Chow and perhaps Adriano Emperado. But if we talked about figures other than Mitose and Chow we'd have to talk about lots and lots of people to be fair, like Emperado, Thomas Young, Charles Lee, Nick Cerio . . . enough people that this section would become too bloated, especially compared to the other sections. Accordingly, you'd have to talk about the lineages of Shorinji Kempo, Nippon Kempo, and the article will be too big and unwieldy. Furthermore, martial artists who think one teacher or another should be there will include more edits, getting back to the ridiculous mess the article used to be. Similarly, a notable styles section would rapidly lead to the same nonsense. The existence of a Wikipedia article or a Google search result /= relevance, especially since minor schools have a tendency to put of spurious wiki articles.


 * Remember: This article is about aterm that has crossed cultures, not a specific martial art.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.139.169 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Information
This description is not really completely accurate. It only describes a sect of systems that term themselves Kenpo. Kenpo/Kempo is nothing more than a generic term for systems that blend Chinese (usually Shaolin) and Japanese arts (usually karate). Also, Kenpo can also mean Fist Law, or China Hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoran (talk • contribs)


 * I agree... also, kempo is the correct method of spelling the martial art. Also, I find as much similarity between kempo and kung fu as kempo and judo (which is to say very little).  Kung fu is alot more flashy while Kempo is very to the point.  The object of kempo is to take down the opponent as quickly as possible.  The way of learning kempo is very systematic and organized but there is no schedule involved. As soon as you learn one response to an attack, you move on to another.  Getting a black belt in kempo is very difficult and depends on the person.  As the author of the article put it, it might take 5 or 6 years, or it might take 2 or 3 years, or it might take 14 or 15 years.  What are the author's sources?  Mine are my kempo instructor, who has been taking the art for 10 years and is a third degree black belt.
 * -zhevotniy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.255.51 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, kenpo is the correct spelling. Kempo is the correct pronunciation.  It is acceptable to use either.


 * I agree with the idea of Kempo being fusion. The system that I started a couple of weeks ago is a combination of karate and jiu-jitsu.
 * I've never studied a martial art before, but so far I've seen that my instructor emphasizes efficiency. Punches, low kicks, and graceful takedowns (the jiu-jitsu is almost scary in how effective it is without involving a lot of strength). Slavakion 21:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There needs to be more information and sections in this article in general. Basic principles and ideas behind the system especially.  Expand, I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.235.202.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Almost a year late, but kempo/kenho is the original shaolin art, from which karate was derived.
 * Have several sources, will update the page with citations at some point.--Dace K 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article sucks! I cannot believe how bad it is right now, don't think anyone will be offended as there's been NO work put into it! User5802 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!
List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprus2k1 (talk • contribs)

Advertising
A man by the name of William Banks (or one of his students), has been promoting himself on martial arts pages recently. I have removed the link to his web site from this page. CoderGnome 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also: Thanks for the cleanup, . Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "William Banks is alderman of the 36th ward in Chicago; he was first elected in 1983." From the William Banks page. I just thought it was interesting. Dan Guan 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * – I am sure that is a different William Banks. I believe the self promoter that CoderGnome so astutely removed runs a martial arts school in Tampa. GuyInCT 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

spelling of name
both kenpo and kempo is correct, but kempo is chinese spelling, while kenpo is Okinawan spelling, perhaps something about this should be added to article?Mdk0642 03:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not correct. Both kenpo and kempo are japanese words. There is no chinese spelling and okinawan spelling. kenpo in chinese is chuan fa/quan fa. --Zoran 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Zoran


 * This is because there is no way to write kempo in Japanese, m must be followed by a vocal. Location names on romaji signs etc. of the same nature are usually rendered with m though. This is like arguing whether to name a page Ninjitsu or Ninjitu, it makes no difference whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.28.227.99 (talk • contribs)

Definition
A dictionary style definition was added at the top, is this needed> If so it needs to be re phrased as it's distinctly pov @ the moment. --Nate 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"re:Definition - That dictionary style definition (first paragraph) is really not needed and does not even apply as the term Kenpo/Kempo as it's too diverse to even have such a definition. This probably came from some tracy kenpo people as I read them trying to define kenpo on one of their forums and behold, now it ends up here. Anyways, I would say delete the first paragraph. Zoran 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)"

I would certainly disagree that kenpo/kempo is too diverse to have a definition. And I wonder why Tracy people defining kenpo makes it wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.44.242 (talk • contribs)


 * Is the definition wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoran (talk • contribs)


 * The spelling in japanese is officially 'kenpo' when translated into romaji, however this can often be confused with 'kempo' due to the way the word is natively pronounced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.218.7 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing in this article that differentiates kempo from other martial arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.44.242 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguity Page
Please view the kempo page. Thanks! jmcw 12:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete too soon
RookZERO, you are correct that this article is a mish-mash. It does need a re-write to balance the general and specific meanings of kenpo. The wiki Martial Arts project has more discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts}. The American Kenpo is where much of the information in this article should land. The Kempo(disambiguation) is what probably should be here. We're working on it - thanks for some patience! jmcw 19:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Its rather odd that information on a specific style of kenpo, not named, which makes several claims at odds with most kenpo history, without citations, and in the general kenpo article rather than its own article is being allowed to stand. Ideally, this stuff should be deleted and if anyone ever comes up with a name and citations for this alledged system, they should create an article for it and put its claims there.(RookZERO 20:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I think the trouble is that we don't have a kenpo expert here with motivation to clean these articles. In the mean time, mark anything with tags so that the innocent will be warned and a future expert will know where the problems are. By the way, Ed Parker and American Kenpo are respectable, even if they don't have enough wiki citations yet. jmcw 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you do. But the stuff I changed got deleted. Go figure.


 * I didn't have any objection to Ed Parker's American Kenpo. That paragraph seems both unclear and redundant with the preceeding one, however.(RookZERO 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Large changes; Durbin, Bodhidharma et ea.
All the changes seem to be based on a source, from William Durbin and a school website. Considering the controversial nature of the topic, I am unsure it this gives a neutral perspective on things. They also seem to go into some detail of Bodhidharma and embrace the view he is the primary source of Asian martial arts, which is its self disputed. Regardless of the accuracy of the Bodhidharma information the level of detail given is excessive and it removes material more pertinent to the immediate topic. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Re-reading the diffs it seems that the edits focus on a specific style of kenpo rather than the range covered in the original version, please read some of the guidelines from the martial arts project specifically from the notability section:
 * "Make the content of articles appropriate for the breadth of the article. That is, in an article about a national organization the school which is its headquarters or flagship might be appropriate to discuss in some detail, but certainly not every school that belongs to the organization. Articles on broad types of martial arts should usually not focus on a single organisation or school, but attempt to present a universal perspective on the art and include sections on these organisations with links if appropriate.

Thanks --Nate1481(t/c) 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove the List of Schools
I think that the list of schools would be redundant if each article were marked with the category Kenpo. I will mark all the articles in the current list and then remove the list entirely. Any opinions? jmcw (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All articles are now marked category kenpo. jmcw (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The list as it currently stands should not be in the article. Another way to handle it is to create a new template (Template:Kenpō) that contains this list (similar to Template:Karate schools).  Then, the template could be used on each of the school's articles.  --Scott Alter 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that "kenpo" refers to martial arts that sometimes have nothing in common, it might be a good idea to discontinue kenpo as a "category" alltogether. After all, some kempo styles are entirely jujitsu, others entirely kung fu, others entirely karate, and still others a mix of all three. The term kenpo is essentially meaningless. I say delete both the article and the category and forget about a template. As for styles called kenpo or kempo on the karate template, I've tried to limit them to ones that specifically mention karate in the article. Rossen4 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Rossen4

Parenthood
under "Karate": Karate (空手, Karate?) (listen (help·info)) or karate-do (空手道, karate-do?) is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands from indigenous fighting methods[1][2] and Chinese kenpō.[1][2]

How does the parenthood of Kenpo include Karate if it was part of karate's development? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.48.165 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Kenpo' does not uniquely identify a style or school. For example: 'Chinese kenpō' or 'Tang Hand' pre-dates karate 'Empty Hand'; 'American kempo' post-dates karate. The word kenpō or kempo by itself is rather meaningless. jmcw (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How is kenpo a style?
Kenpo is the Japanese word for Quanfa. It is used in Japan much like Kung Fu is used in America to refer to all Chinese martial arts. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember: This article is about aterm that has crossed cultures, not a specific martial art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.139.169 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC) re-listed by jmcw (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nipponkempo.gr.jp/rekishi/rekishi.html

The style of kempo (nippon kempo) is described. 220.106.178.205 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparisson with Karate
How would Kempo fit into the table Comparison of karate styles? Does it have Katas? Is it hard or soft?--92.230.133.117 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See the above discussion of style. Because kenpo is not a style of karate, it does not fit well into a comparison of karate styles. Also, Tai Chi and UFC would not fit well into a comparison of karate styles. Perhaps we need an article on Comparison of Martial Arts. jmcw (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it does not contain nerve striking, it is not kenpo. (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kempo / Kenpo
Whoever initially has the page as it stands now, I Thank You. Keep it the way it stands as of now and ignore all of people who "think" they kniow what Kenpo / Kempo is. Kenpo / Kempo is a blend of Japanese and Chinese martial arts, refined a bit in Hawaii. 'That's it' And your your Wikipedia page basically says just that. True and to the point. I've been practicing Kempo / Kenpo for over 20 years.. and it very awesome to see someone whos got the history correct. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.100.54 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I added some information regarding the definition of kenpo as written by Mitose in his books. It was removed and I was asked to post that in the Mitose article. I am wondering how a definition given by the man who brought this art to the west is not relevant here. It was a quoted, referenced addition. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.18.208 (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several martial arts that use the word kenpo. Mitose has defined the meaning for only one of these groups - his definition does not necessarily apply to the other groups. His definition belongs in his article. jmcw (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision
This page is very contrary to WP:DAB, and needs cleanup. Most of the entries here do not belong. A disambiguation page should be a list only of articles with a similar title as the disambiguation term. Bradford44 18:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a troublesome area, starting with disagreement about the spelling. From WP:DAB: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" In this context, I find some value to the current page. Each entry does use 'kenpo' or 'kempo' in their title. jmcw (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but the MOS:DAB specifically directs us not to list articles that simply use the term in their name. In my opinion, anyone who types in "Kempo" should be taken to Kenpō, where they can learn all there is to know about the history of the term and its spelling variations. That is also the appropriate place to discuss and list any notable schools whose art (and/or name) is derived from kenpō. Only if there was more than one article about kenpō itself would a disambiguation page be proper.  What we have here, however, is one article about kenpō, and a bunch more about schools of martial arts that practice variations of kenpō. Bradford44 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the above content (under the "Revision" section heading) from the Talk:Kempo page, prior to requesting for that page to be deleted, since the Kempo article just links to this article (Kenpō). Janggeom (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me! jmcw (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In Japanese martial arts, kenpō (拳法) is used to designate Chinese martial arts. This is false information.
http://www.nipponkempo.gr.jp/rekishi/rekishi.html

At the official site of "nippon kenpo", there is no opinion that it is a Chinese martial art.

Japanese people made "nippon kenpo". Is nippon kenpo a Chinese martial art? 220.106.178.205 (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmcw37 "Jmcw37" lists untrustworthy information. 60.39.39.111 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

KenAikiJujitsuRyu
This reads like advertising for a style, is unencyclopedic, biased and not supported by any sources. Either every damn kenpo style in the world should be added to this list, or this should be deleted.

85.164.92.35 (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)