From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martial arts article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] Revamping the Article

There seems to have been some consensus among a number of editors to go ahead with serious revision of this article. To make life easier for every one (and to follow suggested WP guidelines) I have archived the old talk page. It is still available via the archive box above.

Now that we know we want to revise the article, what are we going to do about it, and how will we go about doing that? Lets try and get together on a common goal for the article before we start making edits. Specifically - we know it is supposed to be about martial arts. But how detailed should this page become? How should the information be displayed? Regionally by type of martial art, or chronologically? Or chronologically by region (and type?)? There is a whole lot of information here, and I believe picking a standard format to display it in will be crucial to overall cohesiveness of the article. Obviously, different people will have different ideas, so lets talk them out, and see if any of them end up seeming more appropriate than others. I'll chime in with my ideas at some point - I've yet to fully consider the possibilities. - xiliquiern^talk 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, something of some debate that may be at least worth discussing before we begin: What constitutes a martial art? Many dictionaries give definitions similar to this:

Martial art - any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

Obviously (and sadly), that is an absolutely horrible definition, in my opinion. It totally neglects any modern art outside of Japan and China, more or less. I would certainly like our use of the word to be both more broad, but more specific. Perhaps we should even have a section on the interpretation of the term explaining multiple definitions and uses of the term - it seems confusion in terminology is part of the nature of the subject, and might bear reflecting in the article. Some people view only martial arts involving serious intent for learning how to kill a martial art. I would say that somewhere on the opposite side of the field, other individuals include spiritual arts designed entirely for calming, relaxation, and meditation (from my own admittedly poor understanding) as martial arts. Others don't call the latter a martial art, but still place it under the umbrella term - making it a martial art, but more specifically, a spiritual art. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion here. If possible, I believe any consensus at all on this matter would certainly benefit the article. - xiliquiern^talk 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a comprehensive definition of MA. Personally, I like the current definition that's present in the article. It acknowledges that MA are systems of combat for the purpose of defeating an opponent, then acknowledges that this has been altered into several forms for the modern day - military arts, combat sports, performance arts, and so on.

My take is that any definition of a martial art should place a primary emphasis on demonstrated and utilized combative ability. My understanding of English usage of the term "Martial Art" is derived from the Japanese term "Bugei" - "Bu" referring to warrior things (Bushido, Budo, etc.) and "Gei" referring to elite performance of something to the point of artistry (think "geisha"). People frequently conflate artistry in terms of elite performance with "artistry" referring to things like sumi-e paintings, dance, and such. My understanding of these matters is that the emergence of philosophy, artistic accomplishment, and such came in Japanese arts when there was not as much of a need for warriors. So they devoted their pursuits to non-combative things. Martial arts was first and foremost for fighting, then for the more cerebral pleasures.

How does one reconcile a full-combat kickboxing match with a TKD point-sparring match? My sense is that the kickboxing match is representative of combat sport, whereas the TKD match is not particularly representative of martial ability at all.

I think that the presence of specific martial arts in the main article should be substantiated by prominence in peer-reviewed press and popular literature. That Aboriginal staff fighting art that made an appearance in a 2003 movie, I don't think that merits specific mention. On the other hand, karate certainly does, with brief mention to some notable styles (Kyokushin, Shotokan, etc.) For another example, Russian martial arts could get lumped in with European arts and have SAMBO and/or Systema mentioned, as those are the most popular arts from that country, though other arts may exist.

For a third example, we could mention Filipino arts like Kali and Escrima without getting into particulars about different schools and methods; just give the readers an overview of what's prominent and present, and create sub-pages for further interest. If someone is really interested in FMA, they can visit the Kali or Escrima page. For less-notable arts, they could be encompassed under a more general page. For example, indigenous arts of Africa could be on an "African Martial Arts" page.

That being said, citations and sources are key. --Scb steve 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. The guidelines are WP:REF and WP:Notability. Also, since these kinds of pages are magnet for every instructor who starts their own "complete" style by combining underwater basket-weaving with Balinese dancing, we should also keep in mind WP:OR. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you make some very good points. Along with the definition coming from the Japanese Bugei, we may wish to also stress the use of the originaly english terms in passing Kunst des fechtens and Art and Science of Defence. Obviously, an etymological lookup on the structure of "martial art" should also be done, discussing the use of Mars, god of war. I also share your desire not over specialize. This act, I believe, largely contributes to the current pages rather disconnected tone. By sticking with major styles and forcusing on general aspects, I believe we may get a lot further than trying to provide examples from a wide variety of schools. Sources and citations - excellent! - xiliquiern^talk 14:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I made a few changes that someone else can go over. I cleaned up the part of the Asian forms of address and changed the examples given for what various martial arts focus on. If the styles I put aren't good enough then replace it with a proper example. There is no reason for listing judo, aikido and jujutsu as well as hapkido to give an example of a syle based on grabbing. Wrestling was also used twice and there were three Japanese weapon styles listed. We should try to keep it neutral and not focus on just one country or area. Qin na is not a style and "kung fu" does not apply. We should also mention that not all styles focus on just one thing (like kicking). Another thing I tried to fix was the part on non-East Asian martial arts. It drones on and on with irrelevant information. It isn't necessary to say "British boxing comesfrom bare-knucke boxing". Anyway, See what you think

I just want to say that I'm glad to see this page cleaned up. It was a -horrible- mess before. It needed a Great Flood sort of revision. Hopefully, with a stronger foundation, it can regrow into a better form. --GenkiNeko 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)