Talk:Krav Maga

Proposed merge with Operational krav maga (OKM)
The one is a subset of the other. There is insufficient material for two articles, and unlikely to be on the future. Fiddle  Faddle  13:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support --Λeternus (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization
I wonder why it is "Krav Maga" (which seems like a person's name) and not "krav maga"? --Spiros71 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources in the article refer to it as "Krav Maga". --Λeternus (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But on what basis is it a proper noun? I think normal style standards supersede improper typography. Holy (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that it has always been written in title case as Krav Maga is the title of the system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.72.119 (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "It has always been done this way" is a valid excuse for nothing. It's a common noun and should be in lower case. Kortoso (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See karate for instance. Kortoso (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always assumed it is capitalized due to national origin of the word (IE due to the conventions of capitalization in Hebrew), using the multiple sources that consistently capitalize it it seems well sourced this is the convention for spelling Krav Maga, regardless it that convention is understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But there are no capitalization conventions in Hebrew, because there are no case distinctions in its alphabet. 89.64.70.7 (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the grammatical considerations. I tried searching for articles that explain why Krav Maga is capitalized, but could not find any explanation. That being said the articles listed in the bibliography and all the articles I researched on the etymology of Krav Maga pretty consistently have it capitalized. Given the choice of application of general rules of grammar vs many sources that consistently capitalize the word I think the convention used by the plethora of sources has to be followed. Otherwise, the application of grammar rules used between languages, scripts, and the etymology borders on editorializing. Bverji (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section
The Criticism section is extremely innapropriate and not at all to Wikipedia standards. It is cited incorrectly and is little above the tirade of an MMA fan who thinks krav maga is "lame". I don't have the knowledge of the subject to fix.  Mailman9  (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is poorly written and the source only mentions Krav Maga in passing (qualifying as an example of coatracking -- it's more in praise of MMA than it is a criticism of Krav Maga). It's also not clear that the source is a reliable source. I'm sure there are plenty of good quality criticisms of Krav Maga that are well-written and properly sourced and they should be included here but this is not an example of one. SQGibbon (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is the authoritative Italian Grappling and MMA Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.13.16.218 (talk • contribs) 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't addressed the other problems. SQGibbon (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.figmma.it/mixed-martial-arts/che-cosa-sono-le-mma.html MMA (born in brazil, and originally called Vale Tudo, a sport were fighter from different stiles fight each other to see which martial arts or combat sports was the most efficient) have exposed the martial arts-scam, specifically all the martial arts that make people belive they can learn to defend them self without ever compete. The first MMA competitions (fought bare nuckles and with less restrictive rules than today) demonstrate that all the martial arts that do not include sports competition (such as krav maga) are totally ineffective in a real fight situation, based on the principle that: "You cannot learn how to fight without fighting". As a matter fact there was a total domination of the martial arts and combat sports that involve sports competition (Lotta, Grappling, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, luta livre brasiliana, sambo, judo, sanda, muay thai, kick boxing, boxe, karate kumite, ecc...) compared to the martial arts that don't do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.115.168 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The source is the authoritative Italian Grappling and MMA Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.13.16.218 (talk • contribs) 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As if krav maga is totally ineffective in a real fight situation it remains doubtfully, why so many special forces (German KSK, GSG9, SWAT, and others as stated in the wikipedia article) are learning it. (source: http://www.koeln-krav-maga.de/selbstverteidigung-ist-kein-kampfsport.php). And why MMA fighters have problems against US marines (allthough they use thier own hand to hand technique). video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyllQuQuHZE

In defense of Krav Maga as a fughting system:-

An MMA fighter saying that Krav Maga is ineffective is akin to a 50 cal. machine-gun opperator saying an UZI is ineffective. Of course a well drilled, extrememly well trained MMA Fighter would happily take on a hobby Krav Maga student in the same was as my Krav Maga instructor (level E3 - 3rd dan) would happily destroy a hobby MMA Fighter. How would a hobby MMA fighter fare against multiple attackers, knife attacks, baseball bat attacks or being held at gun-point? It's very much a case horses for courses. I'm sure we can all agree that a cucumber makes a pretty sucky carrot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.72.119 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Short answer to 'why are so many special forces using it'. It's simple, they aren't. At best they've trialed it through seminars or short demos but outside of Israel no one has actually adopted it as an 'official system', its pure myth that special forces or law enforcement communities are taught it. Krav Maga fanboys have been promoting that rubbish for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.65.7 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this section has been deleted. I think that to avoid neutrality and undue weighting issues we should add a reliably sourced section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Not to have a criticism section at all results in a biased article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.65 (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There used to be a criticism section but it was removed because it became a target of vandalism, the criticisms weren't well sourced, It wasn't substantial enough to devote an entire section to it, and ended up being more aimed at promotion of other martial forms than legitimate criticism. Ultimately, it was determined that the point of the article page is to explain what Krav Maga is rather than what it is not. Whatever Krav Maga may not be can be assumed by the absence of information stating otherwise in the article. Any criticism's can be sourced to counter information provided on in the article and then utilized through the editing process. Criticisms that editors have that don't run counter to information in the article isn't necessary because the article isn't claiming anything contrary and thus a criticism page is redundant, becomes an open section for anything that isn't part of Krav Maga, and only serves to provide an area for vandals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 08:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Link/redirect
To whomever it may concern: I got linked to this article via Deleted articles with freaky titles where the compiler commented that Jew-jitzu should really be a redirect to here. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Krav Maga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140408221447/http://www.wingatekravmaga.com/krav-maga-practical-instructors-course-may-2014/ to http://www.wingatekravmaga.com/krav-maga-practical-instructors-course-may-2014/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131224144003/http://kmwtrainingcenters.com/belt-tests/levels-belt-system/ to http://kmwtrainingcenters.com/belt-tests/levels-belt-system/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Krav Maga. 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/20130317102746/http://krav-maga.com/training/founder to http://krav-maga.com/training/founder
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925130107/http://kami.org.il/page.aspx?pageid=93 to http://www.kami.org.il/page.aspx?pageid=93
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305005709/http://krav-maga.com/training-programs/grading-system to http://krav-maga.com/training-programs/grading-system

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) 19:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Standard for changing the parenthood of Krav Maga
There has been some conflict over what martial arts the parentage of Krav Maga should consist of. My proposal for what should be considered the base line for confirming the validity of information within this section is:

1. Obviously, there should be a source

2. Martial artists use a system of validity called a linage. That means a source should include who incorporated another martial art into the system and where did that person study the martial art.

3. there are many different variations of Krav Maga spread across many different Federations of Krav Maga. As the Israel Defense Force is the originating organisation of Krav Maga it should be considered the standard of traditional Krav Maga.

4. The history section should be change to reflect any changes in the parenthood martial arts.

If a change you make to the parenthood martial arts is reverted and you believe that you have met this standard or you disagree with this standard please use the talk page to discus  any disagreements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.157.149 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed.
 * Whatever changes you make, please provide attribution in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Kortoso (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.209.111 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Ideally, but many of the sources are heavily NPOV, so caution advised. Some things seem universally agreed upon, like Imi brawling in Bratislava, and KM development within IDF. 2)  Lineage is not straightforward, various KM practitioners have practiced a variety of other MAs, and incorporated bits and pieces.  Make sure contributions are significant and substantial. 3) I'm happy with IDF KM being 'traditional', and the various civilian branches being 'civilian'.  I think this is nicely segregated with the 'civilian' section.   Ketil (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Wiki uses a system based upon sources. If it is universally agreed upon we can't unilaterally determine what is "untrue." the purpose of this rule is that an article actually explain where, when, how rather than just claim a relation with KM. Please refer to the rules on sourcing and reverting. 2) This is the point of asserting that IDF is traditional Krav Maga and the purpose of using linage. It is a system to identify the core parental martial components without every person claiming that BLANK is part of KM because some fringe school included a single move that probably also exists in some form in countless other martial arts. Bverji (talk


 * Agreed, I looked back at some edits and can see why this was suggested. The point that Ketil makes speaks to why this standard is needed rather then why it isn't needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onalaska46 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

High kick defense against knife image (Is it representative of Krav?)
I'm going to be shaking my head about this all day...I've been training with Alliance Krav Maga for 4 years now, and am with an affiliate in MD. I don't want to make this about school v. school, but that picture is just NOT representative of Krav. There are very few high kicks toward knives. Krav is all about simple techniques that don't require a lot of practice to get to 90%, and can be used under stress. It's also pretty common-sense-based. It's probably obvious, but NEVER kick toward a knife. *shaking head* I'm not saying that there's some school where this is in their system. I do believe that it's not a smart technique to teach and definitely a dumb technique to use if someone ever attacks you with a knife. But from a pure representation perspective it's just not representative. I'm sure there are better "flashy" images that could be used. If I find one I'll recommend it.

I also worry that it will make people not want to do Krav. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but here's the context. I forwarded this page to some colleagues, and had to write the whole disclaimer above.

What do others think? That's an excellent high kick, of course :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjans (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. I came to the talk page just because of that image. Not only is it not representative of anything Krav Maga, but it is dangerous. Catch that knife on your leg and risk taking out an artery or not being able to run away. Kicks vs knives are only for gaining distance and never against the knife. Not to mention that it is a nearly impossible defense to pull off fast enough, against a very unlikely form of attack. It's a big mess of wrongness.
 * The video above it of someone facing multiple attackers sequentially is also pretty poor representation. It does not reflect any correct defenses based on Complete Krav Maga, which seems to be considered as close to an 'authoritative' text as we can get right now.
 * I'm testing for my 3rd degree this winter with a KMA affiliated school and have taken classes/seminars led by Whitman as well as at multiple schools in the US and Europe. I recognize that the founding principles include taking effective techniques from other arts and constant improvement of the curriculum to reflect the current 'best'. However, it seems that many schools are taking this as license to assemble whatever collection of techniques they like best and call their personal mash-up 'krav maga' when it no longer reflects the foundations for why actual Krav Maga selected its defenses.
 * I think this whole issue ties back to the other talk section on list of organizations, because the differences in defenses across organizations is a thing too. Maybe some organizations prioritize different techniques because their foundational principles differ. Srees304 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct, this image is not representative of Krav Maga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.179.5.214 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The high kick defense against knife is not appropriate for the following reasons:

·Krav Maga as a system that "could be learned quickly and would be effective regardless of age, gender, athletic attributes, or body type," and "Krav Maga does not require years of training to achieve self-defense proficiency" - (Krav Maga for Beginners, Darren Levine, John Whiteman, Ryan Hoover, 2009, EISBN 978-1-569-75537-2). A high kick defense against knife requires years of training to mastery and goes against these principles.

-In Complete Krav Maga (Darren Levine and John Whitman, ISBN 978-1-61243-577-0, 2006) the authors state "Techniques should be movements based on natural instincts", "Techniques must be accessible to the average person, not just athletes", "Krav Maga is heavy on the 'martial' and not much into the 'art'." A high kick like this is not based on natural instincts, not accessible to the average person, and falls on the more artist side of the spectrum.

-The knife defense against downward stab (ice pick stab) as illustrated in Complete Krav Maga uses a "360 Defense to attack the knife hand". This is illustrated in the black and white photo in Israel and not the high kick photo. The high kick defense is not illustrated anywhere in this book.

-This is not limited to Krav Maga World Wide. John Whitman is now the head of Krav Maga Alliance and there is more evidence below.

-The overwhelming majority of Google results for the search "krav maga defense against overhand knife" (5/26/18, USA, Incognito) shows the 360 overhand knife defense. This is true for both images and videos.

-Krav Maga World Wide's level 4 curriculum website at https://kravmagatraining.com/services/level-4/ for kick defense against knife states "The general rule for kick defenses against the knife is that when the knife is low, kick high; when the knife is high, kick low." The picture of a high kick against a high knife attack is counter to this principle.

-The Krav Maga World Wide level 5 website shows the 360 defense against knife, not a high kick defense against knife. https://kravmagatraining.com/services/level-5/

-The blog of Urban Tactical Krav Maga also disparages high kicks https://utkmblog.com/2017/02/16/the-application-of-kicks-in-krav-maga/. It cites the same principles of being accessible to the average person and based on natural instincts "Sure, if you train for years it is possible to throw accurate and well-balanced high kicks, but the reality is that you take a huge risk again.", "Unfortunately, the reality is that high kicks take a long time to train and are not realistic for everyone."

-The Amazon series Krav Maga: High Kicks for Reality Based Self Defense (Part Two: Knowing How and When to Use Them) (https://www.amazon.com/Krav-Maga-Reality-Defense-Knowing/dp/B01H2JQ3WA) shows a front push kick defense against a high knife.

The evidence shows that the 360 defense against knife as illustrated in the black and white Israeli picture most closely matches the principles of Krav Maga and is more prominently taught. The 360 defense is taught at the beginner levels of all Krav Maga schools. A high roundhouse defense against an overhead knife attack may be a high-level technique at some schools, and may be effective, but it is not appropriate for the Infobox picture and if included in this Wikipedia page, should be displayed further below.

The infobox must present "Materially relevant to the subject." which is most appropriate for the 360 defense. A high kick against a high knife illustrates a "Trivial detail" of Krav Maga and it is not appropriate for the infobox.


 * (KMG practitioner here) Totally agree with all of this. Didn't delete the image, but changed the image text.  Feel free to delete or replace the image for all I care. Ketil (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Serial comma
I just semi-protected the page to stop an edit war about a serial comma. The relevant guideline is MOS:SERIAL. Both having the comma and not having the comma is grammatically correct in this context. If there are specific reasons to have (or not have) the serial comma in this specific instance, please provide them here. Generally articles should not be changed regarding such issues unless there's a good reason - personal preference is not a good reason. Huon (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

List of organizations
I think a list of current federations/organizations is important to include, as it was, the article (falsely) implied that IKMF was the only game in town, and ignores recent history that affects the development of KM. Some anonymous user reverted this, calling it "advertising". I undid the reversion. If you have a beef with this, discuss it here before vandalizing my contributions, please. Ketil (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have to link outside of wikipedia, then the argument for Advertising is strong. They should either be sourced to a secondary source or strong enough to stand as their own WP article.  As it stands, I think the linked ones are inappropriate to remain as linkedSlywriter (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, OK. There is only one org with a WP page - which is a stub, and from what I can determine, not the most notable of them. I'm not familiar enough with all orgs to say which ones are notable, but included claimed numbers of members and the like.  I think it is much more useful to the casual reader to include a list for now, but I'm fine with linking to stub WP articles or removing the links. Ketil (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been a history of this in the past on this page. What happens is that the list becomes exhaustive and the entire page becomes overwhelmed with a list of federations as everyone wants to be included. What has been determined in the past is that unless a federation has a direct historical relevance that it isn't included and then only within that reference (rather than a specific note of being a KM federation). I would ask what does including a list of federations add to defining what Krav Maga is? it seems to serve no purpose other than to promote those federations. I disagree that the article excluded the existence of other federations, and the revert did leave the reference that there were other federations, it just deleted the list of federations. I am going to remove the edit until/unless there is a consensus to include ia list of federations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree. Historical should not be the only reason. We are a living encyclopedia after all.
 * If an organization has some notability beyond a claim on their website or Krav Maga in their name then there is likely a reason to include them. Particularly if they are covered by reliable secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean historical as in an informative sense (past to current). Someone could decide to list every practitioner of Krav Maga, but is that really indicative in defining Krav Maga? Anything can have a secondary source now days (or be created), and as I stated this had already been done and resulted in junking up the page and promotion. Don't you agree that if it is notable then there should be something about it that actually makes note of defining the topic? If I go to the encyclopedia and look up CAR I don't find an endless list of every car ever made, that would be asinine. You find an explanation of how cars have advanced and it mentions the cars that are relevant to the advancement throughout history. Just because you can find something that has a secondary source doesn't make it relevant to advancing the Article, the source should actually include some point other than it's mere existence. Otherwise I don't see how it is anything other than promotional as it does nothing to advance the article. If the only criteria is sourcing and a mention of Krav Maga, without a consideration of relevance,this will result in a list of hundreds of organizations, schools, practitioners. The more appropriate option is that if federation has their own Wiki pages to include them in the relevant topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable Sources has meaning here. Not press releases. Not a brief mention in the local paper. I meant that they become notable enough that articles are written about their program or it becomes relevant because one of the teachers/students does something significant in the field. Certainly not a criteria that would lead to hundreds. Plus I hate lists, prose is much more encyclopedic. So if can't write a paragraph or two, it likely shouldn't exist imho
 * And it is possible, though unlikely, a federation or individual does something to merit inclusion without necessarily justifying a full article of their own.
 * Slywriter (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is another blog entry that appears to do a good job of charting the history of KM: https://www.urbanfitandfearless.com/2018/04/krav-maga-organisations.html and a NYT article (paywalled, unfortunately) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/world/middleeast/israel-krav-maga.html Ketil (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact is that after various schisms, there are now multiple organizations for KM pracitioners. Not mentioning the schizms or the organizations tells a very misleading story, and to use the same analogy, it would be like having the WP page for 'Car' claim that cars are made by Henry Ford and painted black.  I also added what information I could find about the organizations as a filter for notability, but there aren't many Reliable Sources, mostly self-sourced claims.  I made this clear in the wording as well. As always, when I find a WP page lacking, I try to edit it to remedy its shortcomings. If you don't want people to edit your pages, maybe you should ask to have them protected. Or better, put them somewhere else than on WP. Ketil (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO It sounds like what you should be doing is adding to the section, or adding a section on the schisms. I agree I don't see how a list of organizations explains what you are now trying to justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onalaska46 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding to which section? Adding what? In case you missed it, I /was/ trying to add information, but my edits get deleted.  I would be happy for you to edit the addition into a better form, so that we could, you know, collaborate to make the page better.  But no.  The current section on civilian KM now begins and ends with Lichtenfeld in the seventies, and then goes on to talk about grading systems (without relating them to developments in the branch-offs which Must Not Be Named, of course).  This is so misleading as to be false, but whatever. Ketil (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with any particular organization being mentioned, or that there are other organizations, but they should have some form of relevance. If you can't include relevant pros to support them being mentioned then I would suggest making a page specifically about Krav Maga federations and the linage of those federations; then you could link that in the SEE ALSO section. To me though including a list of individual federations actually is fancruft. Now, what you mention about the schisms would seem actually relevant, however, none of the changes you made actually did anything to further that narrative.
 * Fancruft? You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means. Ketil (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think particular federations and/or organizations are relevant to understanding Krav Maga without any other context. It has no meaning for anyone except people who already know what those federations are. Otherwise they are just a list of names. Bverji
 * (Who is this? Can you please sign your comments?)  Well, obviously except the selected organizations and people that are already mentioned, /those/ are clearly okay to mention. The French Aikido Federation, and whatnot, much more relevant for krav maga and not at all advertisingly than the people organizing thousands of people worldwide. Ketil (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The mentioned federations in the Article aren't being mentioned because they are federations, but are done so because they are relevant to the information being given. As been said through out this discussion if there is something noteworthy to address about a federation that is completely valid, but if you are just listing federations with no context then that is Fancruft. Your response to Onalaska46 was "so misleading as to be false" the context you had provided was basically that as krav maga spread there were more federations, here is a list of some of those federations. The revert of your edit left the underlying value of your edit, which was that as krav maga spread there were (and still existed) several Federations of krav maga. The only thing that was deleted was the list of federations, which isn't required to understand that there are more than one federation. The inclusion of the IKMF was not deleted, for example, because it was an explanation (note worthy) of how the need for an international organization was addressed. I personally thought this was a good addition and if you wanted to go back and put that edit back in, without the list of federations (as the revert of your edit had), I personally support that. Likewise, the mention of the Aikido federation has nothing to do with it being a federation, which is why there isn't a list of aikido federations, but it is relevant to the information of where Aivikzar studied aikido before incorporating aspects into krav maga. It isn't that the aikido federation is more/as important than these other krav maga federations, just actually relevant to what the article is attempting to communicate. Bverji

History before Imi Lichtenfeld
The eye-opening article by Guy Mor The Case for the Recognition of Krav-Maga as Part of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Israel describes the roots of Krav Maga also before Imi Lichenfeld. That should be added to the History section. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332558997_The_Case_for_the_Recognition_of_Krav-Maga_as_Part_of_the_Intangible_Cultural_Heritage_of_Israel) Takadimitakida (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)