Talk:List of martial arts/Archive 1

Early talk

The list of martial arts for the Philippines is a real mess. Most of what's listed are subdiscip[lines of Eskrima in a very vague way: for example, espada y daga just means "sword and knife", and most teachers call the part of their teaching that uses these weapons "espada y daga". I've triaged the list that used to live at Eskrima, now it's at list of Eskrima systems. I'm not happy with that either, but it's better than this. I'm tempted to just move everything en masse to there. Not a nice solution, but better than the current nonsense. Andrew 17:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I think the whole list of martial arts is too long and complicated. As most groups of martial arts have their own ways of sorting I believe it would be easier to put them in separate articles. I'm interested in moving the list of Chinese martial arts styles into list of Chinese martial arts, for example. Any other suggestions? - Wintran 14:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea in general; families of related martial arts should be listed on their own pages, where the differences between them can be explained. Putting up a list here is just asking for people to come and add anything that sounds like a system with absolutely minimal further information. Perhaps this page should have only links to pages with some content?

I'd say we should have links to

• kung fu/wushu (some article covering all chinese martial arts)
• Japanese martial arts (or Japanese and Okinawan martial arts, I don't know the politice)
• Filipino martial arts (or Eskrima with a minimal explanation, to save redirects)
• European martial arts (fencing, archery as well as savate and so on)
• Mixed martial arts (for systems such as Jeet Kune Do or Kajukenbo that were synthesized recently from a variety of systems)
• Some category for "other" martial arts (I can't think of any reasonable category that would contain Capoeira)

The problem of putting the list of styles and substyles of a specific martial arts group in the same article as the general explanation of the group, is that some articles might grow too long and complex.

For example, Chinese martial arts is currently the main article covering general characteristics of Chinese martial arts, and it has already grown quite large and needs a lot of work, such as moving text that is too style-specific. If we were to add the list of styles, which right now only contains a fraction of the many styles of Chinese martial arts, this article would become even longer and harder to read. In that case I'd rather see a new article called list of Chinese martial arts focused on presenting a list of styles of Chinese martial arts, sorted by groups such as external/internal and northern/southern.

I'm not sure if this kind of division will work for Japanese martial arts, Filipino Martial Arts etc, but when surfing Wikipedia as a reader I generally prefer when long lists are put in separate articles, with clear links to them from the main articles.

- Wintran 22:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we agree on this. My previous comments were vague and misleading. What I meant to say was:

I think we should divide the martial arts up into a few categories (which are what I was describing above). Each category should have a general description page with some common information about each category. Each category should also have a separate "list of" page. The Eskrima page is roughly arranged in this way (well, mostly because I've been rewriting it with this vague idea in mind).

The martial arts that do not fit into any broad category can, I guess, be linked directly from list of martial arts.

I think we might have a policy that systems with nothing but the name may be pruned from the lists. If they've got an article, or at least some minor descriptive text, that should be mentioned and used to classify them correctly. In list of Eskrima systems this distinction is made, although the ones with no information are just shunted into a long list at the end of the article instead of being deleted. I don't think this is too offensive; anyone with a pet system can add at least a few details and it will be kept.

With this policy, we might find that the arts can both be listed on this page and on their category list pages. That would be nice (although it would take some minor upkeep). --Andrew 00:58, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

This said, I have just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts; probably this discussion should move to the talk page there. --Andrew 02:26, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you, we seem to mean the same thing. Good job on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts, looks nice! - Wintran 22:36, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Under the Britain (formerly England) heading, Purring links to, well, not really a page about martial arts. Someone who knows more about martial arts + using Wikis than I should probably set up a disambiguation link - 25 May 2004.

Israel

Israel is listed in the European section and not the Middle East section. Is this because the main method of fighting was developed in Czechoslovakia?

Heh.. Russia is listed as European. =) -- Sy / ^(talk) 14:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non-Combat, Martial Art like or Self-Defense

Hey all, I added this section under Misc. Parkour may or may not be considered a martial art; or just martial art like by some, for example. And Wen-Do instructers insist that it's not a martial art but simply self-defence... however Wen-Do is of course based on martial arts. --Mista-X 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Parkour isn't a martial art though, it is a sport. While many martial arts have been modified into sports, Parkour doesn't have any training for fighting, either offensively or defensively, so it doesn't belong in a list of martial arts IMO. Many styles of martial art are labelled by their adherents as well as being solely for self-defence, Wen-Do's avoidance of the term seems to politically rather than practically motivated. It reminds me of Bruce Lee and his followers' insisting that Jeet Kune Do isn't a "style" even though it is taught exactly like other mixed martial arts, with a "style" of training, however derivative. Semantics in aid of marketing. --Fire Star 05:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I disagree, just trying to think non-POV. "Martial art" is mentioned a few times in the Parkour article, and many practitioners of Parkour don't like for it to be considered a sport. And well there is no "combat" in Parkour, what about various types of wrestling, or even Capoeira? Ther is no real combat in those. Agree with you about Wendo though. --Mista-X 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No real combat in wrestling? Which types are you thinking of? I can't think of any wrestling style that doesn't feature some kind of competitive physical confrontation. As to capoeira, that does at least have motions derived from combat, and as far as I'm aware there are martial applications - the 'dance' aspect is simply better known. Slideyfoot 19:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrestling is a large subject with many different applications in many different cultures, and certainly is martial (the WWE notwithstanding). I can see how Parkour could be considered one skill set that a martial artist can have (the Manchu used to train martial arts on ice skates) but sports like skating or skiing are more along Parkour's line than systematic traditional martial arts or even sport oriented arts like Judo, though. Track sports (and arguably many others) presumably originated as a form of military training, and that should be mentioned in their articles, but they aren't really complete styles of martial arts with fully offensive and defensive training. --Fire Star 23:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Turkey Come Under Europe?

As far as I'm aware, Turkey is a European country, not Middle Eastern (I'm Turkish, and I certainly don't see myself as Middle Eastern). I often hear the claim that Turkey is somehow 'not European' because a large proportion of its landmass is on the Asian continent. In which case, why is Uzbekistan listed as European on this list? I would argue both nations are European. Slideyfoot 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved Turkey into the European section. As the Wikipedia entry on Europe states that Turkey is a part of Europe, it is utterly ridiculous to state that it isn't in other entries. Slideyfoot 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkey certainly does have territory in Europe proper. It is confusing for people because it is a border state between Europe and the Middle East, but there should be no objection to including it in a list of European countries. --Fire Star 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

If you are interested in martial arts or perform a martial art, please add yourself to Category:Wikipedians interested in martial arts or the list of Wikipedians by martial art.

AfroCarribean Martial Arts

An amazing tease of stuff at http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12661&page=1 and http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/52/52.html I've put up a single article at Kalenda but DANG! Rorybowman 10:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

whereto, Uzbekistan?

Perhaps we should merge ME with Uzbekistan & India to "Near-/Middle- East|Middle-/West- Asia" while the current 'Asia' should become 'Far East/East Asia'. What do you think? -Catsoup

I strongly disagree. First of all, Uzbekistan is in Central Asia. West Asia and Near East are alternate ways of saying Middle East. India is in South Asia. None of these counties are even in the same geographical are. Besides, what reason is there to do this? Yet another attempt at lumping together India with the Middle East and China with Japan, both mistakes stemming from the influence of the western media. As recently as the colonial period India was referred to by Europeans as being part of the far east or the orient so it is just as "far eastern" as China. Even calling China an East Asian country is debatable since it stretches to Siberia in the north and Kazakstan in Central Asia. If you were going to talk about China, Korea and Japan, the term North-East Asia would be more accurate. There is absolutely no basis for putting India together with the Middle East except to adhere to stereotypes. If you really felt like arguing, you could say to put Uzbekistan in a separate category under Central Asia which could include Russia. But I think it's fine as is due to the similarities and closeness between the ME and CA's countries and martial arts (that's right, Indian martial arts are more similar to kung fu than most ME styles except gatka and wrestling).

Mud wrasslin'?

Come on, it doesn't belong in here.NorphTehDwarf 05:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it does, philosophically speaking martial art is an expression of the human body to defend itself whether against human beings or animals, though it is like a sport and entertainment purposes it is still a martial art... that includes bull fighting too.

added

I added Shorindokai under NA.

And I removed it, as it appears to be a tiny and utterly non-notable martial art. If you have any proof to the contrary, please share. :) --Ashenai 00:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kozak says

Boevoi Gopak ISN'T RUSSIAN martial art. IT'S UKRAINIAN martial ART

List of Chinese martial arts

Hmm, is it really good to list all Chinese martial arts both here and at List of Chinese martial arts? - Wintran ^(talk) 15:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is a List of Chinese martial arts, why is there no List of Korean martial arts??? I think we should either give every country its own list, or keep everything in this article. --Kbarends 06:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's probably because no-one has started it yet :) Well, I believe that unless there's a more specific article, the list should be kept here. However, if a more specific list exists, I think it makes sense that this page just links to it instead of keeping a copy of the entire list. - Wintran ^(talk) 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullfighting?

I know that here martial arts are considered in a "general sense" (involving any physical, combat-like activity), but considering bullfighting as one of them sounds really weird to me. If no reference is found, I would take it out jynus 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems like a huge stretch to call bullfighting a martial art. I've removed it -Erik Harris 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead Links

I've started on the Japanese arts since there were very few dead links but I think an overall attempt should be made as outlined in the Martial Arts Project Page to keep names that are linked to articles. It sure would make it easier to evaluate what is a distinctive art - the name alone is not enough. I'll start trimming soon unless there is a hue and cry.Peter Rehse 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Asia and Pacific

Why is Asia and the Pacific put in the same category? Pacific styles are in a class of their own and there are enough of them to make a separate list. The Asian list is already the longest one and doesn't need to be expanded. I suggest that the Pacific martial arts are listed in a separate category called Oceania which would include Hawaii, Australia and new Zealand. (unsigned comment by 202.133.104.38 on # 11:41, 3 November 2006)

Strong Support - Go for it. - xiliquiern^talk 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's done but I made a few other changes too. I got rid of Chanbara which is a game and not used for fighting. I also removed the names of martial arts organizations like Bakbakan and AMOK along with information that I found unnecessary in a list (such as the name of founder Fu Xi-Wen). Oh, and I moved Turkey to Europe and Egypt to Africa :)

Questions about martial arts on list

How big should martial arts to be to be on this list?
And do they need their own page on wiki before they can be added?
I was thinking about Finnish martial arts: Hokutoryu Jujutsu,Han Moo Do(there are other arts with same name, this might cause problems?), Gaeshido(quite small),European Kyusho Jitsu Tuite (also quite small),Practical Defensive Fighting System (P.D.F.S.)(quite new),Art Wushu (founder is about 20, acrobatic art)
How Kokondo is Japanese martial art? Because it has roots to Japan? I always thought it was American.Korppi76 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If it has a wiki entry it can be on the list. It should be entered once. For difficult cases choose where it originated. If you think it is mis-placed (ie Kokondo) by all means change it. Peter Rehse 10:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico

There are alot of Mexicanm boxers, so is there a Mexican style of boxing? What about luchadores? And I've heard something about Mexican glass fighting, supposedly an underground sport where the combatants wear gloves covered in glass. If anyone has more information on these topics maybe an edit should be made.Eno-Etile 07:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkish section was not complete(only contemprory sayokan and oil wrestling) so I added some of the traditional martial arts still practiced in Turkey. Aba güreşi and karakucak are still practiced in villages. especially karakucak is very popular in Anatolia and much older than oil wrestling. Actually oil wrestling is considered a subcategory of karakucak in tradition. Kılıç-Kalkan(sword and shield play) is a stylized form of swordsmanship and very popular in Bursa province. Cirit is a cavalry marital art.two teams of horseman throws small spears to each other. today there is a league of cirit, which consists 30 teams, in Turkey. Kızbörü is popular in north-eastern parts of Anatolia. ottoman style archery is practiced by several archery clubs in İstanbul. I didin't add old martial arts that we learn from histroy boks such as "Matrak" because thay are long lost not practiced in modern day. Isatay 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that we're only supposed to add styles that are linked to articles. I'd like to know more about the Turkish swordfighting of Kiliç-Kalkan. Anyone want to write an article on it?

Exactly - and they don't even have to be long articles - stubs are enough. Otherwise we have no information as to whether something is real or not.Peter Rehse 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silat

I think that silat and kuntao should be listed at least in both Indonesia and Malaysia. I know that double-listing is to bve avoided here but this list just doesn't make any sense if silat is not called Malaysian as well. You must remember that Southeast Asia wasn't always in its current form and the boundaries between the countries was blurred. Although silat originated in Sumatra, no one in either Indonesia or Malaysia considers it to belong to a particular country or state. If we were to list every style of silat, we could divide them into the categories from where they came but since we can only use one word, we should not let people be misled. What happens when someone who knows nothing about Malaysia looks up this list only to find that the only Malaysian style is tomoi which actually came from Thailand? I don't think it's necessary to make another article about Malaysian silat but I think it's very unfair to act like silat is not Malaysian while modern westernised versions of Asian styles are listed as if they are a real part of America's/ Europe's heritage. -Morinae 16:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position. No double listing was implemented because before clean-up you had a huge mess - trust me on this. So what can we do? Well firstly I don't think the list is all important - more a guide really and I would not get worked up about it however I have a suggestion. Unlike for example Chinese martial arts or Japanese martial arts, there is a category called Category:Martial arts of Malay archipelago but no associated article. Either using a newly created article or the redirect to the category you could re-organize the list so that the associated countries are under one heading with general martial arts immediately after followed by country specific martial arts. Drop me a note on my user page if you need help.Peter Rehse 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I might just do that. -Morinae 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)