Talk:Wrestling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Direction

Because wrestling is such a general term, the wrestling article has become some what random and without scope. I am proposing three three sections;

1 An introduction to the definition of the word wrestling and origin of the word (pre-1100)

2 A brief synopsis\history of 'wrestling' prior to the inception of the word in Old English (greeks, Israel et al...)

3 Create a table containing all the current wrestling sub-groups and hyperlinks to their respective wikipedia articles (this effort should greatly sharpen the scope of the wrestling article).

Potential Wrestilng Sub-Groups

Freestyle Wrestling International

Greco-Roman International

Judo International \\ Japan

Sambo International \\ Russia

Grappling International

Folk-Wrestling United States

Catch-Wrestling Europe \ British

Sumo Wrestling Japan

Submission Wrestling ???

Shooto Japan

luta livre Brazil

Grappling Brazil

Yağlı güreş Ancient Mediterranean cultures

glima Chinese

Schwingen Switzerland

Shuai jiao Chinese

Böke, Khuresh Mongolian

Pehlwani in Iran \ India

Penciljunk 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling in Military Training

I question whether this topic deserves it's own section in the wrestling article. Most of the information intersection of wrestling and military training should reside in the military training article. It would still be worth noting here in the 'wrestling in history' section that historically wrestling has played a part in military training. Penciljunk 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. A short mention in the history section will be enough. --BorgQueen 01:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Geographical Popularity

This section(s) should be moved to it's particular folk wrestling folder. Such as Mongolian wrestling is Mongolia, collegiate wrestling in the United States and luche livre in Brazil. Penciljunk 15:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Update Status

I have done as much of significant updating as I can for now. The article has a much more narrower scope with applicable links to the sub-categories that were previous cluttering up the article. Penciljunk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Although I wrote the following line in the intro, I am really not happy with it. It needs some work.

"As Cultures strived to survive, wrestling became an intrinsic part of many cultures as a practical form of self-defense and military training." Penciljunk 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable line in intro

"Some popular disciplines which can be considered wrestling styles today are collegiate wrestling, sambo, brazilian jiu-jitsu, sumo wrestling, judo, Greco-Roman wrestling and freestyle wrestling." Wrestling varieties are already covered lower in the page. Improper style, including lack of capitalization of proper names. Feels out of place in the intro.

I would like to remove this section in a few days if no one has objections.FlowWTG 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Another thought. Perhaps this page should be semi-protected? It seems as if daily, one needs to go in and revert stuff added by anonymous posters. Joseph Svinth 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the line in question. I agree that semi-protecting this page would be very much in order. FlowWTG 05:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My revert

Meant to click undo & accidentally clicked the vandal roll-back, it was incorrect but not a vandal --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gramma

Actually, saying they are used synonymously is factual, saying it's incorrect is POV, and the source does not support it. You are effectively saying that it is bad grammar to use 'grappling' as a name for something, if you are deliberately attempting to differentiate from wrestling as is commonly used then it is not incorrect. For example saying "Judo is a type of grappling." is not grammatically incorrect. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand you believe the two nouns are synonyms, but a reference is needed. Currently Roget’s reference does not list them as synonyms so your beef is with Roget’s POV, not mine. Penciljunk 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The way it is currently phrased implies it is incorrect to use grappling as a noun, weather or not they are synonyms is another matter.--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

According to [Merriam-Webster], your statement would be correct. Penciljunk 14:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are making a positive statement on a negative source; it doesn't mention grappling, so you state it must be wrong. That's bad logic, you are not extrapolating which is original research. I assume the in a similar manner to the OED that most published dictionaries/ Thesauruses tend to take a while before they are include new terms so as to avoid adding fad terms (think 5-10 years of regular published appearance in the case of the OED) --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying until the word is added to the Webster dictionary it is considered a fad term? I can agree to your statement as a compromise. Penciljunk 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it' viewed as a potential fad term, like business 'buzz words' which have a shelf life of around 18 months where everyone uses them, then are never heard of again... OED is a historical dictionary as in they never remove a definition from the full version don't know what webbster or anyone else policy is, (I'm dredging up memories of documentaries here hence range of 5-10 years as a guess).

Sorry if I was abarasive felt some of the edits where POV & missed the fact that I was taking the opposite rather than the neutral view. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)