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

Why this page is a disambiguation page[edit]

This page became a disambiguation page as a result of a December 2005 discussion from Talk:Wushu (term). If anyone does not like this approach, please make a note of it here. Shawnc 08:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed this as a bulleted list item:

  • Wushu (term), the old Chinese term that is literally equivalent to (and is the original source of) the English term "martial art". In the general context, "wushu" and "martial art" are both terms that may refer to any martial art in the world, not only the ones from China.

I believe this explanation is better suited in wushu (term). The link to wushu (term) is still available, but as a bottom note. - Wintran 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert complaint[edit]

quit editing my quote toward gpforums, if you continue to edit it, i will continue to edit it back

I have nothing against you personally, but to me your edits look like vandalism. If you're actually serious with your statement, please provide a link to an article that can confirm that it is true and suitable for an encyclopedia. Wintran 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

i dont feel i should have to reinforce or back up my edit, its an "injoke" from, this is a free and open encyclopedia, therefore i can make changes if i want.

Sorry, an internal joke doesn't sound like suitable material for an encyclopedia. You're right that you can make any changes you want, but if other people don't agree with your changes they might start a discussion trying to reach consensus instead of going into some mindless edit war. People who ignore discussions and other people's opinions, and even ignore the general Wikipedia policies, risk getting banned in the end if they cause too much trouble. Please take some time to read about what Wikipedia is, you'll hopefully realize how cool this project really is. Wintran 01:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

whether or not you think it is suitible for wikipedia doenst really matter. not that it is a free encyclopedia, therefore the idea is to submit any material relating to time, place, people, events etc. i will continue to re edit this every time due to my opinion that it is relevant, and is not your right to determine what constitutes what is relevant on wikipedia via your own personal opinion.

You have been refered to the administrators notice board for your violation of the three revert rule WP:3RR - link --Llort 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

congratulations, so have you!

this is a notice to both llort and wintran, i have reverted it back to my previous addition however i have edited it and used accompanying evidence. i suggest you refer to the vandalism policies before you consider reverting it back because you think it is vandalism. i have read the policies, and i suggest you should too.

Where is this evidence you speak of? If you want to prove your point you must actually provide a reliable source (third-party) - Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Also, once again, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it's not the place for internal jokes, unless the joke itself has become a widespread phenomenon. I urge you to not re-add this text unless you can truly prove that this material is suitable for a encyclopedia, citing this policy from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
Wintran 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Very well put. --Llort 14:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

evidence has been provided accordingly.

omnicropersie8 cease and desist now reverting this post without proper referencing and reasoning.

No one here cares about your Internet forum infighting. Keep it where it belongs. -- Omicronpersei8 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

thats very kind of you, but quite frankly, i feel that my edit is a valued edit, maybe not to you, but to others. if you would kindly place reasoning with why you feel the need to revert this then do so, otherwise leave it alone.

Your current evidence proves that there is at least someone known at gpforums by the name Wushu. However, it does not prove that the joke involving this person is relevant enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. That is the kind of evidence I'm interested in. Wintran 12:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

cry me a river --Subwaynz 13:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, if there's something you don't understand, ask about it... Now, let me make this even more clear:
Wikipedia is not supposed to contain every little piece of information available to mankind. Sure, I care about my cats, but I don't write about them here. I'm sure you and many other people care about gpforums and what's going on there, but to me (and the other people who've been reverting your edits) your in-joke doesn't seem relevant enough to the general public to be worthy of a mention in Wikipedia.
The editors of Wikipedia are us, the readers, which means that we decide what is relevant enough to be included. This does not mean that each of us decide individually, but that we decide together, through discussions such as this. The only reason I would write about my cats is if they were actually very famous, and had been mentioned in the media on an international level. Of course no-one would believe me, even though it was true, unless I actually showed some evidence of their fame. The same thing goes for your forum, and the natural policy of Wikipedia is that if we cannot prove a controversial statement through a reliable source then it has no right to be included.
If you still insist on reverting your old edit after reading this, then you're only doing it to prove your point, and you'll truly be nothing more than a vandal. It's up to you.
Wintran 01:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

i absolutely agree that wikipedia is not designed to include every small piece of information. however your naievity in reverting additions on the basis that you feel it is not relevant is purely POV. We at gpforums have over 40,000 members, and wushu is one of the most famous of them all. maybe not in sweden, but then again, you are not the concensus of the entire world. the definition of an encyclopaedia is "Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in every field", i do not see any relevance on how famous or not it requires an article or subject to be. I feel that i have proved the subjection and basis of my argument through the updated sourced link to gpforums. this reinforces aspects of my article. while it is not in cnn, neither is your version of wushu, infact, how about you provide me with some basis behind your interpretation of wushu? i dont see any cnn links or what not. infact, i could delete yours and say its heresay, but i wont, because i value your contribution and the fact that depth of the meaning of wushu adds to the value of such a division in wikipedia. Therefore i urge you to understand that while my version of wushu does not conform to your interpretation, it is reinforced with actual evidence (not mass media). If you infact continue to revert this back, then i will have no option but to report you to the admin area for abusing your edit rights. you are not the only person who has a view on wushu, and therefore cannot determine whether a certain contribution is valid or not when it conforms to the guidelines even you adhere to. if you do not feel that 40,000 people or more represents a facet of the general public, then you have some serious issues. --Subwaynz 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You actually got my hopes up there for a while. I was even preparing to write a nice answer, until I found this. Wintran 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's really much to discuss here - to merit an article on Wikipedia, individuals have to have done something more than be a member of an internet forum. Otherwise it's just vanity or spam. NickW 17:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

so i posted on gpforums, big deal, i highlighted that i had added wushu to wikipedia. oh and nickw, do i need to provide evidence of certain other aspects of wikipedia that are based out an internet forum? hypocrisy?

Constant Vandalism[edit]

Even with all this this constructive dialogue and pointing Subwaynz (talk · contribs) to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, he still rejects any attempt to gain consensus for his changes to this article. In fact, he has threatened to "re edit this every time" which led to him being blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Later on he registered an account and made this statement [1] in which he claims his contribution is not vandalism.

That got me thinking as to why I personally consider his edit vandalism. The ideas already presented here and on his talk page are certainly solid, byt they do not seem to do any good as far as convincing him they are vandalism. Going through the logs, I re-discovered the edit summary from when an Admin blocked Subwaynz. [2] The summary clearly states that he was being blocked due to constant vandalism. This alone is really justification enough for me to keep reverting this edit. --Llort 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst you feel that it is vandalism i have quite clearly proved to you that it is not. I am providing a reference to a member from our forums who gained noteriaty in gpforums. Gpforums number over 40,000 members, and even just recently someone has requested in our forums to know more about the member wushu [3]. The whole point of an encyclopaedia is to provide a broad catagorisation and log of society and also a referance point to look for further information about a subject. Anyone who uses wikipedia knows that its a realm where you can apply your own knowledge to almost any subject, breaching the reach of common encyclopedias such as britannica. I have applied my own knowledge, even backed it up when requested. I have asked for references where you believe that it should not be included and you continue to make broad statements about how you believe this article should be structured and centred, not my problem. Just stop reverting it, its doing no harm, its not vandalism and you know it. The only vandalism is your continued reverts. --Subwaynz 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The point that Llort is making is that even if you are totally right in your point, you're the only one breaking Wikipedia policies by insisting on adding this material, even though you've been referred to the Three-revert rule policy, and at least five different people believe that your edit is so obviously not suited on Wikipedia that they've reverted it on pure reflexes. That consensus has not been reached is obvious, which means that you must convince us that your statement should be included, and not the other way around. This means that your statement should not be in the article until you can convince us that it's suitable for Wikipedia. Remember that we decide on our own when we're convinced, and that you can not decide for us (which you're obviously doing when you state that your current evidence is enough, without even listening to what we're saying). If you're not a vandal and actually are interested in improving Wikipedia, then stop reverting, post your edit here instead and let it be open for discussion for a while. That's how things work here. Wintran 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you are the only one who has an opinion in this matter, the other 3 people who have reverted the post have done so under the impression that you exhibit that you view this edit as vandalism. a totally unsubstantiated claim. you asked for evidence, i obliged. question, how is your repeated reverts any different to my reverts interms of the three revert rule? you have not provided sufficient evidence for it NOT to be included. therefore reverting it under the impression that it is vandalism is clearly wrong. --Subwaynz 11:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets take this point by point shall we? The other editors are perfectly capable of coming to their own decisions, and have provided their own thoughts and opinions as to why your edits do not belong. Saying I have undue influence over anyone else on Wikipedia is absurd.
You say that calling your edits vandalism is 'a unsubstantiated claim', which leads me to believe you have an insufficient definition of the word 'unsubstantiated'. I have provided all the proof needed, in the form of an Administrator blocking your IP for 24 hours and calling it constant vandalism.
If you would please go and read the Three Revert Rule which we have pointed you to many times, you will read that reverting vandalism does not count towards any of the three reverts you are allowed on an article in a 24 hour period. The Admin thinks your edits are vandalism, and I agree with him.
As to any one here not providing sufficient evidence for your material to not be included, I think you are simply ignoring the evidence that has been provided and requested of you so far. The fact that you are unwilling to attempt at gaining consensus before making your edit only reinforces to me the fact that this is vandalism.
Finally, since it is you making the change, the burden of evidence is upon you to prove to the other editors that the change belongs, not for us to prove that it doesn't. --Llort 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am actually getting really frustrated at this. You continue to revert my edit yet you provide no evidence that my edit is vandalism. Wushu is a very famous member, as a part of a forum numbering over 40,000 members, we just had our 4 millionth post. Tell me that is not a substantial prescence on the internet. We are reported in New Zealand's leading media, we are often on the national news and in the NZ Herald, the largest newspaper in nz. He is still mentioned daily. The purpose of an encyclopedia even according to the wikipedia policies is to present a general view of society. Society has many facets, yet i dont delete those articles i disagree with like you do. Everyone is entitled to their own view, and if they want to put an article about their cat, then so be it , its not hurting any one. The wushu article is disambiguous, MEANS MORE THAN ONE THING??? --Subwaynz 11:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And yet every member of your forum does not deserve a spot on every Wikipedia article that shares their pseudonym. Please also read WP:NOT to possibly correct your views on what Wikipedia is not.

how about you read it sometime first thing that jumped up at me was "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I see NO mention that members of an internet forum cannot be included. An internet identity has the same representation as say someone like the leroy jenkins wow incident which is included on wikipedia. what makes wushu any different? --Subwaynz 12:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about adding an article about a pet cat shows me perfectly that you have a complete misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia actually is. --Llort 11:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Llort is, to be sure, correct; Subway would do well to consider the distinction between an ordinary pet cat (where the appellative "ordinary" is not meant to denigrate--each cat is, of course, unique (and surely I think the cat with whom/which I live to be the greatest cat in the world, but I recognize that such distinction is not otherwise levelled, such that my cat is non-notable per, well, WP:BIO, I suppose)--but instead to denote non-notability) and Creme Puff, for whom/which we do have an article. Similarly, there is a distinction between an individual who has become notable (per, e.g., Google and Alexa) in view of his/her being a component part of an Internet meme and an individual who is a poster on a message board, even were such board is altogether popular. If you're unable to comport your editing with our general notability and verifiability guidelines, it's likely that you'll not fit at Wikipedia; it's wholly fine for you to write apropos of subjects you find interesting, and there are likely Wikis that would readily accept such contributions. Wikipedia, though, is not one. Joe 16:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at the breadth of articles on here sometime then Llort. What makes mine any different. Oh and you have been reported to the admin thread. Im awaiting a reply atm. --Subwaynz 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't find your current link included as a reference to be the least bit convincing. It's just a four page long thread consisting of a couple of members playing around with some internal jokes, sometimes including a user at your forum who probably thought Chinese martal arts are cool, and used the nickname Wushu. I was expecting a 500 pages+ thread only talking about this wushu-joke phenomenon, with links to fan sites, and I would still be sceptical.
You can't seriously assume that your 40 000 members are all active, and all know about your wushu joke. I'm sure a handful of your active members who have time to hang around in the Open Discussions and chatting for fun sometimes come up with really funny jokes. However, this is nothing uncommon on the Internet today, and happens at a lot of large (and smaller) forums around the world. There are many more and much larger forums than Gameplanet, that still don't get to be mentioned on Wikipedia[4].
I agree with you that there are many irrelevant articles on Wikipedia, the problem is that people don't have time to check all articles. I created an article once about a diet I'm interested in that has a very serious website and research connected to it, however it got deleted because it wasn't considered relevant enough, and I actually agreed in the end. If you find articles that you don't think are suitable for Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion at their talk page, or nominate it for deletion.
The problem with including your wushu joke on this disambiguation page is that it gets way to much attention in relation to its fame. If you created a Gameplanet article, and in that article mentioned this in-joke, it would probably be a different matter, or at least a different discussion. Wintran 12:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just ran across this discussion and checked out the repetitive edits by Subwaynz. Please do not waste everybody's time by inserting irrelevancies here. I don't know whether other people have done so, but if I had noticed this behavior before I would have posted a warning template on your user page, noted the number of times you've done your thing, and flagged the page for administrators' attention. P0M 02:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i wasnt aware you were an admin POM, my edits were accurate, relevant, and backed up by supporting evidence. I think its the fact that wushu can mean something other than a martial art that got wintran riled. Not my problem, i have refrained from reposting my edit because primarily you are a bunch of whinging geeks. You cant accept another view or opinion, even when i met your demands for providing supporting evidence, even when i noted that wikipedias OWN policies did not exclude the edit that i made, you continued to revert it back. It was quite clearly NOT vandalism, and i am standing by my intial statement that it is a just edit that deserves a place on wikipedia, no matter how obscure you think it is. I suggest you should follow Wikipedia's own guidelines, yes those ones you told me to consult before you start reverting edits with no justfication. --Subwaynz 09:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reading through this discussion about 2 and a half years afterward (according to the date stamp on Subwaynz's last post) but I thought I would try to quickly close it by pointing out the key that Subwaynz was missing. If anyone think this post is a pointless afterthought, feel free to delete it. The point that everyone was trying to point out to subwaynz was that anything that is added must meet with the approval, or at least the general approval of the other contributors. While you can freely add any content to this site, it must meet with the approval of the other 75,000 active contributors. If, as with this discussion, only one person believes something should be added, against many who believe otherwise, than it is most likely trivial information that readers will not likely care about. The point of Wikipedia is to provide relevant and easily accessible information collected from all over the web, which will be of interest to the over 600 million readers. In this case, I doubt very much that people would be interested to know that there happens to be a person with the pen name matching the topic on some random discussion board. This is especially true considering the person mentioned likely took their name from the general topic being discussed anyway, making the topic of more interest to the person than the person is to the topic. Final remarks: A good check for this sort of thing on other articles with similar debates: What is the motive for posting this info? If it is to give someone's site more renown, than I would suggest seeing if creating a page about that site would be appropriate. If not, as is most likely, than the discussion should be dropped then and there. When it is one person against the many, the edit should be removed and left off, or taken to discussion until a majority agrees to add it. I am done jabbering now. If anyone feels like my edit is pointless, feel free to delete it. I won't have any hard feelings about it. Fact-of-the-matter (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Wushu (sport) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)