Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts: | edit · history · watch · refresh | |
|---|---|---|---|
[edit] Articles in need of Sources[edit] CMA[edit] JMA[edit] Other |
|||
 List of archived discussions |
|---|
[edit] Grappling POV
There is an effort in the grappling article to suppress the opinion of the International Federation of Wrestling Styles. I have two primary concerns (1, 2) and two secondary concerns (A, B);
1) There is an effort to minimize or remove International Federation of Wrestling Styles opinion of what grappling is. It is argued that International Federation of Wrestling Styles is not a reliable source. I am at a loss of words.
2) While not being considered a reliable source, the wikipedia introduction for the article grappling appears to be plagiarized from International Federation of Wrestling Styles. My attempts to rectify the possible plagiarism have been edited and removed.
A) There is an effort to steer the orientation of the word 'grappling' to be used as noun, although no such derivative exists for the word grapple as do derivatives for words such as wrestle (N-wrestling) and box (N-boxing). I have reservations about how the word grappling is attempted to be used in this article. A better scenario may be to treat the word grappling like the word striking; where as striking redirects to strike and grappling would redirect to grapple.”
B) The notation above is being taken a step further to challenge the usage and domain of the word 'wrestling'. The word wrestling (noun) pre-dates the 12th century (Old English) and was defined as; a sport or contest in which two unarmed individuals struggle hand to hand with each attempting to subdue or unbalance the other. The word 'grapple' (noun) was introduced around 1601 and the etymology indicates the word 'grapple' (noun) comes from "grappling hook". I believe the usage of the word grappling\grapple (grapple being more correct) as a noun and omitting the word's etymology makes the relationship between the concepts ‘wrestling’ and ‘grappling’ a bit confusing.
I am most interested in inserting and adding the acknowledgement of International Federation of Wrestling Styles work about grappling. But in a broader sense I am looking for some additional opinions regarding the relationship of wrestling and grappling.
Penciljunk 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The opposing POV is that grappling is a skill set used in martial arts that has, over that last 10ish years competitive grappling as a sport under various broad rules sets has become popular. Within the last 10ish months FILA have released a set of rules, a wrestling derived form of grappling.FILA is not an independent secondary, source so should not be used as the main definition in an article if contested. --Nate 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- You misinterpreted my objective. My objective is to add an attributable source to the article of grappling. My understanding of wikipedia is we are not responsible to paint a picture of what grappling is, it is our responsibility to consolidate attributable sources about grappling so readers can make their own conclusions about topics. I may be wrong, but I feel you are trying to paint a picture and that picture does not include the opinion of FILA. Penciljunk 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- FILA's definition is include in the article, that makes sense but it should not dictate the whole article. --Nate 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The opening paragraph is obviously too close to the FILA page (and the first picture in the article is a direct copy) and I have marked both to be redone. No attempt is being made to remove the FILA definition of grappling, it is included in the current version (they treat it as a synonym to the sport of submission wrestling); however, attempts to limit the article solely to the sport created in October 2006 by FILA are being prevented. The term has a wide and pre-existing usage in the combat sport and martial art community (see the Aikido and Jujutsu articles - the arts are described as Grappling, not wrestling) and I see no reason to allow the article to be limited in this manner. FlowWTG 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think more effort should be made to the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles page rather than try to change an established definition to a version used by a group founded only a very short time ago. If the idea is to promote the work of FILA that is the best approach - at the moment there is no attempt to address the notability of the organization. I don't think FILA has the history to be in a position to alter established definitions. Grappling is a broader term than just submission wrestling.Peter Rehse 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- In all fairness, FILA was established in 1912. Penciljunk 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the last 95 years have they organised any sambo, judo, JJJ or BJJ competitions? --Nate 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How should names of forms (kata) be written?
Are they proper names? If so, then every word in their name should be capitalized (except maybe for particles such as "no"). If names of kata are proper names, should they be italicized like regular foreign words, or not? Japanese proper names (such as names of books) are italicized, while others (such as people or places) are not. If names of kata are not proper names, then they should be italicized every time they appear. Is this preferable? My opinion is that kata are more like works of authorship, rather than common foreign terms, or the name of person or place, and therefore should be capitalized and italicized like the name of a book (obviously, in many ways kata serve the same purpose as books - the preservation of information for future transmission). If there is agreement on this point I will add this to the conventions on the project page. Bradford44 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with the book analogy same function and partly used like a text book. --Nate 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Supplemental question
Also, it will be necessary to distinguish what I would classically consider a kata, such as Taikyoku Shodan, from what some might think of as a "mere" technique, such as ōsoto-gari (the first written like a proper noun, the second like a common noun). I believe the first is a kata and the second is a technique. However, the manner in which some articles are written regarding the practice of kata (particularly judo and aikido) would lead a reader to believe that two judoka practicing ōsoto-gari are practicing kata. Further, such a conclusion is not really inaccurate. Is making a distinction here between kata and technique going to create a problem down the road? Bradford44 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
