Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts

I have taken the liberty of breaking one comment up into several smaller comments for easier replying, since they raise a lot of good points. --Andrew 03:52, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Some topics that I think should be included:

Spelling unification and other language-related guidelines
Guidelines for reorganization and what should be a single article

Should we all follow Mandarin pinyin spelling? Tai-Chi, T'ai-Chi, T'ai-Chi-Ch'uan, Taijiquan, Taiji, or what? It would be better to reduce the spelling variants, too. I would rather all Chinese martial art articles were named following pinyin... but perhaps martial arts found in Guangdong should follow some Cantonese romanization instead? Jiu-Jitsu, Ju-Jutsu, Jujutsu - Japanese names are also not unified, and should probably follow the official romanization used in Japan. --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spelling unification is a good idea where possible. The problem is that many martial arts organizations have official spellings (in some alphabet). For example, "Cabales Serrada Escrima" is the name of an organization (and possibly a corporation). Changing it by fiat to "Cabales Serrada Eskrima" seems very iffy. On the other hand, where the generic terms Kali, Escrima, or Arnis de Mano might be used, the article standardizes on Eskrima.

I think that, while we should have guidelines, we should make it clear that they are for words only, not for names of systems. As such, we can standardize the same ways that the rest of Wikipedia does. Unfortunately, I know nothing of Japanese beyond how to count to ten, and nothing of Chinese beyond "ni hao, ma" and "Luke, wo sho nu baba". So somebody else needs to specify romanizations and suchlike. --Andrew 03:52, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

As for reorganization, I think that general articles should be smaller, and details given for each style in each style's separate article. --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This has its good points and its bad points. Certainly, separate pages for styles which have a lot of information is a good idea. Family pages describing shared features of a family of arts are also very useful, I think; the ancient history of Wing Chun and Wing Tsun is probably the same (although they might have different origin stories) and they are probably technically similar, so it's probably worth sharing most of that information on a family page. If there's enough differences left over, they should have individual system pages.

Style vs. System vs. ?

Also, what is a style? For Chinese arts, we have two separate pages for Wing Chun and Wing Tsun, but these are English spelling conventions and most likely considered the same in Hong Kong (it would be better to put Wing Tsun under Wing Chun as a substyle article, perhaps (there are many other substyles of Wing Chun)). --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have two comments: the first is a distinction my teacher emphasizes, which I think he may have got from Dan Inosanto: systems and styles are different. A style is a way of doing techniques, a choice of technique for each problem, a preference of weapon and so on. Normally styles are personal. Only the most rigid schools train their students so precisely that a student prefers exactly the same techniques as their teacher, and this may not be a good idea if they are physically different. A system, on the other hand, is an organized method for teaching an art: a list of drills, a set of standard names, forms, and so on. Systems are usually not personal: most teachers follow their teacher's system; this is because it's difficult to develop an effective system.

The point of this little rant is that we may want to standardize the use of these words in order to help make distincions more clear. By this criterion, I would say that there are many styles of Wing Chun and Wing Tsun. But I get the impression that there are two distinct systems there, that is, they are taught in systematically different ways. I don't know what the difference is, just that it's related to a schism several generations ago.

The second comment is that the criterion for whether they need separate pages has little to do with whether they're different systems; see the discussion above. I think these two probably belong on the same page (although which spelling should be used may be politically difficult; if all else fails, we can use the Cantonese spelling and redirect both to that. --Andrew 03:52, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

If we define concepts differently than people do out there, then I think we have a problem. Very often when people say "style" they do mean "organisation". I do not think it is possible to say that it is wrong, it is so common and used also in quite official circumstances. In aikido, it is very common to talk about "styles" like Aikikai and Ki-aikido, while from a technical point of view the Aikikai contains so many types of aikido... very ki-aikido-like, as well as the opposite. I argue that this distinction between style and org. is an artifical one.

Hmm. That complicates things. I know people use the words much more loosely than this. I think it's justifiable to try to be more precise and consistent in an encyclopedia, but it may not be a good idea.

Certainly I wouldn't call Aikikai a "style", and it really sounds like it would be misleading: when you say "style", people expect some sort of common properties, beyond a common brand identity. And yet people say "style" anyway...

I think my vote is for using the words the way they're specified now. I don't think that usage will cause confusion (although being preachy about it might; so let's just quietly use them the right way). --Andrew 14:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. I don't think Dan Inosanto's way of using the words are "the right way". Still, we can make a definition and use it, but then we'd better be clear about what we mean with the concepts when we use them. Habj 17:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wing Tsun is a special example. It is a trademark. It is a Wing Chun organisation, but as the name is a trademark all offshoots thereoff will have to spell differently. That is why we also have strange birds like Ving Tchun...

As for Wing Tsun (and Ving Tchun) that's got to be a bizarre interpretation of trademark law. I suppose the original Chinese spelling is not covered by their trademark? That sort of cements the Western influence in the art... incidentally, that fact ought to be in the article; do you have a reference? (I've also seen the claim that the ITF copyrighted their forms so that non-members are not allowed to do them...) Intellectual property wierdness aside, that's why I was being careful about organization names - probably many are trademarked, and they should be used as exactly as possible. But it's unfortunate to note that even if we decided the correct transliteration of wing chun was wing tsun we couldn't safely use it. Ugh. --Andrew 14:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think I like the idea of using "system" and "style" the way they are specified now. Would be good with some examples, to make it more clear.

I have not followed the Wing Chun-pages as I don't know much about this system, but from what I have heard "Wing Chun" and "Wing Tsun" are just different ways to romanize the Chinese name. If we are to use "Wing Tsun" for an organisation, I think this would be better placed in Wing Tsun (organisation) and redirect all alternate spellings of "Wing Chun" to the main article about this system and its various offsprings. This discussion is probably better suited for talk:Wing Chun, though. - Wintran 21:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, both. It has general applications...

They are different ways of romanising the Chinese name, but still people use it to destinguish between the different organisations. Locally in Sweden, we have a similar thing in jujutsu where different orgs. have made a point of spelling jiuitsu, ju-jutsu etc. and then many people think that there is an original difference in meaning between the words... for the people involved in the style, it is probably important to spell in the "right" way. No sorry I don't have a reference on the trade mark thing - heard it from a WT person, could be a myth. But still, the offshoots from EWTO (European WingTsun Organisation) tend to use other spellings - but that could be just to make a distinction. Habj 17:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do some writing on MA on Swedish Wikipedia. Sometimes I contribue here also, but most of the time I think you native speakers do it better. I follow with great interest, though. Habj 10:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your English is certainly fine! It's better than my French; even if my French were better, I'd still be really hesitant to write much for the French encyclopedia, so I think I understand. But if you see things that are missing or especially references that we're missing, please do continue to let us know. Thanks! --Andrew 14:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm from Sweden as well, but I love writing in the English Wikipedia because so many more people are working on it and have access to it. The great thing is that all native speakers can correct my spelling mistakes, and I've just began to understand that writing a good article is not about using complex grammatics and words, but rather the opposite. It's nice to have a Swedish Wikipedia as well, but if you see something missing here it would be great if you could help out, like Andrew said. Cheers! / Wintran 21:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Budo

As for Japanese arts, Jujutsu is not a single art - it is a type of art, so in a way should be a general page - there should be many styles of jujutsu mentioned here, and separate articles for each, I think, since the Chinese side doesn't just have everything thrown into the Kung Fu article. --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, having read more, it's messy. "Jujutsu" was written by somebody whose school just claimed to be doing jujutsu, and they thought that was all there was.

Perhaps someone could clean up budo, gendai budo, koryo, and jujutsu? A tall order, I know, but the words all seem to cover "Japanese ways of fighting", so maybe they should be all one article? (That's what I did with eskrima; of course, things over there aren't nearly so fragmented.) Be careful of translations: the Spanish Wikipedia has separate articles for gendai budo and koryo, so I don't know how to merge them.

The Chinese side is also a mess; I think eventually everything will hang from Chinese martial arts. --Andrew 14:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ancient history

Histories can also be improved - why does the Taekwondo article talk about millenia before Taekwondo was conceived? If we follow that example, we could talk about the state of ancient martial arts for every article we have. --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is the custom in taekwondo schools to talk as if those arts were the direct ancestor of taekwondo. Absent someone willing to claim that this is true, these should go somewhere more generic (Korean martial arts, under history? Martial arts?) But don't expect too much from ancient histories; people are very attached to their favorite origin story, whether or not it has historical evidence. --Andrew 03:52, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. If we write that Taekwondo mainly comes from Shotokan karate, every second taekwondo person who stubles on the article will try and rewrite it :) but as far as I know that is the truth... It is probably a good idea to try and clear out some myths, or rather telling them but adding that historians don't agree. Maybe also write a page on the phenomenon of ancient martial art history myths. Habj 11:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(I don't know anything about non-Chinese/Japanese/Korean arts, but I would guess that other articles also need to be fixed up.) --Edededed 02:30, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know some about Capoeira, Eskrima and Jeet Kune Do and less about Savate and la canne. I've been tidying the Eskrima article (which is how I got into this project) but it still needs work; I really haven't looked too closely at the others. --Andrew 03:52, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV is i big problem here. So many people write about their favourite art, adding all the myths they have been told and never questioned. Habj 10:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...Yes, this is a very big problem - we have a lot of problems, including a lack of objectivity, lack of information (yet writing articles anyway), copying down what is written on official homepages, myths, etc. What can we do?

Anyone know if the dog kungfu article (and others) are accurate or not?

Edededed 00:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

In current article: "Wushu (chinese characters go here) rather than wu shu, meaning any Chinese martial art (?); use competition wushu when being specific."

What are you referring to when you say "competition wushu"? Do you mean when using wushu as a name for the modern styles of Chinese martial arts aimed at competition? Information about these modern styles are currently in the article about wushu, but uses the terms contemporary- and modern wushu.

- Wintran 11:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization

Quote from article: "Capitalization - Should the names of martial arts be capitalized in running text? Is it "Kung Fu", "Kung fu", or "kung fu" when in the middle of a sentence?"

I don't know Chinese very well, but I have based my writings in the Chinese martial arts articles on a comment in talk:kung fu by Menchi:

"Why did you capitalize gong and fu? It's used as a common noun in Chinese, not a proper noun. Also, both Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary use lowercase for kung fu. I know that there are a lot of popular use of capitals out there on the net, but that doesn't make it right."

- Wintran 11:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neither Chinese nor Japanese use capital letters, as their writing mainly consists of ideograms. I do agree that the names of different arts should be spelled in lower case. However, organisation names are spelled with a capital letter, and as Wing Tsun is an organisation this leaves us with the question if it should be wing chun in lower case, but Wing Tsun with capital letters. Habj 14:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. It feels more natural for me to write specific styles/systems capitalized, as I tend to treat these as names. Some systems are even based on names of places, such as Shaolin, or certain people, such as Wing Chun. I prefer to write them capitalized, even though Pinyin romanization rules might not always agree.

What I feel most confused about is terms like kung fu and wushu because these have such a variety of meanings. Wushu literally means "martial arts" in Chinese, and as we don't capitalize "martial arts" in English I think the same should go with this term. However, wushu is also used as the official name on the modern styles of Chinese martial arts, giving it a reason to be capitalized, though I personally prefer to call these styles modern/contemporary wushu to avoid confusion.

As with wushu, kung fu is a term often used when referring to Chinese martial arts in general. Many use this as a name of all Chinese martial arts, and logically that could very well mean it should be capitalized. If you go deeper behind the meaning and usage of this term in China, however, you will notice that it is not only centered around martial arts, as explained in kung fu. Based on this information it would suddenly feel strange to capitalize it.

All these different uses make these two terms very confusing, and is the reason to why I chose to separate them from the actual information on Chinese martial arts.

- Wintran 19:43, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

List of pages in the Martial Arts Project

I've joined the project and already started using the Template:martialartsproject on a couple pages. You can see them (and everything included in the project) on the template's What links here page. That makes a handy list of pages in the project.

Aesopian 14:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)