| Revision as of 21:32, 30 December 2006 editDjma12 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,584 edits →Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:25, 2 March 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,535,430 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (207 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WP India|class=Start|importance=}} | |||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Martial arts}} | |||
| ==Reasons== | |||
| {{WikiProject Timeline Tracer}} | |||
| The disputes mentioned in the '']'' are not strong enough to reject the Indian presence from Chinese martial arts history. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Old merge full|otherpage=History of martial arts|date= 27 April 2014|result=No consensus|talk=Talk:Origins of Asian martial arts#Merger proposal}} | |||
| {{archivebox|search=yes| | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Disputed NPOV== | |||
| It seems like an argument is being phrased and weighted towards one side. Regardless, no citation is give to certain ideas. What are the Indian (or Chinese) texts that describe Bodhidharma's origin as a Southerm Kschtriya? What are the texts that show the monastery was founded prior to Bodhidharma's arrival? Finally as a point of logic, one author seems to be claiming that because a text has been discredited that means Bodhidharma could not have contributed to Shaolin Kung Fu. A Daoist priest forges the prefaces according to the information submitted by the author. The priest claims "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real." Why would a text used to discredit the monks be used by the monks themselves to define their history? The monks themselves are claiming the origin of martial arts from Bodhidharma, and the author claims that this has been from the forgery of the text. It seems spurious that anyone would take a myth denigrating them as fact when up till then they did not believe the myth. ] (]) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| - I agree, this article very heavily favours one side of the debate. Furthermore, Renzo Gracie is not a historian or an authority on martial arts history. While he is a talented practioner of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, that does not give his opinions historical or scholarly cache. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| The article has no mention of Sengchou's master Batuo, an Indian, no depictions of the shaolin murals, no mentions that the microscopic section itself has disagreements including the dating of the Yi Jin Jing, or who wrote it, complete with the claims that it was written by a "Village master" or such, no mentions of major news institutions endorsing the traditional claims and rejecting revisionist history. | |||
| ==Requested move== | |||
| The overwhelming majority, endorsed by major institutions, deserves a mention. Hence this article. | |||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| {{{result|The result of the {{{type|proposal}}} was}}} '''move''' to ], per the discussion below. Merges can be discussed separately. ]] 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <hr/> | |||
| "Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection" is an enormously awkward page name. It should be moved back to "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts". ] 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Agreed, the current title is cumbersome; and the proposed title seems better, but does it best reflect the article's contents? – ]] 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''comment''' if renamed as such, ] might need to be merged there. Also "Disputed origins of East Asian martial arts" as there are other arguments two". --](<sup>]</sup>''/''<sub>]</sub>) 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> | |||
| ==Text Improvement Suggestion== | |||
| ] 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The two paragraphs, one starting "Shaolin monastery records state..." and the following one starting "Years before the arrival of Bodhidharma..." contain essentially the same information and statements. Perhaps someone familiar with the references could combine and improve? Is "...the tin staff." referenced by both 11 and 13? ] 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Replacement vs Merge == | |||
| ==a little disappointed== | |||
| i'm a little disappointed in this page. it seems to have been written to express one opinion and the article itself is very opinionated in its tone. It also presents myth as fact and continues to talk about a legend as fact without even a discussion of it as a legend. First, the article written by freedom skies states that the shaolin temple makes certain claims about bodhidharma and the martial arts.... and then quotes websites of uncertain authenticity... it also does not allow for other views on the subject matter and uses weasel words such as "microscopic" community of scholars. it also misquotes books on the origins of bodhidharma. Freedom skies, i'm very disappointed that you have gone to the bodhdiharma article in wikipedia and deleted sections of the article and further, have then rewritten certain sentences of that prior bodhidharma article to represent your viewpoints... for example the sentence - "Shaolin monastery records state that two of its very first monks, Huiguang and Sengchou, were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Canzonieri, Salvatore | year = 1998 | month = February–March | title = History of Chinese Martial Arts: Jin Dynasty to the Period of Disunity | journal = Han Wei Wushu | volume = 3 | issue = 9 | url = }}</ref> | |||
| ""The '']'' documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff." were written in the ] article to support the view that there were martial artists in the shaolin temple BEFORE bodhidharma... | |||
| Just as a disclaimer, if individuals will check this article's edit history, it will reveal that I've tried hard to keep this article well sourced and NPOV. | |||
| you have plagiarized what JFD has written it, and then rewritten it as... ""'']'' ({{zh-cp |c=跋陀 |p='''Bátuó'''}}) was an ] ] master who was the founding abbot of ] and the teacher of Sengchou.<ref>{{cite book | last = Broughton | first = Jeffrey L. | title = The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen | year = 1999 | publisher = University of California Press | location = Berkeley | id = ISBN 0-520-21972-4 | pages = 109}}</ref> Monastery records state that Sengchou was one of the two of its very first monks, the other being Huiguang. Sengchou was an expert in the martial arts.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Canzonieri, Salvatore | year = 1998 | month = February–March | title = History of Chinese Martial Arts: Jin Dynasty to the Period of Disunity | journal = Han Wei Wushu | volume = 3 | issue = 9 | url = }}</ref>"" | |||
| The '']'' documents Sengchou's skill with the tin staff."" This is written to suggest that Batuo taught Sengchou martial arts, and thus your assertion. | |||
| I know that this article began as a large POV fork for hindu nationalists, and that there was a proposal to merge it with its counter-article has been there since March. (Heck, I was the one who placed the original merge proposal.) However, there is a whole scale difference between merging articles and <i>replacing</i> the article. This especially doesn't make sense when the replacing article began life as criticism article. | |||
| You have also only partly quoted lines from other articles - for instance from the "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article written by JFD, which this article takes most of its information from but appears to twist the information. You have written in this article.... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the ] (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body which come from India..."" the original sentence was... ""Cited in support of the Indian progeniture of Shaolin kung fu is a fresco painted during the ] (1644–1912) depicting light-skinned and dark-skinned monks sparring, supposedly inscribed and translated in Japanese as "Tenjiku Naranokaku," which translates as "the fighting techniques to train the body from India..." Elsewhere, however, the title is given in Chinese as "Quanpu Bihua," which translates as "Boxing Drills Mural."" | |||
| Can someone explain to me what was wrong with the from last month? I agree that contents that currently take up the article's entirety should be included, but it shouldn't be exclusive. | |||
| The worst thing i think is that you are using the same sources that JFD and I used to support the facts behind the legend of bodhidharma and then plagiarizing what he wrote and then rewriting it and at the same time misquoting the original author in the book. In your article, you haven't even discussed the fact that the Bodhidharma legend is contradictory as to his origins and as to whether or not other historians even believe in his existence. You have also talked about the mural of dark skinned and light skinned monks. That mural makes no statements on indians or chinese in the mural. There are african american and egyptian nationalists who lay the same claim that that mural depicts africans or egyptians... Most likely, that mural represents dark skinned and light skinned monks - in china there are dark skinned chinese and light skinned chinese... regardless, that mural was made in the 17th century ad or so, 1000years after bodhidharma supposedly was in china. | |||
| ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| However, I do applaud you on admitting that martial arts existed in China before Bodhidharma... ] 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Most of the version you have mentioned has been included now as it is quite well presented and makes the subject coverage wider ]]☤ 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reasons== | |||
| == Asian MA == | |||
| I can see the disaaponitment and the outrage. However, allow me to explain :- | |||
| If neither you nor Djma12 have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". ] (]) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *The "Indian connection" comprises not only of one man, in this case Bodhidharma, but many men over the ages including the very founder of the Shaolin-Si, Batuo. Batuo was the teacher of it's monks, and the founding abbot of the institution where they learnt martial arts. To say that they would have still learnt martial arts without the Shaolin Si or it's very founding abbot is a little far fetched. Especially given that that insitution found by Batuo was poised to become the focal point of Martial arts in the years to come. | |||
| *Bodhidharma has been endorsed by the Shaolin itself. We may squabble and revisionist historians may write what they want. The whole trying to "chart the martial arts history authoritatively" thing itself is unproven, and they have too many dissentions within their very microscopic community as such. I won't go into the tedious details. | |||
| *The mural has one translation as given in the article. In case of Asian languages there are always multiple translations, but a mural showing Indian and Chinese monks sparring and haveing the most obvious translation as "''"the fighting techniques to train the body which come from India..."'' deserves to be put down as such. Even if you put "Boxing drills mural" it would'nt change the fact that it depicts Indian and Chinese monks in sparring. | |||
| *The community of naysayers is microscopic, and severely rejected by a list a thousand times larger than the one I have provided. The reader needs to know that this topic could not survive conspiracy theories and revisionist history just like the Bible or the Koran. The reader also needs to know that the traditional claims have been endorsed by just about everybody, and the revisionist claims have been rejected by just about everybody as well. | |||
| :Hi, Asian Martial Arts (origins) sounds good. However, be aware that the article refers to East Asia martial arts not all Asian Martial Arts...]]☤ 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Other points:- | |||
| *The dual links to the article make the user familiar with both the articles mine and JFD's. I have provided links to JFD's article next to mine so the reader gets to know both POVS. | |||
| *The article also deals with the hoax that the Chinese were incapable of martial arts or the Indians were the source of everything, a hoax which people have used to their advantage for presenting an extreme POV and then convieniently disproving it. | |||
| ::The reason I want to change it to "Asian martial arts (origins)" is so that it will refer to all Asian martial arts. Is that going to be a problem? ] (]) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I suggest that instead of attaching tags to articles, you work on the ]. The article is too Bodhidharma-centric, even despite the obvious flaws I did not edit out the content from the article but chose to make a new article. So the reader knows both POVs extensively. I have provided dual links too, wherever required. If both articles are strong then we might do well to present both our cases to the reader. | |||
| :::Not at all, just wanted to be clear on that ]]☤ 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] 06:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am not sure this was a smart move. The article doesn't touch upon the various Southeast Asian martial arts. You may have widened the scope more than is appropriate. ] <small>]</small> 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I hate to tell you this buddy, but nowhere does it state that batuo taught martial arts in any of the primary sources.... he was a religious leader... it's like saying that since jesus christ brought christianity to western europe and since jesus christ was from the middle east, then all discoveries from europe must have come from the middle east. further, your article is pov in the way it is written and quotes the same authors that JFD and I use who are against the idea of bodhidharma transmitting martial arts and even against the existence of bodhidharma as a real person... you cite sources who supposedly support your view but the vast majority of them even agree that what they are working on is legend. YOu are also only providing half truths in your article and quoting people and ideas out of context. The only reason JFD and I are against a list of people in the past was because we wanted to give a list of Ph.D's and academics who were specialists in the field not a whole list of laypeople and interviews and newspaper articles and random websites, which you have done. but if you would like to play that game, then we can assuredly provide that list.... ] 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think other articles of this type could also be re-named or merged so that they refer to all of Asia instead of over-emphasizing the sub-regions. Information on Southeast Asian martial arts could always be added in. ] (]) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not quite. His role as the very founder of the focal point of martial arts, the Shaolin Si and the teacher of it's first monks deserves a mention. I have'nt said that either Ta Ma or Batuo taught martial arts, their role has been mentioned in proper context. | |||
| == Sources == | |||
| ::The list of revisionist historians and conspiracy theorists is strictly microscopic. Are you suggesting that the Shaolin does'nt know it's own affairs ?? Wong Kiew Kit , BBC etc are more credible than mere PHds trying to push an alternate POV, as is the case with the Bible or the Koran. | |||
| ''The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts'' by Meir Shahar was just published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the ''Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies'' and ''Asia Major''. | |||
| ::The article ''is not'' POV. I did not attempt to even touch JFD's article and went extra length to provide both links wherever required. | |||
| What this means is that we finally have in English a comprehensive academic source (as opposed to more narrowly focused journal articles) and therefore ought to start distinguishing material which can be attributed to reliable sources from material attributed to unreliable ones. | |||
| ::One more thing Kenny, this article is about martial arts. Given your record of trying to dispute Dhalsim's style, Britain's contributions in decrease of the IMA, Mallayuddha as a martial art and such, are you sure you're at home with this ??? | |||
| ] (]) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Of course, if you want to cause incessent disputes and rabid reverts than you should feel at home with this. Who knows, JFD might even drop you another barnstar this time. | |||
| ::] 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==further fate of this article?== | |||
| :::the way you have written the article, you have written it to suggest that Batuo taught them martial arts... you have not written it as him being a spiritual leader. further, i am compiling a list right now... give me some time... and as for dhalsim - he is a VIDEO game character made by capcom... there is no such thing as yoga martial arts and it is not possible for a human being to breathe fire as a self defense weapon... regardless, the article is a copy of our article and you shouldn't quote authors who do not agree with your ideas or who dispute it. as i stated before, most of the authors that you have cited fully agree that they are working with a legend, which you do not mention here. ] 14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| this article was originally a pov fest to the effect "Chinese martial arts came from India", unsurprisingly created by an Indian patriot, who is also ]. | |||
| But the article by now contains valid material, mostly on the "Bodhidharma legend". | |||
| What are we going to do with that material? {{tl|split}} to ], ] and ]? --] <small>]</small> 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :After the merge with the counter point POV fork tidying up & adding of other theories etc, their is enoguth info that it is useful as it is in my view, re-titled as ] or similar and re-organised it could be good way to avoid swamping the ] article with Asian stuff, as their are more well know arts from that region. --]]/] 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::A standalone ] article may make good sense. --] <small>]</small> 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Batuo was the founding abbott of the temple which is the focal point, Batuos was a Dhyana master and Sengchou benefitted from both his teachings in Dyana (involves exercises) and the institution which he initiated. | |||
| == Horrible == | |||
| No one said Dhalsim was not a video game charecter, one thing that you did say was his style was not Yoga. | |||
| This is one horrible article. I just removed a huge chunk of it because much of the info is based on legend that has been disproven time and time again. And many of the cited experts are not historians at all. A master passing on a story is not the same as a researcher who analyzes contemporary documents. Also, there are many tags on this page that say "not in the citation listed," meaning much of the info could be some editor's original research hidden under an umbrella of a citation. --] (]) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Call it legend or hypothesis, there are two forms that exist. One is the form which states that Bodhidharma bought martial arts to poor. sniveling Chinese and the other is that he was an idiot who contributed nothing. The effort here is to show that as a Dyana master, he merely introduced exercises, the Chinese people did the development of the mesmerizing work. | |||
| :Someone seems to have lost sight of what this article is supposed to be. Instead of giving info on the history of martial arts in the different sub-regions of Asia, this whole article is taken up with evidence for and against the mistaken idea that all fighting systems in Asia can be traced back to either Greece or India. This is akin to believing that all conflicts, crime and war originated in one place. Are you telling me that Asia was once perfectly peaceful without any kind of fighting until the Chinese, Greeks or Indians taught them how? As for the "theory of prehistoric origins", all ''traditional'' martial arts have some distant link to prehistoric times since even primitive humans fought each other. This doesn't conflict with evidence of any later influences from other countries. The impact that both China and India had on the martial arts of Asia as a whole is not a mere theory but an established and accepted fact. The only real question marks here are whether India influenced the Chinese and whether pankration influenced Asia at all. This can and should be mentioned but we don't need to dedicate this entire article to such a debate.] (]) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Quit the Paranoia routine, It's old. | |||
| ::Someone seems to have lost sight of the ] policy. All challengeable statements have to be sourced. If a source is provided that does not fully support a statement or is itself unreliable, then it needs to be removed. I am all for balancing out the page with info for and against influence; however, when some material is treated as being historically correct, but has been thoroughly disproven, it should be rewritten in a way to show this or removed altogether. For instance, this page was once heavy on the "Bodhidharma created Chinese martial arts" cruft. That is usually the linchpin in the theories of people that try to prove Indian Influence on Chinese martial arts. Without this, they are hardpressed to find a replacement theory. Similarities do not mean one influenced the other (as will be explained below). | |||
| My suggestion once again is, people would like to hear what the pro legend accounts are, and they'll turn to the online pro-India sites. My article at least has a link to the "Disputed Indian origins .." article. Plus, I'm not pushing a pro India, Pro China or anti India POV, stating things that happened. Dyana exercises combined with the efforts of the natives are the key, I have a good article or two about the similarities in nomaclature and moves in Kung fu and Indian Kata pattern, I chose to keep them away, I mentioned the other side's link without putting my link in the other side's article, I gave credit to the Chinese for their sheer genius of developing the arts and I have applied dual links. | |||
| ::Now when you asked "Are you telling me ," are you truly asking me under the context that I might believe that the Greeks or Indians influenced Chinese martial arts or are you questioning the general thesis of the page itself? I think my comments from above show I do not believe in such a strong influence. As I have explained on the talk pages of other martial-based articles, the ] has joint-locking techniques akin to the ] of ] boxing. Eagle Claw is not nearly as old as its legends claim, but ] itself is. In fact, it is much older than the specific form of grappling used by the German School. Does this mean the older of the two influenced the other? Hardly. You can only punch, kick, or lock a joint so many ways. Therefore, it stands to reason that a person may note similarities between two different styles from different times and cultures, but this doesn't point to influence. --] (]) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Your tags are both bizzare and malicious, explain them, and work on the overly Ta Mo centric "Disputed origins." article too. We should build up our articles and avoid messing with the other's article with malicious intent. | |||
| I'm not criticising any particular individuals here. I agree with what you said about masters not being as reliable as researchers. I'm saying this article needs to be revamped. It should be more akin to the ] article instead of propounding different "origin theories". ] (]) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] 14:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == New Attempts at Fixing It == | |||
| That's amazing... you state that you're not pro-india and yet at the same time you've written very pro-indian articles such as "the ancient achievements of india" which when it was a subsection of ] resulted in the article being locked 2-3 times. also, your little statement on the chinese strikes of an extremely biased and prejudiced person. regardless, here's the list of university professors who have disputed any association... and man is it getting longer by the minute... | |||
| Okay, we have comment after comment on how POV and silly this article is (not to mention the name of the article itself.) Having had various warnings for over 12 months, I'm gonna' man up and just start slashing things. I'm first going to remove every loaded or POV word in the article--there really is no place for a "however" or negative slurs about sources. a Please don't revert my edits collectively--feel free to revert various ones individually if you explain it here. The first thing this article needs is some moderators who know wiki law, and second, enough eyeballs to make it valid for a wiki format. We need to write from a position of equity, and right now we're fighting on the defensive from well-intentioned vandals. The third thing this article needs is for someone else to be doing the slashing, because I don't know enough about the primary sources to be doing such (cf. point 1). --] (]) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Historians at Universities who Disclaim the Association with Martial Arts: Tang Hao, Xu Zhen, Matsuda Ryuchi, Paul Pelliot, Stanley Henning | |||
| :That depends on what you are going to slash. If you remove any cited information that deals with the scholarly stance on the material, I will definitely revert it. --] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Historians who think it is All Legend: Heinrich Dumoulin, J. A. G. Roberts, Meir Shahar, Kenneth Ch'en, Bernard Faure, Susan Lynn Peterson | |||
| ::Okay, I slashed a lot, taking out a lot of irrelevant, partisan, and POV information. Don't worry, I'm a historian--it's far more scholarly now. There's nothing really controversial in my edits, but I think it's a good baseline for future edits. We can discuss from here if there's stuff you disagree with. --] (]) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and of course my earlier point was that you are very free to revert individual changes, just please don't revert the whole thing collectively (because the collective is what got us here in the first place.) :) --] (]) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Lay Authors who disclaim the Association with Martial Arts: Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo | |||
| :::I guess the only problem I have is the removal of the Lin Boyuan quote, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it isn't included. I deleted some of the fact tags in the Chinese section because the source at the end covers everything. Thanks for adding the pre-Indian material. --] (]) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'll be back with some more... ] 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm fine if you add back in the Lin Boyuan stuff. My problem was that in the martial arts history stuff, we tend to drop into this "well, master XYZ says this is crap" and calling that an authority. I'd like it if some of the Lin Boyuan information made it into the adjoining paragraph, but the quote itself is just another rant by just another authority. The audience has no reason to know who he is or to believe anything he says. Plus it was just too much anti-Bodhidharma stuff; I was kinda' trying to keep the flow of the sections equal in length and tone. But again, if you want to add some stuff back in, like the date 1624 (without stating it as true or untrue per se), I'm good with it.--] (]) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please be back with some more, I'm sure compiling a list four times larger than that one will ''not'' be a problem. | |||
| == Bodhi Warrior references == | |||
| ::I never said I'm not pro-India, everyone is proud of his heritage. I said that I'm not pushing a ''pro India POV in this context''. I have gone out of my way and not touched JFD's article, mentioned the genius of the Chinese, provided dual links etc., of course given your past of rabid tagging, mindless reverting, meaningless anti India POV you won't respond to my assumptions of good faith. Anyways. | |||
| The reference to the book ''Bodhisattva Warriors'' by Terrance Duke has been removed a couple of times. claims the book is untrustworthy. Wushinbo claims to have provided evidence for why this is on "Mushindo Kempo and the general martial arts project page." However, ] doesn't have any evidence and ] on the WikiProject Martial arts talk page only has personal anecdotes and links to forums and Amazon book reviews. I'm afraid more concrete evidence is needed. Forums are not allowed to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages articles. The same should hold for disproving any sources that may appear in an article. Amazon book reviews don't even come close to being a source. There has to be a reliable third party source that has written of the book's unreliability. --] (]) 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Alexander the Great and Asian Martial Arts == | |||
| I appreciate your civility. Maybe over time we can come to understand each other. Regardless, i am not anti-india at all... althought when you call chinese people "sniveling", it could be considered biased. regardless, let us not fill wikipedia with a long list of books from google scholar search... you and i can both bring names; it will end up like a version of the "west side story" where two gangs meet each other and butt heads - it's sort of pointless as we both agree that we both disagree with each other on some aspects of history. If you notice, my edits are on accuracy. some of the sentences that you have written are misleading when read by other people. ] 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have started this section in the hopes that anon ] will discuss his objections of the Alexander the Great material. As someone , I understand why they object to it, but the fact remains that it is a cited source. The author of the material says Alexander "'''may''' have sown the seeds of modern Asian martial arts". It is simply a suggestion, not a statement of fact. Besides, the Misplaced Pages policy on ] dictates that all views on a subject must be covered. --] (]) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, the list of authors in your page surprised me, it was people who endorsed the "legend" and even people who support it. How is it going to help build up your case ?? Anyways, could'nt resist editing the page a couple of times, adding few links could'nt hurt, y'know. Thoguht, I could motivate you to get more links (kidding). | |||
| :I also don't think the premise holds water but as cited it should be kept - it does not have excessive weight. The issue with anon is that in several articles on the martial arts there is a concerted attempt to remove mentions of historical western sources. A sino-centric view rather than an international view. Martial arts is a global concept.] (]) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyways, I have gone to lengths stating that the Chinese developed the arts from their native stayles and the exerices, meditation and discipline which form an integral part of any Dhyana regimen. Dyana and the very establishment of Shaolin was the reason why the role of Buddhabhara as the teacher of Sengchou is important. It specifically states that he was a "Dhyana" master and a teacher to Sengchou, who under his guidence and his teachings of '''Dhyana''', learnt martial arts at the instituion of Shaolin, which was found by Batuo. Buddhabhadra's expertise was in Dyana exercises, Dyana meditation and the discipline from which his students benefitted. | |||
| :::] 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I noticed that he recently removed references to the ''Illiad'' from the ]. --] (]) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Some have postulated that sengchou was a retired soldier. No mention in the primary writings of Batuo teaching him anything outside of religious lessons. Regardless, i don't understand your reasoning behind erasing the list that i have in my article. Read your citation for nishima more closely. ] 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| But there is significant archaeological evidence that makes it far fetched, so is it possible to make a disclaimer talking about its lack of weight. such as the fact that these cultures have had significant military histories prior to the hellenic expansion? such as the fact that much of chinese martial arts positions resemble Manuscript drawing of physical exercises dao-yin (guiding the energy flow) from an ancient tomb of the Han dynasty which predates the entry of buddhism and central asian influences into china. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Nishiyama has admired Ta Mo, but does admiration qualify as him dismissing it as a legend and rejecting any connections whatsoever ?? All he does it connect Ta Mo to Okinawan arts, and subsequently Japanese arts. This is just the influence you aim to disprove, isn't it ?? | |||
| :I am beginning to reconsider. The source is speculative rather than stating a clear point of view. I think it is an interesting idea but considering the short lived nature of Alex's foray into India I don't think it is viable. More to the point it actually is one of two sentences in the pre-history section so undue weight is an issue. Historically the addition of the point was an editor with an 'all things are Greek' POV which is just as problematic as 'all things are Chinese'.] (]) 09:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Sengchou, as skilled as he was, learnt Dyana for physical and mental strength at the facilility initiated by Buddhabhadra. ''The retired soldier'' stayed under master Batuo, in master Batuo's institution and leart Dhyana from the Dhyana master himself, the Taishō Tripiṭaka mentions him ''after'' he goes through the catalyst, not during his tenure in the army or learning native arts. All they know is that after staying at the facility of the Shaolin, the soldier is disiplined, strong, can concentrate and has evolved. His native martial arts combined with monastary training and teachings have earned him a spot in the Taishō Tripiṭaka. A sign of things to come ?? ?? ?? | |||
| == Merger proposal == | |||
| : Stop being paranoid, nowhere have I said that Batuo (or even Ta Mo) taught martial arts but we do know They taught exercises and discipline in the capacity of Dyana '''''masters''''', which when combined by the expertise in native fighting styles eg. Sengchou ''or'' when used to strengthen the body for hard physical and mental labour, like the 18 monks, turned out to be essential for martial arts as we know them. | |||
| {{Discussion top|1=The result of this discussion was No consensus,] (]) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| This article, and the articles which merged with it, were originally used for presenting evidence for and against the Bodhidharma legend, along with other improbable "theories". Although I do prefer its current state, I'm wondering if it's really necessary. The ] already has its own article, which is adequately divided into countries and regions. And if anyone wanted more detail, they could check more specific articles like the one on ] or ]. Why do we need a separate article for Asia? I say just merge it. ] (]) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You are right we don't need a separate article - the regional specific articles more than adequately cover detail and the ] has enough general description. There is really nothing that the ] adds to the mix. However, I would have to say '''Not at this time''' mainly because the article initially was a sop to the "Martial arts can only be asian crowd" and as you mentioned the Bodhidharma legend. Incorporating the latter into History of martial arts would give undue weight. I realize those are not the best arguments but it is the reality of the wikipedia beast.] (]) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Of course if you feel that Chinese martial arts could have existed in their current glory without Buddhism, the Shaolin temple or Dhyana (Zen in Japanese) meditation and exercises (see ]), concentration then we might argue on entirely different lines here. ] 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see your point. In that case I guess I'll have to improve the article as it stands. ] (]) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == BBC citation == | |||
| :::Well let's just see what other opinions are out there - it could be that my worries are in left field somewhere. Taking a look at the redirects to this page I just see a can of worms and a fight that is essentially unwinable. I will mention this discussion on the Martial arts project page.] (]) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The article states that ''"In addition, reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation, the New York Times, and the Discovery Channel to name a few, have also rejected the revisionist claims."'' | |||
| ::::I don't see the reason for having a separate article for "Asian martial arts" if there are articles for the individual countries. ] (]) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Discussion bottom}} | |||
| == I love how the chinese history section uses indian historical links to bulk up 90 percent of it's section yet trys to claim Bodhidharma to be a fake ? == | |||
| But the BBC cite links to a 2004 news report of the film Kill Bill part 2, the only relevent part of which says: | |||
| If Bodhidharma is of Indian heritage, why is his information not placed on | |||
| ''"According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples."'' | |||
| (the indian section), why did you put him on the chinese section just to be degraded as a fake? | |||
| His work which is now in the hands of the chinese was written in a rare indian writing system, his teachings were brought from the south of india and used in china such as the (Muscle/Tendon Change Classic) (Eighteen Arhat Hands) and book of (washing bone morrow) it was only At the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), That Zhue Yuen, Li Sou and Bai Yu Feng developed the five animal form, which helped to complete the new shaolin system and had a major impact on the state of shaolin kung-fu. | |||
| Which doesn't support the allegation at all as it explicitly calls the story a legend. I am removing the BBC reference until a better source can be found. --] 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also why has the editor of this page not written anything or added anything on the wrestling in india? it's the oldest sport of combat in india thatwas even noted by the portuguese during the historical visits by Domingo Paes in the fifteenth century he writes: | |||
| ::Your argument doesnt prove that this is a bad source.-] 07:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Then the wrestlers begin their play. Their wrestling does not seem like ours, but there are blows so severe as to break teeth, and put out eyes, and disfigure faces, so much so that here and there men are carried off speechless by their friends; they give one another fine falls too." | |||
| :::Only that it doesn't support the material in question. | |||
| :::] 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Domingo Paes also talks about watching men haven legs and arms broken in locks ect, so i mean why not include indian wrestling such as the oldest?] (]) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)caplock | |||
| The article says that the BBC .. has "rejected the revisionist claims". As I understand it, whoever wrote 'revisionist claims' intended it to mean 'claims that deny there was any Indian influence on Chinese martial arts'. The BBC Kill Bill page does not reject that stance; indeed if anything it appears to support it by explicitly calling the ku-fu-came-from-India story a ''legend'' rather than a ''fact''. There may be other source which support your belief, but this one does not. You may like to consider revising the sentence to avoid the incorrect implication that "reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation" back up the out-of-India view. The cited page neither backs it up nor denies it; it simply calls it a "legend". --] 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Anyone can edit the page, so feel free to add the 15th-century material that you mentioned. However, regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person. If you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite ''actual'' Indian sources without making assumptions based on those from China. Also, whether he was a real person or not, he had no historical connection to martial arts. In fact, he wasn't associated with martial arts until the 20th-century. It's based on the Chinese author of a famous satirical novel confusing '']'' exercises with boxing. The ''daoyin'' exercises were created by a Daoist priest from Zhejiang during the 17th-century. He describes the exercise in a manual known as the '']''. One of two forged prefaces in the manual attributes the exercise to Bodhidharma. Again, if you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite ''actual'' Chinese sources predating the 20th-century that mention Bodhidharma creating martial arts. might be useful to you. --] (]) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Fakes should not be used as historical root of martial arts, if the chinese states they faked Bodhidharma then take it out. == | |||
| Not quite. The BBC mention endorses the effect of Ta Mo not disputes it. The legend has been cited when the question of the origin of Shaolin arts appeared. | |||
| "regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person" | |||
| So what are basically saying is? | |||
| To quote the section in it's entire context: | |||
| Bodhidharma is of chinese heritage because the chinese wrote a fake story about his life being a indian prince? Okay If this scripture is fake, does this mean that the story of buddha is a fake because the story is written and recorded by the indians within the indian pali text and not the nepa text of nepal from which buddha was said to be born,or does this propganda only count for the chinese historians? | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Legend | |||
| I think you should remove all information of Bodhidharma as i dont think a fake story is appropriate for the history of martial arts.] (]) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock | |||
| The presence of such strong influences from just one city in so many films is remarkable - however it has surprising origins. | |||
| ::It's funny that the original intent of the article was to find a place for the legend to satisfy the India first crowd. The article itself has grown quite a bit since then and does have a place between individual country/region articles and general History of martial arts. So we could remove all references to Bodhidharma and the article would remain viable. However, historical truth aside, the Bodhidharma legend has traction and is worth discussing considering its importance to various martial art lineages. Right now the article does a decent jobs of describing that while explaining the pointing out the counter issues without undue weight.] (]) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == very apparent stuff not discussed on influence == | |||
| Keanu Reeves in The Matrix | |||
| The Matrix series borrows heavily from China | |||
| According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples. | |||
| few obvious connections are the training clubs of karate and their indian clubs like equipment, which are not discussed here, some training push ups of karate like some of their push ups resemble hindu push ups, the penchak silat and its kungfu type moves, even though silat was inspired by indian martial arts, how judo resembles the game of burmese naban, both of them apparently having no common ancestor of each other, naban being inspired by malla yuddha and judo being inspired by god knows what. i think that somebody needs to dig out proper resources and authors who discuss these stuff and how naban is related to judo even though it doesnt share its ancestory and how penchak silat involves kungfu moves even though its foundation is based on indian martial arts. Not to state the obvious that japanese kick boxing has musti yuddha parenthood for instance. These some of the hard evidences are virtually irrefutable if discussed properly here. I was reading one which also states that judo and jiujitsu have roots in sanskrit yuddh. There are some obvious institutionalization of martial arts of seemingly two unrelated martial arts cultures happening on very similar lines. | |||
| But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe. | |||
| {{talkquote|The evolution of the martial arts has been described by historians in the context of countless historical battles. Building on the work of Laughlin (1956, 1961), Rudgley (2000) argues that the martial arts of the Chinese, Japanese and Aleut peoples, Mongolian wrestling all have "roots in the prehistoric era and to a common Mongoloid ancestral people who inhabited north-eastern Asia."}} | |||
| It is said that eventually he taught the moves to the members. | |||
| This quote and theory has some major falws in it, the author is most probably hinting the evidence of ''mongolian wrestling'' shown in the cave arts and hence all east asian martial arts tracing their history to mongol ancestry. This theory also uses the very convenient excuses like ''proto indo european'', even though we indeed can argue that some forms of asian martial arts descended from mongol cave drawings, but does the cave drawing also show kungfu like moves, judo, karate skills etc?, the mongol wrestling is only one form of grappling sports and nothing else and mongolian wrestling if you observe is to be honest very crude form of martial arts, which is not refined like other asian varieties, mongol grappling is still not widely practised in china and can only be truely seen in sports like sumo and thats about it. how does a mongol cave drawing reflect on complicated moves of locking involved in judo for instance?, i think that instead of making such sweeping statements that east asian martial arts are all descendent from mongol cave drawings and mongol wrestling, why not also post an elaborate context behind this misleading statement? ] (]) 05:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| "They can't use actual fighting on stage, so they transform it into some kind of dance-like action," explained Hong Kong film archive programmer Law Kar. | |||
| "Then the Cantonese actors brought the tradition into Chinese cinema. | |||
| "So in early Cantonese cinema, in the 1960s and even in the 1970s, the scenes of fighting in films are in fact opera-stage fighting. They're not real kung fu." | |||
| Instead, the kung fu seen on screen is more balletic, and based on movement. | |||
| Cheng-Sim Lim said that this was what made it exciting on film - and why it had proved so influential. | |||
| "There is a clarity to the way they construct these scenes," she said. | |||
| "You don't just move the camera in a blur to suggest action - you actually show the action. | |||
| "That's what's so incredible, because you see people - even though they may be wearing wires and all that kind of stuff - you see the body in motion, and it's beautiful." | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The "Legend" heading covers very well established facts about Kung Fu movies as well. In addition of providing Bodhidharma as a source of Shaolin martial arts. My own opinion on this might differ but the endorsement is clear. The legend section covers what the BBC has put forward as origins of sholin martial arts and then goes forward to the development of cinema further in the same section. | |||
| <span class="sigFreedom skies" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"> ] (])</span> 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I've read the Kill Bill page through very carefully, and I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. You may be reading into it something I just don't see. Is my summary, above, of what you mean by 'revisionist' correct? Sorry if I'm just being thick, but can you please point out to me the ''exact words'' used in the Kill Bill article which demonstrate that the BBC "rejected the revisionist claims".--] 10:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Misleading use of word 'legendary' (to mean famous, or notable, or something similar?) == | |||
| Freedom Skies: In edit you have silently reverted an edit I made (deletion of 'legendary') without giving any reason, discussing on the talk page, nor even using an edit summary. Could you please always, at the very least, use an edit summary so others can see why you are making the changes you do? To do otherwise is at the very least impolite. If you disagree with my edit, please indicate why so that we can discuss. regards. --] 10:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Many martial artists have written about the subject. Out of those I have selected the few who are the most unmatched in their respective fields. Hence the use of legendary. Regards. <span class="sigFreedom skies" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"> ] (])</span> 11:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's an unhappy choice of word, since elsewhere in the article 'legendary' is used in the sense of 'fictional'. Here you are confusingly using the totally different and less-formal meaning of 'unmatched' (or famous?). Suggest you use 'notable', 'famous' or something along those lines instead. --] 11:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Duely noted. Will do in next session. I have to go out, Jog now. <span class="sigFreedom skies" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"> ] (])</span> | |||
| == Reliance on New York Times web pages as sources == | |||
| I have removed two web pages. The first linked to a non-public page that is accessible by registered users only. The second does not support the statement that the New York Times has "rejected the revisionist claims". What it actually says is: | |||
| :''The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.'' | |||
| :''Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators. Variations of their refined techniques subsequently reached Japan, Okinawa, Korea and other Asian countries that developed their own distinct fighting styles.'' | |||
| which makes it very clear that Bodhidharma's involvement ''"has been attributed in legend".'' Which is hardly a rejection of what the article calls the 'revisionist' view - that his involvement is legendary and can't actually be proved. --] 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| The article endorses the legend instead of endorsing conflicting revisionist theories. Hence the idea of it being used as citable evidence of how when the history of Kung Fu is mentioned the historians point towards taditional claims instead of citing modern revisionist works. | |||
| <span class="sigFreedom skies" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"> ] (])</span> 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Ta Mo? == | |||
| There should be some discussion of who Ta Mo is in this quote: | |||
| ''Finding that the sedentary life often left the monks weak both in body and mind, '''Ta Mo''' decided to encourage physical discipline as well as meditation. He taught streching exercises from the Indian tradition of Yoga with which he was familiar. On their part, the Chinese monks were reminded of the native fighting techniques from their youth. A group of eighteen particulary dedicated monks then developed and refined a system of streching exercises and movements of what is now the core of Shao-lin Chuan, the source for all subsequent martial arts, including Tai Chi Chuan. The Chinese revere the eighteen monks to this day and venerate them as Lohans.'' | |||
| "Ta Mo" appears nowhere else in the article. The identity of Ta Mo and Bodhidharma ought to be explained. --] 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Ta Mo, Daruma, Dhamo, Buddhadharma are the names of Bodhidharma in various languages. Refer to Page 1 of Long Life; Good Health thru T'ai Chi: Through T'ai Chi Ch'uan by Simmone Kuo. | |||
| <span class="sigFreedom skies" style="background:gold;color:#FF0000"> ] (])</span> 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article == | |||
| <b>Conversation by editors to date</b><br> | |||
| *Any article that attacks differing points of view as "revisionist" and "attempts at revising history" deserves a NPOV tag. ] 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Conflicting theories deserve to be mentioned as such. NPOV tag or not. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? I was always under the impression that ] requires that conflicting theories deserve to be presented with objectivity. Labeling an opposing viewpoing "revisionist" simply b/c you disagree violates the principles of wiki. Either rewrite the opposing viewpoints section or keep the NPOV tag on. ] 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Not quite. This is not a view and counter view case. This is a case where all of these researchers tried to disprove a traditionally endorsed version and arrived at different conclusions thereby harming their own cause. Conflicts do not arise in the traditional manner here but a manner of different results for the same subject. The attempt has '''not''' met with sucsess presumably due to the conflicts in the various researches and is written as such. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Come now. If no coherent argumentation exists against this article's claim, why does ] on the same topic exist to disprove this article? I am reapplying NPOV and applying for arbitration. ] 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I, for one, would welcome arbitration.<br>] 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :Actually, you've got it backwards. This article exists to disprove the other one as the majority held POV was overshadowed by an overwhelming minority. They also corrupted the ] article. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::With all due respect, any opinion that has enough support to generate another well-cited article should not be considered "an overhwhelming minority." ] 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well cited? Kindly compare the individuals involved numerically and the authority they weild in the other article with his one. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::With respect, that is not your sole decision to make. ] 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, Not Quite. If you're telling me that the Discovery channel, martial arts institutions, martial artists, historians and the Shaolin are disputed by half a dozen people who have yet to come up with coherent theories then common sense dictates that I doubt your argument. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Am I living in a ditch, or were ] conveniently overlooked in your assertion of "half a dozen people ... (without) coherent theories." ] 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Incidentally, half these the citations on THIS page are to sources of poor authenticity -- since when did a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu dojo become a spokesman for the history of Shaolin? | |||
| <br> | |||
| <b>Proposed Merger with ] </b> | |||
| *Though this article is quite critical and disparaging towards any additional viewpoints other than its own, it overlooks an ]. I am not advocating for one article over the other, but both should be presented, preferably together, for the purposes of ]. ] 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Incidentally, I feel that the second article would make an excellent "Opposing Viewpoints" section for this article. It would streamline both articles while helping with POV. ] 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Kindly take a look into the ] article if you're looking for critical and disparaging towards any additional viewpoints other than its own. That one was made by the same people who created the ] article. The opposing viewpoints are many and intricate, requiring two articles to cover both viewpoints in detail. Merging them would be like merging the ] and the ]. <sub><span style="border:3px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:25, 2 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Origins of Asian martial arts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with History of martial arts on 27 April 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
 Archives |
Disputed NPOV
It seems like an argument is being phrased and weighted towards one side. Regardless, no citation is give to certain ideas. What are the Indian (or Chinese) texts that describe Bodhidharma's origin as a Southerm Kschtriya? What are the texts that show the monastery was founded prior to Bodhidharma's arrival? Finally as a point of logic, one author seems to be claiming that because a text has been discredited that means Bodhidharma could not have contributed to Shaolin Kung Fu. A Daoist priest forges the prefaces according to the information submitted by the author. The priest claims "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real." Why would a text used to discredit the monks be used by the monks themselves to define their history? The monks themselves are claiming the origin of martial arts from Bodhidharma, and the author claims that this has been from the forgery of the text. It seems spurious that anyone would take a myth denigrating them as fact when up till then they did not believe the myth. Arch7 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, this article very heavily favours one side of the debate. Furthermore, Renzo Gracie is not a historian or an authority on martial arts history. While he is a talented practioner of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, that does not give his opinions historical or scholarly cache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.186.190 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, per the discussion below. Merges can be discussed separately. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
"Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection" is an enormously awkward page name. It should be moved back to "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts". JFD 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Agreed, the current title is cumbersome; and the proposed title seems better, but does it best reflect the article's contents? – Marco79 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- comment if renamed as such, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts might need to be merged there. Also "Disputed origins of East Asian martial arts" as there are other arguments two". --Nate1481(/c) 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Text Improvement Suggestion
The two paragraphs, one starting "Shaolin monastery records state..." and the following one starting "Years before the arrival of Bodhidharma..." contain essentially the same information and statements. Perhaps someone familiar with the references could combine and improve? Is "...the tin staff." referenced by both 11 and 13? DAG 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Replacement vs Merge
Just as a disclaimer, if individuals will check this article's edit history, it will reveal that I've tried hard to keep this article well sourced and NPOV.
I know that this article began as a large POV fork for hindu nationalists, and that there was a proposal to merge it with its counter-article has been there since March. (Heck, I was the one who placed the original merge proposal.) However, there is a whole scale difference between merging articles and replacing the article. This especially doesn't make sense when the replacing article began life as criticism article.
Can someone explain to me what was wrong with the version of the article from last month? I agree that contents that currently take up the article's entirety should be included, but it shouldn't be exclusive.
Djma12 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the version you have mentioned has been included now as it is quite well presented and makes the subject coverage wider Jenny☤ 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Asian MA
If neither you nor Djma12 have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Asian Martial Arts (origins) sounds good. However, be aware that the article refers to East Asia martial arts not all Asian Martial Arts...Jenny☤ 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason I want to change it to "Asian martial arts (origins)" is so that it will refer to all Asian martial arts. Is that going to be a problem? JFD (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all, just wanted to be clear on that Jenny☤ 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure this was a smart move. The article doesn't touch upon the various Southeast Asian martial arts. You may have widened the scope more than is appropriate. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think other articles of this type could also be re-named or merged so that they refer to all of Asia instead of over-emphasizing the sub-regions. Information on Southeast Asian martial arts could always be added in. Morinae (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sources
The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar was just published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.
What this means is that we finally have in English a comprehensive academic source (as opposed to more narrowly focused journal articles) and therefore ought to start distinguishing material which can be attributed to reliable sources from material attributed to unreliable ones.
JFD (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
further fate of this article?
this article was originally a pov fest to the effect "Chinese martial arts came from India", unsurprisingly created by an Indian patriot, who is also permabanned for sockpuppetry. But the article by now contains valid material, mostly on the "Bodhidharma legend". What are we going to do with that material? {{split}} to Bodhidharma, Shaolin_kung_fu#Legend_of_Bodhidharma and history of martial arts? --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- After the merge with the counter point POV fork tidying up & adding of other theories etc, their is enoguth info that it is useful as it is in my view, re-titled as ] or similar and re-organised it could be good way to avoid swamping the History of martial arts article with Asian stuff, as their are more well know arts from that region. --Nate/c 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- A standalone history of Asian martial arts article may make good sense. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Horrible
This is one horrible article. I just removed a huge chunk of it because much of the info is based on legend that has been disproven time and time again. And many of the cited experts are not historians at all. A master passing on a story is not the same as a researcher who analyzes contemporary documents. Also, there are many tags on this page that say "not in the citation listed," meaning much of the info could be some editor's original research hidden under an umbrella of a citation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Someone seems to have lost sight of what this article is supposed to be. Instead of giving info on the history of martial arts in the different sub-regions of Asia, this whole article is taken up with evidence for and against the mistaken idea that all fighting systems in Asia can be traced back to either Greece or India. This is akin to believing that all conflicts, crime and war originated in one place. Are you telling me that Asia was once perfectly peaceful without any kind of fighting until the Chinese, Greeks or Indians taught them how? As for the "theory of prehistoric origins", all traditional martial arts have some distant link to prehistoric times since even primitive humans fought each other. This doesn't conflict with evidence of any later influences from other countries. The impact that both China and India had on the martial arts of Asia as a whole is not a mere theory but an established and accepted fact. The only real question marks here are whether India influenced the Chinese and whether pankration influenced Asia at all. This can and should be mentioned but we don't need to dedicate this entire article to such a debate.Morinae (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Someone seems to have lost sight of the WP:Citation policy. All challengeable statements have to be sourced. If a source is provided that does not fully support a statement or is itself unreliable, then it needs to be removed. I am all for balancing out the page with info for and against influence; however, when some material is treated as being historically correct, but has been thoroughly disproven, it should be rewritten in a way to show this or removed altogether. For instance, this page was once heavy on the "Bodhidharma created Chinese martial arts" cruft. That is usually the linchpin in the theories of people that try to prove Indian Influence on Chinese martial arts. Without this, they are hardpressed to find a replacement theory. Similarities do not mean one influenced the other (as will be explained below).
- Now when you asked "Are you telling me ," are you truly asking me under the context that I might believe that the Greeks or Indians influenced Chinese martial arts or are you questioning the general thesis of the page itself? I think my comments from above show I do not believe in such a strong influence. As I have explained on the talk pages of other martial-based articles, the German school of swordsmanship has joint-locking techniques akin to the Chinese martial art of Eagle Claw boxing. Eagle Claw is not nearly as old as its legends claim, but joint-locking itself is. In fact, it is much older than the specific form of grappling used by the German School. Does this mean the older of the two influenced the other? Hardly. You can only punch, kick, or lock a joint so many ways. Therefore, it stands to reason that a person may note similarities between two different styles from different times and cultures, but this doesn't point to influence. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not criticising any particular individuals here. I agree with what you said about masters not being as reliable as researchers. I'm saying this article needs to be revamped. It should be more akin to the History of martial arts article instead of propounding different "origin theories". Morinae (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
New Attempts at Fixing It
Okay, we have comment after comment on how POV and silly this article is (not to mention the name of the article itself.) Having had various warnings for over 12 months, I'm gonna' man up and just start slashing things. I'm first going to remove every loaded or POV word in the article--there really is no place for a "however" or negative slurs about sources. a Please don't revert my edits collectively--feel free to revert various ones individually if you explain it here. The first thing this article needs is some moderators who know wiki law, and second, enough eyeballs to make it valid for a wiki format. We need to write from a position of equity, and right now we're fighting on the defensive from well-intentioned vandals. The third thing this article needs is for someone else to be doing the slashing, because I don't know enough about the primary sources to be doing such (cf. point 1). --Mrcolj (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- That depends on what you are going to slash. If you remove any cited information that deals with the scholarly stance on the material, I will definitely revert it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I slashed a lot, taking out a lot of irrelevant, partisan, and POV information. Don't worry, I'm a historian--it's far more scholarly now. There's nothing really controversial in my edits, but I think it's a good baseline for future edits. We can discuss from here if there's stuff you disagree with. --Mrcolj (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and of course my earlier point was that you are very free to revert individual changes, just please don't revert the whole thing collectively (because the collective is what got us here in the first place.) :) --Mrcolj (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the only problem I have is the removal of the Lin Boyuan quote, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it isn't included. I deleted some of the fact tags in the Chinese section because the source at the end covers everything. Thanks for adding the pre-Indian material. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine if you add back in the Lin Boyuan stuff. My problem was that in the martial arts history stuff, we tend to drop into this "well, master XYZ says this is crap" and calling that an authority. I'd like it if some of the Lin Boyuan information made it into the adjoining paragraph, but the quote itself is just another rant by just another authority. The audience has no reason to know who he is or to believe anything he says. Plus it was just too much anti-Bodhidharma stuff; I was kinda' trying to keep the flow of the sections equal in length and tone. But again, if you want to add some stuff back in, like the date 1624 (without stating it as true or untrue per se), I'm good with it.--Mrcolj (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Bodhi Warrior references
The reference to the book Bodhisattva Warriors by Terrance Duke has been removed a couple of times. This edit summary claims the book is untrustworthy. Wushinbo claims to have provided evidence for why this is on "Mushindo Kempo and the general martial arts project page." However, Talk:Mushindo Kempo doesn't have any evidence and the discussion on the WikiProject Martial arts talk page only has personal anecdotes and links to forums and Amazon book reviews. I'm afraid more concrete evidence is needed. Forums are not allowed to be used as sources on Misplaced Pages articles. The same should hold for disproving any sources that may appear in an article. Amazon book reviews don't even come close to being a source. There has to be a reliable third party source that has written of the book's unreliability. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Alexander the Great and Asian Martial Arts
I have started this section in the hopes that anon 24.205.183.170 will discuss his objections of the Alexander the Great material. As someone who studies martial arts history, I understand why they object to it, but the fact remains that it is a cited source. The author of the material says Alexander "may have sown the seeds of modern Asian martial arts". It is simply a suggestion, not a statement of fact. Besides, the Misplaced Pages policy on Neutral Point of View dictates that all views on a subject must be covered. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I also don't think the premise holds water but as cited it should be kept - it does not have excessive weight. The issue with anon is that in several articles on the martial arts there is a concerted attempt to remove mentions of historical western sources. A sino-centric view rather than an international view. Martial arts is a global concept.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that he recently removed references to the Illiad from the History of martial arts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
But there is significant archaeological evidence that makes it far fetched, so is it possible to make a disclaimer talking about its lack of weight. such as the fact that these cultures have had significant military histories prior to the hellenic expansion? such as the fact that much of chinese martial arts positions resemble Manuscript drawing of physical exercises dao-yin (guiding the energy flow) from an ancient tomb of the Han dynasty which predates the entry of buddhism and central asian influences into china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.204.166 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am beginning to reconsider. The source is speculative rather than stating a clear point of view. I think it is an interesting idea but considering the short lived nature of Alex's foray into India I don't think it is viable. More to the point it actually is one of two sentences in the pre-history section so undue weight is an issue. Historically the addition of the point was an editor with an 'all things are Greek' POV which is just as problematic as 'all things are Chinese'.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Merger proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was No consensus,Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This article, and the articles which merged with it, were originally used for presenting evidence for and against the Bodhidharma legend, along with other improbable "theories". Although I do prefer its current state, I'm wondering if it's really necessary. The history of martial arts already has its own article, which is adequately divided into countries and regions. And if anyone wanted more detail, they could check more specific articles like the one on Japanese martial arts or Korean martial arts. Why do we need a separate article for Asia? I say just merge it. Morinae (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are right we don't need a separate article - the regional specific articles more than adequately cover detail and the History of martial arts has enough general description. There is really nothing that the Origins of Asian martial arts adds to the mix. However, I would have to say Not at this time mainly because the article initially was a sop to the "Martial arts can only be asian crowd" and as you mentioned the Bodhidharma legend. Incorporating the latter into History of martial arts would give undue weight. I realize those are not the best arguments but it is the reality of the wikipedia beast.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I see your point. In that case I guess I'll have to improve the article as it stands. Morinae (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well let's just see what other opinions are out there - it could be that my worries are in left field somewhere. Taking a look at the redirects to this page I just see a can of worms and a fight that is essentially unwinable. I will mention this discussion on the Martial arts project page.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see the reason for having a separate article for "Asian martial arts" if there are articles for the individual countries. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well let's just see what other opinions are out there - it could be that my worries are in left field somewhere. Taking a look at the redirects to this page I just see a can of worms and a fight that is essentially unwinable. I will mention this discussion on the Martial arts project page.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I love how the chinese history section uses indian historical links to bulk up 90 percent of it's section yet trys to claim Bodhidharma to be a fake ?
If Bodhidharma is of Indian heritage, why is his information not placed on (the indian section), why did you put him on the chinese section just to be degraded as a fake?
His work which is now in the hands of the chinese was written in a rare indian writing system, his teachings were brought from the south of india and used in china such as the (Muscle/Tendon Change Classic) (Eighteen Arhat Hands) and book of (washing bone morrow) it was only At the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), That Zhue Yuen, Li Sou and Bai Yu Feng developed the five animal form, which helped to complete the new shaolin system and had a major impact on the state of shaolin kung-fu.
Also why has the editor of this page not written anything or added anything on the wrestling in india? it's the oldest sport of combat in india thatwas even noted by the portuguese during the historical visits by Domingo Paes in the fifteenth century he writes:
"Then the wrestlers begin their play. Their wrestling does not seem like ours, but there are blows so severe as to break teeth, and put out eyes, and disfigure faces, so much so that here and there men are carried off speechless by their friends; they give one another fine falls too."
Domingo Paes also talks about watching men haven legs and arms broken in locks ect, so i mean why not include indian wrestling such as the oldest?92.236.96.38 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)caplock
- Anyone can edit the page, so feel free to add the 15th-century material that you mentioned. However, regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person. If you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite actual Indian sources without making assumptions based on those from China. Also, whether he was a real person or not, he had no historical connection to martial arts. In fact, he wasn't associated with martial arts until the 20th-century. It's based on the Chinese author of a famous satirical novel confusing daoyin exercises with boxing. The daoyin exercises were created by a Daoist priest from Zhejiang during the 17th-century. He describes the exercise in a manual known as the Yijin Jing. One of two forged prefaces in the manual attributes the exercise to Bodhidharma. Again, if you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite actual Chinese sources predating the 20th-century that mention Bodhidharma creating martial arts. My article on the subject might be useful to you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Fakes should not be used as historical root of martial arts, if the chinese states they faked Bodhidharma then take it out.
"regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person"
So what are basically saying is?
Bodhidharma is of chinese heritage because the chinese wrote a fake story about his life being a indian prince? Okay If this scripture is fake, does this mean that the story of buddha is a fake because the story is written and recorded by the indians within the indian pali text and not the nepa text of nepal from which buddha was said to be born,or does this propganda only count for the chinese historians?
I think you should remove all information of Bodhidharma as i dont think a fake story is appropriate for the history of martial arts.92.236.96.38 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock
- It's funny that the original intent of the article was to find a place for the legend to satisfy the India first crowd. The article itself has grown quite a bit since then and does have a place between individual country/region articles and general History of martial arts. So we could remove all references to Bodhidharma and the article would remain viable. However, historical truth aside, the Bodhidharma legend has traction and is worth discussing considering its importance to various martial art lineages. Right now the article does a decent jobs of describing that while explaining the pointing out the counter issues without undue weight.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
very apparent stuff not discussed on influence
few obvious connections are the training clubs of karate and their indian clubs like equipment, which are not discussed here, some training push ups of karate like some of their push ups resemble hindu push ups, the penchak silat and its kungfu type moves, even though silat was inspired by indian martial arts, how judo resembles the game of burmese naban, both of them apparently having no common ancestor of each other, naban being inspired by malla yuddha and judo being inspired by god knows what. i think that somebody needs to dig out proper resources and authors who discuss these stuff and how naban is related to judo even though it doesnt share its ancestory and how penchak silat involves kungfu moves even though its foundation is based on indian martial arts. Not to state the obvious that japanese kick boxing has musti yuddha parenthood for instance. These some of the hard evidences are virtually irrefutable if discussed properly here. I was reading one research paper which also states that judo and jiujitsu have roots in sanskrit yuddh. There are some obvious institutionalization of martial arts of seemingly two unrelated martial arts cultures happening on very similar lines.
The evolution of the martial arts has been described by historians in the context of countless historical battles. Building on the work of Laughlin (1956, 1961), Rudgley (2000) argues that the martial arts of the Chinese, Japanese and Aleut peoples, Mongolian wrestling all have "roots in the prehistoric era and to a common Mongoloid ancestral people who inhabited north-eastern Asia."
This quote and theory has some major falws in it, the author is most probably hinting the evidence of mongolian wrestling shown in the cave arts and hence all east asian martial arts tracing their history to mongol ancestry. This theory also uses the very convenient excuses like proto indo european, even though we indeed can argue that some forms of asian martial arts descended from mongol cave drawings, but does the cave drawing also show kungfu like moves, judo, karate skills etc?, the mongol wrestling is only one form of grappling sports and nothing else and mongolian wrestling if you observe is to be honest very crude form of martial arts, which is not refined like other asian varieties, mongol grappling is still not widely practised in china and can only be truely seen in sports like sumo and thats about it. how does a mongol cave drawing reflect on complicated moves of locking involved in judo for instance?, i think that instead of making such sweeping statements that east asian martial arts are all descendent from mongol cave drawings and mongol wrestling, why not also post an elaborate context behind this misleading statement? 60.52.50.71 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Category: