Talk:Capoeira

Limiting edition tool

As Capoeira is subject of very passionate views and even dogmas, I strongly suggest this article's edition should be limited to registered members only. Danilolabbate (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter?

One of the media representations for capoeira is listed as the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, with reference to some of the students ... um, am I the only one who doesn't remember that scene? Unless someone can prove this, I think it should be removed.The Talking Toaster (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's funny - I hadn't heard "the 1300's when the Spaniards first invaded the Inca's tribal territory" a century before Columbus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.221.76 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you think about African origins, read this...

From time to time someone messes up the historical section and writes down that Capoeira comes from Africa. Normally theese people talk about n'golo when they do it. I'm not going to start talking about how disrespectful this is to Brazilian culture, so I'm just going to stick to the facts:

- No evidence WAS EVER FOUND of any martial art resembling Capoeira in Africa.

- To that extent, no evidence of any martial art resembling Capoeira was ever found in ANY country which also received African slaves.

- African religions and influences exist in every colony that has descendants of African slaves. Candomblé, Santeria, Voodoo, Quimbanda, Umbanda, Macumba and many others. Capoeira developed EXCLUSIVELY in Brazil.

- African religions maintained the original African languages in their cerimonies. On the other hand, capoeira has always been sung exclusively in Portuguese.

- Since the 1960's, when the first mention to n'golo was made, Brazilian expeditions of African enthusiasts have been going to Angola to find evidence about n'golo and it's so called simmilarity to Capoeira. Up to now absolutely no evidence has been found.

Feel free to disagree, but unless anyone can provide EVIDENCE stronger than the facts above, it will be very hard for anyone to believe that Capoeira might come from Africa.

Danilolabbate (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Capoeira a game?

Some users have been editing the article stating that Capoeira is a game, and putting some out-of-context references to prove their point. Problem is, this statement is absolutely wrong and lacks sense. Here are some facts regarding it:

- Capoeira was born as a martial-art, developed as a martial-art and is still used as an effective martial-art. Check in the historic section to see how it was used for was and why it was outlawed.

- You can see fighters in the UFC that use Capoeira techniques in their fights, one of them Marcus "Lelo" Aurelio. Look for his videos in Youtube.

- The game is nothing more than an extension of the martial-art. The game's purpose, since it's creation, is to PRACTICE the correct application of kicks, defenses, counter-attacks and everything related to Capoeira as a martial-art.

- The game of Capoeira is ONE aspect of Capoeira. Stating that Capoeira is a game is reducing everything that Capoeira is to a mere fraction of it.

Hope that clears the subject, if anyone still have doubts, or just wants to talk about it, please feel free to ask.

Danilolabbate (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

How is the reference "out of context"? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference points out, as described above, that the game is ONE aspect of Capoeira. It NEVER states that Capoeira is a game. Using this reference to make such a statement leaves quite clear that it's "out of context".

Danilolabbate (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

From the reference: "The malicia which the capoeirista refers to is an indispensable trait in the game of capoeira." The reference refers to "the game of capoeira" and yet you insist that it never states that capoeira is a game? I have no idea where you're coming from with this. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK... I'm assuming good faith, I'm assuming you really got confused, so I'll explain it.

The master is simply talking about the game of Capoeira. As I have stated above, and I believe you missed it, the game is ONE aspect of Capoeira, and not the whole Capoeira. The master is clearly talking about this single aspect, not about the whole.

Saying "the game of Capoeira" is exactly the same as saying "the 100 meters of the decathlon". Would you correct the decathlon article, stating "Decathlon is a 100 meters race with aspects of olympics"?

Ironicaly, the game of Capoeira was created as means of practicing the martial art techniques of Capoeira in a simulated combat environment. That means the game is absolutely subject to the martial art, they are not disconnected at all.

Danilolabbate (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In the context of "The malicia which the capoeirista refers to is an indispensable trait in the game of capoeira" the "game" is not really calling Capoeria a game, any more than those who say "The fine art of fencing" are making sword figting a fine art like painting, sculpture, singing, etc, or no more when boxers say "lets dance". It is a flourish term, or perhaps a philosophical way of looking at the martial art. (indeed in a game or in a real to the death battle, tricking your enemy into a weakened position is crucial). Capoeria is a martial art, and a sport. There are game like elements to it (just as Judo or Karate have tournaments with game-like scoring) but it is incorrect to say that it IS a game. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Gaijin42.

Unfortunately the unregistered user who keeps insisting on that wrong statement, using the IP 46.7.236.155, obviously don't know the Portuguese language and obviously knows very little about Capoeira itself.

Now the same user tried to add a second reference (writen by a non-Brazilian writer), which wrongly states not only that Capoeira is a game, but also states that Capoeira is a dance. That is a huge mistake, the most common mistake laymen do when they try to understand Capoeira.

Unregistered user 46.7.236.155 also fails to answer to this talk section, making it hard to even try to explain the issue to him.

Danilolabbate (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dance elements is certainly well supported, and I have added many refs to that point, as well as "referred to as a game" which I think is better than sport on second thought (again reffed). Impeaching sources via assertion is not really possible under wiki policy - you would need to find contradictory sources saying that Capoeria is NOT a dance and NOT a game. Do you have such? (Note, I still hold that game is used philosophically, but as the wording is very common and easy to source, and the philosophy bit is my personal WP:OR, that leaves it somewhat stuck. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's no dance at all, and references to any kind of dance is made by non practitioners. The game part is still not good, since the Capoeira game was created as a way to further practice the martial art, objective in the game is to take down your opponent or connect a kick, possibly without hurting him.

I understand your point, and I will look for sources with such statements, but it's not an easy task. There's tons of horrible books about Capoeira, some of them plain ridiculous and laughable, others even offensive to Brazilian heritage. Unfortunately, as Capoeira came from the poorest people in Brazil and it was ilegal for so long, not many of the masters are good writers, and this kind of thing often tend to happen.

I have changed the article before I reading this talk section. I'll try to find the sources before my next edition. I also want to improve the Martial Art section, it would surely improve comprehension of this issue. I'll try to do it when I have more time.

Danilolabbate (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting your change. While you may or may not be correct, your assertions are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and the statement that capoeria encorporates elements of dance is sourced by many reliable sources. You would need to find more authoritative sources that state the contrary. The fact that you think a book is horrible is irrelevant, unless you can find again reliable sources stating such. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a lost battle for me. The number of books making this wrong statement is enormous. As I've said before, Capoeira was born in illiterate, marginalized environments. Old masters were never good writers, and that led to so many misunderstandings, and even worse, led to Capoeira being a subject where any curious bypasser can write any impression, and that will probably be accepted by the general public.

Just to exemplify, I can find reliable sources stating that the Pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens. I can find sources also stating that the drawings in the Nazca desert were used for flying sources as landing strips. You CAN disregard statements like that, since in both cases there's extensive documentation and studies, which leave clear how ridiculous and dissonant books like that are. That's not the case of Capoeira.

It's extremely frustrating. I've been practicing and studying it for the last 18 years, so I can assure you I'm pretty much qualified to make the statements I did. Sadly, that doesn't mean anything, since there's little to no documentation backing me up. Saying Capoeira is a dance is exactely like saying Mohamed Ali was dancing in the ring, and not boxing. And yet I won't be able to prove it academicaly.

Will still try to find sources. But it's a lost battle.

Danilolabbate (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I would love to know which of the names of the capoeira moves are capitalized when written within a sentence and which are not. I'm making some flash cards to help my son, who has special needs. I couldn't find any consistency on the Internet about which terms are capitalized and which are not, so I'm capitalizing everything in the same way I would capitalize a headline. For instance, I assume that "do" means something like "of," so I didn't capitalize it in "Martelo do Chao," and I won't capitalize "de" either, but I'm capitalizing everything else I'm printing up.