Talk:Modern Arnis/Archive 3

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


 * Archive 1 (Start to 24 December 2005):
 * Archive 2 (December 2005 to January 2006):

Seems to be some back and forth over the "Notable" and "Well Known" terms. Rather than play back n forth games, vote on it already. Run this until say, 3/31/06 then stick with the outcome? 2 questions: 1- Should the category be "Well-known and Notable practitioners" or "Notable practitioners"? 2- Should the distinction be "Notable" or "Other Notable"?

I'll cast mine here: 1- Notable practitioners 2- Well Known for 1st part, Other Notable for second. Though personally, I think the 2 sections could be merged with a bit of a rewrite. --Bob Hubbard 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an on going process, that is the nature of Wikipedia. I don't agree with the deadline issue but I do think discussion would be good. I vote for "Well known and Notables."

As it is used in the context of this discussion/article, 'well-known' seems to mean popularity, size, membership. Thus, there is no direct or obvious connotation of 'notability'- meaning specifically "highly respected." All of the back and forth about who should or should not be included seemed to be based on volume. Working from that logic, 'well-known' is accurate.

The "Notables" as a separate category/heading is because the list was suppose to be a compromise. I took it to be a place to list those groups that may not be as popular as the "Well-Knowns" but are primarily recognized for the quality and respect they have gained for their work.

"Other notables" doesn't work for me because the "Well-Knowns" are separated because they were suppose to be primarily recognized for their popularity/size so they would not be "other." Logically, if they were "other notables" there would be one list instead of two because all of them are "Notable."

If people are going to argue that the terms are interchangeable for this context, then there really should only be one list.

--Paul14227 16:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to participate in a discussion of this continued transparent attempt to gain free advertising for minor players here on Wikipedia. I will, however, point out that this alleged 'compromise' never happened. Repeatedly stating that it did is just a cheap rhetorical tactic. Those listed were those who were important enough to merit listing under the art's heading. They were, obviously, both well-known and notable. Most of the others are minor players who went their own way and whose supporters are trying to position them as something they're not by associating them with practitioners who are truly notable. The basic form of this list goes back to the | first entry, where the list of major organizations was included. I think the earliest form with a list of names is | this entry, added by me and using the word notable. Adding people like D.A. and B.F. was reasonable. Adding every WNY ex-arnis player is not.

The ideal solution would be to create a separate WP entry for Modern Arnis Offshoots and link to it. Failing that, those in the "other notables" list should not be included at this level of detail (excepting possibly D.H.), especially since most of them practice an art that was influenced by their study of MA, but whcih is not itself MA. They're people who studied the art and used it in their own systems with other arts--hardly essential information at this level of detail. Also, it is not meant as an exhaustive list. Wouldn't Rodel Dagooc rank higher in terms of notability, even though he isn't as well-known outside of the Phil.? What about the other MOTTs? Hoch Hocheim? The line was drawn at heads of major MA organizations. That's appropriate for an entry like this. The idea of merging the two current lists into one is simply ludicrous.

This is a lot of work just to promote the upstate NY ex-arnis players by association with the broadly successful MA groups. It's an abuse of WP.

--JJL 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeff,

Logically speaking, you are participating when you enter a statement about how you are not going to participate.

The point is clarity. If any smaller group, such as the AMAA - which is not a WNY group - is added to the list of notables, I have no problem with that and would not gripe about them being included on the list. They are keeping the "make it your own" spirit of Modern Arnis alive and well. Somewhere in discussions here or in Martial Talk or somewhere, one purpose of the Modern Arnis entry was to promote the art according to Tim Hartman. I would think that listing any and all organizations - so that people can search and find instructors or events nearest them - would be beneficial to promoting the art of Modern Arnis regardless of popularity or size. It is all within the 'family' of Modern Arnis IMO. I have no problem with recognizing the 'in-law' cousins to the art as long it is clearly cited.

I think the point of the separate lists was to show that there was a difference, not association between the "Major Players" and those that are 'making it their own' in keeping with RP's statement about Modern Arnis. Modern Arnis has not been successfully defined for any one person to be able to label categories such as 'ex-members' or claim that people are doing 'off shoots' of the art. Such terms are proprietary and prejudicial if even the 'major players' can't agree on what makes up a core curriculum for Modern Arnis. Until "Modern Arnis" can clearly be defined, "off shoot" is an invalid term.

I say let the two categories stand separate. It promotes the art, and gives credit to those that have made contributions to the art in a variety of ways. One recognizes the work of those that have popularized the art while the other recognizes those that work in small but quality focused groups. It does not automatically mean that those that are more popular are less quality driven; nor does it mean that those that are more quality driven are unable to gain popularity. It only recognizes the distinguishing features at an observable level. --Paul14227 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I threw the deadline suggestion out simply to set a limit to the talking it to death possibility. Suggestion only. Now I'd thought about this and I think I should also be listed as modern arnis notable. I run the largest modern arnis forum currently online, am a published author, and run the 5th largest general martial arts forum online. I've helped promote and/or preserve modern arnis through numerous seminars, contacts and projects, not to mention that a number of my clients are modern arnis practitioners. Surely, that is also "notable". As the term is "notable practitioners", and I am a practitioner, and obviously notable, I feel that I also should be listed.--Bob Hubbard 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, in context, the point is that Well-known is connoting size/popularity and (should not be taken to mean lacking in quality) vs. Notable which is connoting quality (as a distinguishing factor instead of popularity).

I don't know if your trying to throw out a "Modest Proposal" sort of suggestion with your last comment or not, but I think that the common thread of the Well Knowns and Notables is ARTISIC respect for skill and rank not just administrative support. Last I knew you were well below Lakan. But, hey if you want to add yourself to the list as a notable, go for it. I would only say make sure you create a Wiki Bio so that people can read the details of what makes you 'notable' in your mind and worth listing. Hypothetically, someone clicks on your name and follows your links to ranked instructors it is still promoting the art.

--Paul14227 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a modification to the Notables section in the hopes that it clarifies the contextual use of notable.

Post entry.

Sorry, it didn't take the first time for some reason, had to re-enter the edit.

--Paul14227 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? No. It'll be a while before I test for Lakan and I wouldn't presume to toss my name on the same level as those listed at this time. Give me a few years maybe. lol. But, the question was one needing clarification to create a definition that can be used here. I -am- a notable player, on the promotion and preservation side. But not on the art side, which, is probably the side best shown. (Course my bio is http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Bob_Hubbard if anyone cares) lol. --Bob Hubbard 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bob,

As I said, if it is going to promote the art as a whole, go for it. You use the term "preservation" here. I don't think that preservation is really what Modern Arnis is all about. That seems to be the source of differences between the 'Well Known' and 'Notables' IMO. The 'Notables' are not trying to preserve MA as much as make it their own. For the most part, these notables have kept the spin of Modern Arnis alive with a core curriculum of techniques/concepts that were taught by RP/MA, but infused applications/drills/techniques from other systems UNDER the Modern Arnis conceptual pedagogy/system of instruction.

Now, in the edit history of the article, Jeff has accused me of 'grandstanding/advertising' with my edits from 'other notable...' to 'Notable....leaders of smaller org.'s' when that is not the case if you read my comments.

It is that focus on the division instead of promoting the art that, IMO, motivates people to shy away from or flat out leave Modern Arnis. We really need to make it more about the ART and less about who is 'the man.' Is WHO RP 'loved best' or taught best or whatever more important than keeping alive WHAT RP loved best - Modern Arnis? He's gone. We are here. If we focus on ART in this article, I think people will find who they want to work with. --Paul14227 13:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So, How long is the revert war going to go on...
between you two? I mean, it seems like every few days "notable" becomes "other notable" then gets switched back to "notable". Seems petty, childish and political to me. I mean, you're heading well past the 3-revert rule on Wiki at this point. Course, having never heard of half these people, I have no clue why they are notable. Ditto on "well knowns". Google doesn't know on some of them either. One might expect any one listed notable and/or well known to be, well, notable and/or well known. http://www.answers.com/topic/notable

Well, enjoy the revert game kids. --Bob Hubbard 14:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not belive that you understand this rule. You may be looking for a term like edit war or revert duel. I note that I have made several attempts at compromise, as required. In addition, I continue to periodically engage here on Talk:Wikipedia_as_Bullshido despite the simple reverts that follow attempts at compromise. JJL 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the definition, Bob. It really illustrates the point I am trying to make. Some of these groups are well known because of the size of their Public Relations/Seminar schedule/active memberships and others are known primarily by the reputation of the quality and NOT the public recognition. That may be why the notables are not as easy to find via Google - they aren't as popular. Also consider that Modern Arnis is still a smaller art relative to Karates or Kung Fus or Tae Kwon Dos. Notability and Well Known is contextually within martial arts circles and maybe only with Modern Arnis circles. There are many artists/FMA's that people may not have heard of in the larger scheme. Think about how many people knew or even now know about Balintawak or the Labongong Fencing club and the like. Notable arts and practitioners surely, as well as well known in PI, but not well known in the USA for a long time. Just because we don't know it or can't find it via internet searches does not mean that these arts/artists aren't notable - in only means that they aren't easy to find.


 * You're arguing against yourself. If they aren't publicly recognized/popular/googleable then the decision to call them 'notable' is clearly a matter of opinion, and, more to the point, they don't belong in an encyclopedia entry. The point of a brief entry like this is not to list every known practitioner. The link for 'notable' suggests seeing synonyms at 'noted' ("Distinguished by reputation; famous"). Three of the four definitions at 'notable' use words like 'eminent', 'reputation', 'prominent'. Look at the debate here on Wikipedia about whether or not Jerome Barber was sufficiently notable to merit an entry on the site . The result was No Consensus. The people who should be listed in an encyclopedia entry like this are the top-level players. Compare what is done for any other martial art or sport on the site. The people listed under 'See Also' at Judo are 10th dans and Olympians, not people who run a small Judo-influenced school somewhere and give a few seminars. Look at the List_of_karateka. Are there any non-redlinked names you don't recognize? (Even the redlinked names are of prominent players.) That's the standard. In your efforts to garner free advertising for your instructor, you're going against what's done on the site and what's done in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be free advertising for those too cheap to do their own PR. It's just another aspect of certain people trying to get attention by attaching their names to those who have earned their reputation and prominence rather than working to become better known on their own merits. By continuing to argue that unknowns deserve billing with famous practitioners, you're simply advancing a personal advertising agenda. If you keep saying that certain people are 'notable' long enough, presumably people will come to believe it. It might help if others supported your argument that the entry should be changed. A reasonable compromise would be to make a list as a separate page that has All Known Modern Arnis Black Belts, or whatever category you like, and make it a See Also entry. JJL 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to participate in a discussion of this continued transparent attempt to gain free advertising for minor players here on Wikipedia.--JJL 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the list so long now that it is overwhelming the readers? How about turning it into a link when/if it becomes too cumbersome for this page? As of now, both lists combined take up very little space relative to the rest of the copy. I have already explained the connotation of notable that differentiates those members from the well knowns. Definitions are fine for broad stroke conceptualization of a word, but usage creates the focused meaning to a thinking mind. I am using the term to connote respect, quality and worthy of recognition (at least by martial arts peers). Note how there is a difference between well known/famous and notable. Well knowns are currently recognizable/popular whereas the notables are worthy of it, but aren't. The reasons for that lack of 'fame' could be various:  Not interested in fame, just starting out, focus on quality over volume, balance of martial arts and life in general, retired and less active than in the past....

The differentiation is subtle, but then when you use terms like well known, notable, famous, and the like, you have to have a perspective. Tom Cruise is famous in a wide range way, but, Remy Presas might only be famous in within Martial arts circles/Phillipino cultural circles. I steered away from the "famous" definitions because it created confusion when "famous" had the definition of 'well known' as well. Thus, two separate terms. If you want to change the term Well Known to Famous so that people can get the implication of esteem and respect, go for it.

Modern Arnis may fit under the category of 'martial art' but it definitely is not as well known, populated, or popular as Judo or Karate; nor is it as loaded with the variation that Judo and Karate have in their respective systems. So, as a smaller art, it is not 'wrong' to list notables if the point is to increase public awareness of Modern Arnis. Consider comparing the volume of names listed in the more popular martial arts sites to the volume listed in the Modern Arnis Entry. Proportionately, there are more MA players represented. That isn't a bad thing if the point is exposure.

As to the rest, the other arts listed are already well known systems. Modern Arnis is a small player in comparison to those. Therefore, the pool of well known and notables is going to be smaller. And, in keeping with the spirit of exposure for the ART of Modern Arnis, I say leave the names where they are for now. If the lists get out of hand later, then edit.

A Volkswagon BUG and a Peterbuilt Tracker are both fit under the category of automobile, but I wouldn't think of describing them in exactly the same way. Yes, use the same general format, but taylor it to fit the subject as well. That is one of the lessons that RP left us IN Modern Arnis, why not apply it TO Modern Arnis by applying the concepts of translation and adaptation to writing?

--Paul14227 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the so called "well knowns and notables"

Dan Anderson - Known for his Karate. Was bit on the tourny circuit in the 80's. Has writen many books on Arnis. Roland Dantes - Body Building champion. Known well in the PI, elsewhere is lesser known. Jeff Delaney - Head of large org. Bram Frank - Knive maker. Known for his knife work, and in the industry. Tim Hartman - Head of large org. Active on the seminar circuit around the world. Last Datu publically recognized by GM Presas. Shishir Inocalla - Actor. Best known for his part in a Ninja Turtles movie in the US. First Datu. Dieter Knuettel - Head of large organziation. Known for his video work. A Datu. Remy P. Presas - Son of late GM. Roberto Presas - Brother of late GM. Randi Schea - Head of large organization Kelly Worden - Knife maker, talk show host. Holds longest running arnis related traiing camp in US. 1st non-Filipino Datu.

Jerome Barber - College Prof. Teaches 1 of few MA programs for college credit. Minor active on seminar circuit.
 * I was asked to make a clarification. MA in this context is Martial Arts, not Modern Arnis. My reference to "minor active" is my own ranking in comparision to those who base entire careers off being on the road, as opposed to doing them as work permits. No intent to slight anyones contributions is implied nor intended.--Bob Hubbard 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Bolden - heads spinoff arnis org. David Hoffman - Lawyer. Also a Datu. Reportedly inactive player. Lee Lowry - ? Willy Matias - ? David Ng - ? Doug Pierre - Active on circuits.

Looking at this, theres, and several others that maybe "notable" but unless you're "in the know", certainly aren't likely to be known.

Who is "Well Known"? Anderson, Dantes, Hartman, Inocalla, Knuettel and Worden. They have exposure outside the "small" world of Arnis. They also tend to get outside their home towns on a regular basis, as well as do work outside the martial arts realm. Delaney, Frank, both Presas's and Schea, while all reportedly good, are also much lesser known outside "the family". As for the "Notables", there are hundreds of guys and gals out there who are worth noting. Why is this short list the "chosen ones"? Of these 7, only Barber and Pierre appear to have gone beyond their home circle. Hoffman's reportedly been inactive for a while, and 3 I have no clue on, (Lowry, Matias and Ng). Bolden runs a small spin off group. So do a number of GM Presas's older students. Why is he included, but PG Huffano not? (He runs one of the largest FMA gatherings in the US each year). Not meaning to brag, but I am of more note than some in the visibility I bring to the FMA, and Arnis, yet I'm not on the list (nor do I wish to be).

Any attempt to list people will exclude people. As structured, it's political, it's biased, and it's become a pointless argument between 2 individuals. I suggest flushing the notable category completely. Drop those who cannot be proven to be of notoriety outside their own little circles. The rest, will speak for themselves. Who? Anderson, Dantes, Hartman, Inocalla, Knuettel and Worden. Anyone else, justify why they should be included on this short list. Or start a "list of known Arnis Practitioners" page, and list whomever you want there.--Bob Hubbard 16:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Careful, noteriaty actually is on par with infamous. I hope that wasn't an attempt at a jab.

With the 'little cirlces' mentallity, that would mean dropping the whole article, because honestly, even the 'well knowns' aren't 'well known' outside of a small circle of martial artists compared to other martial arts and respective artists. There are a lot of lay people and practioners that still have never heard of Modern Arnis, let alone the 'well known' artists of the art.

Obviously your knowledge of the work, recognitions and awards for the notable members is limited. Even such major Modern Arnis figures such as Shishir Inocalla are missing much of the work he has done in MA. You missed quite a few items for some of those players. Just because you don't know these things, doesn't mean that these people are note worthy. It represents a limited perspective and a one sided presentation of 'who's who' in Modern Arnis. It is not about 'you' or 'me' or anyone else so much as about reaching 'neutral' perspective on this attempt to gain exposure for the ART.

Again, it is only political if people make it political. Why are the names on the lists? Because they are the names that were contributed by themselves or their supporters. Period. If people don't contribute, tough cookies. They lose out. But, if you notice, I am being inclusive where my counterpart is being exclusive. Bob, I said it before, throw up a wiki bio and make the link. I wouldn't take your name off the list of notables. If it gains exposure and shows what Modern Arnis is really like, go for it. --Paul14227 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick Google on the names. Checked a couple different forums. It was a very short listing of what they've done admittedly. I discount the "hall of fames", most of the awards (since even my cat can get one through some groups it seems), etc. I just looked to see who did more than run a backyard training group, of drop by a camp every few years. A full accounting of what they've contributed to the arts should be on their own wiki pages, and referenced from here, not included here. I admit my knowledge is spotty, which is why I asked why those I don't know should be included on this list. I've contributed to those I can, with what I could verify. The rest, I leave to others. As to my Bio, it's here: Martialpedia.com. Perhaps it makes me notable. I dunno. Again, my purpose here isn't to gain me a listing on Wiki. It's to try and see if theres a way to get you 2 to stop the pointless revert war you have been going on about over, in my opinion, stupid stuff. I put out my "meet in the middle" option, but it was reverted out and I really don't feel like writing it back in 20 times over the next few weeks. Got other things to do than babysit an entry. --Bob Hubbard 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the idea is really to promote the art (not certain personalities associated with it), them it would make sense to add as many Modern Arnis people to the list as possible regardless of whether or not Jeff Leader or anyone else thinks their eligible for inclusion. This would help people looking at the entries here a good way to locate the nearest instructor to their locality. It would also illustrate just how widespread that art has become. The Professor tried to be all-inclusive in his ways. Why can't you let this listing be that way too? Who has the right or authority to say who is and who is not a Modern Arnis instructor? The only man that can do that is no longer in this world. Anybody actively teaching is helping to spread the art. Respectfully, Tim Kashino

Tim, I don't really care about the personalities. Just the pointless back and forth and game playing that have gone on. But a listing of every person currently swinging a stick isn't what this listing should be. Put a few 'names' up, and a link to a separate list (suggest alphabetical by last name) which could be a "known modern arnis instructors list" which would be at least a list of names, and maybe at best, a good launch point for additional wiki entries on those people. (bios, websites, etc).--Bob Hubbard 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The back and forth is not only pointless, it's stupid and childish. I've plugged in some names in, and I'll eventually get around to creating the appropriate bio pages for the individuals. Listing every person swinging a stick wasn't the plan and to allude to my proposition in such a way is taking it completely out of context. My point was that the world doesn't revlove around a handfull of personalities; in order to really represent how large the art has become and where people can find instructors, the list should be a little more inclusive and a little less exclusive. Agreed?

R/  Tim Kashino


 * What continues to be wrong with this is that it is not what WP is meant to be, and conflicts with WP policies. It isn't here to promote MA, but rather to serve as an encyclopedia. Look at 1.4-1.7 here, for example. It isn't a soapbox, it isn't a directory (1.7.7), etc. That's the issue with listing as many people as possible: It's an abuse of the site. Someone pays the bills for this site and has a purpose in mind for it, and that purpose isn't promoting MA as widely as possible. We all agree that promoting MA is good and desirable, but this is an attempted hijacking of WP for that purpose. That's why I asked that the MA entry be compared with entries like those for Karate and Judo, which do conform to policy and guidelines.


 * Read the Notability entry. Read the Vanity guidelines entry ("As Wikipedia is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopedia, it strives to contain only material that it is reasonable to believe that others, outside of any given Wiki editor's regular personal sphere of contacts and associates, might want to know, thus making it qualify as a more "well rounded" type of material. Wikipedia is not, therefore, a forum for advertising..."). Simply put, Wikpideia is a neutral and unbiased compilation of notable, verifiable facts. The entries that have been being made are neither notable ("A view is generally considered notable if it is potentially information of value or interest in some way to a significant number of people, or to some perspective, or its omission would leave a significant gap in historical human knowledge of a subject.") nor unbiased (NPOV).


 * It's also policy that "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and yet this has been brought from MartialTalk, Bullshido, etc. Given the vandalism, e.g., that the group supporting these spurious entries has committed on this site, it's hard to take their claims seriously (the "clean hands doctrine").


 * As to the 3-revert rule, with one early exception, I don't believe I have reverted a page more than 3 times in 24 hours, which is what the rule prohibits (with exceptions for self-reversions and simple vandalism).


 * Read the policies, then make your case based on that. Continuing to claim that this entry should be something that is in conflict with the site's goals because you want it to be is, well, stupid and childish, to use above poster's phrase. This isn't your website. Play by the rules. JJL 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on now Jeff, take a step back and calm down. I don't really understand this back and forth between you and Paul, which by it's nature is in violation of the rules on Wikipedia. You've made some valid points. Now I have one for you. It's not your site either. You really should practice what you're preaching and just leave things alone. We could all do without the drama and the tantrums. If you see things that are incorrect or improper, then step in and edit in appropriate/acceptable manner. I know you to be a reasonable guy. Ease up, man. Tim Kashino 18:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC) R/ Tim Kashino


 * Perhaps you could cite the rule you allege me to be violating. JJL 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'''"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

'''Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."'''

IMO, you're working to exclude certain people while working to highlight a particular individual. I find that the sole reason for your dispute with Paul is rooted in your freindship with the person for whom you are waging this campaign and the intense disdain that person has for anyone even loosely affiliated with Dr. Barber. Because of that, I question your objectivity on this subject. I mean really, you and Paul had gone back and forth for months over an "inclusion" issue. That's not being objective, that's being stubborn and childish (this comment applies to both of you).

Submitted as food for thought: Exerpts from the Wikipedia Ettiquette page '''"Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.

Treat others as you would have them treat you. Work toward agreement.

Argue facts, not personalities. Don't ignore questions If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. '''Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get on with someone, try and become more friendly and if that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."'''

There has been far too much political undertone throughout this discussion and not ehough effort to find common ground and work toward agreement. We all have our likes, dislikes and affiliations. Let's leave them out of what's going on here. I'm quite sure I can do that. Bob seems to be doing a fair job at it. Can you at least try? 213.26.152.220 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Tim Kashino 21:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've largely given up trying. Look carefully through the edit history and you'll see my attempts to compromise being simply reverted. You'll see my repeated requests for engagement on the Talk page (rather than simple reversion) being ignored. Pair all that with what was done to repeatedly vandalize the T.H. entry--including putting in falsely labeled links--and perhaps you'll understand my tiredness. I say again, let someone come with 'clean hands' and I'll be much more sympathetic; we're talking about simple vandals, however. Please note that I haven't removed the names even though I don't believe they should be there. That's compromise already, which you seem unwilling to admit.


 * I also am unclear why you think there's such a hot matter here. I have edited the MA article once in April, five times in March (two of which were for formatting), not at all in February, and six times in January (most of which were small edits unrelated to the issue under consideration here). It's not like there are 3 reverts a day going on. I've compromised in not reverting a lengthy list of people who don't meet the standards set by the site. Now it's the other side's time to do the same. You want to find common ground? I've cited the Notable discussion here. I've cited other martial arts articles here. I have explained my conclusion that the second list of names doesn't fit because of that. The only answer I have received is that Modern Arnis should use WP for free advertising. Let's have a good answer to that one: Why should the secondary (and now tertiary) list of names be included? How do they meet the criteria? If I fail once again to get a reasoned and supported answer to this question, I'll go back to ignoring the Talk page. It only works if people discuss the issue. JJL 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rules 4 and 12 from the Wikipedia Ruleset:

''4. Neutral point of view (NPOV). Write from a neutral point of view. This is a non-negotiable and fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us.''

''12. Be graceful: Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do. Try to accommodate other people's quirks the best you can, but try to be as polite, solid and straightforward as possible yourself.''

All the names belong there in order to give a fair representation of the art and the various paths it has taken in it's various evolutions.

The "tertiary" list of people you are referring is a group of people who are connected to the history and development of Modern Arnis. They are the seniors to your(our) seniors. Don't you think that this makes them worthy of inclusion here?

In reality, all of the names (known, notable or otherwise) fail the 100 year test. None of this will matter one bit in 100 years. Perhaps we should just delete the entire article based on that. How does any of the article meet the criteria? We could argue one way or the other, since the rules of relavency are fairly open-ended. That discussion, however, would be just as pointless as the two pages of discussion that precede this one.

What you vehemently object to as "free advertizing" could be considered thorough coverage by someone else, Jeff. If someone is looking for free advertizing, aren't there better and more effective ways than Wikipedia? I appreciate the fact that the names are still there, but, with respect, I really feel your stance against them being there to be rather petty. I think that there's more to be gained in terms of exposure and networking by being inclusive rather than strictly limiting who and who does not qualify for inclusion.

I do understand your tiredness. We can all have "clean hands" if we leave our biases behind and concentrate on objectively covering the art in this medium. Tim Kashino 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The list on here, just a few, Anderson, Dantes, Hartman, Inocalla, Knuettel and Worden. Because they are known outside the MA world, regularly travel spreading the art, and well respected in the industry. The others (both supposed well known and notable) may be fine people, but should be on the secondary list which should definitely cover the depth of the art. Just like an article on generals, or presidents can only name a few key people and reference a separate list, so should this entry. IMO. After all, this is about the art. Not a directory of 'whose who in Arnis'. --Bob Hubbard 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So then what exactly is the Modern Arnis article about then? Is it about the art or not? Perhaps we could have three listings at the end of the article, one for the "well known" as you put it, one for "notables" and one for the "senior masters" to include those who were there during the history and development of the art like Roland Dantes, Rodel Dagooc and Vic Sanchez. I think that this group of men deserve atleast a little recognition. Would you be amenable to that? Tim Kashino 18:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If their participation and contribution can be independently verified as per Wiki rules, I have no problem with anyone being listed. I don't agree with further division of the list of names, as someone will always find a new category to list someone under. I mean, why not a "modern arnis webmaster" heading? We can list all the arnis geeks then. :) Seriously, criteria must be established, otherwise it devalues things. Maybe to be of any level of note they should be active, traveling, a high rank (received from Remy directly, say 6th and higher), and doing more than running a small club (or no group at all). Eliminate the people who put out an article a year, do an occasional event, or who haven't been seen at an major Modern Arnis event in forever. The article is about the art, not a "whos who" list of stick jocks. Dantes is on my list. The other 2 I am not familiar with. Explain why they should be included as per Wiki policies, and I'll gladly endorse them. Again, the "explanation" can be used to launch their own wiki pages, or flesh out the main MA entry better.  I'm trying to be as "neutral" as I can, so that -we- can build a solid article on the art. --Bob Hubbard 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Bob, here you go. The people listed in the Senior Masters Council have "relavency" within Wiki guidelines based on their status given to them by Professor Presas as the seniors of the art and 8th degree balck belts promoted directly by the founder of the art. They were there during the formative years of the art, pictures Jerry dela Cruz and Vic Sanchez are in all of the early books. They are "notable" with Wiki guidelines as well. Searches on various seach engines yield more than a handful of results, and these men do travel to promote the art in Europe, the US and the Middle East. The fact that you're not familiar with them doesn't mean that they are "minor" players. It could mean that it's time to step outside of your bubble and start experiencing things on your own. I plan on being in Manila again in December. You're welcome to take that first giant step and meet me there. I would be more than happy to introduce you the the people that I've listed in the article. Including these people will not adversely affect anyone else's status or their earning potential. Including provides a source for more information on the history and development of the art, thus adding more depth to the article. I see no reason to exclude them. Tim Kashino 08:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Martialpedia link that was added goes to a page that is redundant. It doesn't add anything of any import to the article. I motion for it's reomval. I also move for the removal of David Hoffman from the "notable" list; as cited in a previous post from Bob Hubbard, he is an obscure figure who is apparently not active and has made no notable contribution to the art. I have placed PG Hufana, Jay de Leon and Bambit Dulay on the list of "notables". R/Tim


 * I concur on Martialpedia being redundant here and that the inclusion of the early practitioners is reasonable. Apart from the two R.D.'s, perhaps they might be worked into the text instead of a list. The "senior council" should perhaps be linked to its own page so people can learn what it is and why it's significant. David Hoffman is a Datu, but is currently working "behind the scenes" on the will and indeed has always been less visibile. Including a list of datus and MOTTs would be reasonable as they're the ones charged by the Prof. with propagating the art (at least, outside of the Phil.). If instead it's who is well known and visible and has made contributions, the list will be much shorter (which would bring it in line with other arts' entries, which is good--a consistent look for WP). By the way, does Jay de Leon like to be alphabetized under 'D' or 'L'? With the de particle, different people have different preferences. I'll make some trial changes--edit them back if they don't seem in the spirit of this discussion. JJL 14:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Martialpedia entry is currently redundant, however it is diverging from the original source wiki article, and will continue to do so. Links to other wikis is a common practice. As to me, bubbles, etc, been doing that for a while now, but thank you for the invite. David Hoffman and Bong Jornales both are not apparently active in MA, despite both being Datus. Bong himself no longer uses the title. Probably best to list them under the MA Datu heading for historical completeness, but not in any other notable way at this time.--Bob Hubbard 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Martialpedia entry has the potential to be much longer and to use more martial arts specific language than is appropriate for WP, so it may someday be a good link for here. Right now the org. links are the best ones for info., but I don't think it's sensible to repeat them. As to David Hoffman and Bong Jornales, I have listed the former in the current practitioners section because he is still involved administratively, if not technically/pedagogically. Removing him from that list is also reasonable; both are listed in the text now. I hope the History section I added helps address some of the issues discussed here. It certainly needs more work, and I don't expect anyone to be shy about editing what I wrote. It's meant to be the start of compromise, not the end.


 * Also, please use the colon to indent responses on this page. Is it time to archive the Talk again? JJL 16:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The latest edit looks OK to me, with the exception of the very first line. It's been there all the while.  I don't know why I didn't see it before. The part about the art being founded after WWII is not correct. The professor was 9 years old when the war ended.  Remeber, he started started learning from his grandfather during the war after watching his father train the guerillas.  The Professor didn't put it all together until his return to Bacolod.  Perhaps we could settle on the early to mid-sixties.  To my knowledge the art as we know it didn't really come together and start spreading until about 1965; give or take a year.    Yes, it probably would be time to archive the discussion page.Tim Kashino 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the history section instead of the well known/notables division. I didn't see it as a 'political' division as long as people would have been willing to be objective about the category headings. "Well knowns" had the size, exposure.... while the "Notables" had respect for their artistic work within the art. To me that isn't political as long as we don't start criticizing who is who on each list.

Since that could not be done, the "HISTORY" section seems more objective as a format. One point about it though: Any objection to revising some of the terms such as 'splintering' that leave readers with a negative impression? Yes there are many organizations. Yes there are political/philosophical variations. But, is there a way to present this issue in a more neutral voice?

PMartin


 * I'm not sure how it helps to re-hash the Well-Known/Notables issue at this point or why you would want to start it again when we had moved beyond it, but I don't agree with your description of the Notables, or the comment that 'people' weren't objective (which seems intended as a slam against those who disagree with you). Why go down that route again? This is why I am so tired of trying to be constructive with the group that after all started out on WP by obsessively vandalizing T.H.'s entry. I'm guessing you won't be happy unless you have something to be unhappy about.


 * As to splintering, that's what happened. Once again, WP is an encyclopedia. Rewriting history--sanitizing it--is fine for a person's web page, but not for an encyclopedia. This entry isn't for spreading the art. It's meant to be a NPOV intro. to the subject for non-martial artists. Splintering is surely what happened when J.D. left the IMAF, for starters. Change the word if you like, but don't make it a Happy Happy Joy Joy ad for the art. That's not WP's purpose. JJL 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff,

''Rules 4 and 12 from the Wikipedia Ruleset:

4. Neutral point of view (NPOV). Write from a neutral point of view. This is a non-negotiable and fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which allows us to make a fair representation of the world around us.

12. Be graceful: Be liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you do. Try to accommodate other people's quirks the best you can, but try to be as polite, solid and straightforward as possible yourself.''

By no means am I trying to put rose colored glasses on the situation, but I am suggesting that Neutral Point of View would mean that the language should be unbiased AND is in keeping with Wiki guidelines. Reaching a neutral perspective is an explicitly stated part of Wiki.

As you have written above, "J.D. left the IMAF." That statement is neutral, direct, and unbiased. The dramatic connotations that go with terms like 'splintering' are an indication of the author's perspective and influence the reader's interpetive freedom. Let those who read and investigate form their own opinions.

I do like the history format. I think it works well. Kudos.

--Paul14227 15:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)