Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Improving taijiquan lineage trees

Please assist by weighing in on the new proposed lineage trees. I'm in need of assistance with gathering information on the lineages and constructive feedback.

I will add the links to the trees for the remaining styles as I build them. Thanks. InferKNOX (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Do world records confer notability?

I've come across articles on several martial artists (Mak Yuree and Chloe Bruce (martial artist)) whose sole claim to notability seems to be that they hold a world record. This would seem to be sufficient to show notability, but world records are so often for obscure things that I'm not convinced. For example, Bruce's record is for the number of kicks in a minute but the video shows little "tappy" kicks with minimal leg movement--totally poor form and useless for fighting. Yuree's records are for shin-kicking baseball bats. I'm interested in the opinion of others. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It really is case by case and the main reason I put Yuree's page for AfD rather than just PROD'd it. There are literally thousands of world records for all sorts of obscure things so no I don't think a Guiness record (and in Yuree's case some other) is enough in its own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
A guideline could be that the record itself should be notable. I would consider 100 m sprint records to be notable, but probably not balloon-popping records. The veracity of the record could also be a factor. For example, a record that has been independently verified by credible organisations would probably be more notable than self-reported records. Janggeom (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comments. I think the records mentioned by Papaursa, even when certified by Guinness, do not automatically show notability because there's no standards about what is a valid kick or a standard for baseball bats. I also think those records are more of the "balloon-popping" variety mentioned by Janggeom. Astudent0 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. All of these comments are correct. Some world records do "confer notability", but others do not. Of the ones already mentioned, the 100m record is notable, but not the others. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Recreating a deleted article

I was considering creating an article this morning on the book Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere, however I noticed that an article on the topic was deleted a year or two ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere: An Illustrated Introduction. I think it could merit revisiting; several sources are available ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7] are a few examples) which evidence its importance as a text on aikido. It can certainly be shown to pass criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NBOOK. The deleting admin (User:Cirt) suggested I raise this with the relevent WikiProjects, thus, here I am. Any objections to the article reappearing? Yunshui  13:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am on record about my dislike for this book. Basically the two authors spent a year in Japan (not speaking Japanese) and came back and wrote a book loaded with their pre-conceptions. That said (and it has nice picis) in the Aikido world everyone knows it. It was one of the first books readily available in the West although far from the most important in terms of either value or impact. I am ambivalent. I think reference [8] sums it up and really all those references only indicate the book exists. The ISBN number is enough for that.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia:I just don't like it, I agree with Peter that everyone in the Aikido world knows it - it has been translated into many languages. It was deleted for lack of references. With references, it should be a valuable article. jmcw (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
All that Wikipedia:I just don't like it means is I wont argue for or against the book. The real question is does it pass WP:NBOOK.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not a fan either. However, I believe it passes WP:NBOOK on two counts. Firstly, it has been independently reviewed in a few places (Stenudd, for example), with commentary (criterion 1). It could also be argued that it has made a significant (possible negative?) contribution to the art form of aikido - as above, everyone in the aikido world knows it, and for all its rambling about vectors of attack and moral violence, it has certainly had considerable influence (criterion 3). I'm not especially desparate to recreate the article, but it seems to me that not having an article on such a popular title is a bit of an ommission. Yunshui  07:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds to me like all the right reasons - go for it and perhaps improve on the article with your comments above.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since I've had the go-ahead both here and at the Books WikiProject, and no dissent, I shall start the article up. Feel free to check it over (here's how it looks so far) and improve/nominate for deletion again if I haven't done a good enough job. Yunshui  08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that I put the original article up for deletion. If I recall properly, this article is much better sourced. I'm not sure if this book satisfies a strict interpretation of WP:NBOOK, but it is well known in aikido circles and I think it can be argued that it meets WP:GNG. At any rate, I think there's enough there that I won't argue for its deletion. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations (again)

Several of our regular editors are being investigated: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Papaursa, Astudent0 and Mdtemp. I do not believe them to be sock puppets. jmcw (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We could just ask them. The last comment on timing (ie. different names for when at school/work) seems interesting. For the record I never got the impression that they were sock-puppets either.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because we're not. I was unable to respond to the SPI because I was on vacation with no internet access. However, I would like to make a few comments on it. First, because of my involvement with MMA articles (usually on the deletionist side) I have become a target of much abuse and accusations. I won't repeat all of the things I've been called over the past year, but just in 2012 I've been involved with SPI investigations claiming I was a sockmaster, a sockpuppet, a sockpuppet of a different user, and a sockmaster again. Astudent0 and Mdtemp (as well as others) have also been involved in these discussions. I'll agree that the fact that we're from the same geographic area appears suspicious (it was the first anyone had mentioned that and it would make me suspicious if I didn't know better) and that the time issues are interesting. However, the work/school/home theory is just speculation, especially given the fact that I haven't been a college student in nearly four decades and I pointed out in the first discussion that I edit from home and can't edit from work. Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causality comes to mind. Janggeom (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's his school boyish charm.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It was found from a check user that all 3 accounts are from the same city and all 3 accounts edit and reply to a staggering amount of the same articles. That is no coincidence. I don't know if you guys are sockpuppets or something else, but the 3 accounts are not completely independent of each other. The admin ruled that only 1 of those accounts can count for a vote in an AFD... if all 3 vote in an AFD discussion, they will be simply counted as 1 vote. Gamezero05 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be three people with similar philosophy (see Deletionism). Could you point me to where "The admin ruled that only 1 of those accounts can count for a vote in an AFD... if all 3 vote in an AFD discussion, they will be simply counted as 1 vote."? I see the closing remarks as jmcw (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The admin said, "You might note this decision [8] if they all !vote in a single discussion." If you then click on that link, it says, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." The admin seemed pretty convinced that all 3 users are the same person. However, he just could not say 100% for sure. So all I am saying is that Papaursa better tread lightly.  Gamezero05  talk  22:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This is innuendo (as is the entire sock-puppet accusation). That decision applied to a different case concerning a range of IP addresses. There is no decision that these editors are sock-puppets. jmcw (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in these repeated sock-puppet accusations, we should consider issues of bullying: "Bullying is characterized by an individual behaving in a certain way to gain power over another person". jmcw (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to AGF, but Gamezero has put me up for SPI twice in the past month and now he suddenly makes his first edit at WT:WPMA in response to my posting. I think my shadow has lengthened. Papaursa (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The first time I included you in a sockpuppet investigation I was pretty new to editing on Wikipedia. I knew something fishy was going on but I didn't quite have it right. Then a month or so later when I was voting in a lot of MMA AFDs, I realized that Papaursa, Mdtemp, and Astudent0 were the common denominator, replying on almost all of the same AFDs with very similar responses. I inquired further and realized how similar their activity really was. That is when I took it to SPI. Then the check user said that all 3 accounts are posting from the same geo-location. That just sealed it for me. And the admin agrees. At the very least you guys are working together, and I personally believe it is a single user controlling all 3 accounts. The admin is very suspicious as well. And I replied here by coincidence. I was browsing the martial arts pages and clicked on the talk page and saw talk of the SPI that I was involved in.  Gamezero05  talk  06:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:AGF: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Please re-read the closing remarks "This should not be seen as proof that they aren't connected, but rather an inability to definitively connect the accounts at this time, after an exhaustive investigation". There is no clear evidence that they are sock puppets. Please deal with your own WP:BATTLEGROUND issues: "That just sealed it for me." Or do you have similar problems that we here at the WikiProject Martial Arts Project are "guys are working together"? Please try to take a fresh view of Wikipedia and lighten up. jmcw (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that the accounts are connected... there just isn't any 100% non-circumstantial proof. I mean, just think about it. How likely is it that 3 random users who don't know each other are ALL from the same geo-location and ALL vote in the exact same articles for deletion? And not just a few of the same... but HUNDREDS of the same AFDs. And they don't just vote in the same AFDs, they vote the exact same way. That is way too much to be simply a coincidence. Whether it is a single user controlling the accounts or off-Wiki canvassing, it is obvious that the accounts are not completely independent of each other.  Gamezero05  talk  17:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologize to my fellow editors for responding so many times to this trolling. jmcw (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not trolling. If you think there isn't anything fishy about the situation, and it is all just a coincidence, then you are just being biased for some reason.  Gamezero05  talk  06:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting to see how this discussion has developed. A few thoughts come to mind.
  • Gamezero05: given the possibility that there could be an element of seriousness to your accusation above of being a sockpuppet ("I don't know if you guys are sockpuppets or something else ..."), I invite you to either submit your case for administrative investigation or else retract your accusation. Whether your accusation was intended seriously or not, you should abide by Wikipedia policy about personal attacks: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. ..." (original emphasis).
  • My comment above about correlation and causality was a general comment about human reasoning and decision-making, not a comment on the perceived degree of validity of the sockpuppet investigation, in case that might not have been clear. I have not had dealings with the administrator who handled that investigation (Dennis Brown), but I find it commendable that despite his personal belief about the situation, he has followed what he thinks is the most correct course of action given the policy parameters he works within.
  • I do not believe that 'noting' an earlier decision in a separate case is the same as judging that that decision should also hold in this case. It is possible that 'noting' could have more weight attached in this context than I am reading into it (and I would welcome correction if that is the case), but the closing remarks seem to me to be recommending that any other administrators who become involved might like to note what was done in a similar situation previously and consider enforcing something along those lines if the sockpuppetry is actually proved. In any case, I note that Papaursa's talk page bears no statement regarding the outcome of this investigation (i.e., there is no "Papaursa, you are hereby banned from doing ..."), which to me seems a clear indication that there is no official sanction being placed on him.
  • After an "exhaustive investigation," Dennis Brown (a neutral investigator) was unable to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there was abuse occurring—tellingly, despite his own personal belief to the contrary. This does not 'prove' innocence, but it does suggest to me that any further insinuations of guilt without some significant change in evidence cannot be justified.
I do not believe that the three editors who were under investigation are all the same person. From some degree of interaction and observation, I have found Papaursa to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Just a few thoughts and comments. Janggeom (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It's near impossible to prove a negative, unless one of the editors wants to switch countries for a period or some other extreme measure. The comment by the investigator of "This should not be seen as proof that they aren't connected, but rather an inability to definitively connect the accounts at this time, after an exhaustive investigation." says it all for me, there is no rational for taking further action without further evidence.
As a piece of advice to the editors; going off and editing in unrelated areas and avoiding the area of conflict for a while might help build good faith and remove the need for any assumption. -- Natet/c 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That would seem to be reasonable advice. However, having been called a dick, troll, vandal, and sockpuppet (all in one April day) as well as threatened previously, I doubt that I can expect much good will even if I stop voting at MMA articles (I already avoid UFC articles). If anything, I would expect that to be taken as a sign of victory and confirmation that the tactics of abuse work. Papaursa (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Junior Dos Santos

Junior Dos Santos' page has Jon Jones' mixed martial arts record!! Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Taekwondo Promotion Foundation

I would appreciate opinions on Taekwondo Promotion Foundation. jmcw (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and notable. THe Taekwando organization for every country is not notable but for the country of origin (ie. Korea) yes. If they are building a large training centre than it should be incorporated into the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The subject does seem notable, although my initial thought was to consider WP:CRYSTAL. When translated from Korean, the article's creator's user name is synonymous with the subject, and so would appear to contravene WP:CORPNAME and might be a concern with regard to WP:COI; I have notified the contributor. Janggeom (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As it is currently written I don't see any independent reliable sources for the foundation. I also don't think planning to build a park shows notability (crystalball, at least). I'm not even sure that a completed training center shows notability. Just a voice from the dark side. Papaursa (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Keysi Fighting Method

I just came across this article and it seems to lack independent sources (except for the Batman Begins connection). I was thinking of merging it into the Batman Begins article, but I see that was already tried and reverted. I think it's notability is dubious without the connection to the Batman films. I think there are enough passing mentions of it that it shouldn't be deleted, but it doesn't really seem to warrant an individual article either. I was wondering what others thought. Papaursa (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the notability is dependent on the movie. As analogy, if a movie used an unusual cinematographic technique, it would be mentioned in the movie article. If the technique were used in several movies, it would be notably enough to have its own article. The admin that owns the Batman Begins article does not like the idea at all: User_talk:J_Greb/Archive_Jun_2012#Keysi Fighting Method. I have better things to do than to interact with belligerent admins. jmcw (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Since I got involved with the MMA articles, belligerence is what I'm used to. I think I'll put this up for AfD and let the community decide what should be done with it. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Higa Yuchoku

This article needs some good independent sources and I've having trouble finding them. I'd also appreciate any comments on his notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added some sources. jmcw (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheongye Kwan

I feel I am being a bit too hasty on this one but both it and Mankwondo seem cut from the same promotional cloth. There is also a page for the Cheongye Kwan founder which is pretty self serving.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a Cheongye Kwan article around before: User:AlexNewArtBot/OrganizationsSearchResult/archive55 User Ckduk. jmcw (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Barry Cook has the same style of references. jmcw (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture in Barry Cook#Religion is special. jmcw (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The ears or the the intimacy of the audience?Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I thought it was Papaursa<G>. jmcw (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think all 3 of them should be considered for deletion. I put a PROD on Mankwondo yesterday. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Well my notability tag was removed for Cheongye Kwan but whichever way you look at it we have a single newly formed school with no real claim to notability. To AfD or not to AfD - I think a simple PROD would just be deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The weak side of a PROD vs AFD is that an article that is deleted via PROD will be restored by any admin on any request. An Afd stays longer deleted. jmcw (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To keep the issues clear, the problem with all three articles is that although there are many references, there are not enough Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish the Wikipedia:Notability of these articles.jmcw (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of months of work and effort and constant fixing and re fixing with help from numerous admins and helpers, I feel I am fighting a losing battle that is frankly a little insulting. Barry Cook is a world renowned Martial Arts Master and founder of arguably one of the best Martial Arts systems to have been developed in the past 10 years. And to have to keep justifying him and coming up with more and more refs is simply an exercise in fruitless nonsense. By all means remove BOTH (not 3?) articles (Barry Cook) and (Cheongye Kwan) because I am at a lose. hjc2012

You received advice about these references at the beginning of June: [9]. The quality of references can be a problem in ones first article. jmcw (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The third article is a very similar 'new style' not the two you were editing. The references you have either don't mention either Barry Cook or Cheongye Kwan or are his own web sites. There are really no reliable third party sources. An AfD debate won't hurt - it gets a broader opinion and is decided on by an administrator. You are actually been given a chance to understand the problem and fix it before the AfD starts. If your opinion about Barry Cook is correct one would think there would be something more out there.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

An article in a general martial arts magazine ( Tae_Kwon_Do_Times, Black_Belt_(magazine), Journal_of_Asian_Martial_Arts, etc) about Barry Cook/Cheongye Kwan would establish notability. jmcw (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Cheongye Kwan article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan. In response to a message from Hjc2012, and given that person's posting here, I suggested this was the proper forum for the discussion of the art and founder. Papaursa (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You can clearly see from the references given, that both Barry Cook and his Martial Arts system The Cheongye Kwan are both mentioned on 2 of the largest online Martial Arts Websites (far exceeding any paperback publication) called Worldwide Dojo, and Fightcon. Master Dana Stamos is the worlds leading author and CEO of the Martial Arts entertainment network, and has both written articles on Barry Cook and interviewed him personally. Their is also a reference on Master Christopher Davies's website (BTA Taekwondo National Governing Body) which refers to Cooks membership and Martial Arts Hall of Fame induction. hjc2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the best situation is to merge the Cheongye Kwan article with Barry Cook. The former is just one school (I would like to think that the 7 people shown at their home page is not the sum total of the students). Barry Cook has enough references I think to confer at least marginal notability. the marginal is just my opinion but it still is more than many other Biographies. I really wish the page would read less like a vanity page (advert) but that is another issue. I would also like to state the total lack of value of Hall of Fame or World Soke Council or any web based self congratulatory organizations as a reliable secondary reference over and above the reason Blogs are not considered references. Any comments before I start the AfD debate for Cheongye Kwan.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a better case can be made for Barry Cook's notability than Cheongye Kwan. I have no doubt that the art is not notable. I see only one independent source for Cook and that's the just added interview with Dana Stamos. Despite the interivew, I still question whether he meets the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. Personally, I would suggest WP:BEBOLD and redirect the art to Barry Cook with a selectively edited section on Cheongye Kwan. I would do it, but since I now take flak on so many edits it's probably better if it's done by someone else. After that, the community can decide about Barry Cook's notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

While working on Barry Cook on IRC prompted by a request, I reformatted it more in keeping with the Manual of Style, getting so far as re-anchoring a reference bio. Upon getting to the World Wide Dojo bio, however, I found whole paragraphs copy-pasted into the article. The requestor stated they had permission, and it is also hosted on one of the included self-published sources. As a copyright concern, I have reported it here. I do not consider it unambiguous, as we cannot determine primacy, and it is hosted on a self-published reference asserting copyright, but also hosted at the 3rd party website asserting copyright. If 3rd party came first, our inclusion of such large portions in the article is a copyvio. If self-published came first, then World Wide Dojo merely republished a furnished bio, in which case the coverage does not count toward notability. I have ceased working on the article and will abstain from any further discussion, including AfD/Cheongye Kwan, except admins and editors who process copyright issues. My intent at the article had been to reference the biographic details to 3rd party sources and remove the COI tag. The next editor removed the picture with the Dalai Lama as 'showing nothing', in my opinion erroneously, because it verified a fact, even if trivial. A second editor, citing an IRC conversation with the article creator/primary editor, removed the COI tag. Dru of Id (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the author only edited those 2 topics and has the same initials as Cook's wife, Helen, I think removing the COI tag was incorrect--although it seems to be a moot point now. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please inspect the Barry Cook references. Most are quite unsatisfactory, and I really don't see the article passing GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the author userfied the page which under the circumstance is understandable. I do note that this is the third AfD debate with the first one for deletion, the second one escaped deletion due to userfication (which was noted to be unusual), and it looks like the same will happen here again. Essentially the same article trying to do an end run around AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan

This page appears to have copyright violations deep in its history and may soon be deleted. Perhaps someone from this project can sort out this issue. Rmhermen (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually tried to sort out the problem with this and related pages (see Moo Duk Kwan Taekwondo, Tang Soo Do (was flagged for copvio but apparently I was wrong) and Hwang Kee (flagged for copyvio also). There were some name changes that appear to have major importance to some people resulting in hugely complicated pages with tons of overlap. I ended up flagging the copyvio (which it is) on the hope that a new version would be more clear and original.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Goshin-Ryu Kempo

I tried PRODing this and failing that submitting it to AfD but apparently that route isn't allowed for Redirects. I have submitted it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)\

Maybe you could have reverted to the version before the redirect and sent it immediately to AFD? jmcw (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought of that after I went the RfD route. Well now we have to wait and see how that plays out.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Done as suggested. The only comment at the RfD was supportive but I left a note just in case there are other opinions.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Living National Treasures for martial arts

From the looks of things, martial arts seems to be included in who has been awarded Living National Treasure status, however our Living National Treasures of Japan article doesn't mention it. Is martial arts included? If so, is there a list somewhere (it's probably in Japanese) of the current Living National Treasures for martial arts?

And if martial arts isn't included, can someone still link me to whatever is the official Japanese list of current living national treasures? Likely on some sort of government site. SilverserenC 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about Japan, but the Okinawa Prefecture has "Intangible Cultural Asset holder in the Field of Okinawan Karate and Martial Arts with Weaponry." I think it was created in 2000, and the website seems not to exist anymore. Here's a link to the archive: Archived March 26, 2009 at the Wayback Machine --Scott Alter (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, is there a link to some sort of governmental list of all the Living National Treasures? Mainly the intangible ones, since those are what martial arts is going to fall under. SilverserenC 19:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Monkey kung fu

Article on Monkey kung fu appears heavily vandalized over a period of time. I don't have time to go through the edit history carefully, so hopefully people here can do something. -- (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Martial Arts in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Martial Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

AfC someone might wan to take a look at

Hi folks. There is an article here for a Muay Thai fighter and it's been declined a few times for notability. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge about martial arts will have some feedback for the editor or want to accept/decline the article. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

World Champion with references - that's better than many out there. His name shows up in other articles usually beating that person. In the Kevin Ross (kickboxer) article they actually refer to the title win. This should be in there with no problem. I moved it into article space.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Archery bowsports/disciplines

Can someone add the archery/bow based martial arts, and those with it as a component, and their bows, to {{archery}} ? It seems only one Korean bow is being listed -- (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu same or different than BJJ?

I just wanted to check in and see if there was any consensus or standing on whether 10th Planet JJ was simply a style of and/or school of BJJ or whether it should be viewed as a separate art entirely. I agree with the 10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu article which states in the intro that it's a "non-traditional style of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" and not a separate art but I wanted to make sure that I was correct in my assumption as this issue continues to arise in edits trying to draw a bright-line distinction. Thank you for any input. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject, but the article positions it as a style of BJJ rather than a distinct art. The founder's article seems to support this view. Janggeom (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Essentially 10thP BJJ is No-Gi BJJ, same the same philosophy, training and many (but not all) techniques. the Tech differences are down to the clothing, you can't do gi-chokes without a gi and you have to adjust your grips eg. to use writs rather than cuffs. --Natet/c 12:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge of techniques

I started a debate about whether List of shotokan techniques should be merged into Shotokan to give your opinion please go the respective talk page. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fictional martial artists

There is what I consider a recurring problem--fictional martial artists becoming part of this project. They come from books, movies, and anime. When we were doing the martial arts article review a few years ago there was a consensus that fiction didn't belong as part of the project. Changes were made then and it's come up several times since then (including now). I'll admit I've forgotten how to fix this, so I'd appreciate a reminder. Assuming, of course, that consensus hasn't changed. Papaursa (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For me it would just be learning what the current policy is regarding fictional martial artists in general. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Including or excluding fictional martial arts/artists (including fictional depictions of actual arts/artists) could be argued either way, but from a practical point of view, there is currently probably enough work that needs doing just on actual arts/artists. To date, I've been removing WPMA banners from articles with fictional subjects, rather than adding them. From a personal point of view, I'd consider some works to be relevant to this project (e.g., The Karate Kid due to its cultural impact), but from another point of view, we could consider whether fictional military subjects (e.g., blasters) are covered by military projects (e.g., WikiProject Firearms). I suppose it's ultimately up to each project to decide on the precise boundaries of its scope. Janggeom (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. There might be some fictional ones that belong (ie Karate Kid or maybe the Kung Fu TV series), but as a general rule, I'd say most don't belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of the articles I found don't seem to have a martial arts template on them, but having a category of "fictional martial artist" is sufficient for them to show up in a catscan. BTW, the previous discussion I referred to was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 13#Article Review. It seems consensus hasn't changed--as a general rule fictional arts and artists don't belong under WPMA. If that's true, how do we get rid of them? Papaursa (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to add comments at User_talk:Niemti#Fact_and_fiction_categories. jmcw (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit to being confused by that discussion. Is this the user who made the changes so that fictional and real martial artists show up in the same scan? Is it possible to revert this action? Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I can shed a little light, we were systematically going through reviewing ALL articles in the project, basically because there were so many "me to!" MA articles it was hard to tell the difference between spam articles that needed deleting and well intentioned stubs. We his a bit of an issue on if we should include fictional martial arts & "real" MA focused films/tv etc. I think the consensus was that none of us wanted to worry about the linage (in and out universe) of fictional arts. --Natet/c 12:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


File:BruceLee1971.jpg is up for deletion. It is a screenshot of Bruce Lee in his only television interview, for The Pierre Berton Show. -- (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A 'fake' martial art (invented with fictional lineage etc atrributed)

I have (probably very badly and inappropriately) edited Mushindo Kempo and removed other references to Terry (Terence) Dukes, the self-proclaimed Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio. I studied with him in the 90s and soon after he was at the centre of abuse allegations and the whole machinery of the fraud fell apart. This has been well documented and evidenced in the links below, despite Terry Dukes (now deceased) and others fighting a strong battle to try to argue that it was all true. I am deeply concerned that - without any reference even to the debate - Mushindo Kempo was listed as part of this project and therefore as a legitimate martial art. I understand that when a small group of people are willing to post a great deal of 'confirmatory' sources and attack those who criticise, sticking to the truth can be difficult but it is not hard to find these good, well-evidenced sources (there were more in recent years but they have dropped off the web now). I hope that I have not done more harm than good by my ham-fisted attempt to make things right; your project seems to be a truly admirable one and I hope that through your proper processes, you can agree that Mushino Kempo and Terry Dukes have no place as a legitimate subject, but perhaps only as a footnote on self-invented martial arts (and the challenges of verification and counter-claim). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wushinbo (talkcontribs) 17:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nestor Capoeira

Subject pasted his own webpage, but appears notable. Anyone want to rescue? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)