Freedom skies (talk | contribs) |
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
===Objections to Evidence presented by Freedom skies=== |
===Objections to Evidence presented by Freedom skies=== |
||
==Evidence presented by freedom skies== |
==Evidence presented by {freedom skies}== |
||
My evidence will revolve around my defence against the opposition's charges and some allegations that I have to make against them, JFD in particular. I will also use this opportunity to invite future monitoring of the activities of the involved parties as only a neutral, third party would be able to understand bth the sides and their editing patterns. |
My evidence will revolve around my defence against the opposition's charges and some allegations that I have to make against them, JFD in particular. I will also use this opportunity to invite future monitoring of the activities of the involved parties as only a neutral, third party would be able to understand bth the sides and their editing patterns. |
||
Line 472: | Line 472: | ||
If you'll take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts#Views_from_the_martial_arts_community here] then you can read the complete list and put everything in perspective. |
If you'll take a look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_influence_on_Chinese_martial_arts#Views_from_the_martial_arts_community here] then you can read the complete list and put everything in perspective. |
||
===Response to Freedom skies' citations are suspect=== |
|||
Most of JFD's work in that section is taking [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=115609815&oldid=115600081 one sentence from one talk page] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen&diff=106889492&oldid=106594474 other from another and making it seem like it all happened on the same talk page at one time]. |
|||
Aside of attempting to mesh sentences to form a conversation; JFD has also been trying to mesh Indian mathematics into all of this. |
|||
I'll le the arbitrators decide the context for themselves. |
|||
In any event, the dispute on Zen was on Taoist foundations and read the following:- |
|||
*[[Talk:Zen#Solution|Ah, we have Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki himself writing down that Zen, a seperate faith, influenced by the seperate faith of Taoism.]] |
|||
*[[Talk:Zen#Solution|And the confirmation of the religions being seperate, two religions and a subsequent Taoist influence.]] |
|||
*[[Talk:Zen#Solution|Does the given material justify the original "Zen is a form of Buddhism practiced in China and Japan and is a fusion of Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism." statement in the introduction? Does the very formidable one sided mention of Taoism only, in a misleading context, in the introduction suffice when Zen has been influenced by Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism as well? I will accomadate the opposition without any mention of Hinduism though, which I'm sure they'll not find palatable at all. I will incorporate the very well written "Taoism played a central role in the reception that China gave to Buddhism. An appreciation of the close relationship between these two religions during the early years of Chinese Buddhism paves the way for understanding how the Taoist influence on Buddhism was later to culminate in the teachings of the Zen school. - Heinrich Dumoulin (Zen Buddhism: A History)" paragraph in the history section of Zen.]] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zen&diff=106889492&oldid=106594474 Daoism should be mentioned (with the strength of solid references, of course). From what I know of the subject—which I admit is not perfect—virtually every scholar on Zen (not to mention practitioners) admits that Daoism exercised some sort of influence, probably quite large, on the development of Chán in China ... the real issue in that area is not really whether or not Daoism had an influence, but rather what the nature of that influence was—and on that subject, the jury is still out (and, I suspect, always will be, barring another semi-miraculous discovery of early texts à la the Dunhuang manuscripts that might, ahem, enlighten us on the matter).] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen Taoism had a subsequent influence on this form of Mahayana Buddhism. That influence has been mentioned as found in the works of Duomlin.] |
|||
JFD is misrepresenting it with selective mentions in dribs and drabs from the edit summaries. |
|||
===JFD engages in edit wars=== |
===JFD engages in edit wars=== |
||
Line 624: | Line 602: | ||
The [[National Development Front]] page has been subject to a large scale edit wars perpetrated by a bunch of sockpuppets. Cherrypicking random diffs does not serve to prove anything as at least 6 users have agreed with freedom skies. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pens withdrawn]], [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sundaram7]] and related pages.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="purple">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="red">man</font>]]</b> 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
The [[National Development Front]] page has been subject to a large scale edit wars perpetrated by a bunch of sockpuppets. Cherrypicking random diffs does not serve to prove anything as at least 6 users have agreed with freedom skies. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pens withdrawn]], [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sundaram7]] and related pages.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="purple">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="red">man</font>]]</b> 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
===Response to JFD=== |
|||
==Evidence presented by SebastianHelm== |
|||
The [[National Development Front]] page has been subject to a large scale edit wars perpetrated by a bunch of sockpuppets. Cherrypicking random diffs does not serve to prove anything as at least 6 users have agreed with freedom skies. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn]], [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sundaram7]] and related pages.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="purple">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="red">man</font>]]</b> 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I met Freedom skies through [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India]], which I mediated from December 30 to February 2, when I passed the baton to Utcursch. |
|||
During that time, Freedom skies was engaged in several edit wars (most of them started by him) in the mediated article {{article|Decline of Buddhism in India}}. I begged him to stop edit warring, and the frequency and intensity of edit wars did decrease. Similarly, he eventually followed my pleas to write edit summaries, although this was not as specific as I had asked him to be. He did not follow my request to write down his points for several weeks. He did, however, participate in the discussions, and we managed to get 5 of the 10 points resolved by Jan 17. On Jan 19 he edited the article without discussion, which resulted in an escalation from which we did not recover until Utcursch took over. (See [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India/hist|list]].) It is unclear why the other party left; this happened shortly after Utcursch took over. I can't rule out that {{genderneutral|ey}} simply was exhausted. |
|||
Freedom skies cites [[User:NinaOdell]]'s apology. This is a red herring. The fact is that Freedom skies [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India&diff=96494028&oldid=96443144 called her a liar] and did not apologize, even after I [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India#Attempts and proposals to calm down the heat|suggested]] an apology. Nina was very frustrated and gave up her mediation, without blaming anyone[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project&diff=98506945&oldid=98474206]. — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 07:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Maybe I should add that he made no effort to find common ground with the other party. I do not remember seing evidence for him to follow [[WP:AGF]] beyond agreeing with the mediation and giving me his e-mail address. Of course, he showed no inclination to heed [[WP:NPOV]]'s advice to "write for the other party". This almost goes without saying since it seems to be standard for parties involved in ethnically motivated content disputes. |
|||
If I may make a remark beyond this case: I see this not as a problem with one particular editor, but with Wikipedia. I believe we are making it too easy for people who do not subscribe to [[WP:NPOV]]'s ideals to disrupt our task of writing an encyclopedia. We have many cases like this; they can't all go through ArbCom. (Please [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SebastianHelm&action=edit§ion=new tell me] if there's a centralized discussion for that. Didn't Jimbo say something along those lines, too? I can't find the quote.) — [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]] 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by Dbachmann== |
==Evidence presented by Dbachmann== |
Revision as of 17:59, 23 March 2007
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by CiteCop
Freedom skies falsifies citations and cites unreliable sources
Indian mathematics
Jitse Niesen's comments on the references added by Freedom skies in this edit:
- "The Modern Review edited by Ramananda Chatterjee. Original from the University of Michigan. Page 634" - This probably refers to the monthly magazine Modern Review, published in Calcutta. It doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed. It's unclear what Michigan has to do with it. The reference does not include a volume number, so it is impossible to find what is being referred to.
- Replacing "Mathematical Expeditions: Chronicles by the Explorers by David Pengelley, Reinhard C. Laubenbacher" with "Toward a Global Science: Mining Civilizational Knowledge By Susantha Goonatilake (page 119)" - I don't really know which source is preferable, but I have my doubts about Goonatilake's book given that it seems to be written in order to argue that Indian's contributions to science are being ignored (anonymous (?) review) and that it got a rather negative review by Kavita Philip in Isis, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 247-248 (quote from the review: "The chapters on medicine and mathematics cannot therefore deal substantially with the provocative claims he [i.e., Goonatilake] puts forward.")
- "Science in Ancient India By Narendra Kumar (page 9)" - I can find very little about this book, suggesting that it is not used often. It's unclear whether it can be considered reliable.
- "Vedic Mathematics By Vasudeva Sharana Agrawala, Swami Bharati Krishna Tirtha" - don't know
- "Vedic Mathematics for Schools Bk.1 By James Glover" - this is published by Motilal Banarsidass. It doesn't seem a scientific text, according from the description at Google Books
None of the references have full bibliographic information, as normal in references. Based on all this, it seems correct to consider the references inadequate.
According to the description on its back cover, "Vedic Mathematics for Schools Bk.1 by James Glover" is "intended for primary schools in which many of the fundamental concepts of mathematics are introduced. It has been written from the classroom experience of teaching Vedic mathematics to eight and nine-years-old."
When confronted with the fact that the source he cited—far from being a scholarly work on the history of mathematics—was written for the instruction of third and fourth graders (US equivalent), Freedom skies replied, "Which would make the information incorrect then?" a response which was disrespectful to both myself and the principle of attribution to reliable sources.
Also note what Freedom skies tried to do with his citation of Modern Review, an apparent attempt to fool fellow editors into believing that the Indian nationalist magazine was a publication of the University of Michigan.
Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
When I was attempting to verify the sources of this article, I clicked on "Kalari Payatt: Martial Art of India by Steve Richards 2002" where, on a website topped with the banner "Tibetan, Lion's Roar, Hop-Gar, Lama Kung-Fu," I found the following passage: "This author was astonished in 1982 to witness a British BBC television documentary entitled: "The Way Of The Warrior": 'Kalari, the Indian Way'. The opening film sequence was of a Southern Kalari Payat Guru (Master) performing a traditional 'Form' that was near identical to a Tibetan Lion's Roar Lama Kung-Fu form that he had learned! This was despite a separation between the arts of many hundreds of miles and several hundreds of years. The connection was real, present and obvious."
In other words, the claim that Freedom skies is trying to attribute to a BBC documentary, he actually got from the web page of one Steve Richards.
Many of the references cited are web pages.
Of these, many, like Steve Richards', are personal or commercial in nature.
Reference 62 appears to cite The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind by D.T. Suzuki. However, if you click on the link, it takes you to the entry for The Zen Doctrine of No-Mind by D.T. Suzuki in a bookseller's online catalog. I strongly doubt that Freedom skies actually consulted the book.
Vedic Sanskrit
In November, Freedom skies waged an edit war on Vedic Sanskrit to replace J.P. Mallory's 1200 BCE date for Vedic Sanskrit with Max Müller's 1500 BCE date.[2]
The thing is, Mallory has published work within the past 10 years, and Müller has been dead for the past 100.
In other words, Freedom skies sought to replace a work of recent scholarship with one that was over a century old and gave a more ancient date for Vedic Sanskrit.
Indian nationalism
Freedom skies attributed the following material to PDF format papers at the inline links.
- [Ancient Indian astronomy] culminated in original findings, like:
- Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world.
- Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit.
- Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west." [5][6]
- These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics."
The linked PDFs are the self-published work of the fringe theorist Subhash Kak.
Moreover, with the sole exception of a single claim (about eclipses), the PDFs don't support the material for which Freedom skies cites them. Neither the words "circumference" nor "gravity" nor "sapekshavadam" nor even "Pakudha" or "Katyayana" appears in a single one of the four papers cited. Neither do the Aryabhata quote or the A.L. Basham quote.
I've seen editors cite unreliable sources and I've seen editors attribute false claims to reliable sources, but Freedom skies is the only editor I have ever encountered who has gone so far as to attribute false claims to unreliable sources.
Objections
Bakasuprman
Subhash Kak is a professor of electrical & computer engineering.
That does not make him a reliable source on ancient history.
WP:ATTFAQ: A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology.
Freedom skies
The purpose of citing a source is to convince your reader that you yourself have consulted that source. Your continued insistence on citing the entry for a book in an online catalog further convinces me that you have not read that book. Reading the entry for a book in an online catalog is not the same as reading the book itself and it is inexcusably, unacceptably dishonest and unethical to cite it as such.
Evidence presented by JFD
Freedom skies edit wars
I have supplied most of Freedom skies' edit war diffs from October 2006 onwards and am willing to supply diffs for Freedom skies' edit wars from before October 2006 upon the Arbitration Committee's request.
- National Development Front (diffs)
- March 2007
- Indian mathematics (diffs)
- February 2007
- Freedom skies blocked for 3RR by Aksi great
- Freedom skies is not an admin and therefore has no right to add the "semi-protection" tag to an article as he does in this diff.
- Freedom skies: Fowler&fowler, removing sourced content is Vandalism! I'll see that you get to learn to live with WP:Policies this time
- Freedom skies: rv edits by fowler's sock/meatpuppet . a checkuser ought to reveal if they're in the same city or not if they are this is obvious
- Trigonometric function (diffs)
- February 2007
- Freedom skies is not an admin and therefore has no right to add the "semi-protection" tag to an article as he does in this diff.
- History of trigonometric functions (diffs)
- February 2007
- Freedom skies is not an admin and therefore has no right to add the "semi-protection" tag to an article as he does in this diff.
- Michael E. J. Witzel (diffs)
- February 2007
- Biography of a living person
- Maha Bodhi Society (diffs)
- January/February 2007
- Buddhism-related
- Zen (diffs)
- January 2007
- Buddhism-related
- Freedom skies: where do the sources say that?
- JFD: On the very pages that the references you deleted say they do. They're both on Google Books. Check it out for yourself.
- Freedom skies: misrepresentation then, the view is both microscopic and misrepresented
- JFD: "Buddhism processed through Taoism became Zen" -Huston Smith. You're calling Huston Smith "microscopic"?
- Freedom skies: Is your POV widespread? Did'nt think so
- A Ramachandran: I'm sorry, but when there are multiple cited views, they all need to be included; maybe they could be intgrated better, but please stop removing other views
- Freedom skies: the other POV is microscopic in extent of being non existent
- ...
- Freedom skies: Paul chose to participate in the discussion after admitting that "I don't claim any specialist knowledge on this." (press CTRL+F on the talk:zen page) I, emphatically claim knowledge on this Buddhism related topic
- Saposcat: virtually every scholar on Zen (not to mention practitioners) admits that Daoism exercised some sort of influence, probably quite large, on the development of Chán in China Saposcat (contribs)
- Decline of Buddhism in India (diffs)
- December 2006/January 2007
- Buddhism-related
- Sunga Empire (diffs)
- December 2006/January 2007
- Buddhism-related
- Pusyamitra Sunga (diffs)
- December 2006/January 2007
- Buddhism-related
- Zen (diffs)
- November 2006
- Buddhism-related
- Freedom skies blocked for 3RR by William M. Connolley
- Freedom skies: 1)Undoing JFD's attempts to place sentences of his POV in the article2)Undoing JFD's attempts of placing conflicting theories catering to the Han Chinese red agenda
- Vedic Sanskrit (diffs)
- November 2006
- Freedom skies blocked for 3RR by Rama's Arrow
- Freedom skies: citing F. Max Müller. THE authority on Rigveda.
- Crculver: Rv. While his research was important, Max Muller did write 150 years ago. WP prefers references that mirror *current* scholarly opinion, as Mallory does
- Freedom skies: unfortunately Malory does not measure up to Muller. Additional refernces will be provided on request though.
- Crculver: Rv. Who are you to judge who does and doesn't "stack up" to Muller? WP prefers current scholarly consensus, and Mallory, highly esteemed in the field, represents that
- Freedom skies: kindly provide a citation for that. Until you do that or request further citations from me, which I'll readily provide. I guess you'll have to live with it.
- Crculver: Stop. If you continue to remove citations accepted by consensus (look at page history) and insert contested material, it may be considered vandalism.
- Freedom skies: stop. if you do not cease the substitution of authoritative work by commonplace professors then it will be considered vandalism. You're free to request additional sources from me if you want.
- Bodhidharma (diffs)
- November 2006
- Buddhism-related
- Note that Freedom skies has had no prior contact with MichaelMaggs or 202.20.5.206 and is therefore being uncivil to editors he has just met.
- Freedom skies: rv vandalism from unsigned IP. anyone who thinks that Ta Mo did not exist at all belongs in a seperate negationism column
- 202.20.5.206: we are talking about conflicting legends/sources! Will you not cool down first and DISCUSS?
- Freedom skies: rv vandalism by unsigned IP. stating that a man is fictional in th opening para of his very bio in NOT done. put it in later theories about Bodhidharma.
- Nat Krause: rvt to last by 202.20.5.206 -- please discuss changes like this on talk
- Freedom skies: rv. the theories belong in a subsequent para not in opening paragraph. especially when they claim that this article need not exist as the man himself did not.
- MichaelMaggs: rv to Nat Krause version. Freedom Skies: you have been asked several times to discuss your point of view on the Talk pages before making these radical changes. Please do so
- MichaelMaggs: I am reverting your edits again as your comments above aren't what I'd call a discussion - merely a bald statement of what you have done. Which I and others disagree with. May I suggest you post here your thinking behind the edits you want to introduce, and see what the consesnsus of the community is?
- Freedom skies: Removal of sourced text and entire sections in the pretext of attempting a "community support" routine is not assuming good faith, neither am I bound by any WP to go ask form a posse` on Wikipedia. Anyone who removes a section which is properly placed and goes on to remove references of additional authors from the article in the name of holding talks and fraternizing with a "community" is assuming very bad faith. I'll see that this removal of sourced text is not done. Best Regards once again to eveeryone. I hope that our little "community" lets go of this feeling of continued bad faith.
- Batuo (diffs)
- October/November 2006
- Buddhism-related
- 16:54, 22 October 2006 deletion of sourced content from neutral narrative
- Freedom skies: fradulent. Nowhere does it say that Sengchou and Huiguang were accomplished martial artists. You made it up to fake credibility JFD. You continue despite of the disgrace.
- Buddhism and Hinduism (diffs)
- October/November 2006
- Buddhism-related
- Freedom skies is not an admin and therefore has no right to add the "protection" tag to an article as he does in this diff.
- Muhammad Mahmood Alam (diffs)
- October 2006
- Shaolin Kung Fu (diffs)
- October 2006
- martial arts-related
Freedom skies' citations are suspect
The New York Times
- MichaelMaggs
- I have removed two web pages. The first linked to a non-public page that is accessible by registered users only. The second [11] does not support the statement that the New York Times has "rejected the revisionist claims". What it actually says is:
- The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.
- Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators. Variations of their refined techniques subsequently reached Japan, Okinawa, Korea and other Asian countries that developed their own distinct fighting styles.
- which makes it very clear that Bodhidharma's involvement "has been attributed in legend". Which is hardly a rejection of what the article calls the 'revisionist' view - that his involvement is legendary and can't actually be proved.
- Freedom skies
- The article endorses the legend instead of endorsing conflicting revisionist theories. Hence the idea of it being used as citable evidence of how when the history of Kung Fu is mentioned the historians point towards taditional claims instead of citing modern revisionist works.
BBC
- MichaelMaggs
- The article states that "In addition, reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation,[12] the New York Times,[13][14] and the Discovery Channel[15] to name a few, have also rejected the revisionist claims."
- But the BBC cite links to a 2004 news report of the film Kill Bill part 2, the only relevent part of which says:
- "According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples."
- Which doesn't support the allegation at all as it explicitly calls the story a legend. I am removing the BBC reference until a better source can be found.
- MichaelMaggs
- The article says that the BBC .. has "rejected the revisionist claims". As I understand it, whoever wrote 'revisionist claims' intended it to mean 'claims that deny there was any Indian influence on Chinese martial arts'. The BBC Kill Bill page does not reject that stance; indeed if anything it appears to support it by explicitly calling the ku-fu-came-from-India story a legend rather than a fact. There may be other source which support your belief, but this one does not. You may like to consider revising the sentence to avoid the incorrect implication that "reputed organizations such as the British Broadcasting Corporation" back up the out-of-India view. The cited page neither backs it up nor denies it; it simply calls it a "legend".
- Freedom skies
- Not quite. The BBC mention endorses the effect of Ta Mo not disputes it. The legend has been cited when the question of the origin of Shaolin arts appeared.
- To quote the section in it's entire context:
- Legend
- The presence of such strong influences from just one city in so many films is remarkable - however it has surprising origins.
- Keanu Reeves in The Matrix
- The Matrix series borrows heavily from China
- According to legend, kung fu was brought to China by an Indian Buddhist who settled in the north of the country in the Tang dynasty, over 1,000 years ago. He is said to have set up a Shaolin temple, and taught martial arts to his disciples.
- But the origins of the kung fu that is part of popular culture are from around 100 years ago when a soldier, who had learned from the Shaolin monks, was forced to hide in a Cantonese opera troupe.
- It is said that eventually he taught the moves to the members.
- "They can't use actual fighting on stage, so they transform it into some kind of dance-like action," explained Hong Kong film archive programmer Law Kar.
- "Then the Cantonese actors brought the tradition into Chinese cinema.
- "So in early Cantonese cinema, in the 1960s and even in the 1970s, the scenes of fighting in films are in fact opera-stage fighting. They're not real kung fu."
- Instead, the kung fu seen on screen is more balletic, and based on movement.
- Cheng-Sim Lim said that this was what made it exciting on film - and why it had proved so influential.
- "There is a clarity to the way they construct these scenes," she said.
- "You don't just move the camera in a blur to suggest action - you actually show the action.
- "That's what's so incredible, because you see people - even though they may be wearing wires and all that kind of stuff - you see the body in motion, and it's beautiful."
- The "Legend" heading covers very well established facts about Kung Fu movies as well. In addition of providing Bodhidharma as a source of Shaolin martial arts. My own opinion on this might differ but the endorsement is clear. The legend section covers what the BBC has put forward as origins of sholin martial arts and then goes forward to the development of cinema further in the same section.
- MichaelMaggs
- I've read the Kill Bill page through very carefully, and I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. You may be reading into it something I just don't see. Is my summary, above, of what you mean by 'revisionist' correct? Sorry if I'm just being thick, but can you please point out to me the exact words used in the Kill Bill article which demonstrate that the BBC "rejected the revisionist claims".
Conclusion
I think it would be valuable for the Arbitration Committee to read the Request for comment at "Indian mathematics", some of which I will quote here.
The Arbitrators should know that neither of the editors I quote has any history with Freedom skies prior to these comments and, therefore, no preconceptions or prejudices for or against him.
- DavidCBryant: Freedom_skies consistently pushes his own POV, does not respect guidelines, loses his temper frequently, and vandalizes Wikipedia with some regularity.[16]
- ....
- I had never even heard of either of these gentlemen until this morning, about 14½ hours ago.[17]....I formed my opinion by reviewing the available evidence carefully.....I characterized FS' behavior based on the solid hour I spent reading his talk page, reviewing the many times he has recently been blocked from editing, and reading the incredible exchanges recorded on this talk page, above.[18]
- David Eppstein: This article is the center of a general pattern that I see in which the genuine accomplishments of ancient Indian mathematicians are artificially inflated so that they can be claimed as having precedence over similar ancient mathematics in Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and China.
- ....
- Freedom skies appears to be one of the principal perpetrators of the unencyclopedic exaggeration, adding speculative interpretations of what the ancients might have known, and badly sourcing things by leaving such claims undocumented, providing useless unverifiable documentation, or not taking care to distinguish sources that are accepted scholarly work from speculative popular-press writings.[19]
- ....
- To put it bluntly: the purpose of citing sources is to convince your readers that you have thoroughly researched the subject and are fairly presenting it. Your insistance on using sources such as these instead convinces me that you are stretching, that solid sources are not available for what you want to claim and so you are citing flimsy ones instead. It makes me think there is a reason solid sources are unavailable. That is the opposite of what a source should be.[20]
Objections to Evidence presented by Freedom skies
Evidence presented by {freedom skies}
My evidence will revolve around my defence against the opposition's charges and some allegations that I have to make against them, JFD in particular. I will also use this opportunity to invite future monitoring of the activities of the involved parties as only a neutral, third party would be able to understand bth the sides and their editing patterns.
Response to the allegations by CiteCop
Indian Mathematics
- The allegation that CiteCop has made regarding "Modern Review" not being associated with the University of Michigan is simply incorrect.
Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
The documentary can be read in detail on "The Way of the Warrior: The Paradox of the Martial Arts by Howard Reid." The BBC documentary maker has written a book which actually expands on the documentary.
Since I claim to represent a mainstrem point of view and have knowledge on the subject I'll remove the text as it has been disputed by CiteCop and put in material from the following source:-
The statement that CiteCop makes about DT Suzuki's book is also incorrect.
The citation reads:-
The text can also be replaced by <>"Bodhidharma as the founder of Zen Buddhism naturally occupies the chief seat of honor beside the Buddha Sakyamuni". Manual of Zen Buddhism: (new edition) by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki. page 182. By Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki. Published 2000. Grove Press. 192 pages. ISBN 0802130658<>
Note that both the citations come from Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki
Of course, many people would like to have this text removed. No matter how well sourced it may be if it's an influence on China then it may not be included at all.
Vedic Sanskrit
The statement "Freedom skies sought to replace a work of recent scholarship with one that was over a century old and gave a more ancient date for Vedic Sanskrit" is incorrect.
Additional sources which I wanted to put in the first place. Standardising.
This version includes additional citations like "The earliest and most basic of Hindu scriptures is the Rgveda, usually dated to about 1500 BC" By Irene U. Chambers, Michael S. Roth. Contributor Library of Congress. Published 2002. Third Millennium Information Ltd. ISBN 190394211X
Indian nationalism
I believe there was some mixup in the sources with one source being replaced by another. I could'nt even place a ref tag back then and when confronted with people who said things like the following I thought it best to clean up and not engage in further "discussions" :-
CiteCop has had very limited contact with me, but has nonetheless chosen to take it upon himself to rid this encyclopedia of my presence. CiteCop has been canvassing with unrelated editors on Wikipedia for this purpose.
Evidence against allegations by JFD
Evidence against allegations on talk pages
Fowler&fowler
Sometimes when editors are under some pressure then they make mistakes and other editors do not take it too personally:-
Indian mathematics was a mistake that I made, Fowler&fowler was most kind to write this and this to me so I don't see how that is of any significance at all.
Talk:Zen
Djma12
If Djma12 feels that I have been uncompromising then I'll accept a ban here and now by all means.
NinaOdell
This has been distorted. The complete version which has "It would do you both (including you Nina) to follow them (WP Policies, including civility). " by Peter M Dodge can be read here . I'm making this very lengthy but please do me the favor of reading it.
Nina was honest enough to apologize after that.
MichaelMaggs
MichaelMaggs is involved as a party to this discussion and I was very standoffish to him in the first place but due to his excellent behaviour and scrutiny I have immense respect for him and even have awarded him the barnstar of good humor for his role on this very discussion.
JFD has manipulated my legitimate involvement in WP articles into "evidence"
Response to Maha Bodhi Society
- (cur) (last) 04:44, 3 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (blanked material?)
- (cur) (last) 00:34, 3 February 2007 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (rm OR, restored Blanked Material, rm sections which belong to Mahabodhi arcticle. restore formatting,)
- (cur) (last) 18:26, 2 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (additional citations then)
Yes I restored to my version as I'll do this very instant if someone reverts blindly assuming that I "blanked material."
Response to Michael E. J. Witzel
- (cur) (last) 15:20, 22 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. A number of respected editors are reverting you. This should tell you something.)
- (cur) (last) 13:15, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (tagging for now)
- (cur) (last) 12:57, 22 February 2007 Dbachmann (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Freedom skies (talk) to last version by Crculver)
- (cur) (last) 12:43, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (I'm surprised, one user asking for footnotes means you produce them. If he finds the content unsourced then he will remove it vigilantly.)
- (cur) (last) 01:02, 22 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. One user claiming "Need cites" when a plurality of other users think it's fine means: you're wrong.)
- (cur) (last) 00:53, 22 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (this seems to be spiralling into an edit war, provide in article footnotes and you can keep the statement, or an rfc is in order)
- (cur) (last) 23:06, 21 February 2007 Zora (Talk | contribs) (rv to Culver)
- (cur) (last) 22:35, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (then I'm sure that the provision of multiple WP:RS sources is not going to be a problem)
- (cur) (last) 21:46, 21 February 2007 Crculver (Talk | contribs) (Rv. The textbook material was mainly removed by well-respected editors a few months ago. And that statement is sourced: Frawley's entire oeuvre.)
- (cur) (last) 21:31, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism)
- (cur) (last) 21:29, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (→Politics)
- (cur) (last) 21:28, 21 February 2007 Freedom skies (Talk | contribs) (rem unattributed claim)
You can see in the history the responses I recieved.
WP:BLP ?? ??
I suppose you should ban me here and now.
Response to National Development Front
All my sentiments are covered in great detail here. I was against sockpuppets. When one deals with socks I guess reverting to a version which actually a David Bukay (University of Haifa) citation is edit warring.
Response to Bodhidharma
Blnguyen himself put a neutrality disputed tag on the article. The article began with Paul Pelliot goes further and argues that Bodhidharma is an entirely fictional creation (based on the creative misinterpretation of the citation which read "In his "Notes on some artists of the Six Dynasties and the Tang," Paul Pelliot asserts that all accounts of Bodhidharma are legendary.")
This should shed a light on the claim of "disruptive removal of sourced content in neutral narrative."
My involvement saw the article go from this to this and then the current version; undisturbed by the interference of either
Response to Buddhism and Hinduism
My content made it to the final stage in face of opposition such as users Green23 and Saavak123, identified as vandals as sockpuppets and have been been permanently blocked (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green23).
Response to Muhammad Mahmood alam=
See here for the following:-
- Now that's good citation. Kudos to the guy who put it there. Instead of the pulp fiction garbage that was pushed earlier, this definitely clinches it. Grammer cleanup might be needed though. Freedom skies 15:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to add one more thing to it :-
- 12:08, 28 October 2006 Idleguy (Talk | contribs) (rv. I think reverting to a nonsensical version, especially when an official pak resource has been provided flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and ur own set of rules in the talk pages)
- I kinda missed it. Given the past, I thought it was another revert to the underground sites which claim to be privy to the official records. Sorry for the oversight.
- From my POV the official citations were still missing and reverting back to a version based on underground websites is something I cannot allow.
- Now that the official citations are provided, it's a whole different story. Freedom skies 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Response to "Freedom skies wages disruptive edit wars on articles relating to Buddhism or martial arts"
That was the argument that was bought to my attention by MichelMaggs. The details of this argument can be found in the version to which I linked to earlier in the section Talk:Zen. The discussion on Zen may shed a light on JFD's claims of "disruptive removal of sourced content in neutral narrative."
The discussion will also reveal that I refrained from even the mention of Hinduism and have yet to place India in this Mahayana philosophy.
JFD has produced good faith edits as evidence
Response to Decline of Buddhism in India
The case in under mediation. The mediator is Utcursh and you may ask him if the process has failed due to my role or due to Tigeroo's lengthy Wikibreak.
Response to Sunga Empire
The difference between my version and the earlier ones is simply the addition of a quote from Ashokavadana.[22] Edit war?
Response to Pusyamitra Sunga
The case in under mediation. The mediator is Utcursh and you may ask him if the process has failed due to my role or due to Tigeroo's lengthy Wikibreak.
Response to Trigonometric function and History of trigonometric functions
I added the tag during my time at Indian mathematics. I was under severe pressure and had to contribute extra hours during my exam time for that effort. The article was being vandalized by an unknown IP. I thought that placing that tag would actually enable the article to not be edited by a non extablished user. The fact that the tag was to be used by an admin honestly did not cross my mind as the description seemed to simply state this
Response to Batuo
As soon as JFD produced an actual quote I let the statement stay.
Response to Indian martial arts
The Doss citation was in August 2006. JFD may recall the snide Congratulations on your discovery of Google Book Search! from that discussion.
The connection to Modern Review in "Indian mathematics"(I have provided a link to google books and their staement) is imaginary.
Response to Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
- After putting in sources such as these i.e. after compiling a list of prominent figures, authors, martial arts legends, news/print media etc. and martial arts institutions I provided a list of people in common media who supported the point of view; the list reads:- In addition, journalists and writers, including June Lordi, Cezar Borkowski, Annellen M Simpkins and C Alexander Simpkins, Thomas D. Seabourne and Yeon Hwan Park, Pat Zukeran, Ervin de Castro, BJ Oropeza and Ron Rhodes, Prof. J. Roe, P. E. Katzer, Jess O'Brien and Tony Sims have noted the foreign influence on Chinese martial arts.
If you'll take a look here then you can read the complete list and put everything in perspective.
JFD engages in edit wars
JFD and Kennethtennyson have engaged in trolling and edit wars; often combined.
Some of the details can be found in this section. I'll provide more later.
JFD tell Kenny to "let me do the actual editing." and since then Kennethtennyson has been revert warring on whatever JFD engages in.
Take a look:-
- Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts
- Bodhidharma
- Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection
- Zen
- Batuo
JFD's contributions and Kennethtennyson's contributions. They match on the topics suggested and other topics as well.
Kenny and JFD have been known to have exchanged barnstars with each other. Kennethtennyson advances a barnstar to JFD on 30 August 2006 and JFD returns the favour on 1 September 2006.
Kenny's role on the internet discussion forums.
Disruptive behaviour such as this is not in favour of anyone. Both the involved parties are Chinese nationalists and have shown an increasing amount of resistance to have any mention of the foreign influences (moslem, Buddhist, Manchurian, Mongolian) mentioned on their countries martial arts.
JFD has an anti Indian bias
By the way, Sanjeev Bhaskar called. He wants his shtick back.
If Huston Smith is microscopic, that makes Subhash Kak subatomic.
Subhash Kak is a living person whose biography on Wikipedia has been violated beyond repair. I have been in constant contact with the man himself since my early days on WP and he is constantly subjected to abuse by JFD.
he created this article, which reads Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts.
JFD violates WP:Soap and shows a Han Chinese bias
JFD admitted turning articles into a The article in its current state is a meticulously sourced point-by-point rebuttal.
JFD's articles include "point by point rebuttals" like Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and Yi Jin Jing. Both of which are gross violations of the WP:Soap and WP:NPOV policies.
JFD has been polluting the article with ethrocentric Chinese bias which has resulted in staements such as I'm adding a merge tag for now, but this should really be cleaned up and summarized in some neutral fashion asap. from the very nuetral Dbachmann.
In this post JFD has attempted to have both the article deleted even though Dbachmann stated only one article as a POV fork. That one article was JFD's article Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection, which is written in a overly malicious tone and does not have any place on this encyclopedia whatsoever.
JFD also attempts to have Shaolin Kung Fu reverted from this version to this biased version.
In addition, JFD has attempted to have Bodhidharma reverted from the excellent present state to this biased state.
He has been mocking this arbitration process by calling his version "neutral."
I'll ask for the arbitrators to check if they are, and arrive at conclusions independent of anyone's suggestions on whether this user is biased or not.
Also, the very few sources that JFD are demonstrably incorrect. The flaws in the theories were mentioned in an opposing theories" section. JFD maliciously manipulated it and tried to disruptively remove every aspect of the contradiction in the opposing theories by engaging in edit warring.
Response to Sebastian Helm
Sir,
I have to register a protest against that staement.
You specifiaclly said
Nina specifically stated that she "does not research thoroughly."[23] That was the bone of contention. I worked hard on the article; Compare the number of citations before (the article did'nt even have a references/notes section) and right after my involvement. I added most of those references in the Notes section.
Sir, you also said that
If the arbitrators will take a look here, in this most crucial of sections then they'll notice that Tigeroo specifically spoke that:-
Yes he stamped his conquest with by demolishing a few stupas and imposing the jizya but that is not the same as Qasim impacted a Buddhist decline
So an invading army destroys your holy sites and religious monuments and you're content because they're "stamping their victory?"
If razing of Stupas and imposing of a head tax does not amount to persecution then what does?
Kindly keep personal opinons aside, I have additional sources if you'd like to ask for them.
That was the bone of contention. Not stating mere acts as they were and calling them "stamping the victory" based on personal opinion.
Having said that, Mr. Helm was ever accomadating to me and was most kind to me even when I was frstrated. I respect him and am immensely grateful for his kind behaviour.
Response to Dbachmann
this is of course a perfect misrepresentation of my comment. JFD was apparently forced to present his criticism at an awkwardly titled pov-fork because of the wild-eyed behaviour on Freedomskies' part we have also witnessed on Indian mathematics.
Perfect Misrepresentation, Dab?
This is incorrect. The "Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection" was formed on 09:55, 15 September 2005 and the "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" was formed on 03:07, 27 November 2006 .
Unless JFD predicted the future there was no way he could have prepared an odd article for the coming of a "wild-eyed behaviour on Freedomskies' part."
On a completely unrelated note [24],
- Freedom skies has used your merge tag on "Bodhidharma..." to accuse me of "ethrocentric [sic] Could I trouble you to clarify the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence? JFD 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Vielen dank. Can you believe that Freedom skies called me "ethrocentric"? That's rot furry. JFD 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- You, sir, are an obvious sock of an undercover Chinese ethlocentrist! And a pathetic one at that, you cannot even spell your r's properly! dab (𒁳) 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hasn't Bakaman told you? There's no such thing as sockpuppets. JFD 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- no, BakaSUPRman has kept me out of the loop again :( no such thing as sockpuppets? What then? Only the finest Astroturf, I expect? dab (𒁳) 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion
First of all, my apologies to the arbitrators for the tardiness and what may appear to be a lack of will to defend myself.
I saw JFD mocking my sources. JFD's article Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection is based on only a few sources. One of his sources Stanley Hennig has become a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community and the other source Tang Hao has been arrested on grounds on being a communist. Having conflicting theories produced by them is criminally unethical.
JFD must have figured that in case an arbitration is imposed on me during my wikibreak I would to either too busy or perhaps even unwilling to come online and defend myself properly.
Have us both monitored. Have someone to check our activities on in a set of articles. My manner of speaking has been strong but kindly allow me a chance to improve that and have someone watch over both our contributions in a selected list of articles for a period of time. My manner of speaking is being used as an excuse for pushing biased content as neutral on WP.
My conviction is that in time both our motives will become very clear. I'm willing to have my content checked through some neutral, third party before actually putting it in the set of articles under question if the other party is also willing to show the same commitment.
Many regards,
Evidence presented by Bakasuprman
Response to Citecop
Kak is not an unreliable source. As a tenured professor at LSU he is a reliable source. The fact that Kak is a foe of Michael Witzel, a cult figure among many users, including many involved to various degrees in this arbcom, seems to be the justification for users calling anything from Kak unreliable.Bakaman 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to JFD
The National Development Front page has been subject to a large scale edit wars perpetrated by a bunch of sockpuppets. Cherrypicking random diffs does not serve to prove anything as at least 6 users have agreed with freedom skies. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pens withdrawn, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sundaram7 and related pages.Bakaman 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to JFD
The National Development Front page has been subject to a large scale edit wars perpetrated by a bunch of sockpuppets. Cherrypicking random diffs does not serve to prove anything as at least 6 users have agreed with freedom skies. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sundaram7 and related pages.Bakaman 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Dbachmann
re Freedom skies' comment above,
- "JFD has been polluting the article with ethrocentric Chinese bias which has resulted in staements such as I'm adding a merge tag for now, but this should really be cleaned up and summarized in some neutral fashion asap. from the very nuetral Dbachmann."
this is of course a perfect misrepresentation of my comment. JFD was apparently forced to present his criticism at an awkwardly titled pov-fork because of the wild-eyed behaviour on Freedomskies' part we have also witnessed on Indian mathematics.
btw, re user:Bakasuprman's "Kak is not an unreliable source. As a tenured professor at LSU he is a reliable source.", this is of course blooming nonsense: Subhash Kak is professor of Electrical Engineering with a predilection for ideological dabbling in fields where he is an amateur.