Talk:Origins of Asian martial arts

Disputed NPOV

It seems like an argument is being phrased and weighted towards one side. Regardless, no citation is give to certain ideas. What are the Indian (or Chinese) texts that describe Bodhidharma's origin as a Southerm Kschtriya? What are the texts that show the monastery was founded prior to Bodhidharma's arrival? Finally as a point of logic, one author seems to be claiming that because a text has been discredited that means Bodhidharma could not have contributed to Shaolin Kung Fu. A Daoist priest forges the prefaces according to the information submitted by the author. The priest claims "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real." Why would a text used to discredit the monks be used by the monks themselves to define their history? The monks themselves are claiming the origin of martial arts from Bodhidharma, and the author claims that this has been from the forgery of the text. It seems spurious that anyone would take a myth denigrating them as fact when up till then they did not believe the myth. Arch7 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

- I agree, this article very heavily favours one side of the debate. Furthermore, Renzo Gracie is not a historian or an authority on martial arts history. While he is a talented practioner of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, that does not give his opinions historical or scholarly cache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.186.190 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, per the discussion below. Merges can be discussed separately. Dekimasuよ! 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

"Bodhidharma, Shaolin Kung fu, and the disputed India connection" is an enormously awkward page name. It should be moved back to "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts". JFD 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Agreed, the current title is cumbersome; and the proposed title seems better, but does it best reflect the article's contents? – Marco79 12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment if renamed as such, Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts might need to be merged there. Also "Disputed origins of East Asian martial arts" as there are other arguments two". --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Text Improvement Suggestion

The two paragraphs, one starting "Shaolin monastery records state..." and the following one starting "Years before the arrival of Bodhidharma..." contain essentially the same information and statements. Perhaps someone familiar with the references could combine and improve? Is "...the tin staff." referenced by both 11 and 13? DAG 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Replacement vs Merge

Just as a disclaimer, if individuals will check this article's edit history, it will reveal that I've tried hard to keep this article well sourced and NPOV.

I know that this article began as a large POV fork for hindu nationalists, and that there was a proposal to merge it with its counter-article has been there since March. (Heck, I was the one who placed the original merge proposal.) However, there is a whole scale difference between merging articles and replacing the article. This especially doesn't make sense when the replacing article began life as criticism article.

Can someone explain to me what was wrong with the version of the article from last month? I agree that contents that currently take up the article's entirety should be included, but it shouldn't be exclusive.

Djma12 ^(talk) 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the version you have mentioned has been included now as it is quite well presented and makes the subject coverage wider Jenny^Len☤ 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian MA

If neither you nor Djma12 have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Asian Martial Arts (origins) sounds good. However, be aware that the article refers to East Asia martial arts not all Asian Martial Arts...Jenny^Len☤ 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason I want to change it to "Asian martial arts (origins)" is so that it will refer to all Asian martial arts. Is that going to be a problem? JFD (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, just wanted to be clear on that Jenny^Len☤ 11:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this was a smart move. The article doesn't touch upon the various Southeast Asian martial arts. You may have widened the scope more than is appropriate. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think other articles of this type could also be re-named or merged so that they refer to all of Asia instead of over-emphasizing the sub-regions. Information on Southeast Asian martial arts could always be added in. Morinae (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar was just published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.

What this means is that we finally have in English a comprehensive academic source (as opposed to more narrowly focused journal articles) and therefore ought to start distinguishing material which can be attributed to reliable sources from material attributed to unreliable ones.

JFD (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

further fate of this article?

this article was originally a pov fest to the effect "Chinese martial arts came from India", unsurprisingly created by an Indian patriot, who is also permabanned for sockpuppetry. But the article by now contains valid material, mostly on the "Bodhidharma legend". What are we going to do with that material? {{split}} to Bodhidharma, Shaolin_kung_fu#Legend_of_Bodhidharma and history of martial arts? --dab (𒁳) 09:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

After the merge with the counter point POV fork tidying up & adding of other theories etc, their is enoguth info that it is useful as it is in my view, re-titled as [[[History of Asian martial arts]] or similar and re-organised it could be good way to avoid swamping the History of martial arts article with Asian stuff, as their are more well know arts from that region. --Nate^t/_c 09:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A standalone history of Asian martial arts article may make good sense. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Horrible

This is one horrible article. I just removed a huge chunk of it because much of the info is based on legend that has been disproven time and time again. And many of the cited experts are not historians at all. A master passing on a story is not the same as a researcher who analyzes contemporary documents. Also, there are many tags on this page that say "not in the citation listed," meaning much of the info could be some editor's original research hidden under an umbrella of a citation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have lost sight of what this article is supposed to be. Instead of giving info on the history of martial arts in the different sub-regions of Asia, this whole article is taken up with evidence for and against the mistaken idea that all fighting systems in Asia can be traced back to either Greece or India. This is akin to believing that all conflicts, crime and war originated in one place. Are you telling me that Asia was once perfectly peaceful without any kind of fighting until the Chinese, Greeks or Indians taught them how? As for the "theory of prehistoric origins", all traditional martial arts have some distant link to prehistoric times since even primitive humans fought each other. This doesn't conflict with evidence of any later influences from other countries. The impact that both China and India had on the martial arts of Asia as a whole is not a mere theory but an established and accepted fact. The only real question marks here are whether India influenced the Chinese and whether pankration influenced Asia at all. This can and should be mentioned but we don't need to dedicate this entire article to such a debate.Morinae (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have lost sight of the WP:Citation policy. All challengeable statements have to be sourced. If a source is provided that does not fully support a statement or is itself unreliable, then it needs to be removed. I am all for balancing out the page with info for and against influence; however, when some material is treated as being historically correct, but has been thoroughly disproven, it should be rewritten in a way to show this or removed altogether. For instance, this page was once heavy on the "Bodhidharma created Chinese martial arts" cruft. That is usually the linchpin in the theories of people that try to prove Indian Influence on Chinese martial arts. Without this, they are hardpressed to find a replacement theory. Similarities do not mean one influenced the other (as will be explained below).

Now when you asked "Are you telling me [...]," are you truly asking me under the context that I might believe that the Greeks or Indians influenced Chinese martial arts or are you questioning the general thesis of the page itself? I think my comments from above show I do not believe in such a strong influence. As I have explained on the talk pages of other martial-based articles, the German school of swordsmanship has joint-locking techniques akin to the Chinese martial art of Eagle Claw boxing. Eagle Claw is not nearly as old as its legends claim, but joint-locking itself is. In fact, it is much older than the specific form of grappling used by the German School. Does this mean the older of the two influenced the other? Hardly. You can only punch, kick, or lock a joint so many ways. Therefore, it stands to reason that a person may note similarities between two different styles from different times and cultures, but this doesn't point to influence. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not criticising any particular individuals here. I agree with what you said about masters not being as reliable as researchers. I'm saying this article needs to be revamped. It should be more akin to the History of martial arts article instead of propounding different "origin theories". Morinae (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

New Attempts at Fixing It

Okay, we have comment after comment on how POV and silly this article is (not to mention the name of the article itself.) Having had various warnings for over 12 months, I'm gonna' man up and just start slashing things. I'm first going to remove every loaded or POV word in the article--there really is no place for a "however" or negative slurs about sources. a Please don't revert my edits collectively--feel free to revert various ones individually if you explain it here. The first thing this article needs is some moderators who know wiki law, and second, enough eyeballs to make it valid for a wiki format. We need to write from a position of equity, and right now we're fighting on the defensive from well-intentioned vandals. The third thing this article needs is for someone else to be doing the slashing, because I don't know enough about the primary sources to be doing such (cf. point 1). --Mrcolj (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you are going to slash. If you remove any cited information that deals with the scholarly stance on the material, I will definitely revert it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I slashed a lot, taking out a lot of irrelevant, partisan, and POV information. Don't worry, I'm a historian--it's far more scholarly now. There's nothing really controversial in my edits, but I think it's a good baseline for future edits. We can discuss from here if there's stuff you disagree with. --Mrcolj (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and of course my earlier point was that you are very free to revert individual changes, just please don't revert the whole thing collectively (because the collective is what got us here in the first place.)  :) --Mrcolj (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the only problem I have is the removal of the Lin Boyuan quote, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if it isn't included. I deleted some of the fact tags in the Chinese section because the source at the end covers everything. Thanks for adding the pre-Indian material. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine if you add back in the Lin Boyuan stuff. My problem was that in the martial arts history stuff, we tend to drop into this "well, master XYZ says this is crap" and calling that an authority. I'd like it if some of the Lin Boyuan information made it into the adjoining paragraph, but the quote itself is just another rant by just another authority. The audience has no reason to know who he is or to believe anything he says. Plus it was just too much anti-Bodhidharma stuff; I was kinda' trying to keep the flow of the sections equal in length and tone. But again, if you want to add some stuff back in, like the date 1624 (without stating it as true or untrue per se), I'm good with it.--Mrcolj (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodhi Warrior references

The reference to the book Bodhisattva Warriors by Terrance Duke has been removed a couple of times. This edit summary claims the book is untrustworthy. Wushinbo claims to have provided evidence for why this is on "Mushindo Kempo and the general martial arts project page." However, Talk:Mushindo Kempo doesn't have any evidence and the discussion on the WikiProject Martial arts talk page only has personal anecdotes and links to forums and Amazon book reviews. I'm afraid more concrete evidence is needed. Forums are not allowed to be used as sources on Wikipedia articles. The same should hold for disproving any sources that may appear in an article. Amazon book reviews don't even come close to being a source. There has to be a reliable third party source that has written of the book's unreliability. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and Asian Martial Arts

I have started this section in the hopes that anon 24.205.183.170 will discuss his objections of the Alexander the Great material. As someone who studies martial arts history, I understand why they object to it, but the fact remains that it is a cited source. The author of the material says Alexander "may have sown the seeds of modern Asian martial arts". It is simply a suggestion, not a statement of fact. Besides, the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View dictates that all views on a subject must be covered. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I also don't think the premise holds water but as cited it should be kept - it does not have excessive weight. The issue with anon is that in several articles on the martial arts there is a concerted attempt to remove mentions of historical western sources. A sino-centric view rather than an international view. Martial arts is a global concept.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that he recently removed references to the Illiad from the History of martial arts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But there is significant archaeological evidence that makes it far fetched, so is it possible to make a disclaimer talking about its lack of weight. such as the fact that these cultures have had significant military histories prior to the hellenic expansion? such as the fact that much of chinese martial arts positions resemble Manuscript drawing of physical exercises dao-yin (guiding the energy flow) from an ancient tomb of the Han dynasty which predates the entry of buddhism and central asian influences into china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.204.166 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to reconsider. The source is speculative rather than stating a clear point of view. I think it is an interesting idea but considering the short lived nature of Alex's foray into India I don't think it is viable. More to the point it actually is one of two sentences in the pre-history section so undue weight is an issue. Historically the addition of the point was an editor with an 'all things are Greek' POV which is just as problematic as 'all things are Chinese'.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No consensus,Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

---

This article, and the articles which merged with it, were originally used for presenting evidence for and against the Bodhidharma legend, along with other improbable "theories". Although I do prefer its current state, I'm wondering if it's really necessary. The history of martial arts already has its own article, which is adequately divided into countries and regions. And if anyone wanted more detail, they could check more specific articles like the one on Japanese martial arts or Korean martial arts. Why do we need a separate article for Asia? I say just merge it. Morinae (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right we don't need a separate article - the regional specific articles more than adequately cover detail and the History of martial arts has enough general description. There is really nothing that the Origins of Asian martial arts adds to the mix. However, I would have to say Not at this time mainly because the article initially was a sop to the "Martial arts can only be asian crowd" and as you mentioned the Bodhidharma legend. Incorporating the latter into History of martial arts would give undue weight. I realize those are not the best arguments but it is the reality of the wikipedia beast.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. In that case I guess I'll have to improve the article as it stands. Morinae (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well let's just see what other opinions are out there - it could be that my worries are in left field somewhere. Taking a look at the redirects to this page I just see a can of worms and a fight that is essentially unwinable. I will mention this discussion on the Martial arts project page.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for having a separate article for "Asian martial arts" if there are articles for the individual countries. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I love how the chinese history section uses indian historical links to bulk up 90 percent of it's section yet trys to claim Bodhidharma to be a fake ?

If Bodhidharma is of Indian heritage, why is his information not placed on (the indian section), why did you put him on the chinese section just to be degraded as a fake?

His work which is now in the hands of the chinese was written in a rare indian writing system, his teachings were brought from the south of india and used in china such as the (Muscle/Tendon Change Classic) (Eighteen Arhat Hands) and book of (washing bone morrow) it was only At the end of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), That Zhue Yuen, Li Sou and Bai Yu Feng developed the five animal form, which helped to complete the new shaolin system and had a major impact on the state of shaolin kung-fu.

Also why has the editor of this page not written anything or added anything on the wrestling in india? it's the oldest sport of combat in india thatwas even noted by the portuguese during the historical visits by Domingo Paes in the fifteenth century he writes:

"Then the wrestlers begin their play. Their wrestling does not seem like ours, but there are blows so severe as to break teeth, and put out eyes, and disfigure faces, so much so that here and there men are carried off speechless by their friends; they give one another fine falls too."

Domingo Paes also talks about watching men haven legs and arms broken in locks ect, so i mean why not include indian wrestling such as the oldest?92.236.96.38 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)caplock

Anyone can edit the page, so feel free to add the 15th-century material that you mentioned. However, regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person. If you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite actual Indian sources without making assumptions based on those from China. Also, whether he was a real person or not, he had no historical connection to martial arts. In fact, he wasn't associated with martial arts until the 20th-century. It's based on the Chinese author of a famous satirical novel confusing daoyin exercises with boxing. The daoyin exercises were created by a Daoist priest from Zhejiang during the 17th-century. He describes the exercise in a manual known as the Yijin Jing. One of two forged prefaces in the manual attributes the exercise to Bodhidharma. Again, if you don't believe me, try to find historians who cite actual Chinese sources predating the 20th-century that mention Bodhidharma creating martial arts. My article on the subject might be useful to you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fakes should not be used as historical root of martial arts, if the chinese states they faked Bodhidharma then take it out.

"regarding Bodhidharma, all information about him comes from Chinese records. There are no mentions of him in native Indian records, so some historians believe he was not a historical person"

So what are basically saying is?

Bodhidharma is of chinese heritage because the chinese wrote a fake story about his life being a indian prince? Okay If this scripture is fake, does this mean that the story of buddha is a fake because the story is written and recorded by the indians within the indian pali text and not the nepa text of nepal from which buddha was said to be born,or does this propganda only count for the chinese historians?

I think you should remove all information of Bodhidharma as i dont think a fake story is appropriate for the history of martial arts.92.236.96.38 (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock

It's funny that the original intent of the article was to find a place for the legend to satisfy the India first crowd. The article itself has grown quite a bit since then and does have a place between individual country/region articles and general History of martial arts. So we could remove all references to Bodhidharma and the article would remain viable. However, historical truth aside, the Bodhidharma legend has traction and is worth discussing considering its importance to various martial art lineages. Right now the article does a decent jobs of describing that while explaining the pointing out the counter issues without undue weight.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

very apparent stuff not discussed on influence

few obvious connections are the training clubs of karate and their indian clubs like equipment, which are not discussed here, some training push ups of karate like some of their push ups resemble hindu push ups, the penchak silat and its kungfu type moves, even though silat was inspired by indian martial arts, how judo resembles the game of burmese naban, both of them apparently having no common ancestor of each other, naban being inspired by malla yuddha and judo being inspired by god knows what. i think that somebody needs to dig out proper resources and authors who discuss these stuff and how naban is related to judo even though it doesnt share its ancestory and how penchak silat involves kungfu moves even though its foundation is based on indian martial arts. Not to state the obvious that japanese kick boxing has musti yuddha parenthood for instance. These some of the hard evidences are virtually irrefutable if discussed properly here. I was reading one research paper which also states that judo and jiujitsu have roots in sanskrit yuddh. There are some obvious institutionalization of martial arts of seemingly two unrelated martial arts cultures happening on very similar lines.

The evolution of the martial arts has been described by historians in the context of countless historical battles. Building on the work of Laughlin (1956, 1961), Rudgley (2000) argues that the martial arts of the Chinese, Japanese and Aleut peoples, Mongolian wrestling all have "roots in the prehistoric era and to a common Mongoloid ancestral people who inhabited north-eastern Asia."

This quote and theory has some major falws in it, the author is most probably hinting the evidence of mongolian wrestling shown in the cave arts and hence all east asian martial arts tracing their history to mongol ancestry. This theory also uses the very convenient excuses like proto indo european, even though we indeed can argue that some forms of asian martial arts descended from mongol cave drawings, but does the cave drawing also show kungfu like moves, judo, karate skills etc?, the mongol wrestling is only one form of grappling sports and nothing else and mongolian wrestling if you observe is to be honest very crude form of martial arts, which is not refined like other asian varieties, mongol grappling is still not widely practised in china and can only be truely seen in sports like sumo and thats about it. how does a mongol cave drawing reflect on complicated moves of locking involved in judo for instance?, i think that instead of making such sweeping statements that east asian martial arts are all descendent from mongol cave drawings and mongol wrestling, why not also post an elaborate context behind this misleading statement? 60.52.50.71 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)