Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 15

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


Chuck Norris fight record

I don't wish to start an edit war but I believe Chuck Norris's fight record should be deleted as there is no reliable evidence for his fight record any thoughts people? Dwanyewest (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see this issue causing a problem, but I think WP:RS is pretty clear--"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Given the widely varying records mentioned in the article, I would say it qualifies as contentious. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Several Yang style Tai Chi Chuan-related articles marked for deletion

Dear Sirs:

There are several Yang style Tai Chi Chuan-related articles that have been marked for deletion for various reasons. While there may be issues with these articles, this sudden activity on this matter seems heavy-handed. While compliance with Wikipedia rules is necessary, it is often difficult to document things according to these requirements, especially since some martial arts have very obscure origins and original publications containing the notability and independent information that can corroborate the articles is very difficult to come by. This, however, doesn't make them less notable or valuable. I don't "own" all the articles in question, but I feel that I must advocate for them. I therefore ask for help in getting these articles back into compliance or advice on how to do this. Several of these articles I would consider a major loss to the body of information that is Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan, a major style of martial art.

The articles in question are:

Please don't let these articles disappear only because this contributor is not very experienced in complying with Wikipedia rules. Bruno talk 03:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't PROD these articles, but I understand why they were nominated. Each of them seems to give no reason why the form is notable, has no independent sources, and consists primarily of listing each step in the form. The main article on that style (Yang-style tai chi chuan) was not touched. Unless you can come up with some independent sources that show why each form is notable, you might be better off just listing the forms with a brief comment on each in the style's article. That's probably preferable to having them removed. This is all just my opinion, of course. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I do understand the reason for the notability PROD. It's quite obvious. The main article Yang-style tai chi chuan was touched by including links to these articles.
I don't understand your statement that making a brief comment in the main article about the forms is preferable to having them removed. Do you instead mean to say making a brief mention of the form in the main article is preferable to having the articles remain? Seems the intent of your statement is reversed. I don't mean to be a smart ass here, but finding actual independent sources justifying something so fundamental to the art is very difficult if not impossible, as the only sources are the masters themselves. It is tantamount to justifying why Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa the way he did. So is this your recommendation?
Thanks. Bruno talk 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The point isn't why is the form done this way, it's why is this form important/notable (as Wikipedia defines notable)? Astudent0 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Having some un-sourced statements in a sourced and notable article is not disturbing. jmcw (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that these articles don't have independent sources and fail to show notability. Having reliable sources to support claims of notability is a cornerstone of WP policy. You need to show why these forms are notable and worthy of separate articles. None of these articles have titles that make them likely search targets, so I see no reason for these articles to exist apart from the style's article. These comments also refer to the other forms mentioned in the style's article that I didn't PROD. Astudent0 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Bruno, I think what Papaursa was saying was that it is probably preferable to have at least some of the content from these articles be retained (by moving it to the main article) rather than losing the content from these articles completely (if or when they are deleted). I hope I've interpreted his comment correctly, and if so, I hope that my rephrasing has helped to clarify. On a different note, locating reliable sources is a perennial problem for martial arts articles on Wikipedia. For better or worse, we have to contribute within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines—even if they might hinder us at times. It's not a perfect system, but it is better than not having Wikipedia at all, I believe. Janggeom (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Janggeom, for helping clarify my comments. You've pretty much described exactly what I meant. I would say all of your post is spot on. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AfDs on lists of martial arts techniques

I see there are currently several AfDs about lists of martial arts techniques for individual styles, and I though it might be nice if this project came up with a consensus view in general, instead of dealing with each style individually. Most of these articles lack sources, but my real concern is the rationale behind the articles. There are only so many ways to throw a punch or kick, so do we really need lists of the same techniques over and over just because people call them something different? I'd say at most 1 article (on martial arts techniques) would be sufficient. That's my thinking, but I'd like to hear from the rest of you. Papaursa (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The question I would ask is: does the subject merit its own article? A particular technique could well be interesting enough to warrant its own article (spinning heel kick comes to mind), so I would certainly say 'yes' in those cases. When it comes to lists of techniques, if the list itself is particularly unusual, then I would also be inclined to say 'yes.' Contrast this with a list of techniques for Karate style A which is little different from that for Karate style B, or Taekwondo style C, for that matter. In those cases, I think a list adds little to Wikipedia. Janggeom (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a general article with a brief description of each technique would be useful. The common english and japanese names would justify such an article (IMO). Any style-specific techniques could just be commented as such. And the minor articles (spinning heel kick, etc) could be deleted. jmcw (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I think any technique that has enough notability and reliable sources to be a WP article should be an individual article. I do question lists of techniques, since they differ little from style to style (especially if you're comparing 2 karate styles). I think it would be better to link from a style's article to a given technique's article, which would mean these lists should be part of the style's article instead of being a separate article. Astudent0 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Being Wikipedia:BRAVE, I have created Karate techniques. I have created it with references and will fill it starting next week. I intend it as common ground of all karate styles - style specific techniques could be in the style article. I would appreciate any help and comments. jmcw (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your effort, but couldn't you work on the article in your own sandbox (they are easy to create). It just seems weird to have such a skeleton of an article in the main space. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
See User:Jmcw37/Karate Techniques. The article is in main space in the context of the deletion of several style-specific lists of techniques. It is a valid, under-construction, referenced stub: granted, the intention statements are unusual but they will disappear next week. jmcw (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's comments and a special tip of the hat to user jmcw for stepping up and creating a karate techniques page. I lack the sources to really help with the article, but I support the effort. I'll admit the page looks a bit strange, but I'm confident it will be a worthwhile addition. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WPMA in 2011

Last year, we made a concerted effort to review articles and delete those that did not demonstrate sufficient notability. Even though the formal review has ended, I think we now have good momentum on that front. This year, I would like to suggest that we take a new focus: improving existing articles. In particular, our flagship article needs more extensive referencing. If working on that article does not appeal to you, perhaps expanding one of the many Stub-class or Start-class articles might be of interest. This could result in more Did You Know or Good Article recognition being associated with this project. While not forgetting or detracting from the pruning work we undertook last year, and are continuing to do informally, perhaps we can build up Wikipedia in this creative direction. Janggeom (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a difference in kickboxing

I don't see any significant difference in Japanese kickboxing and American kickboxing that they deserve their own articles I feel they should be merged to Kickboxing thoughts. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. It doesn't help that neither of them are sourced anyway. So Japanese kickboxing and American kickboxing should be merged to Kickboxing as you propose. Jfgslo (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


The Taijutsu Page has Been Deleted, I need someone with a copy of the page Info. The Page is currently being re-created.

Blue Grey Wolf (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Taijutsu page on the Japanese Wikipedia is just a redirect to Jujutsu, and the Taijutsu article may need to be merged into Jujutsu. I'll defer to those with more knowledge. Denaar (talk)

Frank Dux......again.

Hey guys, might want to look at the Frank Dux article. I won't reiterate my position on the info trying to be added back into the article here, so nobody will claim canvassing. But since this article falls squarely in this project, it might be worth taking a look at and participating in the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bok Fu page added, kindly help with making it WikiProject Martial Arts Friendly

Hi, I've recently added a martial art style to wikipedia Bok Fu. How do we list it amongst other Striking hybrid styles? The most famous practitioner is a WBO title holder, and it spread since 1967 to numerous different schools, mostly in California. There are several notices on the page for different things which I'm working my way though, but as you all probably already know, the martial arts is not the best documented area! Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

(BokFu (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu Editor

A new editor has made numerous edits to 'grappling' related articles and Mixed martial arts fighter bios without any edit summaries. Seems to be pushing a somewhat pro Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu POV, see this edit. I welcomed the editor and asked them ({{summary}}) to use edit summaries. They blanked their talkpage and continued to edit without a summary. Other editors may wish to take a look to ensure NPOV. Happy Editing! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The guard is central to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu but used by many practitioners of many styles including Judo and Hapkido but it's not central to them. Isn't that correct?--Razionale (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed this board was founded 7 years ago on this day. Happy anniversary!

What about the review?

Are we still doing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Article Review or is it now defunct or should it be deleted. ?Dwanyewest (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

  • {Laughter} jmcw (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was away from it for a while, then I noticed there hadn't been anything since July, so I figured I just missed the vote to end it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The only AFD I've voted in related to this project in months was an article I actually nominated some time back and it was a no consensus before. Of course I voted to delete it, since not a bit of improvement had been done since I nom'd it. Aside from that, I thought the clean up was successful. Some junk was trimmed, other was redirected and some improved. I'd participate again if it came up. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Missed the prod

I didn't notice that someone had prodded Phillip Rhee. I got it restored. The man easily passes notability. It just needs expanded and sourced a little better. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rhee is certainly notable. Janggeom (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikify Drive

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/2011/February trying to eliminate the backlog of articles needing wikification (since 2008). There are no Martial Arts category articles needing work from 2008. There are a few MA category articles needing wikification: see catscan [1]. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/Drives/Instructions for a how-to guide. jmcw (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

On the template Martial Arts by Focus

Listed on Template:Martial arts are several things that are questionably martial arts: lucha libre and Japanese puroresu. Yes, puroresu has a strong relationship with Japanese MMA and a lot of Japanese pro wrestlers have legitimate training in catch wrestling or other martial arts, but it's still worked, not shoot, and has no body of useful fighting techniques not pulled from the catch or other MA background of the wrestlers. The entry specifically for sport wushu may be open to a similar criticism, since the martial portion of sport wushu- sanda- is already present elsewhere in the template, and what remains- taolu- is approximately as martial as professional wrestling. Is there some kind of consensus or policy somewhere that prevents their removal, or can I go ahead and excise them from the template? -Toptomcat (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that professional wrestling, at least as seen in the U.S., is not a martial art. I don't see a sport wushu listing, only wushu. I know that listing links to Wushu (sport), but wushu is not just a sport so I would disagree with the implication that wushu is not a martial art. Taolu doesn't disqualify wushu as a martial art any more than forms competitions at tournaments mean karate isn't a martial art. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that wushu is not just a sport, and that it has multiple definitions. However, all of the definitions of 'wushu' that equate to 'martial art' are already present in other listings on Martial Arts By Focus- any number of traditional Chinese martial arts styles like Bajiquan, Fujian White Crane, Northern Praying Mantis, Wing Chun, Shuai Jiao, Baguazhang, Hung Ga, Shaolin Kung Fu (also questionable, by the way), Tai Chi Chuan, and Xingyiquan, as well as the sparring/martial component of sport wushu, san shou. I don't think that the existing entry for wushu adds anything other than definitions of 'wushu' that aren't actually martial arts.
As for the karate tournament... If forms competitions- and competitions of forms specifically designed to be martially toothless- were the only activity conducted at karate tournaments until 1980, remained the primary activity conducted at those tournaments, and if a syllabus completely separate from any of the martial arts that contributed the forms were constructed for the sparring component, then yes, I might try to disqualify Karate (sport) as a martial art and lobby for the inclusion of Kumite (martial art). Those are the historical circumstances of the relationship between wushu and san da. However, I agree with you that it's more of a borderline case than either of puroresu or lucha libre, and I won't continue to press if you feel strongly about it. -Toptomcat (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I know that my son's study of wushu involved sanda, shuai jiao, chin na and other techniques, in addition to forms and weapons. I guess I'm a bit sensitive because I've heard so many people involved with martial arts say that people who do wushu can't fight--they think wushu is just about acrobatic forms. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Puroresu and lucha libre removed, wushu left alone. Not the hill I want to die on. -Toptomcat (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Please fix the Nunchaku page, calling them Nunchucks in an encyclopedia is utterly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. jmcw (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

List of notable Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners

In collaboration with Nate, the List of notable Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners has been lovingly crafted and today moved to article space. It's intended to start a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu list similar to List of judoka, and follows a similar structure. If you have a moment, please review, edit, and criticize it for us. Thanks! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

On a brief look, two thoughts came to mind: (1) the article title could probably do without "notable," while retaining that word within the lead section somewhere (i.e., other than the replication of the article name in bold print), since by definition the only topics included in Wikipedia should be notable ones; and (2) I would have placed the higher ranks before the lower ranks (i.e., start with 10th degree and move down to 7th degree). I appreciate that both of these points could be considered issues of custom, style, or taste, but hope these comments help. I might add more if I have the chance to read through the article more thoroughly. The initial impression is that it is a well thought-out, well-structured article. Janggeom (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the 2 points made by Janggeom. I also noticed that seemed to be the source for many of the individuals. I have no idea whether that site is independent and/or reliable and I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on it. Otherwise, the article looks good. I liked the fact that you put a source after each individual's name. Papaursa (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys, I agree the Notable is probably unnecessary, I hadn't thought of that, with regard to the re ordering, it makes sense but is not essential, it might be worth coming up template and some guides for "List or Practitioners" articles as they will tend to crop up for most popular arts.
I don't know much about BJJ Heroes but from a quick browse it looks relatively independent, it could be backed up (after some fun with cross referencing) to the absolute guide at, referencing to the governing body is fairly definitive. Unfortunately it only verifies ranks so for details of why were back to BJJ heroes or adding additional refs. I've included the auto generated ref text below, I'll try and cross check and add it in, but if anyone else wants to help...--Natet/c 11:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation |first= |last={{err|{{AUTHOR MISSING}}}} | |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=30 March 2011}}</ref>

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome --Geneviève (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikazuki Jujitsu

I was told at WT:MMA that the above article falls under this project, so here I am. Below is a message I posted at WT:MMA.

This style article is newly created and in need of a bit of help. There is a related thread at AN/I here. The creator, in the past few days, has shown signs that he might have WP:OWNership issues, so be on guard. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

addition to Koichi Tohei article

Please consider adding Roderick T. Kobayashi to the list of Notable Students of Koichi Tohei. You may find more information (if you need it?) at Thank you.Ginnywatts (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)G. Watts, 04/04/2011

Article review for certain styles

I was looking at MA articles that were tagged for both notability and lack of references and found articles on the following three styles: Araki-ryū, Gyokko-ryū, and Kenkojuku. In the spirit of last year's martial arts article review, I am hoping people can provide comments about whether or not these articles should be put up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Araki-ryū - looks like it needs sourcing and the key issue is that most will be in Japanese and/or off-line BUT it does look like it could be fixed.
Gyokko-ryū - Bujinkan ninjutsu - probably primary sources galore, but all a bit dubious if it's real.
Kenkojuku - not sure

1st pass comments --Natet/c 13:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I put Gyokko-ryū up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

User:Kurtsayin/Shaolin Kempo Karate is it reallly needed since Shaolin Kempo Karate exists. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As that is a user page, I think it would be appropriate to ask that user in the first instance. Janggeom (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kickboxing reactivation

Currently, the descendant Wikipedia:WikiProject Kickboxing is inactive. I would like to make some improvements to its outdated guidelines but I dare not since I am not an expert at kickboxing and there needs to be a consensus anyway. For that, I have contacted the last active members of that project. I would like to discuss here if anyone would be interested in reactivating that WikiProject or if it would be better to integrate it back with the parent WikiProject Martial arts. Jfgslo (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jfgslo, just a thought: it might be worth posting this request at WPMMA as well. Incidentally, I note that WPK's parent project is noted as WP Sports rather than WPMA. I don't know if this has any practical effect, but thought it worth mentioning just in case there is. Janggeom (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. Curious that WikiProject Sports is indeed the parent WikiProject when the banner in Kickboxing says "please consider joining it and/or its parent project WikiProject Martial arts." Anyway, I will follow your advice and also request comments on those WikiProjects. But I still would like to hear comments of the people from this WikiProject. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that kickboxing, at least in the U.S., seems to be on the decline. Many of the best American kickboxers are being drawn to MMA because that's where the money and publicity is. Kickboxing is a bigger deal in Europe. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, kickboxing has never really been a popular combat sport in the U.S. in comparison with others, not even when Benny Urquidez was most popular for his kickboxing accomplishments. I would even say that Karate has been historically more relevant than kickboxing in the U.S. But the English Wikipedia is composed of members from several countries and in several of them kickboxing is popular. For example, I'm sure some Australian editors would have a better knowledge of it than most American editors in the same way that rugby is more well known in Australia than American football. Most Dutch editors know English very well and I believe that in Netherlands kickboxing is more popular than MMA. As you mentioned, the sport is very well known in Europe. In any case, my intention is to improve the current guidelines, which are quite dated and are almost never followed by editors that do create kickboxing-related articles. These guidelines need to be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's guidelines, which is why I am interested in reactivating the project or integrating it with whichever is its parent WikiProject. Even if there are few editors, there are several kickboxing articles, so I think they should have some kind of uniformity like in any other sport-related WikiProject. Jfgslo (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Grand Slam (Judo)

Grand slam (Judo), currently a redirect to Judo, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Members of this WikiProject are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 29#Grand slam (Judo) where it has been proposed that an article about the series should be written.

I've also created the page Grand Slam (Judo) as a disambiguation page and tagged it for your project. This page can be overwritten with an article about the series if it is felt that is the best location for it. Please comment at the above RfD as well though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wally Jay has died

For those who haven't heard Wally Jay, founder of Small Circle JuJitsu, has died after a stroke. I have added a ref. re. his death and expanded a little. More expansion would be nice. Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Names of schools (ryū)

We have this guideline here:

For articles that are about a school of martial arts (ryū), capitalize the proper name part and add the suffix -ryū. For example, "Shintō Musō-ryū".

One editor claims that this guideline is against MOS:JP. Please join in the talk at Template_talk:Navbox_koryu#English common names are to be used as stated in policies and guidelines. Also posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) Thank you, jni (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Anyone here interested in helping me to submit Araki-ryū to deletion review? Fixing the article with citations from reliable sources should not be too hard to do. Thank you, jni (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better just to recreate the article and add reliable sources instead of taking it to deletion review? Jakejr (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps but there might be something valuable in the 411 deleted revisions that could be reused after adding reliable sources. There is lots of text there. Some of it seems to be unrelated, like long sections about Inari fox sorcery cult, but if we reuse text from the good parts we need to undelete the history for copyright reasons. Also I think it would be safest to get the deletion overturned lest someone deletes this as recreation of earlier deleted content, despite improvements to article, as it was claimed in AfD that this fails notability. I did not post a request to deletion review, as I'm still evaluating the deleted revisions and I only have few reliable sources about this koryu, which I'm not very familiar with, in my bookshelf. jni (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Korea#Taekwondo says that "Besides fighting skills, taekwondo is known to enhance the spirit of the practitioner, through its mind and body training." In what way and is this really neutral to say?--Razionale (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the statement, the reliable source could answer your questions. jmcw (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Even if there is a reliable source the correct way to phrase it would be something like: "Some practitioners/instructors claim that Taekwondo not only imparts martial skills but also enhances the spirit, through its mind and body training." With multiple refs of practitioners/instructors making the claim to follow. --Phospheros (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't come up with good sources. I'm thinking about just replacing it with these sentences from the article Taekwondo: "As many other arts, it combines combat techniques, self-defense, sport, exercise, and in some cases meditation and philosophy. In 1989, Taekwondo was claimed as the world's most popular martial art in terms of number of practitioners.[1]" Would anyone mind?--Razionale (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That phrasing, along with proper sourcing of the claim, is definitely better than what's currently there. Jakejr (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ssireum versus Hapkido

Hapkido seems to me to be the other best known martial art from Korea beside Taekwondo. But the Korea article only deals with "Ssireum",Korea#Ssireum. Hapkido gets many times more page hits. Shouldn't we replace it?--Razionale (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add a section on Hapkido, I don't see why you have to replace the section on Ssireum. I wonder if it makes sense to have sections in the Korea article on these individual martial arts. I would think a section on martial arts would be better, and that section could link to the individual pages of the separate martial arts. Jakejr (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Martial arts by number of page views

  • Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu: 83195
  • Krav_Maga: 67559
  • Mixed_Martial_Arts: 63668
  • Boxing: 63091
  • Taekwondo: 62956
  • Judo: 62638
  • Karate: 61748
  • Muay_Thai: 60407
  • Capoeira: 49560
  • Wing Chun: 47581
  • Aikido: 44301
  • Jujutsu: 41913
  • Ninjutsu: 33986
  • Jeet Kune Do: 33253
  • Fencing: 32864
  • Sambo_(martial_art): 27563
  • Lucha Libre: 25649
  • Sumo: 23833
  • Kendo: 23789
  • Kickboxing: 23179
  • Wrestling: 22936
  • Shaolin Kung Fu: 19816
  • Eskrima: 19788
  • Hapkido: 17349

This is not very encyclopedic, I admit. I checked the Wikipedia article traffic statistics and noted down the page views of this month and these were the top 24. Some results definitely surprised me, perhaps some surprise you too.--Razionale (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that; interesting. Janggeom (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Flagicons in martial arts infoboxes

Hi, I'm new to this project, but I have noticed that the vast majority of the infoboxes related to martial arts use flagicons in violation of MOS:FLAG. According to the Manual of Style, "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." However, exceptions include military infoboxes or international competitions. Due to the international nature of most martial arts, it is possible that flagicons would be relevant. But, if they are relevant to use in infoboxes, "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags."--3family6 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WPMA, and thanks for the note. I suspect most contributors (self included) have not read through the entire MoS and mostly just learn as we go along, so it's not surprising that there are inconsistencies, which can obviously be fixed over time. Janggeom (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the whole thing either, I pretty much do the same thing of learning as I go. I can change the infoboxes, but I don't know how to edit the original base template to reflect MoS.--3family6 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Jean Jacques Machado belt rank?

This is undoubtedly a minor issue, but there seems to be a rather benign dispute going on at the Jean Jacques Machado article regarding his belt rank. In early June, JJ was promoted to a red-and-black belt by Rickson Gracie which was reported early by one source as 8th degree. This came as a bit of a surprise to me and some other editors for a few reasons. First, as far as I knew, JJ was 6th degree before this promotion, making it appear that he has skipped a full rank. Secondly, Rickson is an 8th degree himself and, again as far as I'm aware, a belt rank can only be bestowed by someone of a higher rank (e.g. Rickson would need to be a 9th degree red belt to promote someone to an 8th degree black-and-red belt). Finally, and perhaps more convincingly, there are now some articles on the web stating that JJ was promoted to 7th degree and not 8th. Even his official page mentions the promotion but does not list the specific rank.

As a BJJ guy myself, I love the original blog that put out the 8th degree article and would normally just trust that, but I'm just not sure if they made a mistake or not, as the transition between a black belt and red-and-black belt occurs between the 6th and 7th degree (see Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu ranking system)

I certainly have no agenda here and would simply like to see JJ being attributed his proper rank (whatever that might be), thus I defer to the great power of consensus. So, does anyone have any idea what rank JJ really is or what to do here? Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a nearly unimpeachable source you could just go with it, but I assume that's not the case. My suggestion would be to say that he was recently promoted, but that it's not clear to what degree. Then list each of the possibilities with footnotes indicating the source(s). If the case for one is clearly stronger than for the other, list it first but mention the competing claim. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. Changed it to an ambiguous red-and-black belt until a more official source can be found (like JJ actually updating his own website with the rank). Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sifu Tan Siew Cheng

Sifu Tan Siew Cheng has been nominated for deletion. Does anyone know this person? (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kickboxing as a task force of WikiProject Martial arts

I have been trying to re-activete and improve WikiProject Kickboxing for some months. I have made some advances and other editors have helped me with the renewal of the project guidelines. But I believe that becoming a fully active project is out of the question since there are very few active members and there are simply too many administrative tasks that can't be handled appropriately with such a small size. So, I proposed to make WikiProject Kickboxing a task force a few months ago here. I also asked advice at the WikiProject Council about this idea (see here), and it was suggested to me that it would be better to become a task force of WikiProject Martial arts instead of WP:SPORT since contributors to sports most likely will not be interested in kickboxing. I would like to know if WikiProject Martial arts would be willing to accept WikiProject Kickboxing as a task force. Jfgslo (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello Jfgslo, I am not very familiar with taskforces on Wikipedia, but I suppose one question would be whether there is enough interest to justify (to yourself) putting effort into setting this up formally. Is there is a 'critical mass' of participants? (See Wikipedia:TASKFORCE#Setting up a task force structure.) It doesn't sound like there are many participants, currently, but of course, a guideline should not in itself be a discouragement. Is there anything setting up the taskforce would enable you to do that you currently can't do? (Just posing the question for discussion's sake.) I don't have any particular view towards the proposal to make WPKB a taskforce of WPMA, but am happy to help as interest strikes. Janggeom (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you will get more response if you give a clear idea of what you would like to accomplish. For instance, are all the articles in the category Kickboxing marked with a Wikipedia Project template? Do you want to eliminate non-notable articles? Do you want to tag articles in Kickboxing for more citations or to target better text? A general "lets make it better" will not get much reaction<G>. jmcw (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you would like an insight into the MA Project, CATSCAN shows the changes in the last week [2]. Maybe you could contact some of the more active people directly. jmcw (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed answer. I am no longer as active as I would like and in some weeks I will probably have to stop altogether for some months, which is why I'm kind of hurrying on this issue. These are my responses.
  1. A task force is essentially the same as a WikiProject but specializes only in editing articles, not in reviewing or managing all other activities. This is currently what WikiProject Kickboxing is doing and, we few members, there is not much that can be done to improve that at the moment. I precisely asked WikiProject Council if it indeed seemed like a favorable choice and the answer was yes. In essence, there is a small number of editors in WikiProject Kickboxing and they concentrate all their efforts in creating articles (quite a lot for such a small number actually.) However, all other activities, such as guidelines, article reviews and keeping an eye on kickboxing-related articles nominated for deletions, is much more than what the WikiProject can do with its current members. It is precisely this kind of things that can be done by a larger WikiProject. For example, I was planning on creating a banner for the talk page of Kikboxing articles, but I decided against that since I that would mean that WikiProject Kickboxing can rate articles and can implement an active list to keep an eye of articles to be deleted.
  2. No, articles are not marked with a Wikipedia Project template as there is none. That is part of the administrative tasks that the project has not done. On the second point, my idea is actually the contrary, I want to create notable articles and save articles nominated for deletions that lack sources but that are notable. This is, in fact, one of the main points why I'm interested on making WikiProject Kickboxing a task force. A month ago a user nominated several kickboxing articles for deletion, and several members of the WikiProject believed that they were notable, yet, since the article couldn't be improved on such short notice, most were deleted. Some of them perhaps could have been saved if WikiProject Kickboxing had alerts like WikiProject Martial Arts does, but, for that, we would first need to create the structure and that simply can't be done with the current resources of the Project. In fact, it was only very recently that I, along with a couple of editors, was able to update the WikiProject guidelines (see here.) I do want to want to tag article for citations and I would like to see at least one featured-class Kickboxing article. I thinks that there is not even a good-class article.
  3. Checking the tool, most active people are from Mixed Martial Arts articles. I had already left message at that WikiProject inviting people to help with WikiProject Kickboxing, but there weren't many interested people, which is not surprising since Kickboxing is not particularly popular in the US, from where most Mixed Martial Arts editors come from. This, along with the development over the years of WikiProject Kickboxing, makes me believe that, at this point in time, there will not be many members to justify a full-fledged WikiProject in hte foreseeable future, but there are many editors still interested in creating and improving Kickboxing articles, so a task force which focuses exclusively on that, with the guidance of a larger WikiProject, can improve the current quality of Kickboxing-articles.
To simplify things, WikiProject Kickboxing currently focuses on creating Kickboxing articles and updating information, and there are not enough members to change it's status as active. As a task force, it would continue to do those things, but articles would be evaluated by WikiProject Martial Arts, and articles to be deleted would be checked in the alerts of WikiProject Martial Arts. All Kickboxing articles would use {{WikiProject Martial arts}}. This in fact is already done to some degree. For example, note that Ernesto Hoost and Peter Aerts, both notable kickboxers, and which are probably the best articles of kickboxers, are under the scope of WikiProject Martial Arts, so it would me more like a formalization of what already is in place.
I'm interested on doing this because I'm convinced that it will help improve Kickboxing articles and this is the best path available, so, please don't hesitate to ask more. It may take me some time to answer, but I will. Jfgslo (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost a week has passed since I made my previous comment. So, is it okay for me to go ahead and make WikiProject Kickboxing a task force of WikiProject Martial Arts? Are editors of this WikiProject cool with this idea? Jfgslo (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Just speaking as one contributor, I don't have any objections, but I do have concerns when you say that you "will probably have to stop altogether for some months" (as you appear to be the leading contributor). This should not be taken as criticism or discouragement, just a brief comment. Janggeom (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not the main contributor regarding the creation of kickboxing articles. I'm the main contributor regarding the re-activation of the WikiProject. But, yes, I will probably have to stop for some time from creating articles, editing regularly, improving guidelines or researching topics. That is, I will keep on visiting Wikipedia, but I will not be able to contribute as much as I can now. In fact, right now I'm unable to create the articles I would like, like articles for Erika Kamimura, Ai Takahashi and Zaza Sor Aree among others. I've even been unable to update Rena Kubota's article because I lack the time to do the appropriate research in reliable sources. Right now, I still have the time to create whatever templates or guidelines are necessary to improve WikiProject Kickboxing, but in some weeks I will be almost completely restricted from dedicating too much time to this endeavor. That's what I meant when I said that I will probably have to stop for some months. Jfgslo (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved WikiProject Kickboxing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force‎. I also have updated the information and layout there to reflect this change. If editors from this WikiProject have the time, please check the guidelines and let me know what needs to be corrected. I still need to modify this parent project's banner to add Kickboxing task force and other tasks regarding this change, but it will probably take me some time to do that. Jfgslo (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the task force to {{WikiProject Martial arts}}, in addition to creating the necessary categories. Just place |kickboxing=yes in the talk page banners to add the task force. Now, you'll need to pick a small icon to represent the task force in the banner (to the left of "This article is supported by Kickboxing task force.", under the class. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added the image. I hope you don't mind but, since I was already editing the template, I also added documentation for its usage. Checking the instructions at WP:TASKFORCE, there doesn't seem to be anything missing to complete the change. Thanks for your help. Jfgslo (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting the taskforce established, Jfgslo; I wish you and all associated contributors well. Janggeom (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Luis Ciraiz

Hello there. I found this article during my new page patrolling. I just want to ask whether this person is notable for Wikipedia (I know nothing about martial arts). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As he is a mixed martial artist the place to ask is WP:MMA, as to his notability he fails to pass WP:MMANOT. --Phospheros (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'll ask there. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How to request reassessment

How does one request reassessment of an article's quality rating? Specifically the article about Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū Thanks SanshinkaiAikidoUtrecht (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can reassess an article's quality rating, but in practice this is probably best left to contributors with a reasonable familiarity with standards. I suppose you could request a reassessment by posting here (as you have) or contacting any experienced WPMA contributor. Promotion to Good Article status or higher requires a formal review. If you think Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū deserves a higher rating than its current C class, a good first step would be to look yourself at existing B class martial arts articles and see if it compares favourably with them. Trust this advice helps. Janggeom (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrestlers (sculpture)

There are photos from other angles on the article page.

I'm wondering if anybody here can help me with the article on Wrestlers (sculpture). This statue has always impressed me because it is quite identifiable what is going on in modern terms. In particular, back in my old high-school wrestling days, I would have identified this as a cross-body ride, with a pinning move called the Guillotine imminent (as soon as the lower wrestler's right arm is lifted above the upper wrestler's head). However our article's description was very bland and incorrect. "The two figures are clutching one another, and one seems to have the upper hand, holding the other knelt down and twisting his arm back." I've changed this to "The two figures are wrestling in a position now known as a "cross-body ride" in modern freestyle wrestling. The upper wrestler has his left leg entwined with his opponent's left leg, with his body across the opponent's body, lifting the opponent's right arm.[1] " and even found a fairly reliable reference for "cross-body ride." I'm hoping that somebody here might know of an indisputably reliable reference for this, and perhaps even have one for the Guillotine. Also I'm wondering whether the sentence "The two young men are engaged in the sport called Pankration, a kind of wrestling similar to the present-day sport of "Mixed Martial Arts"." might over-stress the Mixed Martial Arts. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gary Alexander, notable??

I found a WP:AFC page, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gary Alexander (martial art pioneer), a quick Google check gives the impression that this guy might be notable and worthy of a page but most of the links that I find are not really of RS quality, the references are from an old magazine and this is not my topic, can anyone with more knowledge and access to good references check this page up and possibly accept it if it is OK. --Stefan talk 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted some suggestions on the author's talk page. I think a case can be made for notability with some additional material and sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


Togakure-ryū is a Japanese fighting style that is the basis of ninjutsu and, essentially, all of the modern Japanese fighting styles known today, from Judo to Ju-Jitsu to practically everything. And, yet, the article is pretty darn horrible. I just added the history section myself, that wasn't there before. And it was even put up for deletion two months ago. Since you guys probably know more about it than me, can someone else help out with improving it? SilverserenC 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Togakure-ryū is that it is remarkably short on reliable sources for Wikification. I've considered editing it several times, but just can't seem to find high quality sources to start from. Do you have some reliable (preferably scholarly) sources you'd share? Particularly if you have anything substantiating your mention that Judo and most other Japanese fighting styles somehow are derived from it. I wasn't aware that Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū and Kito-ryū (principal parent arts of Judo), for instance, were descendant arts of Togakure-ryū. Their histories seem to state otherwise. FlowWTG (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going from what has been stated in secondary sources. And I said essentially. Not all styles are going to come from it, but all of the ones that descended from ninjutsu are. I don't think we should be using primary sources anyways, that's kind of a no-no. Their history is covered well enough in interviews and other secondary sources with the leaders of the style. SilverserenC 15:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
An interview with a leader of a style is not usually considered a reliable source: it is a primary source. jmcw (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Woops, must have had some wires crossed in my head. Thanks for the correct on primary/reliable. Silver seren, do you have any references for which arts are descended from Togakure-ryū? That would be worth including, if evidence could be found. FlowWTG (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to look. For now, i'll just list other available sources to use in general. This, this, this, and this to start with. Looking through some things, actually, it seems like which styles are descended from Togakure (and thus Ninjutsu) is a controversial subject that is heavily debated. So it might be more difficult than I expected to find a definitive answer to your question. The sources I read through state that a significant number of Japanese martial arts have amalgamated parts of Ninjutsu into their art, but aren't necessarily descended from it. So it appears to be quite complicated. SilverserenC 04:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with Togakure-ryū is that it is a modern fabrication, not a real classical martial art. Your claim that pretty much everything from judo to ju-jitsu (sic) is derived from pseudo-ninjutsu of Masaaki Hatsumi is ridiculous. See comments by Karl Friday, professor of Japanese military history, mirrored here: If you are interested in koryu, I suggest reading the standard works by Draeger, Skoss, Amdur, Lowry, Friday, etc. instead of spending time tracking useless ninja fan-boy sources. There is no serious debate about this, at least not at the level of scholars and professional historians. It is hard to see how this article could be improved, as more reliable sources for this modern martial art with falsified history likely cannot be extracted out from the big pool of neo-ninja fantasy crap that is out there. jni (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You just linked to an unreliable martial arts database that is discussing in very obviously POV terms the history of ninjutsu. The fact that this database is so extremely negative toward it shows to me that there is indeed a controversy over this. Furthermore, I have clearly given sources above that can be used to expand the article with little to no difficulty in doing so, thus your statement is pretty much fallacious from the get-go. SilverserenC 22:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You are confused. The quote from prof. Friday that I linked to has circulated around the net for a long time. Other content of is irrelevant. It originally appeared on Koryu Books' site but they took it down, probably because they got fed up receiving useless emails from self-proclaimed ninja. Have fun tracking the "controversy" over this with the ninja fanboys. You won't be able to find anything other than unreliable primary/secondary sources that are all derived from Hatsumi/Bujinkan/Genbukan/Jinenkan. jni (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I think i've found more than enough things that are now in the article and it's looking quite nice. I even found a lineage list that shows all of the grand masters in order. SilverserenC 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Problem with your references is that all of their information is one way or other derived from Hatsumi's Bujinkan organization. Books by Hatsumi, Glenn Morris and Stephen Hayes and all cited Black Belt Magazine articles are not independent sources as they just repeat what Hatsumi has said. Close association with Hatsumi makes these primary sources, not secondary, as there is no disinterested evaluation or analysis. Rest of your sources do not even mention their sources, but it is not too difficult to see they just repeat the standard Bujinkan doctrine and various circulating rumors about ninja. Only exception is the Religion in Japan: arrows to heaven and earth book - thanks for finding this one! - but you forgot to include what could be it's greatest contribution to this article; that the legend of Togakure Daisuke may be impossible to verify (p.34). So there still are no reliable and independent from Hatsumi sources to verify that:
  1. Togakure Daisuke ever existed.
  2. Details of his life as reported inn article are correct, if he indeed was a historical person.
  3. The monk Kain Doshi ever existed.
  4. Hatsumi has a scroll about Togakure ryu in his possession (one not created by himself of course.)
  5. Hatsumi is 34th soke of this art.
  6. The earliest 30 or so sokes existed.
  7. The contents and technical curriculum of this ryu are as Hatsumi says they are.
  8. This is ~800 years old martial art - an extraordinary claim BTW that requires extraordinary quality of references as it goes against the established academic timeline of origins of martial ryugi.
Adding more Bujinkan sources or Japan travel books etc. is of no help when verifying these and other claims made in the article. jni (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I may have been too quick to praise Religion in Japan as the passage immediately following p. 34 (pp. 35-36) cites only Hayes and Hatsumi as sources. And this 1996 book even addresses Hatsumi as Dr Hatsumi although I believe it was well known even back then that Hatsumi's doctoral degree came from a diploma mill. I'll let the ref to p. 34 stay in the article however, as I don't have anything better to replace it with and I think this book can be considered as acceptable secondary source as the authors are not involved with the Bujinkan organization. jni (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The link here provides the relevant quotations from the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten: Talk:Togakure-ryū#Bugei_Ryuha_Daijiten. They seem to indicate that Toda Shinryūken's oral account of the history of modern Togakure-ryu was inaccurate.--Stvfetterly (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheongye Kwan

Hi guys I need help with my article, it's at" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckduk (talkcontribs) 22:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckduk, I would highly recommend that you look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines and martial arts notability guidelines, and include in your article a clear indication of why the subject is notable. Trust this suggestion helps. Janggeom (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this article was previously deleted and has been nominated for deletion again. Janggeom (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary author, Ckduk, has now withdrawn the article. Janggeom (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jake Bostwick/Bashir Ahmad (martial artist)

Hello, I am writing to say that I have talked to the editor who deleted Jake Bostwick and Bashir Ahmad, and he agreed that both pages meet WP:GNG, and because of this he is happy to reinstate the pages, he just wanted either me or the user who requested Bashir Ahmad's reinstatement to write on here to inform you all to prevent future AfD cases against them. BigzMMA (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you meant to post your message at WPMMA rather than here. Janggeom (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article structure

I am currently reviewing unassessed martial arts articles, and noticed that there are several articles not following the standard structure. For anyone starting new articles, you might like to be aware that the common sections at the end of an article are See also, then References, and then External links, in that order; see the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more details. Trust this brief note helps. Janggeom (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


Grappling is under discussion. The current page was moved off today to Grappling (martial arts) and a newer page Grappling (FILA) wants to replace it, see Talk:Grappling (FILA). -- (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger idea Japanese kickboxing

I believe that Japanese kickboxing and American kickboxing should be merged into Kickboxing what are anyone else thoughts?Dwanyewest (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like large parts of those articles are already in the main kickboxing article. Jakejr (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I also think merging (or redirecting) those articles into Kickboxing is a good idea. Go for it! Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles on kickboxing events

I have gone through the list of several hundred unassessed martial arts articles and reviewed most of them over the past few weeks. There are many articles covering kickboxing events (most notably, WAKO) that seem to be no more than routine coverage, would thus fail notability, and so should be deleted. Would anyone from the Kickboxing Taskforce of WPMA like to comment on this situation? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not part of the kickboxing group, but I did comment at many of the kickboxing AfD discussions in 2011. The kickboxing taskforce kind of seemed to disintegrate in 2011 when many of their articles were put up for AfD. Much like many of the MMA articles, these articles seemed to be WP:ROUTINE and lacked good sources to show otherwise. My personal view is that events that determine world champions for organizations like WAKO or K-1 probably should be kept (WP:SPORTSEVENT), while lesser events should be deleted. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes to WP:MANOTE

I made what I think are relatively small changes to WP:MANOTE. I changed the section on notability for martial artists--I changed "Olympic medalist" to "Olympic participant", added "world champion of a significant international organization", and changed "finalist, especially a repeated one" to "repeated medalist". I thought this brought the criteria in line with other sports, broadened the criteria, and made things more specific (medalist vs. finalist). If the consensus disagrees, it can be changed back. Jakejr (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that "world champion" was too limiting, but then I thought about how many martial arts organizations exist and limiting it to champions seemed better. Also, the next criteria listed seems to account for people whith multiple high finishes. Finally, none of these come into play if the subject meets WP:GNG. Therefore, I'd say I'm OK with your modifications. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

David Chan

I need help developing my article:

There are notability problems, but I know I'm onto something worthy for wikipedia, especially for the world of martial arts.

I hope you can help me.

Thank you,

Rummyness (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is in trouble and I don't know how to find help about it. Can somebody here help me? Thank you.


David Chan (Chan Joe Kee) of Hong Kong is a Chinese internal martial artist who founded the new internal martial style Xinyi Meditation. His Liuhebafa lineage is from Wu YiHui and Chan Yik Yan, and his Yiquan lineage is from Wang Xiangzhai and You Peng Xi. He learned and mastered Liuhebafa, Xingyiquan, Baguazhang, Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Yiquan, in a period of 18 years before going to the Philippines.

David Chan demonstrated his internal martial skills to Mark V. Wiley, a world famous martial arts historian, author, editor, and expert of Filipino Martial Arts. After the demonstration, Mark V. Wiley is noted to have said, "I was then fully convinced of the existence and use of such esoteric and hard-to-find skills, that I continue practicing them to this day." When Mark V. Wiley god married, David Chan was his godfather.

David Chan founded and created the hybrid Xinyi Meditation system, a merging of two internal Chinese martial arts, Liuhebafa and Yiquan. The Xinyi Meditation curriculum is divided into two parts, Skills and Power, which are subdivided again to a total of 6 more sets.

1. Liuhebafa
2. Push Hands
3. Combat Skills

1. Zhanzhuang
2. Strength Trial
3. Power Emission

Between 1976 to 2012, David Chan has taught hundreds of students but only recognizes 4 disciples who have completed the entire Xinyi Meditation system:
1. JR Rodriguez IV
2. Tristan Abara
3. Dylan Halili
4. Emerson Champ

Other achievenments of David Chan was when the famous martial artist Bruce Lee died, David Chan was the first choice selected to double Bruce Lee to finish the movie Game Of Death, along with Yuen Biao, but David Chan left for the Philippiines and wasn't able to end the movie. He was featured in several Chinese articles, newspapers, and magazines during the 1970 for his martial skills with Liuhebafa.

--See also--

--External links and sources--

Rummyness (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Rummyness (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Rummyness (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rummyness (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Martial arts will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in martial arts. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Martial Arts Article Review--part 2

When the original martial arts article review was started, there were over 225 articles with notability tags. The article review helped reduce this to under 30, but it then mushroomed back up to around 125. I've been working on reducing this number either by adding sources, putting articles up for deletion, or voting on AfDs that others have started. However, lots of articles remain. At User:Papaursa/sandbox there's a relatively current list of all martial arts articles with the notability tag. If you have comments you'd like to make on any of these, please feel free to post it there. I'd like to reduce this list, preferably by keeping articles, but I'm not averse to removal by AfD. Papaursa (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

During the original review, because the notability requirements are quite different, I removed categories of people from the category of martial arts and adding a 'see also' to the people category. There are people who disagree with this logic and have re-introduced some categories of people in the category of martial arts (see User_talk:Jmcw37#Martial_arts_categories), thereby increasing the mumber of articles with notability tags. I do not have the energy or interest to argue the politics of categories. jmcw (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in battling over categories. Actually, I don't want to battle over anything. I would appreciate any comments on the individual articles. Call it a psychological quirk, but I feel like articles with notability tags are in limbo and I'd like to clarify things one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Catscan tool / multiple issues box update

The Multiple Issues template has been updated to add an article with a notability tag to Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability. To find Category:Martial arts articles with notability issues, use Catscan to search for the intersection of these two categories [3]. There are currently 124 articles with notability issues. jmcw (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of Brazilian Jiu-Jutsu competitors

I see that many biographies of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu competitors, for example Saulo Ribeiro, are only under such banners as "WikiProject Brazil" or "WikiProject Biography". If the competitors don't participate in Mixed martial arts, they should belong to "WikiProject Martial arts" too. Is that correct?--Razionale (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They already do. There are currently 222 people in the "Brazilian practitioners of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" category. Papaursa (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean the category but the project affiliations on their talk pages.--Razionale (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why the talk page can't indicate they're under the martial arts project. I think it's clear that's the best category for the individuals you mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Help assessing incubated biography page

Hello. I have been working on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Carlos "Caique" Elias which had been previously moved to the incubator. I believe the article now, after some work, clearly meets Notability and NPOV guidelines and is ready to move out of incubation back into mainspace. However, I am reluctant to do this unilaterally because I created the article. I would love if members of the WikiProject Martial Arts could take a look at the page, make improvements as needed, and if you feel it's ready for Mainspace, please vote using the \{\{Limbo assessment\}\} macro on the page itself. Thank you! Thechadl (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Thechadl, I would like to give some brief feedback here, which might also be of help to others (perhaps later on) starting articles. The subject does appear notable (e.g., taking in good faith that he is the subject of an independent article/documentary, as I do not have the Fraguas reference) but it would not hurt to add more independent references. If you look at the WPMA notability essay's section on individuals, there are some general pointers there that might help you strengthen the article. I noticed immediately that the article does not provide any date/year of birth (not even an estimate). There are also some minor issues (e.g., "tought" and "1st ed ed") which should be fixed. As an independent reader (who is not familiar with the subject), what I would be interested in is the article telling me what the subject has done/achieved apart from just holding high rank. For example, was he responsible (or primarily responsible) for introducing his art to a notable region (e.g., an entire country)? Including facts like these, if they can be supported by references, will significantly strengthen the article. Trust this feedback helps. Janggeom (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is very helpful feedback, thank you! I will correct the typos and then dig up the birthdate information. Regarding additional claims to notability, I will compile them. I believe he had won the Brazilian nationals several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechadl (talkcontribs) 11:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Winning (significant) national championships will certainly help establish the subject's notability more firmly. The notability guidelines and recommendations relating to martial artists do place weight on competition results—understandably so, as these are typically reported in reliable publications and so are easily verified. Janggeom (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
While this is understandable, it also skews the results towards more recent practicioners away from people who have been doing BJJ for 40 years. I challenge you to find the Brazilian nationals results from 30 years ago! Thechadl (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
If the subject is as notable as he appears to be, martial arts magazines might be another good source of supporting references. I have made some minor adjustments to the article. Janggeom (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added a couple more references and have fleshed out more details. I think this article is ready for prime time. Can I have some people from this subproject take a look, and would someone please take the step of moving the page back to mainspace for me? The rules suggest that I should not do that myself. Thanks! Thechadl (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have just edited the article, and would recommend that references be provided for those statements to which I've added 'citation needed' tags. These might be as simple as linking to a website or providing a reference to a magazine/journal article or a published document (i.e., the document need not necessarily be accessible through the Internet). With those references included, I think the article should be ready to be moved. Janggeom (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


My first Wiki page, and i thought that i could hit it off by telling wiki about Piper. a knife assaulting method from south africa. Same issue as the other topics on this talk page, it must be improved otherwise it will be removed. I find it difficult to source the subject, because the system has been taught by word of mouth up to now. It now has grown and evolved into its own entity and influenced martial art in our country tremendously and i think it can be placed as a stand alone entry on the wiki.

heres the talk page and the wiki entry

There is still allot of information about the system and the importance and impact that it could provide in the evolution of martial arts which i can still add, but first my issue lies in sourcing the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3n71n3l (talkcontribs) 05:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Z3n71n3l, I think the basic problem you will find is that if you cannot provide adequate references (see Wikipedia:GNG#Notability requires verifiable evidence), it is likely that the article will be nominated for deletion. If the subject you mentioned has "influenced martial art in [South Africa] tremendously" then there should be independent evidence of that, and you would want to add references to that evidence in the article. Janggeom (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you could give me ideas then i can try and search for it or work on creating such a reference. The only evidence i can think off atm, is newspaper articles and online media, blogs, websites dedicated in promoting the system and an e-book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If newspaper articles and other independent sources exist then there should be no problems in adding them to the article to demonstrate the subject's notability; see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Janggeom (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)