Talk:Indian martial arts/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hostilities

Why ?? why revert it back it a meaningless, lifeless drawl with no official citation and fradulent information and do so without adhering to reason or even stopping to listen to the actual official statements ???

It seems all you want to do is sabotage the article itself, placing tags despite official citation and not care all that much about the truth, the international version, because you did'nt like what you saw on India on NATGEO so much and can't believe that the ancient civilization was actually worth something before the British Raj.

Mindlessly reverting it back to versions that don't cut it does'nt help, Kenny. If you're not satisfies with the quality of my article, I have a ongoing database of websites mentioning India and several more official citations underway, should be good enough for anybody, huh ?? or you'll still try and stop everyone from mentioning India because it shatters everything that you believed in, official versions disagreeing and all. I believe you will, Kenny, not because you believe in it but because you want it to be that way no matter what the Shaolin says. Freedom skies 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

you obviously have an issue with biasness. you keep on stating that your article is official but you're quoting random websites and you seem to discount the books and books and books written about this subject. Do you really want me to listn to this Alex Doss character and these random websites? Kenneth is right. so is JFD. Anyways, why aren't you quoting your source as stating that all martial arts came from Turkey???!!! further, the british were not instrumental in destroying indian martial arts. the martial arts in india were never really widespread- that's why it's so difficult to determine when this or that martial arts started. secondly, i have no problems with indian culture. the problem is you - you're making stuff up! you are the one who should stop reverting things back. anyways, i placed a warning on your page. there is a 3 revert rule on wikipedia. obviously the article is being disputed by multiple people. if you want to leave your article, then you need to leave the NPOV and the disputed titles on the top of the article. and quit reverting it back because we all dispute you. Steelhead 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does'nt cut it. I get the "you're outnumbered because you have a life and we three will sit here trying to ban you" thing but here's the thing :-

you keep on stating that your article is official but you're quoting random websites and you seem to discount the books and books and books written about this subject.

I state official websites, and scores of books. So, your thing about "random websites" and "discount the books" needs a NPOV tag.

Anyways, why aren't you quoting your source as stating that all martial arts came from Turkey???!!!

Do it, and mention that Karate came from India 2000 years BC too, it's the paragraph which follows and you so convieniently missed.

the british were not instrumental in destroying indian martial arts.

Lemme get it straight, anal raping the biggest economy in the world at the time and capturing all the kingdoms, disbanding Kshatriya armies and the muslims ones, leaving the country balkanised and so very poor is not istrumental ??? you need to see the nice men in white y'know ??

the martial arts in india were never really widespread

Needs citation and a NPOV tag, plus that factually incorrect tag too. India had a whole sect of the caste system dedicated to this, their practices went with their thrones at the time of the raj.

I placed a reply to your so called warning at your page, read it and try not to mess the article up this time. Freedom skies 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

very few of those books that you added support your views. Many of them are from JFD's citation. regardless, there are a bunch of people who disagree with you and you can keep your article as is but you need to leave the NPOV tag and the disputed tag as we all believe that the article is biased and the facts are few and far between. Steelhead 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
further, why have you not replied to any of the citations, articles, and books that JFD and kennethtennyson have put on about their versions of history. Let's see... you cite rick graycie's website - kennethtennyson cites a museum from china. you cite some random indian book by an indian author... JFD and kennethtennyson cite another book by a chinese scholar. You cite some random Alex Doss character... and so forth. for every one random citation that you use, kennethtennyson and JFD seem to cite a better one. Has it ever occured to you taht you are biased? From reading your article you seem to really dislike white people... sorry you feel that way but you really need to get over it. Steelhead 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

what are you ?? a cheerleader for JFD ?? or a sock puppet ??? None of the books are from JFD's citation, none at all.

If you disagree then place a "We Disagree" tag or something, the information is confirmed by the official authorities and is NOT disputed, neither has anyone argued about the information with me here on this page since the citations, all they say is they're having nightmares about the game charecters, they think alex doss is a teenager, that they think the Shaolin does'nt know about it's history and quoting one para from Goju Ryu and leaving the other so it looks out of context.

The info is not even under dispute, all you hear is outcry and not on the information, on the fact that souces from other countries such as China, Japan seem to acknowledge that they interacted with ancient civilizations.

I dislike white people ?? wow that hit me like a rock out of nowhere, does'nt even deserve an answer. If I told you about my friends and the people mean the world to me, it would include a truckload of white people and african-americans, italians ...........

Anyways, The books I mentioned confirm my POV in one point or the other, as for quality of citations, I've cited Shalin, Gracies, Goju ryu and Tsumi Hozan, I don't get whatever made you think that they're inferior to any other authority on the face of this planet about their own history. Freedom skies 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

look, the purpose of npov and disputed tag is that peopel disagree with you. it doesn't mean you have to believe in their disagreement with you. the fact that we keep on reverting this article means that there is a disagreement. so be a nice chap and leave the npov and disputed tags on since there is a dispute ongoing. further, your last little rant about how white people did this and that to your home country and how they are responsible for all the bad things that happened to india need to be supported by fact. hence, you're biased and possibly even racist in what you said. i'm sure the british did do bad things but you are making them out to be the ultimate evil on earth. you forget that the muslim invaders were not too nice to the native population either. the british i believe did support the indian martial arts when it belonged to the class of indians who worked for their military during the colonial period. Steelhead 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen up steelhead, Stop equalizing the british to the white people, just take a look into the economic history of India and watch it go from the largest economy on the face of this planet to one of the poorest, that's what the Raj did.

Anyways, as for my bias, my family owns a home in north london and I travel there all the time, I've made friends who're like family to me and at one time I even wanted to join the London shootfighters for real.

The people disagree with the fact as shown in the official versions of countries like japan and China. They're wrong and the disagreement is in their head and not in the article itself, the article is substantiated. Hence out goes the tag. Freedom skies 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about? none of them above agreed with anything that you stated! Kennethtennyson totally disagreed with you and so did JFD. JFD's last note stated that one of your citatoins was totally false... as far as i can tell, no one currently agrees with anything that you have written. I don't agree with you either. hence, the tag remains. Steelhead 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen once more, they disagree with the official versions and that disqualifies the NPOV and the other tag. They're generally squabbling over things other then the central issue of official citation, crying themsleves hoarse over the mention of a game charecter in pop culture and all.

Take a look at JFD's citation and maybe then you'll think twice before saying things like "JFD's last note stated that one of your citatoins was totally false", he mentioned one para while not mentioning the other making the whole thing go out of context, if you take a look at the website itself, or my reply to the citation then you'll know, it's one of the tricks that he uses and that's about it.

The Tsumi Hozan, Shaolin, Gracies and Goju Ryu agree, I need no certification from half baked theorists on anything else when I have the most relevant authorities on the planet here. Freedom skies 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I state official websites, and scores of books.
Cutting and pasting Alex Doss' bibliography does not count as citing scores of books.
None of the books are from JFD's citation, none at all.
From Indian martial arts 19:27, 11 August 2006 Freedom skies:
From Indian martial arts 14:55, 13 August 2006 JFD:
From Talk:Indian martial arts 15:29, 14 August 2006 JFD:
Anyways, The books I mentioned confirm my POV in one point or the other
Then you won't mind attributing specific statements to specific sources. JFD 02:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Like,


[1]

or


[2]

or


[3]

or


[4]

This time, Live with it. Freedom skies 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What statements can you attribute to those "scores of books" you cut and pasted from Alex Doss' bibliography? JFD 02:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and accuracy

I have issued everyone involved in this a 3rr warning, as it appears everyone has violated it or come very close to violating it. There is clearly some sort of dispute, so I don't think removing the tags without explanation is warranted, but please discuss the changes on the talk page so I don't have to protect the page or issue blocks. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, then. Can we discuss what specific points are being disputed? Cowman109Talk 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Gets on his knees and thanks god for the first hint of sense that he sees in this discussion page, kinda misses the grin smiley

The dispute is that I've mentioned the official citations from Tsumi Hozan [jujutsu], the [Shaolin] Temple, [Gracie family] and [Goju Ryu] Karate and what I keep getting is that Japan and China never interacted with any ancient civilization at all and the official citations don't mean anything, the facts when backed by the official citations will get an NPOV and Factual Inaccuracy tag and as if that was not enough I've been called anti- white people, pro tamil (I really have no idea when I came to be identified as a Tamil, I'm not anything even remotely close), Alex Doss (one of the guys believes that I actually am that guy) and biased, my credibilty now becoming a questionable thing, my sources are undisputed.

I've cried myself hoarse for anyone to come dispute the official sources on the talk pages and no one comes forward to , they go mad because I mentioned a fighter from a game in the Indian martial arts in pop culture section and when they fraudeulently changed his fighting style from what CAPCOM officialy states, I objected.

I started the article, I've been sincerely working my ass off, the first few times I even edited the article so any legitimate grievances will be met. Plus, I've constantly maintained that In addition to what I've officially cited here, I'll bring forward an assortment of websites confirming my facts and a huge list of academies and official citations from martial arts disciplines in near future but none of that stops the opposition from mindlessly putting the tags in there.

In other words, the information is undisputed, the official sources been mentioned and they confirm my stand, the opposition though, has adopted a technique of three-on-one encircling, deviation from the central topic of official citations (on which I have yet to hear why do they think that official citations are NPOV and Factually IC material) and mindless lies (like changing the fighting style of video game charecter Dhalsim) and have gone to the extent of telling me to "be a nice chap" and more things to that effect.

I've cited the official sources and that's it, if someone has a problem with the official versions they'll have to live with the fact that the problem exists in their head and not in the article, the shaolin knows more about it's history than any of the three involved, it's a fact.

I mentioned an assortment of websites pertaining to the popular point of view and it was rejected as random, what the official citations ???

With that said, please remove the NPOV and Factual tags. Thank You. Freedom skies 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly something that is being disputed here, else we wouldn't have the revert war over the tags. It would be best to hear what specific facts are being disputed, as it can't be the entire article. Cowman109Talk 02:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Many relevant martial arts, including those emanating from the Shaolin temple[1], Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu[2], Goju Ryu Karate[3] and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu[4] have officialy credited India as their origin.

  • Official citation from the Shaolin, Gracie family, Goju Ryu and so on. My problem is when the official citations mention India why won't the other editors let me state that they do ??? Freedom skies 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This source does not mention India anywhere in it. It cited the Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu line. Where does it state that it originated in India? The other ones do seem to state so, though. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
it's pretty obvious that the person who is reverting this back with the anonymous ip address is freedom skies. He's actually written and signed things in the discussion under his name and then reverted the article under his ip addres of 59.94.99.193 right afterwards. Regardless, the issue at hand is that from what i can tell almost everything in the article is written from a biased point of view and without evidence of facts present. He is quoting an online persona by the name of Alex Doss who supposedly is the president of some Tamil based university club in California that proposes that all southeast asian martial arts is Tamil based. I've never heard of this idea and no one can verify the existence of this Alex Doss fellow at the california university. If Alex Doss is a president of a university based organization, he most likely is an undergraduate and has no degree behind his name and is most likely 18-22 years old. He further is using as his sources, various personal websites that support his one-sided view of martial arts history. The problem with this is that various people have stated that for every one website he quotes supposedly supporting his view, there are 5 or 6 others that do not support his view. Others disagree with him and quote websites run by museums and government organizations. Basically, the question is who is true with the plethora of online information and what level of trust can you believe in the information involved? Do you trust some random online website run by an individual or do you trust a government website and a museum website? Do you trust a book written by a professor of history or do you trust a book written by someone who is a layman? Further, what is more plausible... all of southeast asian martial arts coming from Tamils as proposed by someone who is the president of a Tamil based independence organization? or that martial arts most likely evolved individually throughout each culture? Humanity has been fighting wars since the beginning of civilization and if you group a bunch of guys together they will create there own martial arts instead of randomly punching and kicking each other. that is the current belief on the origin of almost all martial arts... and he is wrong in stating that the Shaolin monks believe in his martial arts because they do not. If you go to other Shaolin monk websites and if you go to the official Shaolin organization websites from China, then the official statement is that the Shaolin monks were practicing their own martial arts before the existence of this Bodhidharma legend came into existence (which actually only occured in the 19th century A.D.) Further, Wushu is the progenitor of Shaolin Kung fu and it came into existence in the 7th century B.C. or so. Steelhead 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite specifically,

Many relevant martial arts, including those emanating from the Shaolin temple[1], Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu[2], Goju Ryu Karate[3] and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu[4] have officialy credited India as their origin.

I've bought Official citation from the Shaolin, Gracie family, Goju Ryu and so on to the page. My problem is when the official citations mention India why won't the other editors let me state that they do ??? The idea of three-on-one encircling and asking me to be "a nice chap" is not enough to keep me from mentioning what Shaolin officially has to say.

Plus going all extreme like "everything came from India", "he believes Tamils are supreme", "doss is an idiot because I have this idea that he's a teenager and will not let anyone mention him" and saying other obsure things and such is not going to stifle what the Shaolin has to say.

Like, I said, they go all argumentative and deviate from answering why won't they let me mention what the Shaolin has to say officially?? Freedom skies 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Oh, the source mentions it in the Jujutsu section , here, http://www.hansdejong.biz/jujutsu.htm Freedom skies 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The basis of the india link with Shaolin kung fu is through the bodhidharma legend, which no historian really believes is true. If you want random websites, then let's see if i can find a museum website or a .org website... Well, how about this website then...http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/monksoldiers.php... or how about this one... http://open-site.org/Sports/Martial_Arts/Chinese From the article...(Many people believe that Bodhidharma wrote the famous 'Yijinjing,' or "Muscle/Tendon Change Classic", the basis of Shaolin martial arts and Kung fu. However, there is no record of the book up to the end of the Tang Dynasty (618-907) and most experts believe that Damo had little to do with Shaolin Kung fu.)... and then if you go to this website... http://www.martial-arts-info.com/120/kung-fu/ Steelhead 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
oh.. and here is an excerpt from the book "mastering kung fu" http://www.humankinetics.com/products/showexcerpt.cfm?excerpt_id=3398Steelhead 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


That could be done, going into the twenty different legends that people like to talk about........or you could just go to http://www.shaolin.cn.com/ and find out for yourself which version the Shaolin believes in.

By bringing in confusing legends from websites you once again divert from the central question, "Why won't you let me mention what the shaolin has to say ??? and why do you go all out to confuse people with different legends and all when i have the OFFICIAL version."

That's what they do, whenever I ask them about why they try to choke the official versions they just go "A legend said this", "be a nice chap" and "He thinks that happened, he lives in uptown LA, Y'know and I think he does Kung Fu."

These people have no intrest in a head on argument, all they want are delays and some reason for the article to not go forward with the official citations. Freedom skies 03:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Like i told you before... there are about 300 websites by various people who CLAIM to be the one and only Shaolin kung fu masters... each website is more ludicrous than the next as to what they claim...Steelhead 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This one is official, what's so hard to understand about that ?? and what about the Gracie family and Goju Ryu ?? got any smart ideas why you and your buddies worked so hard trying to keep me from mentioning them too ??? Freedom skies 04:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The specific point under dispute is the extent to which India can be credited for the martial arts of China, Japan and Southeast Asia.
Here is a version of the article that incorporates both Freedom skies' claims and my criticisms around which a consensus could probably be formed. Though I cite the non-English works of Tang Hao and Matsuda Ryuchi, I also refer to the English-language works of Stanley E. Henning, including "Academia Encounters the Chinese Martial Arts," which was published in the academic journal China Review International and is available online. I can also appeal to the work of Lin Boyuan, excerpts of which have been translated into English.
I have never accused Freedom skies of being "anti-white," "pro-tamil," or Alex Doss.
I have accused him of trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and of copying Alex Doss' bibliography, pasting it on this page, and trying to pass it off as the citation of sources.
I feel obligated to point out that Freedom skies has been uncivil from the very beginning[5] when, on the Indian nationalism Talk page, I requested citation over some of the points in contention on this page. Moreover, Freedom skies has a history of incivility when challenged,[6] personal attacks[7] and the use of hyperbolic language to promote an ethnocentric POV that has no place on Wikipedia.[8] He has replaced statements attributed to a reliable source with dubious material that more closely reflects his particular perspective.[9] When asked for citation,[10] he refuses and reverts,[11] more often than not tossing off a nasty comment or two along the way. JFD 04:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm 22 and I box, so I did say something which resembles something of an offensive tone. JFD, you're my senior in this and if it's that big of a deal, then sorry. I'll try to keep my tone in check next time.

As for trying to discredit me, like I said , my credibility,as debatable as it might be to you, I guess you'll just have to trust the official citations from the Shaolin, the Gracie family and so on.

I do step out of line when someone disputes something as concrete, but then again, it's inexcusable, sorry for the tone as such, i'll try to keep it in check. Ditto for Kenny and Steelhead. Freedom skies 04:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That does'nt change the arguments, though. (could use the grin smiley). Freedom skies 05:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'll note, I never removed material from Alex Doss' article. I did insist that such material be attributed to him by name[12] and that his Tamil activism[13] be noted[14] in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, he's not a professor of history or anthropology or any kind of professional scholar; he was head of a Tamil student group.[15] In fact, it appears that he is now a veterinarian who specializes in the treatment of cats.[16]
I will briefly recount the case against crediting the East Asian martial arts to India.
  • The existence of martial arts in China before Bodhidharma is documented in the Bibliographies in the Book of Han Dynasty, the Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue and the Records of the Grand Historian. If we accept legendary accounts, then the story of hand-to-hand combat between the Yellow Emperor and Chi You pushes the earliest date for the existence of Chinese martial arts to 2697 BCE.
  • There is evidence for the practice of martial arts in temples, including Shaolin, prior to Bodhidharma in the Extensive Records of the Taiping Era, Shaolin monastery records, and the Taisho Tripitaka. Henning calls attention to raids uncovering arms caches in Chang'an monasteries in 446.
  • The widespread association of Bodhidharma with martial arts does not occur until the 20th century and can be traced to the Muscle Change Classic, a text which Matsuda cannot track before 1827 and which Lin dates to 1624.
  • Matsuda found that none of the texts on Shaolin martial arts published during this thousand year gap even mentions Bodhidharma.
  • The historical inaccuracies in the Muscle Change Classic include mistaken chronology, the appearance of a fictional character in a supposedly historical account, and historical figures behaving out of character, which led Tang Hao to the conclusion that the Muscle Change Classic was a forgery. The attribution of martial arts to Bodhidharma is like the story of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree: widely believed, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
  • Tracing the origins of Jujutsu back to India is based on the idea that Chen Genpin brought the martial arts to Japan in 1659. However, there is evidence that jujutsu existed before 1659 (Source: Tsutumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu).
  • With the likely exception of Silambam, the attribution of the Southeast Asian martial arts to India isn't supported by even the equivalent of a Bodhidharma or Chin Genpin story.
JFD 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Argumentative and based on suppositions, taking text out of context and trying to state books and supposing that just because so and so mentioned it in a book, it did'nt exist before then is not going to alter the official histories of these institutions, be it Goju Ryu or the Shaolin.

The official versions deserve a mention since they seem to have kept track of their history, they need to be given more credibility then the books and random suppositions pertaining to a particular point of view, no matter how well written and compelling, the suppositions still don't cut it, the official versions do. Freedom skies 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you, only "official versions" cut it, and argument and "random suppositions pertaining to a particular point of view" don't.
Since when is Alex Doss "official"?
Also, it's now clear that Tsutumi Hozan Ryu should be removed from that list of institutions.
JFD 11:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_martial_arts/Archive_3&oldid=1045371433"