| Revision as of 18:46, 19 August 2006 editKennethtennyson (talk | contribs)1,225 edits →wow← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:26, 19 August 2006 edit undoJFD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,235 edits →wowNext edit → | ||
| Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
| wow, so I'm gone for a day and all of this happens. Jeez. Look Freedom Skies... the problem with your view is that it is not held by the vast majority of historians and professors out there. This is very similar to the P.N. Oak "debate" over the Taj Mahal being a Vedic temple instead of a muslim one, in which there really was no debate... there are P.N. Oak followers and then there's the rest of the academic community on Indian History... You will find very few academic scholars out there that will follow your train of thought and believe that a legend of Bodhdiharma equals fact. In your article you even mention that the Bodhidharma tale is a legend, so how can you state that as fact or even mention it as possible fact? Further, your use of the religious indian textbooks and the mythological stories are out of context. You can't use religious textbooks that describe one god-king fighting another god-king (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you - but most of the protagonists in these religious textbooks were kings and they were described as reincarnations of gods.) only in general terms and then using that as the birth of indian martial arts. You even agreed that the religious texts only describe wrestling and archery in general terms with no description of anything that approaches martial arts. In the end, you can have your views on the history of indian martial arts, but you must allow the rest of us to edit and add to the article to allow for a balanced view... You can't just delete our additions to the article at whim...] 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | wow, so I'm gone for a day and all of this happens. Jeez. Look Freedom Skies... the problem with your view is that it is not held by the vast majority of historians and professors out there. This is very similar to the P.N. Oak "debate" over the Taj Mahal being a Vedic temple instead of a muslim one, in which there really was no debate... there are P.N. Oak followers and then there's the rest of the academic community on Indian History... You will find very few academic scholars out there that will follow your train of thought and believe that a legend of Bodhdiharma equals fact. In your article you even mention that the Bodhidharma tale is a legend, so how can you state that as fact or even mention it as possible fact? Further, your use of the religious indian textbooks and the mythological stories are out of context. You can't use religious textbooks that describe one god-king fighting another god-king (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you - but most of the protagonists in these religious textbooks were kings and they were described as reincarnations of gods.) only in general terms and then using that as the birth of indian martial arts. You even agreed that the religious texts only describe wrestling and archery in general terms with no description of anything that approaches martial arts. In the end, you can have your views on the history of indian martial arts, but you must allow the rest of us to edit and add to the article to allow for a balanced view... You can't just delete our additions to the article at whim...] 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Alex Doss is a veterinarian!!! Oh, my gosh... that really lends credence to what he has to say about indian and chinese martial arts! Look, like i said before, everyone can have their ideas and beliefs and tons of people have their own little websites, but it doesn't mean that they are an authority on the matter. Good job JFD... you must be some sort of Ph.D god or something... how did you find him on line? Anyways, i'll post more in the future... I'm currently on a speaking tour. ] 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The Alex Doss who wrote "" is almost certainly the Alex Doss who, as of 17 May 2004, was a student at San Diego State University and founder of its Tamil Sangam.{{cquote|From Alex Doss, President of Tamil Sangam SDSU, San Diego, USA 17 May 2004<br>Vanakkam, '''I am a student at San Diego State University. I have formed the first Tamil Sangam on campus.''' Recent events was a guest speaker from India by the name of Dr. Sethuraman. I have also had the first Tamil New Year Celebration with a live performance of Bharatha Natayam. '''Our goal is to promote Tamil language and culture''' at San Diego State University and to address the issues of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and India.}} | |||
| :The Alex Doss who is a San Diego-based veterinarian may appear to be too old to have been a student at SDSU in 2004, especially given the sixteen years of veterinary experience he claims, but the Alex Doss who wished LTTE leader Velupillai Pirapaharan a happy 50th birthday in 2004 was at the time in the "30 - 35" age range and also located in San Diego. | |||
| :Even if there are two Alex Dosses running around San Diego, I have not uncovered evidence that any Alex Doss has an academic qualification—other than Doctor of Veterinary Medicine—that would make him the "scholar at San Diego State University" that Jagged 85 characterized him as. | |||
| :Material from Doss' article was initially included with attribution not in the mainspace, but in the edit line. | |||
| ::From | |||
| {{cquote|Bodhidharma, who was from Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, practiced the Tamil martial arts of Varma Kalai and Kuttu Varisai. In China, he settled down in the Shaolin Monastery in Henan. There he influenced Shaolin kung fu with techniques from Varma Kalai and Kuttu Varisai, including Luohan techniques, pressure point attacks, and animal stances (such as the tiger, elephant, snake, eagle and monkey).}} | |||
| :I was the one who added the mainspace citation for Doss' article. | |||
| {{cquote|<nowiki>According to Alex Doss, ] was from ], Tamil Nadu, and influenced ] with techniques from Varma Kalai and ], including ] techniques, pressure point attacks, and animal stances (such as the tiger, elephant, snake, eagle and monkey).<ref>{{cite web | last = Doss | first = Alex | title = Thamizhar Martial Arts | url=http://www.tamilnation.org/heritage/martial.htm | accessdate = 2006-07-30 }}</ref></nowiki>}} | |||
| :However, Alex Doss does not appear to be the official representative of any martial arts body or lineage so, if we accept Freedom skies' proposed "official history" standard, future edits will not include material from Doss' article. | |||
| :I include the following bios of my sources from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's ''Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey'': | |||
| :;Tang Hao | |||
| {{cquote|'''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''. (Kennedy and Guo 2005) | |||
| "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.'''" (Kennedy and Guo 2005)}} | |||
| :;Matsuda Ryuchi | |||
| {{cquote|Matsuda Ryuchi a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled ''An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts''. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts. | |||
| According to his biography included in ''An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts'', Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)}} | |||
| :;Stanley E. Henning | |||
| {{cquote|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 ""—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. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)}} | |||
| :I am not aware if Matsuda Ryuchi has any authority beyond his own expertise to officially speak on behalf of any martial arts body. | |||
| :However, Tang Hao was Editorial Director for Publications at the Central Martial Arts Academy and Stanley E. Henning is included among its "Researchers & Authors" by the Hawai'ian Karate Seinenkai, which describes him as "an expert on Chinese martial arts history".<br>] 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:26, 19 August 2006
 | Martial arts Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 List of archived discussions |
|---|
Enough is enough
- I've cited the official versions of both the Gracie and Shaolin websites. If you have any problems with the official versions then do take it up with Shaolin and the Gracies, the fact that you'll have to live with though, is these are official versions and will be put down as such.
- The idea of "god kings" and other slurs that you incorporate in your arguments is a watse of time. Mallayuddha is a form of wrestling described in the Mahabharat and is also described in Doss's works as Mal-Yutham, it existed, Live with it.
- The Kshatriya systems will be mentioned, and their importance will not be downplayed because they were the warrior caste, like the samurai of japan had their own system of martial combat, which even till now in some areas is accesible only to the Kshatriyas of India.
- The article which the other guy wrote was disgusting, please refrain from letting the articles go down the drain as such.
- Dhalsim uses Yoga as his fighting style, Live with it. As much as it and other facts frustrate you, They're true.
- Doss's works will be cited, if you want to strip him of his posts and accomplishments, do so in court.
Misplaced Pages is not a playground for those with a frustrated sense of what they believe in, hopelessly screaming "horrible horrible" and having mock panic attacks was entertaining for awhile but enough is enough. I've been working my ass off citing official versions and historical viewpoints from professors alongwith an assortment of websites which pertain to the same view ........ and what do I get ?? People telling me that the websites are made by idiots, the prof's a fraud, they know the history of the Shaolin better than the Shaolin itself and no matter how credible the sources are they're too frustrated to accept it.
And about the tone, I did tell you it will be turned more enclyclopedic, more official citations will be mentioned and more credibility ensured. However frustrating you might feel, it'll happen and will be done credibly, Try living with it and not messing the article all up like you seem to be doing. Freedom skies 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've been working my ass off citing official versions and historical viewpoints from professors alongwith an assortment of websites which pertain to the same view
- What professors have you cited? JFD 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
About the controversy
There is no controversy, none at all about the fighting style of Dhalsim, about the official statements regrading the Tsumi Hozan Jujutsu, Goju Ryu Karate, Shaolin martial arts and Gracie Jiu Jitsu.
The official versions have stated what they want, no matter how frustrating it might sound to people who want it to be otherwise and are willing to try and attempt strange stunts for that purpose.
This topic is not controversial at all, the official citations (cry yourselves hoarse all you want about their credibilty too, and act as if you know more about their history then they do) stand and will be stated. Live with it. Freedom skies 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- are you insane? dhalsim is a video game character!!!!!!... they (capcom) did not mold dhalsim after any indian martial arts at all. I don't think that there is any indian martial arts out there that allows you to stretch your arms to impossible lengths, float in mid air and breathe fire along with teleportation as a superpower. if you would read more about the stuff that kenneth tennsyon and JFD are talking about and quit inserting yhour own ideas then we wouldn't have this issue.Steelhead 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, since i happened to just venture into this discussion, i checked up on alex doss. He is a president of one branch of this college organization. In america, the only way you can be a president of a college organization is if you actually go to college. thus, doss is probably only 18-21 years old and most likely he has yet to graduate from college. Why in the world are you using a website from the ramblings of a teenager in college? ARe you Alex Doss!!!??? Further, there are tons and tons of Shaolin websites out there headed by tons and tons of Shaolin monks... why in the world do you decide to cite only one Shaolin website? and why in the world do you keep on citing this Graycie character? Kenneth tennyson is right, why don't you just cite Jet Li's website while you are at it. Steelhead 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Argumentative but entertaining as always. I suggested Dhalsim in the Indian martial arts in pop culture section and someone changed his fighting style as one that incorporated other martial arts and Yoga instead of "Yoga" alone, that's why I especially mentioned that Dhalsim's style was Yoga, not anything else. I never said you could strech your limbs infinitely, you just dreamed it up and replied to yourself like (and seems you felt pretty good too, seeing that you went all "are you insane ??" and "Oh, yes, since i happened to just venture into this discussion", do keep at the attempts of sarcasm though, they're entertaining).
About the dozens of Shaolin sites, this one is official, try living with that, and it credits India not matter how much that frustrates you. Intrestingly enough you did not even stop to think why Tsumi Hozan and Goju ryu mention the same fact, INDIA, maybe it's true after all huh ?? or as your alternative insinuates, they've all gone crazy or do you have more knowledge about martial arts then their official versions ???
As for Doss, discredit him in court. Your idea of going "Oh, yes, since i happened to just venture into this discussion" and trying to discredit people does'nt cut it. Freedom skies 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
this is similar to the discussion i had 2 years ago on some other indian martial arts
these are almost the same arguments i had 1-2 years ago when i dealt with some prior indian martial arts. Every 4 months i have these discussions online. anyways, if you are going to use random websites, why don't you use this chinese Museum's article (and this is a museum)... Regardless, i saw a few websites that stated that all Indian Martial arts came from Greece after the Greek empire invaded india... I also saw a few other websites that said all Indian martial arts came from the Middle East and then I saw a few religious websites that said that all martial arts came from Aliens from outerspace... should I believe those random websites too??
Here is the article from the Ving Tsun museum....
"At Linshan Village of Xitianwei Township in Putian at the ruins of the Southern Shaolin Temple, there is a stone trough. It is engraved with Chinese calligraphy proclaiming that two Monk soldiers, Yongqi and Jinqi, of Linquanyuan Temple, the original name of the Southern Shaolin Temple, made this trough in September of the Year Jiayou of the Song Dynasty.
The mere existence of this archeological evidence gives rise to three key questions: 1. What is a Monk Soldier? 2. Did “Monk Soldiers” exist throughout Shaolin history? 3. How and why did monk soldiers come to Linshan in Fujian Province?
I. What is a Monk Soldier?
In answering the first question, we must begin by noting that the term ‘Monk’ refers specifically to a Shaolin Buddhist monk. There were Shaolin fighting monks who were treated as soldiers. Students often note the paradox between a monastic advocacy of standing aloof from worldly affairs and refusing to kill any life and a monastic development of a soldier that would take life without batting an eyelid. They wonder how the two can stand side by side.
To explain the existence of Monk Soldiers, we need to go back to the earliest inhabitants of the Shaolin Temple. The official position of the Temple and Chinese Government historians today is that the original monks were retired military men and robber barons looking to live out the remainder of their lives in a tolerant setting with others of their kind. In other words, the original Shaolin Temple possessed martial arts experience from its inception. Shortly after the Temple’s creation, history pushed the Temple into the military limelight, as seen in the story of thirteen cudgel fighting monks saving the early Tang Dynasty Emperor’s life. During the transition from the Sui Dynasty to the Tang Dynasty (619 A.D.), Wang Shicong (a general from the previous dynasty who possessed Imperial aspirations of his own) occupied Luoyang City as a stronghold for its defile. In September of that year, Emperor Li Shimin deployed a large army to besiege Luoyang City. At this key point, Zhicao and Tangzong, two Shaolin monks, started an uprising against Wang Shicong. They captured Wang Renze, the nephew of the rogue general. Zhicao and Tangzong, along with other monks, joined Emperor Li Shimin’s army and helped convince Wang Renze to provide assistance key to overcoming Wang Shicong. Following subsequent victory, Li Shimin went on to unify China. He so appreciated the help from the Shaolin Monks that he granted them an imperial jade seal authorizing the Shaolin Temple to organize Monk Soldiers. Wherein other temples have monks that practice martial arts, this is the first, and only official government sanction in Chinese history for monastic creation of monk soldiers.
From this historical anecdote, we know that Tang Emperor Li Shimin chartered the Shaolin Temple to organize a monk army, most likely because Shaolin monks had helped him to establish his power and might be needed for similar action in the future. It laid the groundwork for Shaolin monk soldiers to become China’s ‘special forces’ for meeting specific military needs. This explains the difference between the Shaolin Temples and other temples in China: Shaolin legally trained armed Monks who were proficient with Kung Fu, and only Shaolin could legally maintain an army of Monk Soldiers. Other Buddhist temples did not have this same privilege...."Kennethtennyson 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- you still have not answered any of our questions... you are using random websites... anyone can make a website and state that they are shaolin monks... there are tons of websites out there that state that they are the one and true shaolin monk website... further, you still haven't explained why you keep on using Alex Doss.. he is not a history professor... if he were he would have a Ph.D behind his name. I can find no listing at all of his name at that California University that you mention under any history professor title. If you don't want to read books and want to use websites, why don't you use the website by the chinese governement and japanese governements that state that Chinese Wushu occured during the 7th century b.c. or so and that Japanese Jiujutsu is native to Japan and not brought from outside. Further, while you are at it, the problem with your Dhalsim statement is that if you ever played Street Fighter (a VIDEO game), most of his fighting techniques are made up.... His fighting techniques revolve around stretching his limbs, floating in the air and breathing fire along with teleportation. There is no martial arts out there that allows you to do that... hence, his character can not represent any martial arts. Capcom (the company that made the VIDEO game) just put him in there because they thought it was interesting at the time to get a selection of warriors from around the world. Kennethtennyson 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Look, you need to stop reverting... and if you do revert, don't state that this is not a disputed article or that the facts are not in dispute as they obviously are... we dispute almost everything that you are stating on the article. I've seen some of the other articles that you have written and almost everyone who has gone over your articles has disputed them... so open up your mind and quit being so biased. Kennethtennyson 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
First the aliens invented martial arts thing and now this, what you've seen is the recent works, two topics to be specific. I've done a lot of good work which withstood everything in wikipedia, if you went deeper and did not take a simple, superficial look like I think you always do if your MA history is anything to go by then you'd understand.
Plus trying to discredit guys like Doss and me and dissing institues like the Shaolin is really not going to help all that much, y'know that right ??
Now that I'm through selling the idea that I'm not such a bad guy after all, here's why the controversy exists not in the article but in a few frustrated minds.
see ??? I'm writing the fighting style of this CAPCOM game charecter and suddenly it sends you into a tizzy, the game charecter's fighting style is fradulently changed, what I'm doing is well, just mentioning the fighting style of a pixeled game charecter, and doing so while being encyclopedic and you just don't want it there, no way, don't mention the IMA in pop culture because it offends your confused monk in LA style.
The thing is, you're trying to upset the official versions becase you'd like them to be otherwise, the official versions of Jujutsu, Karate and arts from Shaolin credit India and for some reason it's really hard for you to digest. In time you'll come to live with the fact that official versions end controversy and after the official versions are cited the controversy tag exists in your head and not in wikipedia.
See ?? I'll revert the articles to the from where it had official citation and verifiable content (styles of game charecters and all, which you fradulently altered to false information). I'll add more official citations in time and will the article even more verifiable, it'll happen and unless you go to court against the official versions you'll just have to live with it.Freedom skies 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- the official versions of Jujutsu, Karate and arts from Shaolin credit India and for some reason it's really hard for you to digest.
| “ | Based on mans' instinct of self-defense, different fighting arts were developed in most cultures, especially in central Asia, Egypt and Turkey. The principles of the Asian martial arts are believed to have spread from Turkey to India, where they were further developed to sophisticated arts ("kalaripayt"). | ” |
| “ | The history of Karate as we know it today can be taken back to India, perhaps two thousand years before the Christian Era. | ” |
Freedom skies 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
over the top
ok freedom skies, you are going over the top here. I've read a lot of the articles that you have been a part of, and as far as i can tell most people are totally against the vast majority of the things that you write. you seem to be quite biased also as you seem to be proposing a pro-hindu, pro-tamil view of the world. And then when most people disagree you then state "tough luck... live with it". Look you really need to open your mind. the world has a lot of views and when a bunch of people disagree with you and then start quoting books, encyclopedias, and such telling you that your view of world history might be incorrect, you should really consider that what they are stating might have smidgeon of truth... and you should really stop reading random websites... and that website that you quoted does state that the martial arts of India came from the middle east so i guess that all Tamil martial arts came from the middle east then, eh? and by the way, have you ever played STREET FIGHTER? I don't know of any YOGA practices that allows anyone to float, stretch their limbs, teleport, or breathe fire because this is what DHalsm does as his martial arts moves in the Street Fighter video games. Kennethtennyson 20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm neither proposing a pro hindu nor proposing the pro Tamil point of views, the thing you're going to have to live with is that the official versions mention India and it'll be stated with no downplaing of official information no matter how many tantrums you or anybody else goes into. Plus, many websites on martial arts strengthen the fact, I'll compile a database of a lot of these websites and will mention it here to point that the fact the view is endorsed by a substantial amout of martial arts authorities (very respectable ones included).
- About trying your hand at discrediting me, I'll work and show my credibility and not go all "I'm a practicing Chow Yun Fat wannabe from LA", thank you. The world does have a lot of views, The Tsumi Hozan (Japan), Goju Ryu (Japan) and the Shaolin (China) seem to tell you that people in Japan and China are not as insecure about exchanges with ancient civilizations as some people in LA. Live with it.
- And about Dhalsim, so, it's impossible to exactly duplicate a game charecter , who said you had to roam the streets of LA to find the answer ?? He's just a game charecter, quit losing your sleep over him, get it ?? Screaming "Over the Top" and all, I've played Street Fighter (though, I always liked Mortal Kombat better) and his fighting style is mentioned as Yoga, It's common sense that he's fictional and should not prance in your nightmares as such.
- I'll agree with the idea that you don't know your yoga though, you seem to think of it as a simple one dimensional art. Lemme enlighten you a bit, there are many kinds of Yoga and many types mentioned in wikipedia itself if you cared, apparently you don't.
- Does the word "Prahar" ring a bell ?? Did'nt think it would.
- Look, I don't exactly care if the truth is outside of your comfort zone on this, it happened according to many official statements and will be noted as such.
- Live with it.
- Freedom skies 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
| “ |
|
” |
| “ | In ‘Zen Katha,’ Partap Sharma's play about the life of Bodhidharma, he is trained in Vajramushti. | ” |
| “ | The intriguing line, of course is po-szu kuo hu-jen ("a Persian Central Asian"). According to Berthold Laufer, Sino-Iranica (1919; reprint, Taipei: Ch'eng Wen Publishing Company, 1978), 194-95, the term hu relates to Central Asia and particularly to peoples of Iranian extraction. What we seem to have is an Iranian speaker who hailed from somewhere in Central Asia.
.... |
” |
- 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,
| “ | The history of Karate as we know it today can be taken back to India, perhaps two thousand years before the Christian Era. | ” |
or
| “ | Jiu-Jitsu, which means gentle art is the oldest form of martial art. It originated in India more than 2000 years before Christ. It was created by monks who could not use any type of weapons to defend their lives against barbarian attacks. | ” |
or
| “ | It is thought that as with most fighting arts of asia, it origins can be traced back to India. | ” |
or
| “ | The Shaolin temple (chin.: shaolinsi 少林寺) is a Chinese Buddhist monastery famed for its Chan Buddhism (禅) and its martial arts (chin.: wugong 武功). According to the Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks (chin.:xu gaoseng chuan 续高僧传 645) by Daoxuan (道 宣 596-667), an eminent Indian monk came to China in the fifth century right through India and China, crossing the huge barrier of the Himalaya (喜马拉雅) mountain range, teaching Xiao Sheng Buddhism (小乘). Emperor Tuoba Hong 拓跋宏 (later Yuan Hong 元宏, posthumous Beiwei Xiaowendi 北魏孝文帝 - 471AD to 499AD) enacted an edict to establish the Shaolin Si (Young --New Planted-- Forest Temple the famous Shaolin Monastery) for this Unknown Great Buddhist Monk of the west, called Ba Tuo Luo (跋陀羅); on the north side of the Shao Shi Shan (少室山 of Mount Song | ” |
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. Cowman109 01:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- So, then. Can we discuss what specific points are being disputed? Cowman109 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 , the Temple, and 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. Cowman109 02:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Many relevant martial arts, including those emanating from the Shaolin temple, Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu, Goju Ryu Karate and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu 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. Cowman109 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, Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Jujutsu, Goju Ryu Karate and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, personal attacks and the use of hyperbolic language to promote an ethnocentric POV that has no place on Misplaced Pages. He has replaced statements attributed to a reliable source with dubious material that more closely reflects his particular perspective. When asked for citation, he refuses and reverts, 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 and that his Tamil activism be noted in accordance with Misplaced Pages 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. In fact, it appears that he is now a veterinarian who specializes in the treatment of cats.
- 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).
| “ | The exact origins of Jujutsu are not clear. It is thought that as with most fighting arts of asia, it origins can be traced back to India. This is based on the idea that the Chinese priest, Chin Genpin, brought the art of Kempo to Japan in 1659. He then taught three ronin (masterless samurai) who each intern founded their own styles of Jujutsu. However, there is evidence that jujutsu existed before 1659. For example, the most recent date given for the founding of Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu is 1658 (other dates are given in the 15th, 14th and 13th century).
It is more likely that Jujutsu evolved from indigenous and not foreign arts. There exists many technical similarities between Jujutsu and Sumo Wrestling. Sumo has its origins in the art called Sumai, which is documented as early as the 8th century A.D.1 Wresting in Japan, in general, can be traced back as far as 24 B.C. |
” |
- 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)
- I think it's become clear that Tsutumi Hozan Ryu should be removed from that list of institutions.
- Are you proposing "official history" as a bright line rule for listing Indian-influenced martial arts?
- And if official histories are to be given more credibility than argument and random supposition pertaining to a particular point of view, where does that leave the admissibility of Alex Doss as a reliable source? JFD 11:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
wow
wow, so I'm gone for a day and all of this happens. Jeez. Look Freedom Skies... the problem with your view is that it is not held by the vast majority of historians and professors out there. This is very similar to the P.N. Oak "debate" over the Taj Mahal being a Vedic temple instead of a muslim one, in which there really was no debate... there are P.N. Oak followers and then there's the rest of the academic community on Indian History... You will find very few academic scholars out there that will follow your train of thought and believe that a legend of Bodhdiharma equals fact. In your article you even mention that the Bodhidharma tale is a legend, so how can you state that as fact or even mention it as possible fact? Further, your use of the religious indian textbooks and the mythological stories are out of context. You can't use religious textbooks that describe one god-king fighting another god-king (i'm sorry if this sounds insulting to you - but most of the protagonists in these religious textbooks were kings and they were described as reincarnations of gods.) only in general terms and then using that as the birth of indian martial arts. You even agreed that the religious texts only describe wrestling and archery in general terms with no description of anything that approaches martial arts. In the end, you can have your views on the history of indian martial arts, but you must allow the rest of us to edit and add to the article to allow for a balanced view... You can't just delete our additions to the article at whim...Kennethtennyson 15:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Alex Doss is a veterinarian!!! Oh, my gosh... that really lends credence to what he has to say about indian and chinese martial arts! Look, like i said before, everyone can have their ideas and beliefs and tons of people have their own little websites, but it doesn't mean that they are an authority on the matter. Good job JFD... you must be some sort of Ph.D god or something... how did you find him on line? Anyways, i'll post more in the future... I'm currently on a speaking tour. Kennethtennyson 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Alex Doss who wrote "Thamizhar Martial Arts" is almost certainly the Alex Doss who, as of 17 May 2004, was a student at San Diego State University and founder of its Tamil Sangam.
| “ | From Alex Doss, President of Tamil Sangam SDSU, San Diego, USA 17 May 2004 Vanakkam, I am a student at San Diego State University. I have formed the first Tamil Sangam on campus. Recent events was a guest speaker from India by the name of Dr. Sethuraman. I have also had the first Tamil New Year Celebration with a live performance of Bharatha Natayam. Our goal is to promote Tamil language and culture at San Diego State University and to address the issues of the Tamils of Sri Lanka and India. |
” |
- The Alex Doss who is a San Diego-based veterinarian may appear to be too old to have been a student at SDSU in 2004, especially given the sixteen years of veterinary experience he claims, but the Alex Doss who wished LTTE leader Velupillai Pirapaharan a happy 50th birthday in 2004 was at the time in the "30 - 35" age range and also located in San Diego.
- Even if there are two Alex Dosses running around San Diego, I have not uncovered evidence that any Alex Doss has an academic qualification—other than Doctor of Veterinary Medicine—that would make him the "scholar at San Diego State University" that Jagged 85 characterized him as.
- Material from Doss' article was initially included with attribution not in the mainspace, but in the edit line.
| “ | Bodhidharma, who was from Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, practiced the Tamil martial arts of Varma Kalai and Kuttu Varisai. In China, he settled down in the Shaolin Monastery in Henan. There he influenced Shaolin kung fu with techniques from Varma Kalai and Kuttu Varisai, including Luohan techniques, pressure point attacks, and animal stances (such as the tiger, elephant, snake, eagle and monkey). | ” |
| “ | According to Alex Doss, ] was from ], Tamil Nadu, and influenced ] with techniques from Varma Kalai and ], including ] techniques, pressure point attacks, and animal stances (such as the tiger, elephant, snake, eagle and monkey).<ref>{{cite web | last = Doss | first = Alex | title = Thamizhar Martial Arts | url=http://www.tamilnation.org/heritage/martial.htm | accessdate = 2006-07-30 }}</ref> | ” |
- However, Alex Doss does not appear to be the official representative of any martial arts body or lineage so, if we accept Freedom skies' proposed "official history" standard, future edits will not include material from Doss' article.
- I include the following bios of my sources from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:
- 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. (Kennedy and Guo 2005)
"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." (Kennedy and Guo 2005) |
” |
- Matsuda Ryuchi
| “ | Matsuda Ryuchi a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts.
According to his biography included in An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts, Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts. (Kennedy and Guo 2005) |
” |
- 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. (Kennedy and Guo 2005) | ” |
- I am not aware if Matsuda Ryuchi has any authority beyond his own expertise to officially speak on behalf of any martial arts body.
- However, Tang Hao was Editorial Director for Publications at the Central Martial Arts Academy and Stanley E. Henning is included among its "Researchers & Authors" by the Hawai'ian Karate Seinenkai, which describes him as "an expert on Chinese martial arts history".
JFD 21:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)