Talk:Angampora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAngampora was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 29, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 29, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Angampora (pictured), a martial art native to Sri Lanka which incorporates pressure point attacks, was banned by the British who gained control of the island in the early 19th century?

Angan Pora or Ritigala Angan Pora??[edit]

The name is somewhat confusing in searches I did. A native of the Philippines could probably disambiguate the whole thing. It would also add to the clarity of the article. Cheers! Stormbay (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct name of the technique is Angampora (both the YouTube links refer to this name). See also this. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Angampora/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 07:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
I think the confusion occurred due to the word "variants". "Angam" and "Illangam" are two different techniques of Angampora. I've changed the wording to avoid confusion. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It includes all the styles. Reworded the section. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Includes ground fighting as well. Sentence on submission locks should make it clear. I don't think additional details are necessary. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perimeters are defined on the location; pits at times. I don't think there is a universal standard on this. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soft ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
Practice
Added ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Panikkirala" is a position, rather than a grade. Since the practice is confined to schools, the master is the "Panikkirala". I've corrected this issue. But there is no indication about a grading system. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to the sources. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please say so in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not specific on this issue. But I think the image should provide a general idea. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a commercial element to this art? I.e., in foreign countries, do people sell training. It might be the case that native training might not be the same as commercial trainging where people have to feel like they are paying for progress with uniforms and belts that signify progress (rank).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'The art is still largely confined to a number of key schools. To avoid bias, I've refrained from directly quoting their headmasters, who appear in a number of news articles. However it is difficult to say the art is practiced in business-scale yet. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both men and women learn to fight Angam." - do you mean All Sri Lankans? Members of a certain faith? certain caste? certain part of society? from a certain region? in the military? or people who are attracted to the discipline?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sinhalese language source suggests that practitioners have to be Buddhists. I added it to the section. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this currently true or was this prior to Brits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some doubts on this. I added the category because the article says so. But because of the recent trends, it might not be factually correct anymore. I think this has to be removed. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What categories are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not the categories in Wikipedia. I meant the category of people who are allowed to practice Angampora, according to the ref (i. e. Buddhists). This might not be true anymore. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 12:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reviving style, after a long period of suppression. "Colonial period and beyond" section should give an idea I think. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am getting at is can you find something that says. Today it is actively practiced by 3000 Sri Lankans or something similar?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to say the numbers keep growing. But I was not able find a source which puts a particular number. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it studied outside of Sri Lanka at all?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to answer. But there are similar styles in South India (ex: Kalaripayattu) ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explain similarity to other styles in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Training takes place at huts known as "Angam Madu". This is mentioned in the History section. The graduation ceremony is held at an affiliated Temple. But the location of the "Angam Madu" may or may not be adjacent to the Temple. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to state that the Angam Madu were the place were all training traditionally occurred before saying they were burned. You also need to state if the modern day training all occurs in Angam Madu.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't give a detailed description on the curriculum. It is possible that some parts are kept secret like most other martial arts native to this region. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It troubles me that we can not find this detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some "Gataputtu" and "Pora Haramba" techniques. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 17:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never looked for a link for forms, but please try to find one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General
"Jathika Hela Angam Shilpa Kala Sangamaya", which oversees the sport locally is not related to the government. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the final section to the History section, because I thought it fits more there. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if there was more to add to popular culture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link this article as is applicable and then add those templates here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the history section could go under its own section call "Etymology", better if it can be expanded too.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there are weapons used in Angampora, that could be its own section with some images. Could help expand the article too considering the last comment.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very short article in comparison to some other martial arts that I am more familiar with. It is very difficult for me to assess whether the article is comprehensive. I will put the article on hold for seven days. Please respond to each concern above on the subsequent line. At some point I may even seek a 2nd opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • I, as a practicing artist of this art cannot recommend this page because this page contains stuffs which are not belonging to true art of Angampora. eg. Kathira Getaya, this is called Kathira Pudiya in chinadi and now most of teachers of the chinadi art have become Angampora gurus and changed their tamil names to sinhala. Other one is Velayudaya. Vel or Velayudaya is not the weopon they shows. It's a type of Hella which is used by God Katharagama. Sihala Article for this is available in below link.

http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%9A%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%B0%E0%B6%BA I have done several changes to this article but someone has undo them without any reason. If this fake article is going to be our English Angampora article, people will be belief in Wikipedia articles in future. Please pay your attendation on the matter I'm talking. I can provide whatever proofs for what I'm saying. --Angam 12:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angampora (talk • contribs)

    • I am failing this. I am uncomfortable with the breadth of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. if you wish to appeal this evaluation, you may submit the article to WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not able to find adequate sources to exapand the practice section and relation to other South Asian martial arts. Besides, there is an apparent clan rivalry, which is exemplified by the above comment by User:Angampora. I think there should also be a comparison between the current traditions, which is not possible to be done with the available sources. Therefore I accept the result for now, and will try to adress your concerns if I get hold of suitable printed sources. Thank you for time spent reviewing this GAN. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion to B Class[edit]

It may have not quite passed GA but the improvements nudge it into B-class. I would think one or two more pictures to flesh out the Practice section would be good and some attention to the GA comments not yet taken care is still necessary. I think that the push for GA was too early. Usually the article needs some time to evolve and grow. I suggest a Peer Review in a couple of months follwed by another GA attempt.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article is well-sourced but it still has a few major issues.

1.Capitalisation, and in some cases italicisation, is a very common mistake with martial arts and with non-English words in general. As noted here, only the names of specific schools should be capitalised. Words like karate, or in this case angampora, should not be capitalised. This article consistently both capitalises and italicises the word angampora. Other Sinhala words are also capitalised unnecessarily like "Ethunu Kaduwa", "Maru Kala", etc. Think of it this way. When writing in English, you don't capitalise terms like "boxing" or "kick", so why should equivalent foreign words be capitalised?

Done

2. Too many grammar mistakes. One glaring example: "origin of Angampora dates back to over 30,000 years", which should correctly read "angampora dates back over 30,000 years".

Done, could you point out the others.

3. The Embekka Devalaya woodcarving picture is good for the history section but it makes a poor lead image. There are much more appropriate photos for the infobox given in the gallery at the bottom of the article. Why aren't one of these used instead? And speaking of the gallery...

Done

4. The captions in the photos are terrible. Most are not even necessary because the pictures are self-explanatory. We don't need to say "fighting with sticks" or "sword fight display" when the photo speaks for itself. I won't mention the grammar in those captions either. And perhaps other editors on this article are unaware that pointing out a female practitioner's gender is "politically incorrect".

I've changed the title, but I think captions are necessary, I agree some of them could be better.

5. A reference book is meant to be that: a reference book. It is not an example of angampora in popular culture. This seems more like an advertisement than telling how angampora has influenced pop culture.

Fixed

6. Angampora is not and has never been restricted to Buddhists. This claim comes from a certain user who stretched the connection with Buddhist temples to imply that "The Sinhalese language source suggests that practitioners have to be Buddhists." Angampora's origin predates Buddhism and this is corroborated by the sources given. Speaking of that sentence..

7. It does not need to be mentioned that angampora is open to "men and women" (male and female would be more accurate) because this is always assumed to be the case unless there is some restriction. In other words, you only mention if a certain gender cannot learn the art, you don't mention if both can.

Done

8. "Its most distinct feature is the use of pressure point attacks". This sentence is not even sourced. How is this angampora's most distinct feature? Pressure point attacks are found in many Asian countries and are not at all unusual. Besides, unacquainted observers tend to notice the agility and acrobatics as the most distinct feature.

9. The first paragraph of the history section belongs in an etymology section.

Done

Morinae (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some fixes according to your list above, however I will address the rest later. If there are any more changes you think should happen please write them. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the liberty of making some simple changes myself. You can check them and point out if any are unsatisfactory. I won't make any major changes to the writing yet, but even if every grammatical error is fixed, the article is generally written to a very low standard of English. Facts are often just jumbled one after another with little connection to each other. Looking at the article objectively, much of it really does have to be rewritten to improve the prose. One change I'm making which I thought I should clarify is the infobox. For one thing, I personally feel that [[1]] or [[2]] would make a better lead picture. More importantly, we don't say "historic" or "prehistoric" for a martial art's lineage in the infobox. This was common a few years ago but it isn't supposed to be done. As it says here, you don't specify a creator unless there is one. Obviously, "prehistoric" is not a creator. Also, when you say the system's focus, you only say the one thing that the art focuses on. For example, judo is all about throws and boxing is punch-based. Fencing focuses on weaponry while karate is mainly strikes of various kinds. A system like angampora is a little too difficult to categorise and I would personally leave it blank. Besides, it really depends on the practitioner (or sometimes the teacher) what aspect they want to focus on. Some may prefer weapons, some might go with strikes, others may be better at locks. If you are determined to fill the parameter in, I would either recommend strikes or weapons. Angampora definitely focuses more on these aspects than it does on pressure points or grappling. And as for the book mentioned at the end, that entire section has to go. No other martial arts article here has a section for a reference book. That honestly seems like some advertisement. If the book was used as a reference when writing the article, it should be listed among the references. We simply cannot have a paragraph saying "this book written by this author includes this information and the author's achievements are so and so". Morinae (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect facts and make-believe[edit]

I cleaned up the grammar and the flow of the article (the english was atrocious at some points, very patchy), and i came across something interesting. Someone with a very nationalist axe to grind seems to have put in a few edits, implying the Brits killed practitioners. While that may have been so, the pdf they cited for this has no mention of anything beyond the punishment of crippling. Seriously, keep these people off pages like this.91.109.47.11 (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angampora. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake ban?[edit]

Sadly, there seems to be no surviving copy of the supposed gazette that promised gunshots to the knee to offenders of the supposed ban. Instead, the available sources on the ban uncritically report hearsay from today's practitioners, who have a vested interest in promoting their arts as sensational, ancient, effectively dangerous, and as a matter of national pride that has only now been re-discovered. Unless older sources from the 19th or 20th century can be provided, we should consider the whole alleged ban as a suspiciously unconfirmed legend. I'm not saying that persecutions, burnings or gunshots to knees didn't happen, but I just saw no evidence that this was ordered, decreed or done at any level.

There is one source (Mr. Akram) that presents an old document apparently from 1818 which states that two official positions (court champions ~= chief gladiators) are to be abolished and their departments are to be reorganized. That is not a ban, and importantly also doesn't spell out punishments. The text by Mr. Davy in 1821 however corroborates that the practice of the same "court champions" was now discontinued. Yet the whole context and reasoning is rather different: These fighters were not outlawed because they posed a danger to the occupation; but they were deemed unnecessarily driving up unrest between their two polarized factions within the population.

So the British probably removed the lucrative job incentive for these fighters, nothing else. That would also threaten this martial art, but would also explain much better how it could have survived: as a leisure art form. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angampora&oldid=1205422577"