Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 1 March 2007

Elections

I don't quite understand how "premature posting of election results can actually taint the democratic process"; do you mean that by posting information about a vote while it's in progress, you can influence that vote? That's technically true but it isn't really our concern; rather, our concern is accurate coverage of what has happened. Regardless of the background or purpose, everything on Misplaced Pages should be NPOV, election articles are not an exception. Likewise, if speculation is added to such an article (or indeed, any article) it needs to be sourced; unsourced information can be removed. HTH. (Radiant) 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Article

I haven't come across his name and can't say anything good or bad about the guy. But my general take is that korean martial arts existed as folk art and not as a formalized system. Check out soobak and taekyon. This forms the basis of all Korean martial arts. Japanese and Chinese influences at the turn of the century causes Korean martial artists to formalize their own versions the way Chinese and Japanese were doing while borrowing things about other marital arts that they saw as being good. This guy is probably old enough that he was around during that post WWII period when korean martial arts were being formalized. The guys that he went to Saigon with are the founding members of Oh Do Kwan which is one of the earlier schools that were formed post WWII. There's no mention of Bok Man Kim in that wiki article though.Melonbarmonster 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at the links that support the Oh Do Kwan article the speaks about him quite a lot.Saboem 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bok Man

I'm from the Philippines and am a personal experienced the development of Taekwondo. I guarantee that two of the earliest Taekwondo pioneers were Kim Bok Man and Young Man Park, but this was in the 70s! So long ago. The current 'father' or sort of director, Sun Chun Hong is still around , so I do not need to speak for him. If you push to have this article deleted, I assure you this will be a great lost for the Misplaced Pages Taekwondo community.--Jondel 12:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jondel. I am not pushing for the deletion of the Bok Man article. I am merely stating that none of the current citations included for his article are on par with WP:BIO standards. As stated before, if someone can provide 3rd party, verifiable (see WP:V) citations on his notability, I will happily withdraw my deletion request. Though I am sure you are well-respected in the Taekwando community, WP:NOR forbids us to use personal testimony to vouch for articles. Best regards, and Happy New Year. Djma12 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why you pushed so hard to have two well known TKD pioneers deleted from Misplaced Pages, Bok Man Kim and Jhoon Rhee. But you were successfull and unwaivering in your pursute, no matter what facts were presented, and for that I say good for you, stay the course, you're doin a heck of a job . But please tell me what is it that bothers you so much about these men?Saboem 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I have no financial gain from the sale of the Chun Kuhn Do book I only reply to e-mails (GM Kim does not speak or read english very well) and direct people to where they can buy a book in their area. If they want a signed copy I direct them to GM Kim. I have no financial gain just helping someone read and respond to inquiries. I also am listed as owner and administrator on the chunkuhndo.com website for the same reasons. Yes I own a school that teaches Chun Kuhn Do and Tae Kwon Do but the article would not be advertisement for my school. And by the way The TKD Hall of fame website is only advertising their awards dinner as far as I can see,they list the goal of their organization as "providing recognition and incentives by the way of awards to demonstrate excellence in the field of Taekwondo which is also referred to as "Tae Kwon Do", and "Taekwon-Do". The Bristol paper article was just that an article not an advertisement. I am waiting to hear back from the St Louis dispatch the articles written about GM Kim during the the 80's and early 90's are archived.Saboem 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed Parkers article should be added to your crusade for all the same reasonsSaboem 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In any event

Reworded and the image gone. _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not favour any POV involved. Two articles both well cited and providing links to each other is the best way. Both the pro and the anti versions are too fraught with minor details. _{Freedom skies| talk}  20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My friend

1. Since it would be impractical to merge the articles, we can insert a "See also" link at the top of the article along with a synopsis of relevant points from the second article within a "Disputes" section. 2. I know Freedom Skies has some issue with the citations used in the second article, so why doesn't he add criticisms towards its scholarship within a "Criticisms" section he will create in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. If the original authors of that article give you trouble on adding a Criticisms section, let me know on my discussion page and I'll back you up.

• You have seen the quality and the tone of the Yi Jin Jing and the "Bodhidharma, .." article. Yet you chose to persecute only this article.
• The link is already there, in both the articles in question. Very strategically located and directs the reader to a very formidable "Bodhidharma..." article. Ditto for that article, they have a link to the "Foreign influence"
• The critisisms section exists only in the "Foreign influence ." article, the other article convieniently overlooks the conflicts present in the views of a minority of "armchair" historians. (You'll also see that these historians have a history of being "pariahs").
• Two articles existing in all their strength. Both providing links to each other. That was the solution I concieved a long time ago with those who wrote the other article, my friend.
• The other article is accused of the same actions as well. Not accomadating the other POV, not even mentioning what the officials of the Shaolin and the BBC have to say on this, Overlooking points completely .......Two POVs, without interference from the other. Like the Aryan Invasion Theory and the Out of India theory.
• I won't touch the "Bodhidharma and the connection" article .. Let them present their version. The opposing point of view is provided to balance the other side in the "Foreign influence " article. The reader will essentially read the both of them, and will have two very strong articles to form his opinion on.

Forgive my spelling and grammer errors. I'm writing this in extreme haste. Happy New Year. _{Freedom skies| talk}  14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I request you to remove the tags from both the articles or allow me to. The articles accomadate the other POV by providing a prominent link to the other article. _{Freedom skies| talk}  18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I'll welcome any change you have to make in the language and the tone of this article. This article (unfortunately) had me, a 23 year old boxer, to provide for the encyclopedic language and I may not have done such a good job. I also welcome the addition of the "See Also" tags to the begining of the article.

If your involvement results in the article being bolstered by encyclopedic language then it would be most welcome.

P.S. And yes, Yi Jin Jing and the "Bodhidharma, .." are still next on my list for work.

Out of sheer, genuine goodwill, I would suggest otherwise. The editors who contributed to the article in question may not accomadate you, my friend. See what they did to Bodhidharma before my involvement here (for details, see the talk page archives of the article in question). I can provide many more similar examples. You're alone and relatively unfamiliar, the edit war that they may impose is not worth either your time or your peace of mind. Trust me, I know. Best leave their articles alone and let them have their say; as long as the "Foreign influence..." article represents the other POV, people will hear what Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit has to say about this in any event.

Extending best regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would welcome your scrutiny of Yi Jin Jing or Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts.

As for Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts, I offer the same advice that I do to a prospective administrator:

1. Examine the nature of the sources - Do they meet Misplaced Pages standards for reliable sources?
2. Check the text of the cited sources to make sure they support the corresponding material in the article

What you are doing is very valuable.
You are scrutinizing these articles for those Misplaced Pages readers who may not have the time or the inclination.

Best of luck,
JFD 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand.

Since leaving university and entering the working world, I now have much less time for Misplaced Pages than I used to. It used to be how I took breaks from academic work while in the university library.

In any case, once you get to Yi Jin Jing and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, just give me a holler if you have trouble getting hold of sources to verify.
JFD 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection adding material that

1. cites reliable sources
2. does not misrepresent those sources

Currently, the "Opposing theories" section of Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts fails to meet the latter.
The "conflicts" and "inconsistencies" between Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan only arise if one takes things out of context.

Matsuda Ryuchi does not date the Yi Jin Jing to 1827; he is only willing to date the Yi Jin Jing to 1827 because that is the year that the oldest extant copy was published.
Lin Boyuan's date of 1624 is the result of research.

As for the conflict between Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan, Ling Tingkan characterizes the author of the Yi Jin Jing as an "ignorant village master" because it is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

As for Paul Pelliot, his position is that Bodhidharma is purely legendary and has no basis in historical fact. Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan are more concerned with the authenticity of the Yi Jin Jing than with the historicity of Bodhidharma, so I don't see how Paul Pelliot's work "conflicts" with the results of their research.

What the "Opposing theories" section of Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts needs is an academic source that examines the Yi Jin Jing, concludes that it is authentic, and satisfactorily deals with the issues raised by Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan, Ling Tingkan and other historians.

For the record I am open to the idea of foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. I happen to think that Mongolian wrestling influenced Chinese martial arts greatly. But the case for Indian influence of the extent and nature that Freedom skies describes is not well-supported.

JFD 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the "Opposing theories" section shouldn't distort or misrepresent as it currently does.
JFD 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I was initially hostile to you and for that I extend my apologies. Your AfD in the Jhoon Rhee article, another martial arts legend who supports the foreign Influence theory, made me apprehensive about your intentions, which I mistook as ones directed to erase every mention of the official and the majority held version. Your contributions to the article have been valuable and for that I send this note. _{Freedom skies| talk}  16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this. Please see the discussion page. I won't edit anything for now until I get an answer back about the foreign influences in martial arts page. Kennethtennyson 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I've added biographies of some of my sources to Talk:Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts taken from Chapter 4 and 5 ("Chinese Martial Arts Historians" and "Westerners Researching Chinese Martial Arts History", pp. 38–68) of Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey by Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, which can be consulted online here through Google Books.

Google Books does not make available the complete text of copyrighted books, which means that some pages may not be accessible.
If there are pages you wish to read but cannot access through Google Books, do not hesitate to contact me; I would happy to type them up for you.

At this juncture, a distinction should be made between martial arts historians—that is, those who specialise in the history of martial arts and who adhere to academic standards and methods in their historical research—and others who write about the martial arts.
Some will be martial artists who are not specialists in the study of martial arts history; others will be lay authors writing about the martial arts.
As you vet the sources yourself, the distinction will become clearer and clearer.
JFD 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Let us take as an example Freedom skies' citation of "Liow Kah Joon and Kah Joon Liow". (A Musical Journey: from the Great Wall of China to the water towns of Jiangnan by liow kah Joon, Kah Joon Liow)

Click on the link to Google Books and the first thing you will realize is that this is a children's book, as is—obviously—Karate for Kids, another book which Freedom skies cites as a source. (Karate for Kids by Robin L. Rielly)
You can decide for yourself whether these and other sources Freedom skies cites are reliable by Misplaced Pages standards.

The second thing you'll realize is that "Liow Kah Joon and Kah Joon Liow" are the same name rendered in East Asian (family name-given name) and Western (given name-family name) name order respectively.
You can decide for yourself what this reveals about how closely Freedom skies reads the sources he cites and his knowledge of East Asian culture (or lack thereof).

The biography of Liow Kah Joon found in A Musical Journey: from the Great Wall of China to the water towns of Jiangnan reads—in its entirety—as follows:

Liow Kah Joon has been the regional director for Asia at Echostar, the second largest satellite television company in the United States, for five years. Recently, he has been the Chief Representative in China at Kudelski, a Swiss digital television technology company, for three years. One day, Kah Joon decided to pursue his interests, so he resigned from his job. This book is the first in a series of children's books he will write and publish.

Mr Liow is one of the many sources Freedom skies lists as a "martial arts journalist and author" and member of the "martial arts community".
With all due respect to Mr Liow, is this characterization of him an accurate one?
Or—put another way—is a Misplaced Pages reader who does not click on that Google Books link and find Mr Liow's biography likely to be misled by such a description?

JFD 04:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective example, JFD. These are additional references meant to cite that just about everyone from the BBC to the Discovery channel to a children's book subscribes to this version. You can find more about what JFD is trying to say here here.

Oh, and did he tell you that Tang Hao (a citation from his article) is an arrested communist  ? and the Stanley Hennig is a pariah in the western Taijiquan community ?

Did'nt think so.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you have other demands on your time; however, may I ask when we can expect comment from you regarding the above?
Thanks.
JFD 04:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In a month and a half? I'm on q2 (every other day) surgery call right now. Djma12 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You definitely have more pressing matters to attend to.

I look forward to your reply whenever time allows. Your efforts and involvement are appreciated.

For the time being, I shall respond to Freedom skies' criticisms of my sources by quoting biographies of them.

Jarek Szymanski on Tang Hao

Tang Hao (1897-1959), also known as Tang Fansheng, native of Wu County in Jiangsu Province, famous martial arts historian. Born in a poor family, Tang was fond of literature and martial arts since childhood. After coming to Shanghai he worked as principal of Shang'gong Primary School; in Shanghai Tang learnt Six Harmonies Boxing (Liuhequan) from Liu Zhen'nan. Later he also studied Xingyiquan and Taijiquan from Li Cunyi and Chen Fake.

In 1927, suspected of being a Communist Party member, Tang was arrested but then, thanks to Zhu Guofu's help, released.

The same year Tang went to Japan to study political science and law; in Japan he learnt Judo, Ken-jutsu and other arts. After returning to China Tang hold a post of editorial department director at Central Martial Arts Academy (Zhongyang Guoshu Guan); in 1930 he led a Central Martial Arts Academy representation (incl. Zhu Guofu, Yang Songshan and others) to Japan on a tour of investigation; in 1936 Tang was defending Gu Liuxin and others in court (Gu and others were suspected of being involved in "Seven Gentlemen" case). In 1941, since Tang was still active as a lawyer in spite of the Japanese invasion, he was caught by Japanese soldiers, whipped and chased away to Anhui Province.

After liberation in 1949 Tang Hao returned to Shanghai and was appointed to many posts in political and sports organizations; in 1955 Tang was appointed an advisor position with the China State Sports Committee. Tang Hao wrote many books and articles on the history of martial arts and is considered a pioneer of the history of Chinese Martial Arts and Chinese sport. Tang became especially famous for his research on the history of Taijiquan - after examining Taiji classics, Chen clan manuals, family chronicles and other text, Tang Hao draw a conclusion that Taijiquan was created/compiled by Chen Wangting of Chenjiagou Village in Henan Province. At the same time he rejected traditional view of Zhang Sanfeng as the creator of Taiji Boxing.

The above is a biography that Freedom skies himself deems credible enough to link to in Talk:Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts.

Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo on Tang Hao and Stanley E. Henning

Tang Hao

He is viewed as being the greatest Chinese martial arts historian that ever lived. Second, many of his comments and criticisms regarding martial arts history and martial arts writing are still valid today....He advocated applying modern scientific methods to the study of Chinese martial arts history and to the practice of Chinese martial arts themselves....His writings include Taiji Boxing and Neijia Boxing, A Study of Shaolin and Wudang, Neijia Boxing, The Qi Qi Fist Classic, and A Study of Chinese Martial Arts Illustrations.

Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folk tales corrupted and tainted people's thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.

In 1920 (sic) he wrote a book called Study of Shaolin and Wudang, which was published by the Central Guoshu Academy. He used lots of historical material to prove that Bodhidharma and Zhang San Feng knew nothing about martial arts, and that the theory that Shaolin martial arts started from Bodhidharma and that Taijiquan was invented by Zhang San Feng was incorrect.

Stanley E. Henning

Stanley E. Henning is an American scholar and martial artist who has published a number of articles concerning the early history of Taijiquan. Some of his articles—in particular, one titled "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan"—raised heated debates in certain martial arts circles. In his own words, his goal was "to extract Chinese martial arts from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research." One of his major theses, he says, is "the fact that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including boxing, are rooted in military, not religious practice." That idea did not sit too well with some sectors of America's Taiji community and, for a while, Henning was a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community. Be that as it may, Henning went on to write a number of scholarly articles on the history and development of Chinese martial arts that have done much to lift this study out of the realm of pulp fiction and into a more serious, accurate, and scholarly domain.

I will allow you to make up your own mind about Tang and Henning.

I would suggest that your limited time is most effectively spent reading the sources that Freedom skies and I provide for each article.
That way, you can form your own opinion about which sources are reliable and which are not, and also whether the articles accurately represent the sources cited or whether they distort them.

I do appreciate the other, more important demands on your time and am, as always, willing to transcribe for you whatever sources I have available in English.

Best regards,
JFD 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Again

Again, JFD. Not quite.

I loved the effort you try to put in it though.

Irrespective of who wrote the article, my intentions were to convey that Tang Hao has been arrested for being a communist. JFD, no doubt attempting to discredit that very line mentions the author of the article. The author is not under highlight here, his work is not mentioned in either articles; the purpose of the article was to highlight the nature and intentions of the authors in JFD's article.

As for Stanley Hennig, the second citation might say a thing or two about him being a pariah.

I would suggest that your limited time is most effectively spent reading the sources that Freedom skies and I provide for each article.

I suggest that in your free time you relax (after watching the insides of a human being, I'd like to). I'll bring the bios of the authors involved in my article to you myself. Surprisingly enough, I stated that I'll refrain from slapping an AfD on his article and having to do anything to change the incorrect information, mailcious language, misrepresentation of the sources and other incosistensies in his article. I even asked you to stay away when you yourself felt that the language was very POV. I guess JFD likes to keep the pot boiling for some reason. Anyways, more work for me, it seems.

The figures involved in the "Foreign influence.." article :-

• Master Hidetaka Nishiyama
• George A. Kirby
• George Mattson - just see Uechi Ryū for him
• Bruce Hains
• Joyotpaul Chaudhari
• Howard Reid
• Howard W. French
• NYT's Christopher Wren
• Grandmaster Steve De Masco, certified Shaolin Grandmaster
• Dr. William Durbin and also see here and here
• Jhoon Rhee, you're already familiar with him.
• Doshin So, the originator of Shorinji Kempo. He has drawn great inspiration from murals of Indian-Chinese monks sparring at the Shaolin, see the citations in the article.
• Chojun Miyagi
• Funakoshi Gichin
• Wong Kiew Kit
• Tadashi Nakamura
• Carlos Machado
• Rickson Gracie
• British Broadcasting Corporation
• The New York Times
• The Hindu
• Discovery Channel
• Gracie Barra
• International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation
• Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
• the Shaolin temple
• American Oriental Society

I further commit myself to bringing more citations.

That way, you can form your own opinion about which sources are reliable and which are not, and also whether the articles accurately represent the sources cited or whether they distort them.

JFD's article is malice itself. Consider an excerpt from his article:-

Historians at academic institutions have disclaimed this association as unfounded with various non-academic authors in the lay public either stating the association as a legend, stating the association as fact, giving both viewpoints, or disclaiming the association.

What the ?? ?? ??

Is it me or have they chosen to lie ?

You'll find a whole list of people who're not in the "lay" public as JFD's article maiciously announces. Is it just me or is the Discovery channel and Howard Reid lay public ??

Also, this portion was uncited and could have been removed by me. I chose to stay away and even asked you to.

Kenny accepts orders, exchanges barnstars with JFD in order to fake credibility (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period) and deletes and reverts for the red Han Chinese cabal.

About JFD, do not let his articulate tone fool you.

Anyways, best advice. Judge the language, content, intentions, representations in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and know the truth.

Now, having said that I would urge you to stay away from Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection. The trouble is not worth your time. anyone who looks into it is probably going to realize the truth right away anyways.

A good editor with good intentions needs to be portected from the other kind.

Extending best regards as always,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

JFD, no doubt attempting to discredit that very line mentions the author of the article.

Clearly Freedom skies regards Jarek Szymanski as a credible source on Tang Hao if he's willing to link to him as a source.

And Jarek Szymanski clearly regards Tang Hao as a reliable source seeing as how he's one of the main sources for the same article which Freedom skies links to in his attempt to discredit Tang.

Draw your own conclusions about how accurately Freedom skies represents his sources and how carefully he actually reads them.

my intentions were to convey that Tang Hao has been arrested for being a communist.
....
As for Stanley Hennig, the second citation might say a thing or two about him being a pariah.

My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation.

As it happens, I have long been an admirer of Jarek Szymanski's efforts to separate martial arts history from martial arts legend. And if Freedom skies were the slightest bit familiar with him or with the broader literature on martial arts history, he would have known that Jarek, Tang Hao and Stanley Henning are regarded as of a piece in their application of scholarly rigor to the study of martial arts history.

In fact, the above excerpt about Stanley Henning is immediately preceded in the book by a profile of one Jarek Szymanski, which I will gladly supply on request.

Kenny accepts orders, exchanges barnstars with JFD in order to fake credibility (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period) and deletes and reverts for the red Han Chinese cabal.

I am prepared—eager, in fact—to answer these accusations; however, I fear that it would take the discussion in a less productive direction.
Nonetheless, I am more than willing to do so at your request.

Otherwise I shall assume that you consider Freedom skies' personal attacks beneath response.

I would urge you to stay away from Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection.
....
anyone who looks into it is probably going to realize the truth right away anyways.

Which is precisely why I urge you to scrutinize both articles and their sources.

One action that would require little time and effort on your part would be to contact Jarek Szymanski yourself and ask for his opinion of Tang Hao's credibility as a martial arts historian. After all, Freedom skies and I have both expressed high opinions of Jarek's credibility.

(See, I told you I'd do what I could to make this as easy as possible for you.)
JFD 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet Again

Yet again, Not quite.

Clearly Freedom skies regards Jarek Szymanski as a credible source on Tang Hao if he's willing to link to him as a source.

And Jarek Szymanski clearly regards Tang Hao as a reliable source seeing as how he's one of the main sources for the same article which Freedom skies links to in his attempt to discredit Tang.

Draw your own conclusions about how accurately Freedom skies represents his sources and how carefully he actually reads them.

I provided a complete link to access the full biography of Tang Hao.

This was before the copy and paste job from the link.

So does providing a link which gives access to a complete biography amount to misrepresentation ? Does copying and pasting the text from the link for some bizzare reason validate the chest thumping claim of "My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation." ?

Does grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit have a criminal background ? Does the Discovery channel pertain to communist ideology ? Does Tang Hao have a criminal background ? Was Tang Hao percieved to be a communist to the extent of being arrested ?

Djma12, editors have tried to claim that "My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation." when the link I provided actually does enable one to "read in full." Arrive at your own conclusions.

Kenny accepts orders, exchanges barnstars with JFD in order to fake credibility (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period) and deletes and reverts for the red Han Chinese cabal.

JFD is "eager" to "answer these accusations" even though they were meant for Kenny. He is "more than willing" to do so at Djma12's request.

Now, since Djma12 has yet to reply to JFD and his time is precious I'll take the liberty to effectively "end this" right now. Here goes:-

• JFD dictates to Kenny
• 22:11, 30 August 2006 Kenney offers JFD a barnstar. JFD returns the favour on 14:10, 1 September 2006. They exchange barnstars in order to fake credibility.
• Kenny and JFD. Notice the similarities in their contributions. Kenny just follows JFD and reverts to his version without any explainations. He's good and you know how good backup helps in trolling.

I'll take your silence as you having taken a look into this. No ned to reply now that the citations exist for everyone to see.

After all, Freedom skies and I have both expressed high opinions of Jarek's credibility.

Did I "express high opinions" of Jarek or did I use his html document to point towards Tang Hao's criminal background ? Did I not say "The author is not under highlight here, his work is not mentioned in either articles; the purpose of the article was to highlight the nature and intentions of the authors in JFD's article"? JFD attempting misrepresentation ?

---

Now, Djma12, for some inexplicable reason JFD has resorted to distasteful attempts of online bullying. In his monstrosity of a post he attempted to link me with someone whose very bizzare post I promptly deleted and did not have anything to do with the actions he wanted me to take. He links a welcoming post to "my alleged allies" and a disruptive user. More misrepresentation?

Being a boxer my response to any kind of bullying is bound to be severe, but in this case I'll make an exception. This is over, just because editors who like to clutter talk pages after their actions fail to produce desired result are here does'nt mean that I have to be as well.

From now, I leave the actions of repeating themselves, posting incesseantly and turning this into some underground forum to those with a taste for the demeaning. Talk after everything is done is of no good. If you have to talk to me (or need clarification) just leave a specific message. This discussion forum thing is getting disgraceful.

See the articles. See the citations. I'll bring more when you'd like me to.

This "discussion" is over. Time to live with it.

_{Freedom skies| talk}  18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this discussion took over your talk page.

By now you've had enough dealings with both Freedom skies and myself to make up your own mind about each of us.

Just as close examination of sources will give you the information necessary to make up your own mind about the articles.

Best regards,
JFD 20:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Djma12, I have a concern about the early history section in the article Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. Could you please provide some feedback in its talk page? Thanks. Shawnc 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Influence on Chinese Martial Arts

Thank you all for your requests for mediation and input on this article. I would love to contribute to the mediation of both this article and its sister article further. However, I am currently tied up on a surgery rotation and will be unable to provide substantial input until mid Feb. Thanks. Djma12 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's a good time to ask if you're less busy now. —JFD 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What issues are still in contention? I haven't kept up with the thread for a month. Djma12 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The same issues that were in contention before. So, as far as I'm concerned, Freedom skies' poor sources (children's books and the like) and his extremely misleading descriptions of them (his descriptions as "academic authors" writers who hold no academic chair at all, etc.) JFD 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RICH DREZEN: MY PAGES

My name is Rich Drezen and I received this notice from you today...

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Misplaced Pages, as you did to Luckyzilla®, you will be blocked from editing. Please do nor recreate speedy deleted articles. Furthermore, please review wikipedia policy concerning Vanity Pages, specifically WP:NOT. Finally, please do not remove speedy tags, use the {{hangon}} feature if you wish to discuss. Djma12 22:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am new to this Misplaced Pages stuff, so please try and understand I thought I was only supposed to re-edit the page and then save it. I don't know how you could call that "recreating a page". Please excuse me for sounding rude, but I do not appreciate being called a "vandal", nor do I appreciate the "this is your last warning" part of your message. It is vile and malicious, and sounds to me like a threat. I am going to report it. There is no reason for you to address me in that tone. I've done NO vandalism on Misplaced Pages. I've only submitted information I felt was valuable for the purposes of knowledge and NOT for my own self-promotion.

As far as the speedy tags are concerned, I removed them only because I thought I had to. I won't remove them anymore if that's not what I'm supposed to do. Please give me some helpful advice on what else you want from me in terms of my pages, and try to explain it in a detailed fashion. I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome and ADD, which makes it difficult for me to understand such vague explanations for why my content should be deleted.

My apologies if my message came off as accusatory. The first half of the message is simply part of a template, though I probably should have chosen another one. As a general rule, creating pages about yourself or about projects that you have done are considered vanity pages. Furthermore, removing WP:SPEEDY tags is considered vandalism, though I can see how this would be less apparent to a newbie.

I understand that the wiki policies on page creation my be vague. A good place to look initially would be WP:NOT concerning wikipedia content. Best regards, and best of luck in your future wiki endeavors. Djma12 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Please feel free to edit both the articles when you feel the need to. The academic authors include those who had their work published by the Univ of Hawaii, NYT Tokyo bureau chief + Shanghai bureau chief, a professor of political science+ a former associate dean and an instructor of kung-fu at Arizona State University, a British documentary film maker and anthropologist who has a PhD from Cambridge University and has made films for the BBC and Channel 4, NYT foreign correspondent etc. The books are additional refs stacked up in addition to the other refs.

My advice is that both articles retain their current form as they represent their POV in formidable strength, let's leave the whole thing alone. Thanks for your edits, by the way, They elevated the article from start class to class B. I would be unavailable in the coming days as I'm going to be tied up with my exams, which I'm sitting presently.

I have just one topic to attend to and one discussion on Zen and I might leave Wp for good as soon as it's done as well. The pressure of the coming year is already begining to mount.

Many regards and I hope you're not working too hard,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Influence on CMA: My stance

Thanks to JFD and Freedom Skies for their input concerning this page. Though some of the citations used by Freedom Skies are not completely up to academic standard, many are quite strong. (Note that the wiki standard for citation is not the same as the academic standard for citation.) My suggestion for JFD, then, would be to come up with a list of citations he feels are of poor rigour and I will review those with him. If that is the case, we may then request that Freedom Skies remove those citations/statements from the article (after discussion, of course.)

If the issue is that JFD feels like the article violates WP:NOT (specifically SOAP), then that is something outside of my ken. Personally, I feel that there is enough lay literature out there to at least justify an article/counter-article format. If you feel strongly enough about this, JFD, wiki is an open format. Feel free to nominate the article (and its sister article) for deletion per WP:AFD. Please know, though, that I feel that the header on the top of the page is sufficient, and will probably speak against deletion if the page is offered to AFD.

Best regards,

Djma12 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than Afd, a {disputed} tag may be more appropriate on both pages, at least until we have WP:Rfc on the issue. Djma12 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of an RFC and I'll get back to you on the most dubious of Freedom skies' sources. —JFD 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I would hold off on doing so for a week. Let's give Freedom Skies an opportunity to take his exams and a full chance to rebut. Djma12 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for understanding and accomadating the constraints on my schedule, I appreciate it immensely. A review has already been done at Wikiproject:China. I won't want to get tied down with a gruelling RfC, especially between my exams or just after then when I probably would want to rush off to a much needed vacation to Dharamshala and Laddakh.

I have a couple of ideas which might save us more time, and definitely will serve to cut down on the exertions. The ideas are mentioned as follows:-

1. I can always procure more sources since this is a mainstream view. You should just go ahead and remove those that do not belong in the article according to your impartial assessment. In my opinion, balancing approaches such as yours will (and already have) lead to the elevation in the overall status and credibility of the article itself.

JFD has business and he is tied up in Zen as well, we waited for mediation there but I'm going to propose to him that we both work it out ourselves since we seem to be on the most civil of terms, and I have to finish all unfinished projects before I take a vacation. Since we seem to almost always disagree I'm going to propose that once we're done with Zen, we stay away from articles the other may find contentious; I, unilaterally will.

2. If you allot me two days then I'll be in a situation to replace the citations for other, more stronger ones myself; I have been meaning to add citations from National Geographic, Lawrance Galante, Heinrich Duomlin etc. but I had to put that off due to time constraints. My opinion still is that this action is unnessasary as we have a wealth of good citations already present in the article.

I have many, many issues with the sister article as well and working on just one article will not solve any issues since we are dealing with sister articles, but I won't bring them up. I don't want to be tied up in any lengthy cases spilling over two articles and involving weeks (or days) of exertion at all.

Many regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent a message to JFD requesting him to help me not make any new commitments that I cannot keep due to constraints of time. I do have a wealth of material that I would like to add to the article but I honestly cannot see any inclination for disturbing the status quo; the articles are fine as is. If JFD accomadates me then we should be able to leave the articles alone and finish our prior commitments at the earliest. _{Freedom skies| talk}  03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited my post to make it clearer. I realize that in it's previous version it was oddly written and was probably confusing. I have been under some pressure in real life and I guess it's begining to show. _{Freedom skies| talk}  06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do want to deal with these articles at some point. But on further thought, it would probably be better to deal with it after Meir Shahar's book comes out later this year.

In the meantime, I raise my concerns about Freedom skies' sources with you in dribs and drabs, which will probably be easier on both our schedules. Let's start with the low-hanging fruit first: the children's books which I have already mentioned. —JFD 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Those books were "additional references." Once the article had dozens of strong citations lined up for confirming the claim I put in the two books in question. One of the two books spoke about it's purpose as that of making the Chinese youth more familiar with it's glorious heritage. I wanted to demonstrate the extent of this POV by having the books additionally put in; I've removed that and I added a couple of new sources (my time did not allow me a major overhaul) to the article. One is a novel printed by the University of Cambridge press ( the novel Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth By Richard L. Gawthrop. Published 1996.' traces the Mudras of India to Egypt) and the other is "Military Combative Masters of the 20th Century" by the famed combatives expert Tank Todd. I have Hirokazu Kanazawa's book, Lawrence Galante, National Geographic etc. waiting to be added to the article but I'll prefer to wait till the exertion is absolutely called for. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I think it's important to entertain a conversation about what is an appropriate reference. I think Freedom Skies and I both agree that the standard of academic citation is a bit high for a wiki article. However, this does not mean everything is notable. Children's books are not, even though I understand how they might be used to demonstrate the prevelance of a POV. Historians, even if not academically published, I feel are also appropriate.

I do, however, have reservations about quoting websites and martial arts authorities, especially if his/her expertise is outside the scope of Shaolin. For example, Royce Gracie may be very knowledgeable on the history BJJ, but his opinion on Shaolin is probably second hand and I bet you he can't quote the source of his opinion. Likewise, websites should not be quoted, but the underlying citation used by the website can.

I think Freedom Skies has enough citations on hand to backup the article without using sources that are 2nd/3rd hand at best. However, I feel that the section where he quotes martial arts authorities to demonstrate the prevelance of the POV is appropriate. (i.e "Lots of people believe in this." citations.) In the interests of article readability, though, can this be streamlined a bit? It seems to be a distracting list at the moment.

Just my thoughts,

Djma12 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a close look at Freedom skies' "academic authors" and ask yourself how accurate that description is with respect to martial arts. —JFD 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the qualifications of the academic authors in my previous reply.

Regarding Royce Gracie, the martial art was bought to Brazil by Mitsuyo Maeda from Japan. Maeda played an important role in making the Gracie family "the first family of fighting." This art has been influenced by Japanese arts, which were influenced by Chinese arts. Gracies, such as Rickson Gracie, are perhaps the most important people to have noted the foreign influence. They might not have been associated with the Shaolin; they chart the birth of their own martial art through countries. I just wanted to add prominent, recognizable figures to the list. I have a text pad full of more citations such as these but the article reached saturation point a while ago. The list is ,admittedly, both large and distracting. If I created a subsection in external links and shifted content there would that serve the purpose adequately ?

Many regards,

_{Freedom skies| talk}  05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But should they be described as "academic" authors when only one of them has ever been a professor (whose professional work, on political science, has no bearing on martial arts), and none of their work on martial arts is peer-reviewed.

If a professor of literature decides to write on the subject of astrophysics, isn't it misleading to describe him as an "academic author" on the subject?

Isn't it misleading to describe journalists, who are not professors of relevant subjects, as "academic authors"? Or documentarians?

It is one thing to say that the standard of academic citation is high for a wiki article, and quite another to characterize sources as "academic" when they are clearly not. —JFD 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

re. Scorpions

Djma12, I appreciate your attempts at finding a middle way (that's what I assume that your edit was) regarding the statement about the Scorpions in introductin of the Srebrenica massacre article. However, I have a couple of comments

• your text states that the Scorpions "allegedly participated in the massacre" when in fact that is not disputed by anyone.
• however state that the Scorpions were "from Serbia". This implies and will be understood by the majority of readers to mean "controlled by Serbia" or simply that they were "Serbian". In fact the ICJ has found that they were neither de jure nor de facto controlled by or instruments of Serbia.

According to the logic you seem to be suggesting that we use, we could label the entire Srebrenica massacre as "alleged" although the ICTY has found that did indeed take place. Regards Osli73 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks! Djma12 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I see that you have changed the text regarding the Scorpions. However,

1. it still states that the Scorpions were "from Serbia", implying that they were under Serbian control, when the ICJ has found that they were not.
2. you claim that the "Dispute is over whether they are are state-sponsored proxy grouop". Yes, this is what the Bosnian government has claimed and which the ICJ has found was not the case. End of story as I see it.
3. your choice of words "However, the Internation Court of Justice was unable to find sufficient evidence linking them as agents of Serbia" implies that they were, just that the ICJ hasn't been able to prove it.

If you absolutely want to include a mention of the Scorpions, then I suggest a text saying that "a paramilitary unit called the Scorpions also participated in the massacre". Regards Osli73 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 Please keep in mind that I am trying to satisfy multiple parties here. In the spirit of NPOV:

1. My word choice on "insufficient evidence" is near verbatim from the link that you had supplied. I do not believe that quoting to ICJ somehow implicates Serbian involvement.
2. Yes, the ICJ made a specific finding, but this was a judicial statement, not a claim towards truth. As you stated, the Bosnian government still contests this finding, and there are multiple credible sources (which were provided by some previous editor) that substantiate this. Therefore, I can legitimately say that it is still disputed.
3. My issue with the provided statement is that it glosses over the fact there are disputes concerning the issue. However, I think the ICJ statement is strong enough that it provides a very credible counterpoint to the argument. Again, it only takes two sentences, and readers can decide for themselves.

Best regards, Djma12 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I appreciate that you are trying to satisfy multiple parties here. However, you are probably aware that the Srebrenica massacre article is a very disputed and conflict ridden article. Things have been alleged by all sides. In view of this, I believe that using the ICTY and ICJ findings on the massacre are the absolutely best way to avoid POV. As to your points:

1. the wording you propose does indeed suggest that although the Scorpions were Serbian the ICJ simply hasn't been able to find enough evidence to show it. That is not a NPOV wording.
2. I agree that there is a difference between history and judicial findings, however, the article is currently written based on the assumption that ICTY and ICJ findings are the truth. I agree with this, since it avoids the problems of POV in such a contentious subject. That the Bosnian government still contests the findings may well be the case, however, the ICJ finding is final and there is no appeal.
3. Yes, as a lot of other fact bits in the article, the bit about the Scorpions is disputed. I agree. However, if we are to allow all issues disputed by one side or another in the Bosnian War to be trated in a similar way as you propose we treat the Scorpions matter, then we will be opening a Pandora's box of troubles.

Assuming that ICTY and ICJ findings are truths (unless they are overturned) is the best way to avoid contstant and neverending POV fights regarding this article. Cheers Osli73 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Influence on CMA: Suggested improvements

Alright, finally have the time to sit down with the article. Freedom, I know that you're a bit busy right now so there is no rush. Also, all these items are, of course, up for discussion.

1. The use of the Gracies is appropriate in the current context. (i.e to establish prevelance of the claim.) However, the "Views" section should be streamlined and some less known practioners (such as Tank Todd) can probably be excluded. I think your suggestion of putting the items into external links is a good one.

2. Along this note, "Historian" should be reserved for academic historians who research some form of asian affairs at reputable universities. Journalists, authors, and martial arts practioners are appropriate for citation, but should not be identified as a historian.

Now to go through the article section by section

3. Centres for Foreign Influence

• This section needs some work. It starts by listing a wide variety of martial arts/dance forms (everything from Mudras to Babylonian wrestling), but then only provides citation on how GREEK forms influences Chinese martial arts (i.e. Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama.)
• It is not enough simply to mention how martial arts existed before, and then cite that trade existed between China and her neighbors. Rather, a firm argument would provide a direct citation on how EACH of the centres mentioned directly influenced Chinese martial arts. Otherwise, the evidence is circumstantial.
• Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama are not historians and should not be listed as such.
• Cites 11-13 do not fit CITE qualifications. Therefore the statement it supports should be removed until a more solid citation is found.

4. Establishment of the Shaolin Temple

• This section is good. However, it does bring up a points. For one thing, it takes up more than half the article. Also, I think part of this ongoing conflict between Freedom and JFD is an ambiguity between which sources cite for foreign influence in general, and which sources site for Bodhidharma specifically. Since I think Freedom has enough citations within this section to make another article, it might be clearer to include a synposis of your argument plus a link to the new article here. This is a well established wiki precedent.

5. Similarities

• A sentence should be included in the beginning stating that similarity does not imply causation (as the section currently implies.) The process may have been convergent evolution, or the flow of ideas could have been reversed. Similarity in of itself is notable, but is not proof.
• The first few sentences noting similarities in culture and mythology should be removed. No one disputes the cultural exchange between China and her neighbors and the addition of the sentences only provides circumstantial evidence for the thesis. (i.e. you can't say "B/c Chinese mythology shares similarities with XYZ, therefore Chinese martial arts resembles XYZ.")
• Citation 42 does not fit CITE standards and the sentence it supports should be removed.
• Citation 53-55 do not fit CITE standards. 52 is fine though, and is sufficient for the statement.
• This sentence: "The pavillion named after Bodhidharma is in the main building..." belongs in the prior section.

6. Views (see above discussion)

So a lot to chew on for the time being. As always, these points are up for discussion. Furthermore, there's no rush, so good luck on your exams, Freedom Skies.

Djma12 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for the thorough inspection and the excellent recommendations! I also suggest an expansion of the Mongolian, (possible) Tibetian, Middle Eastern, African and European influences complete with their own subheadings (=== ===). I basically do not have any problems with the above and will be able to craft a specific reply in a just a few hours. Many regards, _{Freedom skies| talk}  02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should actually belong on the page itself, not on your talkpage. I suggest we move it there... I do not know if you have had time to look at my statement on this but i placed it in the discussion area in january after I read your request for discussion.... The gist of it is this...

the origins of martial arts within each culture are murky, however it is highly unlikely that one person or group "invented" the idea of self defense and then it spread throughout the world... Freedom skies has taken one approach to it and states that it originated in one place and then spread. This is disputed by historians because you see forms of wrestling and self defense in every culture and society on earth since antiquity. Further, the connection between Greek, Indian, and Chinese Martial arts is tenous given the fact that each of the three cultures had prior existing self defense forms. Historians (real academic ones) do not believe in this theory of migration.

Although Freedom skies uses Gracie's website as a source (in relation to the bodhidharma legend, india and chinese martial arts,) if you read the book by Renzo Gracie (another BJJ practioner,) he disputes the bodidharma connection. This Gracie questions that theory.

Further, if you read various lay authors, they either state the bodhidharma legend as a legend, state is as a fact, or state some other legend on martial arts origins in China as fact (such as the Yellow Emperor Legend). Lay authors are not historians. If you read websites and various books on the history of chinese martial arts or any martial arts by lay people, you get different versions of how they started. The historians have already placed their theories on what the origins of martial arts in china are and they have already discussed the bodhidharma claims and the claims with Buddhist Monks (and they state that the bodhidharma story is a legend.) He also tries to suggest that historians are in disagreement with each other on the historicity of the Yi Jin Jing. This is an untrue argument. It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars, but they are in general agreement that the Yi Jin JIng is a document that cannot be trusted for its authenticity. He also tries to state that the historians are in disagreement on bodhdiharma's existence. It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is considered part of legend.

He also seems to state that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views, which is not true. There are various views of this within the lay community as you can see with the Two versions of BJJ history by the two Gracies.

Kennethtennyson 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So noted, conversation moved. Djma12 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely I'm not the only one whom it strikes as exceedingly unlikely that

1. a book entitled Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth deals with the transmission of mudras from Egypt to India
2. such a book is a novel — and if it is, why is a work of fiction being cited as a reliable source?

—JFD 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Iran's foreign relations

I can translate from French but you would need to proof-read it.69.116.234.208 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)