Talk:Martial arts/Archive 3

Good article
Thought is was about time we get this to GA status and figured the best place to start was this:

Auto review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Done

 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] looks good --Nate1481(t/c) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) Nope--Nate1481(t/c) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?] Seem ok--Nate1481(t/c) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?] Bradford juwt did it --Nate1481(t/c) 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To do:

 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”


 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]


 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * it has been
 * is considered
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Nate1481(t/c) 14:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GA ready?
OK anything that needs doing before this goes in for a proper peer-review & GA-nom? --Nate1481(t/c) 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly citations - it'll never make it through GA while there are so many unreferenced or sparsely referenced sections. Bradford44 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh. Thought it was likely to be that, I have one or to books that I may be able to use to fill in some gaps, but edit from work @ moment so sitting here with an MA book open flicking pages would be a bit obvious... We really should try & get it to GA @ least as it's thw project flagship. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion as a martial artist - there are a lot of missing concepts here, and a lot of stuff looks and sounds anecdotal. Unfortunately I think I started in the wrong place because my edits were rejected. Really I was just looking for reading material, but I figured I could help. I think the section between "weaponry" and "history" needs to be rewritten. Maybe there could be a section labelled "training" and one called "the martial-arts-healing-arts connection". Many martial artists I know who attain high levels also learn some sort of healing art along the way, for various reasons. Unfortunately for me writing seems easy, and providing 3rd party references is a lot more work. Scott.toderash 03:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This will never make it thorough without at least one citation per section and that is weak. I unfortuantely don't have the time to hwip out reference books and do that work right now.  Is someone up to it? Alex Jackl (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Auto review 2
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Regards, Nate1481 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), honour (B) (American: honor), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Martial Arts 1.0 or Martial Arts 2.0 discussion
First post on Wikipedia so excuse mistakes.

Just attended a seminar on development of Web 2.0 use in schools (UK). Teacher arrived with group of year 6 students (age 10/ 11) who answered questions on colaborative learning and the flexibility of Web 2.0.

Just came to me that Martial Arts are undergoing a major revision in a similar vein. In fact close comparisons can be drawn so I wonder if an article of the differences would be seen as development or criticism of established teaching patterns?

Martial Arts 1.0 (MA 1.0) Grandmasters Kata Pre-arranged World wide syllabus (rather than sharing developments) Non resisting opponents Closed Networks Focus on grade achievement List of skills to learn

Martial Arts 2.0 (MA 2.0) Resisting opponents Drills Coaches Colaboration Open Networks Individual skill development

All clubs / associations show elements of both MA 1.0 and MA 2.0 but prospective students could then find the form of training they preferred.

Just an idea. Merseytripod 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Merseytripod


 * it's an interesting idea, sure, but it would count as original research, so not appropriate to wikipedia. you might find this article interesting, though: Kata and Etudes: Pattern Drills in the History of Teaching Swordsmanship. Whateley23 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my second post on WP, so I'm not much more experienced here. However, your observations sound like a theory, not encyclopedic reference. Personally, I don't agree with your assessment of current training methods vs. methods popular in the past 40 years. I don't think you're examining methods used prior to that, but all of this is off topic for an article, I think. I wonder if this edit will get deleted too. Hmm, this is just an experiment for me really. Scott.toderash 02:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, with most styles starting to delve into other martial arts it occured to me that maybe we are seeing a return to earlier material that was "forgotten" or "hidden" in the past to reduce student injuries? I have noticed that military combat training is evolving along similar line to MA 1.0 & MA 2.0. I will go back to the drawing board.

Merseytripod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

It is important to note that it was the norm until the 20th century for martial artists to regularly test themselves against others to improve technique and determine superiority of individual skill. The outlawing of dueling in the west and the fall of a large part of asia (particularly China, Japan and Korea, where many martial arts originate) into a series of wars that continued for the better part of a century moved martial arts away from this model. Since the return to the use of resistive drills is not, in fact, a new innovation I don't see any need to differentiate it from earlier martial arts. Especially not those who have histories that can be verifiably traced to before 1900. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Point Shooting
I re-added point shooting to the On The Modern Battlefield. Martial arts by definition is the refined utilization of martial (military) means. I cite "The Secrets of the Samurai" (ISBN 978-0785810735) where the author mentions several Japanese schools taught tactics in addition to techniques. Of course this is too ambiguous and this article is more restrictive, sticking mainly to the modern sport notion referring to the use of body and hand-held weapons. In any case, guns remain completely relevant as they are both martial in nature and hand-held.

Lucas.yamanishi 07:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

External link
I would like to add this external link AKBAN-wiki, it is the only martial art encyclopedia with actual documentation in video of Judo, Muai Tai, Capoeira, Iaido, Ninjutsu/Budo Taijutsu And Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It is free, and open to all to edit and share. As I noticed, some editors agree that it should stay, while others just delete the link without bothering to explore. Gingihan

=
==================== I was thinking much the same, of adding a link to as they're preparing an index of martial arts that could come in handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downix (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...
Links being spammed, please read WP:External links before adding any. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-added the Akban wiki link
Until such time that Wikipedia fully adopts Kaltura this is the only free community project that has any academic intentions.

Removing useless info
It's good that some of the tedious parts of this article have been fixed but I don't see why the paragraph about the Chinese and Indian influence on Asian martial arts was removed. For anyone who doubts this fact I can assure you that most Asian styles have been influenced to a certain degree by one or both countries. The few styles that have no influence from either one are obscure and practiced mostly by certain tribes. For those who think this isn't worth mentioning, it's certainly more noteworthy than giving the word for teacher or master in every Asian language. Speaking of weeding out the articles, I thought I'd point out that every weapon/ martial arts-related article has a list of fictional users. This may have been a way of giving people a place to see the style or weapon in use even if the depiction isn't accurate. However, they list down every comic, video game, movie and TV show where any one-shot character may have used a certain art or implement mentioned in the respective article. These lists do not improve the articles and just waste space. Unfortunately they are too popular and any attempt to remove them is resisted. In theory it's not hard to imagine entire articles being made up of these lists, especially for the more well known styles which are frequently portrayed. I would suggest that these are done away with since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a fan site. Finally, I think that this article should be organized by region in either alphabetical or chronological order. Both of these would require some adjustments to the article but I don't see any basis for the current order. Morinae 09:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Core Contest‎
This article is on the list for the 'Core Contest' the main thing that needs work is sourcing as while large amounts are good info the sourcing is terribly bad, to remove all the unsourced would reduce the article to almost nothing of use please help! --Nate1481(t/c) 11:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. see also the section above

Part of the problem with sourcing is that martial artists, as a group, often aren't the best writers of books and few academics are studying the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-added the Akban wiki link== ==

Until such time that Wikipedia fully adopts Kaltura this is the only free community project that has any academic intentions.Gingihan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There's Asia and East Asia
Great pains have been taken by a certain user to make sure that any mention of Asian martial arts should be separated into East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, etc because nirvana forbid taekwondo should ever be seen together with something like bando. Not only that but East Asia always gets priority while other sub-regions are either sidelined or discarded so that "someone else" can write about them later. Since I haven't heard the reason for the alterations yet I haven't reverted or changed any of these articles but I plan on doing so and I might as well say why. First of all, this article is a general introduction to martial arts by continent. Any further division is too specific. Similarly, the list of martial arts is just a list and it would have been sufficient to sort them according to country and perhaps continent. Listing the sub-regions is absolutely unnecessary because now if a person wanted to look for a particular style or country they first have to look up its continent and then what area the nation is located in. This is not making things any easier and is certainly not improving the articles. The only article where such classifications make sense is in the one on Asian martial arts since it focuses specifically on styles from Asia. Aside from that, I would also say that differentiating between Asia and the Middle East is justified because the latter is located in between three continents and is therefore not properly part of the former. Let's remember that none of the other continents are divided in the martial arts articles. You don't see Northern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean under the section on Europe. You don't see Africa split up into North, South, East, West and Central because we shouldn't need to. Even North and South America are put into one category. This is only ever done with Asia both on and offline. The reason is obvious but I won't get too mean spirited until I hear the other side of this story. Morinae (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New martial art
has anyone ever heard of Karate tech? Im in germany right now and I just found out about this, it is a new martial art that was started here in germany, I am currently taking lessons from the founder of this. It is a combination of 8 different martial arts including jujitsu, taekwondo,karate,sumo, and kickboxing. It is not worldwide yet, but there is a couple schools in the states as well as in Germany. &lt;font color=&quot;red&quot;&gt;Vandal&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;black&quot;&gt;fighter101&lt;/font&gt; (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * New martial arts are a dime a dozen. Every time some ex-soldier or some karate instructor with a questionable lineage wants to set up a school it's a new martial art or a new "system" or what have you.  Until such time as a martial art actually accomplishes something noteworthy it shouldn't be included. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Akban Link: Keep or Remove
There appears to be an edit war brewing with regards to this link. Why don't we poll the waters and see whether people support or oppose keeping this link in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the other links but previous consensus was that some media links were relevent, this article regularly gets spam links to MA forums and specific martial arts sites, i don't mind one way or other with the remaining two. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read this article and the 3rd external link seems to be spam, so I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.128.154 (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in Bodidharma legend
I removed the sentences regarding the Bodidharma legends since it is historically incorrect, and added more accurate info based on the Zen-Chan and Bodidharma wiki articles. Intranetusa (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalarippayattu
A lot of information was added on Kalarippayattu, I have removed some links and commented it out as the level of detail is not appropriate for the an article with this broad a scope, however there was a lack of info on Indian arts and a summary could be included. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I do not get the "POV" part. Which part of my edit did you find POV? Secondly, even if you did find some material POV or focusing too much on one topic, blatant removal of most information on Indian martial arts was not justified. --Emperor Genius (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And seriously, your true intentions are quite obvious here for claiming information on Indian martial arts to be a promo piece despite the fact it was backed by reputable sources, unlike rest of the article. You didn't find glorification of Chinese martial arts on how it influenced Western culture to be a "promo piece"? I smell bias here. --Emperor Genius (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note I did not just remove the whole lot as an advert, I commented out the text and asked for a discussion leaving in the image with a caption modified from "one of the most famous forms of Indian martial arts" which is a POV statement without a source. The my summary refering to a "promo piece" was how I felt it was written, linked to talk of a revival is sounded like someone recruting even if that was not the intent.
 * Also please do not make accusations to my motives, without good cause, especially when I commented here "however there was a lack of info on Indian arts and a summary could be included" which is the exact opposite of what you have just implied. I felt that the addition should not only mention one art, as if that was the sum total of Indian arts, which is a broad topic and should be given to giving appropriate coverage. Here that is a summery and the link to History of martial arts that provides more depth on history and to Indian martial arts where details of the arts are given. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Kalarippayattu is one of the most famous and well-known forms of Indian martial arts . Had I wrote that kalarippayattu is the most famous form of Indian martial arts, you could have rightfully called it a POV. However, on second thoughts, the sentence was unnecessary. Regarding focus being too much kalarippayattu, I went exactly by the source. Lastly, I did go a bit too far with the accusation. So apologies. --Emperor Genius (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the apology, I may well have been too abduct in, my edit summary. I think I'm to used to seeing the created last week (but 1000s of year sold really!) arts added as spam. The Modern history of East Asian martial arts needs something on Indian arts and some of the greater detail might fit better in there. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I see you fixed the refs before I could find where I'd seen "Zarrilli" mentioned before. Nate1481

Expand the article and Copyright problems
Greetings

I'm new to wiki, and need to ask some questions.

First of all, I've done a test to see how fast wiki responds to external links being added to the article, and I must say well done! Took 5 minutes to remove it.

Second, the article needs to expand. A friend send me a link to a new website, being written by a Dr. in Literature and martial artist specialist. It's still in the development stages but the main article about martial arts is much better than wiki's. I would like to use some of that article to add to Wikipedia's article about martial arts, but the article seems to be copyrighted.

I will definitely rewrite it, but how should I proceed? And how should I proceed with the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.67.240 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea about whether the content you wish added is appropriate, but you're right WP can not accept verbatim copies of copyrighted material. What you can do is use reliable sources as reference for information you wish to add. In most cased this means rewriting/retelling info from the source and using tags to create a citations for the source. Click the links for more information, and WP:CITEWIKI might also be relevant. Also, performing "experiments" such as the one you describe is disruptive and will get you banned should you continue. Cheers, -- aktsu (t / c) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pencak silat
Nowhere in the article is Pencak silat mentioned. Also mention it in the martial arts in asia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.188.73 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC) There is an article on it, but their are literaly hundreds of martial arts an to mention htem all would make the article unreadable. You may be looking for the List of martial arts --Nate1481 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of martial arts styles article
Finally, I like to request a article called Comparison of martial arts styles to let people choose the style which is best for them (eg more static styles as boxing, styles simple styles suited best for self defense (eg krav maga, styles focusing on pressure point attacks), endurance self-defence styles (eg wushu), more energetic styles (requiring more effort or less, more acrobatic, more leg than hand punching, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.188.73 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can point to some sources that meet WP:reliable sources I will happily help you write it. --Nate1481 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Renaming
Martial arts → Fighting style &mdash; Perhaps the article can be renamed to fighting style, which is -I believe- a more accurate term. The term martial arts is overcomplicated and unlogical. It can be mentioned as a secondary term however.


 * A quick, and--admittedly--unscientific Google search confirms my gut feeling that "martial art" is a much more popular term than "fighting style." Literally, I agree that "fighting style" is better, but for better or worse, modern parlance has it as "martial art," so I feel that's what the article should be called. --Ashenai (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would oppose the rename. I'm not sure what is particularly complicated about the term "martial art", though admittedly the field itself is rather involved; and I'm also not sure what is "unlogical" about it.  In any case, in my opinion, "fighting style" doesn't have quite the same meaning as "martial art".  As is mentioned in the lead, some martial arts (or some aspects of certain arts) may "take the form of dance", whereas the term "fighting style" wouldn't really encompass that. Omnedon (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like User:Omnedon, I'm not sure what's unlogical about the current title.  But, more importantly, there is no requirement at Wikipedia for titles to be logical.  There is, however, the use common names guideline and use the most easily recognized name provision in the naming conventions.  —   AjaxSmack   00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose fighting style is inaccurate and misleading. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As much as marital arts primarily about fighting, many styles still place a large emphasis on the 'art' aspect. Also Martial arts is the WP:Common name for such things. I would also point out that 'Fighting style' would be inaccurate to describe many arts, as there are different 'styles' of fighting in any given art, say Boxing --Nate1481 09:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current name is the most common name. Wikipedia's job is to describe English usage, not to prescribe it. Jafeluv (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some other arguments to change the name include:
 * Given that the term refers to the art of warfare, martial arts could also refer to Battlefield tactics (eg the placement and movement of troops in geographical important areas).
 * Given that the term refers to the art of warfare, it may also refer to any war tactics, including: large-scale poisonings (killing or sedating), large scale spread of disease (like what was done in the middle ages; eg shooting diseased cows with trebuchets or more recently, infecting of indians with eropean diseases (Cortez-era), firing projectiles (lethal or sedative projectiles), imprisonment, binding, or other forms of containment, ...

I found another name for martial arts called Fighting arts see http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-art Perhaps this is then a more suitable replacement

Finally, Isn't it possible to request a petition against the "Use common names" rationale; I found it perticularly annoying, both in technological topics (eg the term automobile to describe a personal ground vehicle, ...) and names of species (use of Common english names for the article rather than their true Latin name) Anyone agreeing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.216.134 (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not here to reform the English language. Martial art could (and in a Utopian language, might) include tactics; but it doesn't - the OED has no citations for that sense at all. The development of a special sense for that phrase is an example of Differentiation (linguistics), a useful process, which we are not empowered to stop.


 * Correspondingly, we are presently agreed on use English in principle, not always in application; it has a page of its own, and is enshrined in policy at WP:NC. Most of us are interested in communicating with anglophone readers, in "a language understanded of the people", as Archbishop Cranmer put it. It is always possible to reconsider such decisions; but I don't see any sentiment for it - and will argue against it myself, as destructive to the encyclopedia. The place to do so would be WT:UE. 15:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You state that a petition against 'Use common names' would be destructive for the encyclopedia. Aldough I unsderstand your view, I wish to clarify my intention, which perhaps could change your view. Aldough I would propoese to alter the names of some articles, I would still maintain the old terms as a alternative name "Eg begiining the article with "a (article name) or (alternative name) is a ... " etc. If someone types in the old name, he would simple be redirected to the new article name. As such, you still maintain the old name, but encourage the use of a different (more logical one); in this approach, nothing (eg terms) are actually lost. I do feel that Wikipedia should do this as Wikipedia is designed to educate and transfer knowledge; not reproduce popular/socially accepted misconceptions. Note also that were this is appropriate (most cases), the common name will be used; only in special cases, a more logical name is to be used. As such, it is more of a petition to augment the rationale rather than replace it alltogether.
 * No, that is specifically not acceptable. If there is a choice between a name that is common usage and one that scholars find more correct, the proper balance is to use the common name in the article title (so that lay readers and editors will find and link to it easily) and use or discuss the pedantry in the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The person requesting the rename suggests that "martial arts" is illogical, or that another name is more logical. I don't agree.  The subject is "martial arts", so the article doesn't need renaming. Omnedon (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The key to this is that Martial arts has ceased to be a description and is now a term in it's own right that describes many things including some that are explicitly not about fighting (though they have their origins there) e.g. Extreme martial arts, now there is a debate if these are martial arts in a true sense but they commonly are refereed to as such we could call the article "Systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat" which might be more logical as it is (broadly) what people think when you say martial arts (less the Hollywood invincible human killing machine bit), but that is a cumbersome title.--Nate1481 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration on nerve strikes
A Nerve junction strike or Nerve strike/pressure point attack article should be made and a small section should be placed at the Martial arts article. See http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=219, http://www.dragontigerkempo.org/dragontigerkempo_006.htm, http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/nerve_striking.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.5.244 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

New article sections
Following are article sections which may be added; let me know whether its best to place the overview of the fighting techniques (generic list made by comparison of most common fight styles) in an article at wikipedia or whether its best to move it to wikibooks
 * I don't like these at all, they read like WP:NFT. No offense. --Ashenai (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this will make the article less encyclopedic. The article is meant to be about martial arts generally; this new material is, I think, far too specific.  You mention that it a generic list, but I'm not sure how that's really possible.  Each martial art has its own attributes, best described in articles about those specific martial arts; this article is meant to be a rather general overview of the concept of martial arts, IMHO. Omnedon (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be possible by comparisment of the different forms of martial arts and using the attacks which focus on the vital body parts (nerve junction strikes, ...), aswell as regular attacks (some simple punches and kicks are used in all martial arts) . Working on improving original text and adding pictures.
 * Please note that original research is not allowed here. We are only allowed to report on things that have already been picked up by trustworthy sources. If your compiltion of martial arts moves is not already published in a notable source, I am afraid it doesn't belong here. --Ashenai (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See this revision for the tables. -- aktsu (t / c) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am moving most of the text to a more suitable wikimedia project for discussing unreported articles. However following info is I believe still useful in this article:

Usefulness
Fighting styles increase the chance of winning a fight because
 * The leg stance used promotes stability
 * The leg stances are often in crouching position and faced with one foot in front of the body, reducing the target area for the opponent and prohibiting easy striking of vital bodyparts
 * The apprentice is thought to block attacks and deal out strikes on vital body parts of the opponent, causing the opponent to be injured more gravely. The body parts chosen to attack with are often the hardest parts of the body and comprise fists, aswell as even harder bodyparts (eg knees, elbows, ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.64 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

small change to first paragraph
Before it read: "martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat." but that doesn't make sense, that's several objectives. I changed to "share similar objectives". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.52.27.142 (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed WMCO section
The following text was deleted (WP:SOAP, not to mention the poor grammar and lack of refs...): "It was registered in 2003 by Master Mostafa Raastineh. He established a method of fighting, with respect to his feeling of duty to the youths and families and due attention to their mental and spiritual security requirement, which has never been seen in any other country before. Multi Combat is the best major of sports which satisfy the trainee, both mentally and physically, in a method that he/she will feel no need inside anymore. He was seeking a system which could change the martial arts society. Awake the families and make the martial arts culture alive in their hearts. Nominated Iranian martial arts Academy what is the mission of the sport groups, federations, physical education organization and other sport-based organizations, the responsibility of each is specified, while the mission of Multi Combat major of sport has also been determined. Martial Arts shall be widespread, and this has been recognized as the only method of rescuing the youths from the problem of addiction and other corruptions, after making several studies thereon. Thus, making the ultra-structures in the field of martial arts and construction of martial arts clubs was commenced by Multi Combat sport Group. in this regard, and via due construction the most attractive martial arts academy all over the country, equipped with shooting salon, bow & arrow salon, darts, martial arts, etc. In the north of Tehran the first step in club-based establishments was taken and we are seeking construction other clubs in the Tehran province and other cities. Due to the importance of physical fitness in children and adolescents, this method has embarked with holding the first physical fitness classes, which are holding for the first time at the club and in a quite practical effect on the children body system during their growth and covers the physical weaknesses of today's children- which is quite observable. Up to now no method of sports placed this volume of sensitivity towards the families. Due to its deep recognition with respect to the family and society and individuals' introvert training, Multi Combat has placed its basis on due promotion the society training culture thereof, and is sure that it will reach a big martial arts-based revolution by due protection from the governmental and economical centers and other sports-based organization. Via considering and viewing the various martial arts methods- either those which are belonged to the east or west, or those which are mainly considering the power, or those which are for demonstration and competition-based, or those which are applied in self defense and for bodyguards and the police and armed and security forces, we will find out that the Multi Combat method is an evolved method, originated from all the current methods all over the world. That is, this method considers the spirit and mental and introverting cases, as well as considering the body and its capabilities and various practical techniques thereof. Multi Combat may solely develop the body, spirit and techniques and train the trainee in a way that this field of marshal arts may help him/her in all his/her aspects of life, train his/her physical capabilities in various aspects, and also make him/ her learn some techniques which could be more complete and developed with respect to all the other martial arts. For more info contact: www.wmco.ir"

Yunshui (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blatant spam thanks for removing it. --Natet/c 14:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What disqualifies guns from martial arts?
What disqualifies gun training from being considered martial arts? It fits the definition. 97.118.63.76 (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing, that's why shooting sports are listed under modern arts. --Natet/c 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'Oldest record'
I commented out the following line as highly dubious, refing a 40 year old book in the same edits tah push a specific art seems tenuous, if any one has a copy and it's in there then it may want returning with some re wording for clarity --Natet/c 13:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The oldest known records concerning combat techniques, hieroglyphic scrolls from Egyptian tomb date back as far as 4000 B.C.

"defend ... from physical threat"
This is too limited a characterization for the lead paragraph. While defense is certainly a goal shared by most martial arts, it excludes the goal that used to apper here ("to defeat"), and doesn't account for martial disciplines where defense is a minimal or perhaps even nonexistent aspect of the art (shooting sports are listed, and secrecy/stealth-based disciplines come to mind). I'm not sure yet of better wording for this, but I suspect that saying "all martial arts" share anything may be too reductive for so broad a topic. Except, by definition, some disciplined approach to fighting. /ninly(talk) 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts practitioners → Martial artists
FYI: proposed renaming of Category:Martial arts practitioners to Category:Martial artists, and the same for three sub-categories.

The discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2, where your comments will be welcome. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts vs government
In the article: "Martial traditions have been influenced by governments to become more sport-like for political purposes; the central impetus for the attempt by the People's Republic of China in transforming Chinese martial arts into the committee-regulated sport of Wushu was suppressing what they saw as the potentially subversive aspects of martial training, especially under the traditional system of family lineages.[20]" Why so? Please explain more. Subversive aspects of martial training, especially under family-lineage system? It makes sense if governments in the past forbid martial arts training because they worry about rebellions by formidable fighters. But in modern time, with the use of guns, there's no point why the People's Republic of China should try to convert martial arts to sport for that reason. Please clarify more about why martial sport is less dangerous as a threat to governments than martial arts, since both teach you fighting skills (though I know that there's more rules and restrictions in sports, and traditional martial arts are more about real-life combat and killing techniques)?. Also, how is Wushu regulated, in such a way that can make it safer for the Chinese government than martial traditions? It's ambiguous here. Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Martial arts schools were used to train bodyguards (see: warlordism after the fall of Qing) and were also associated with armed rebels, "armed" including firearms. Wushu removes the cultural context of traditional CMA, replacing it with vaccuous state-run competitions and "gyms" instead of traditional schools. Wushu forms competitions are not the same as San Da competitions; wushu forms artists are usually not trained in actual sport combat. NJMauthor (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obnu Bilate
I've tagged this as as it is currently at AfD as a hoax. - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 06:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Degree of Difficulty
karate and tae-kwon-do are popular, but what is the best style for children who are interested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

lead
I happen to agree with this, and I have tried to address the concern in the lead.

It is simply wrong to suppose that "original" martial arts were battlefield-oriented and that only "recent" martial arts were "degraded" into systems for meditation or health. This is the mistake made by people who turn "martial arts" articles into articles on military history. This misconception is kept alive by the pervasive antiquity frenzy in the martial arts industry. Every art must be derived from "ancient warrior secrets", ideally kept secret from some oppressive colonialist regime and now revived by the respective master selling you the course.

It is also wrong to keep suggesting that "martial arts" is an "ancient European notion" of "the Arts of Mars, Roman God of War". It is not. sure, both English words, wikt:martial and wikt:art have Latin etymologies. This is irrelevant, they were combined, as English words, in the 1930s, simply to translate the Japanese term bujutsu. That's right, "martial arts" is just the 1930s English translation of a concept from feudal Japan. The term then came to mean what it means today after people started taking karate and judo lessons in droves, and the emergence of combat sports like kickboxing from the 1960s, so that today, you can even call boxing a "martial art", even though the Marquess of Queensberry Rules had been in effect for more than 60 years before the term "martial arts" was first introduced to discuss Japanese traditions.

Martial arts have an actual history. But it is very difficult to trace it to the medieval period. Most (both eastern and western) traditions peter out somewhere in the late Middle Ages or around the 17th century. These are the "ancient" historical styles from which the modern (late 19th or 20th century) styles are derived. If you want to delve into the middle ages or even antiquity, you are researching the remote origins of your "ancient" styles. And the fact of the matter is that even the oldest, most traditional styles recorded how they are about character building and even unio mystica more than about winning a fight. This is something that cannot be shrugged off as secondary, it is at the center of this topic. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You have done a lot of research on this, haven't you?--Razionale (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with this logic. There are articles that I would not touch because this alternative view is so strong. jmcw (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Martial art appears in the Pallas Armata of 1639. Ergative rlt (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Martial Arts
I don't agree with the page at all.

MARTIAL Arts would imply MILITARY Arts, not hobbies pursued by Civilians and "codified" practices. Some forms can be traced back to former Military training drills, but most can't and have sprung up in the minds of the newly bred martial mystics, which they then hold up as proof for deeper missunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.42.201 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Donn Draeger held this view but it has not caught on in the general public. He referred to 'martial arts' and 'civilian arts'. jmcw (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd question, and possible section then
Is there any critic, or anti-martial arts idea or movement? I do not speak of things like saying 'in an age of guns, a sword/fist is useless', but more idea based, philosophical, religious anti-martial arts or at least critic ideas?

I remember a frankly fundamentalist christian/protestant guy being against it, because 'jesus taught us to turn the cheek', and all this.. and probably similar stuff, aimed at 'pagan' philosophies and religions around them, so...

Anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.134.130 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)