Talk:Martial arts

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

Religious?[edit]

Is this article really a religion based article. Seems a bit of a stretch.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WTF!? I hadn't noticed, or at least paid attention to, that before. I go further than considering it a stretch, I find the notion absurd. This is not a religion based article! Sure, some martial arts have some connections to religion, but...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So do we keep or delete that WikiProject - I would be happy getting rid of it.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep or delete the mention/inclusion of this article as being part of the WikiProject, you mean? I'm all for deletion.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I mean and done. It did bother me.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I think the entire external links section should be removed. None of them are general enough to reflect the article and the one that is - seems nothing but a forum.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I went ahead and deleted it. External links often serve a purpose if they significantly cover a topic but none of those sites do and none appears better than a whole lot of everything.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good Idea, it's forever being clogged up with spam --Natet/c 11:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

introduzir em portugues[edit]

martial arts have never been more popular. hollywood action blockbusters featuring acrobatic fight scenes like the matrix and charlie`s angels have been hugely successful;and the popularity of martial arts films from hong kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.16.163.211 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

By Technical Focus[edit]

So it almost seems silly to boil down striking based martial arts into "punching" "kicking" and "other". It's unsourced to boot. I have the same problem with the grappling ones. Especially since BJJ comes directly from Judo how can they be in different catagories? I also think that it seems silly because there are throws in wrestling and BJJ but they aren't in the throwing catagory. Judo is not a "throwing" art since you can win by pin or submission.

Pinning also redirects to grappling hold which is a generic term for something that isn't neccesarily a pin. And it's all unsourced. I think you will find that these arts can't be broken down into different catagories because they are all very much the same just with different rule sets and/or gear. The holds are largely the same and applicable from one to the next as far as bjj, catch/submission/freestyle wrestling, Sambo, and Judo. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea in the article is by way of example rather than classification. Perhaps that should be clarified.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Health/fitness benefits but no harms section?[edit]

The article currently portrays martial arts as beneficial to one's health. This is very one-sided, and when weighed against the harms to one's health, debatable for some arts and outright wrong for others. Full-contact martial arts, especially those that allow headshots like boxing, greatly increase the practitioner's risk of suffering from long-term injuries and neurological diseases. Virtually all martial arts, even those with safer methods of sparring or no sparring at all, can cause their practitioners to suffer from long-term injuries. I don't know enough about the topic to add a harms section myself, but someone who knows more than I do should either add a harms section or change the existing one to pros and cons. Dsrguru (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point, although I think your latter suggestion of modifying the existing section to "pros and cons," or something like "potential health benefits and risks," would at least provide some balance on the subject.
(Disclosure: I am a lifelong practitioner of the martial arts, having earned my black belt in tae kwon do at the age of 17 and was the founding member of a family-owned MMA school at age 26. I promise to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and maintain a neutral point of view in my edits. I would simply like to contribute to he community with the knowledge that I've acquired over the years.) Jodayagi (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

National Defense University[edit]

Why cant we put that National Defense University (U.S. DoD) has a program in Jujutsu under law enforcement and military? Its cited and relevant. I can see not putting the school the use but at the very lease National Defense University using Jujutsu should stay. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

How was it sourced? The law enforcement/military section needs more sourcing in general, as well as some grammatical fixes. Jodayagi (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Folk styles[edit]

The "folk styles" sub-section needs to be re-written somehow. Decide whether it's about folk wrestling or just "folk fighting styles" in general. And in either case, the entire first paragraph has to go. Saying "there are these forms of wrestling here and those forms there" does nothing for the article. If anyone wants a list of folk wrestling styles, they can easily find it in the folk wrestling article or even the list of martial arts. What's more, malla-yuddha is not necessarily Dravidian and there are separate articles for pehlwani and pahlavani so there's no need to put them together and call it "Indo-Persian". Morinae (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that second sentence is from hell itself. I must say I have never had an issue with any of your edits - please give it a try and let's see what we come up with. My feeling is that the gist of the first sentence should be maintained - with both folk wrestling and stick fighting part of folk styles. We do not necessarily have to include all these examples since as you mentioned there is the main folk wrestling article.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow that was fast - it reads much better now.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section[edit]

A couple of Ip editors have recently been persistently adding Jonathan Bluestein's (Wikipedia editor Jonathan.bluestein) book to the Further Reading section of this article (indeed, it seems likely that this section was only added for the purpose of including this book). Bluestein is not a noted writer on the martial arts (his only previously published work appears to be an article in Deep Water Magazine (which accepts public submissions)). The book itself is self-published, making it unreliable as a source, and per Wikipedia:Further reading, books which would not constitute reliable sources should not be used in Further Reading sections (exceptions are made, but this is not in any way a historically important publication, discussed extensively in the article, or a scientific paper).

Personally I have strong suspicions that this is an attempt at bookspamming, especially given Bluestein's numerous attempts elsewhere to gain coverage of his book. I'm in danger of getting into an edit war regarding this, so am bringing it here for discussion. My recommendation is to remove the Further Reading section entirely, but failing that, it should be restricted to notable, reliably published books on the subject of martial arts in general. Yunshui  10:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed the Bluestein book again. Fails WP:SELFPUBLISH since the author is not an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The title was originally added with an edit summary calling it a "notable work" but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. No opinion on whether the article needs a further reading section, but agree with User:Yunshui on the criteria for selection if there is such a section. Meters (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
And yes, I now realize that the book is not just an e-book, but there's no way to change the edit summary I left when I removed the book form the article. Meters (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This is clearly bookspamming and assumptions of good faith aside - of a persistent and trying to be clever nature. That said the whole section should in my opinion be removed. Only two of the contents (one general for Chinese martial arts, the other for Japanese) come close to being general enough but they still belong in their respective wiki articles rather than here. The others are even more specific. The martial arts article is just too broad in nature and like an External Links section, the further reading section just invites Me Too cruft. We saw that clearly with the first few edits after this section was created.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Colored Belts[edit]

I added a little bit of clarification to the section on Martial Art Fraud as it referenced the Dan system of Judo but in truth that did not leverage the rainbow of colors as some of the more modern martial arts do now. That really came into prevalence when the more competition oriented martial arts hit the United States and then flowed back to Japan. I don't think that is contraversial in any way but I am looking for some exact references I can put in to support that! Thank you Alex Jackl (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your changes are fine but I don't think the use of colored belts originated in the US (http://judoinfo.com/obi.htm says 1935 Europe) but Japan did have white, brown and black before then and also the red/white for the really higher ups. Judo in Japan was certainly not the driving force for the introduction of the rainbow.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
After doing as little research you are correct- first references I could find where actually in Europe not America. Thanks for the clarification. Alex Jackl (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

firearms[edit]

From the description/definition, I see nothing to exclude firearms. In fact, archery is included. But if fire-arm skill is covered, then it should be discussed. If it isn't, something in the definition or discussion should be written to exclude it. 37.99.46.107 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martial arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)