Talk:Bartitsu

Tintin

I believe some of Hergé's illustrations on the Tintin series showed similar stances (to the photograph in this article). Can someone confirm the relationship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.229.210 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, Professor Calculus (?) was written as an exponent of the French kickboxing art of savate, which was also an aspect of Bartitsu. However, since Bartitsu itself had been almost completely obscured by the time Hergé began writing the Tintin stories, I strongly suspect that any similarities between the Tintin illustrations and Barton-Wright's photographs would have been co-incidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.102.102 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing of the Bartitsu School

"By 1903, the Bartitsu Club had closed its doors for the last time; subsequent speculation had it that the enrollment and tuition fees were too high." Obviously, if the enrollment was high and so was the tuition, the school would have been successful, but that was not the case. Corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philosopher2king ([[User talk:Philosopher2king|talk]] • contribs) 02:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

No - both the enrollment fee, i.e., the money paid in order to join the school, and the tuition fees were too high, which was cited as a reason why the school was not successful.

I see, my bad. Thanks! 2/22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

use of the word "Fictional"

Why is bartitsu called "Fictional?" It clearly was/is a real martial art. "Baritsu" was a fictional martial art for Arthur Conan Doyle, but "Bartitsu" is not fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.137.119.210 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this question; Bartitsu is not referred to as being fictional anywhere in this entry, and the distinction between Bartitsu and the fictional "baritsu" is clearly made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.107.58 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese phonology

Japanese phonology is relevant to the discussion of Conan Doyle's supposed misspelling of the name, because the art is represented in the Holmes stories as being Japanese in origin; "Bartitsu" couldn't be a Japanese word and couldn't be the name of a Japanese martial art. The article's uncited speculation about how he "was vaguely aware of Bartitsu and simply misremembered or misheard the term" is no more relevant than that. Please address this point here - and not just by asserting the contrary - before removing the information a third time. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "Bartitsu" was a neologism coined by E.W. Barton-Wright; how is its pronunciation in Japanese relevant? The remainder of the note on Japanese phonology might be more relevant to the Wikipedia entry on baritsu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritsu ) - which includes several items of ancillary information on baritsu - than to the entry on Bartitsu. Artful Dodger (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know "baritsu" had a separate article. The other article is mentioned in this one only as one embedded link deeply buried in the "2011 documentary" section, and the extensive discussion of baritsu in this article - one of only three sentences in the lead, and 20% of the text of the article, are about baritsu - makes it look like baritsu is on-topic for this article. If you want to move the note on Japanese phonology to the baritsu article (possibly a lot of other stuff about baritsu in the bartitsu article should also be moved...) and add a "main article" template pointing to there, I'd be happy with that. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: I hesitate to make the proposed edits myself because if I did them, they'd involve deleting significant content from this article, and that's not a safe thing for an anonymous IP to do. 206.45.176.62 (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a long history of back and forth between the baritsu and Bartitsu entries. IIRC they were originally separate, then merged around the time of the release of the 2010 "Sherlock Holmes" movie, then eventually separated again. My own opinion is that they should be merged for convenience, but other users are very keen to have separate entries and it isn't worth getting into an edit war.

Baritsu itself is relevant to Bartitsu mostly in that scholars researching the (then-obscure) reference in "The Adventure of the Empty House" were the first to re-discover Barton-Wright's articles, etc., which directly led to the modern interest in and revival of Bartitsu.

I will be happy to shift the Japanese phonology note to the baritsu entry and create an appropriate link. Artful Dodger (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge content fork

There's an obvious WP:Content fork at Baritsu that needs to merge into the "in popular culture" section here (and actually merge, not just be deleted; some of it's content is better, with additional sources).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bartitsu and baritsu pages have been merged, un-merged, re-merged etc. since they were first created. I think they should be merged for convenience but other users are very keen to have separate entries and it hasn't been worth getting into an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.52.245 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• No, I have to say it isn't that obvious (to me, anyway) Bartitsu is a real (if unusual) martial art practiced at the turn of the (last) century in Britain and still with some relevance today; Baritsu is a fictional kind of Japanese wrestling mentioned by Arthur Conan Doyle in one of the Sherlock Holmes novels, which seems to have acquired a life of its own since then. They are hardly “separate articles treating the same subject”.

There seems to be little overlap or duplication, and what there is could be rectified by trimming it to a summary and adding a main article link. There are also at least two paragraphs in the "...in popular culture" section that are more relevant to the other article, but that's a reason to move them there, not to merge the articles.

And despite having similar names (and ACD may well have appropriated the term, though this page seems far too definite about it) they are still "discrete subjects even though (one of them is) short". Swanny18 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Closing, given no support over more than 2 years. Klbrain (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Merge They're separate topics, but coverage would be better given in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted American Spelling to British Commonwealth Spelling

I've reverted a recent edit that changed all instances of Commonwealth spelling to American English (defence/defense, etc.) As per official Wikipedia policy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#Should_I_use_American_English_or_British_English?):

"The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States."

Bartitsu is clearly and overtly a British Commonwealth topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artful Dodger (talk • contribs) 13:44, October 28, 2018 (UTC)