Talk:Bataireacht

Truth?

This whole article is absolute horseshit not one word of truth in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.97.214 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So much for: "Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Be welcoming" : ) But if you won't even sign your name well...

Anyway, the points made are verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWHurley (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly John, I respect your contribution to the martial art and I respect the living tradition of Whiskey Stick Dancing. But this article (which I'm guessing is mostly your doing) is spectacularly biased. I've seen countless period pictures showing batas held in one hand. This is an extremely negative offering and the author clearly has abandoned "Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Be welcoming". Wikipedia is not the proper forum for your personal vendetta against Ken.

I'm going to make some deletions and flag it as biased in the hopes that other people will come along and add to it.

(Alleyward (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

whoever you are, you like ken, don't appear to respect anything but your own agendas, which is why i felt forced to re-do the stub that I had started after others (possibly you) had changed the facts to fit their rather ignorant beliefs about Irish stick-fighting. You admit that you don't know much about the Irish language yet feel the need to lecture me about why the factual definitions of Irish terms that I have supplied here need to be changed! It makes no sense. If you really did respect me you would investigate what I write and then either disprove my writings with better scholarship (and atleast a few correct facts??) or be big enough to accept that your beliefs are mistaken and need to be changed. Irish fighting sticks weren't called "batas", but in any event, the "countless" pictures you've seen were no doubt those of people dancing. It doesn't matter anyway because as your teacher has taken great pains to explain, he doesn't hold his stick in the middle, but in a "choked up" 1/3 grip...so far choked up that it's a half inch from...the middle!! : ) No doubt "logic" like this will contine to fill the pages of wikipedia and continue to discourage initially interested parties from wanting to learn more about Irish stick-fighting. So congratulate yourself and your instructor, as you're doing a great job of undoing years of hard work by convincing people that all of Irish stick-fighting is "unmitigated bullshit'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWHurley (talk • contribs) 04:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment...and it was in response to your abusively worded article. (Alleyward (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Hello nameless stalker! Thanks for heaping more abuse on me. Wikipedia will be forever grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.250.221 (talk) 02:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, aparrently this has been bothering me all day so I wrote a new article. I Wikified it, took out personal references and generally made it an actual article. Please discuss pros and cons here rather than blowing it away. I omitted the word-origin bits that John had previously included...though maybe they do belong in this article. My understanding of gaelic is rather miniscule but I am under the impression that arguing about spelling is rather pointless, as moder scholars do not agree on the spelling of many gaelic words. Furthermore, no common Irishman living in the 19th century cared how things were spelled anyway.(Alleyward (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC))

As someone who's actually Irish, and published a dictionary of English to Irish martial arts terms, I would have to say that I disagree and that your assumptions are not based on any historical facts but on the misguided opinions of others. Case in point...a "bhata" is a boat, while a "bata" is a stick, a difference which doesn't seem to bother you yet is a glaring error to any Irish speaker. If you don't respect me I couldn't care less, but for God's sake respect the traditions and the FACTS over egos, innuendos and gossip. Your other beliefs about the language just don't make sense. About me introducing "bataireacht" into modern popular culture, I felt it necessary to state that so that the article - clearly written by me - would show its (my) bias. That and the fact that it's another example of my contributions being used by others who are willing to use my work while reviling me. Funny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWHurley (talk • contribs) 04:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a scholarly background to properly argue with you, so there is not much point in me trying. I have learned things, so have you, those things don't jive; it happens all the time. I don't want to hurt anyone, I just want to see bataireacht flourish. I am gratefull to people like you who have put forth the time and effort to bring it to the public. You've done great work and your recent contributions to this article are excellent. I feel that the 2 of us have accidentally collaborated very well and have made a good product.

You have, however, felt the need to launch an attack against me...so I'm going to point out some holes in your arguement. Not that my proving you wrong will change your mind...but at least the rest of the world can see you for what you are.

You are very keen to villify people for adding an "h" to the word "bata", yet you practise "Rince an Bhata Uisce Bheatha", which I can only assume is whiskey boat dancing. I caution you that dancing in a boat while drunk is not advisable and could lead to an accident.

You have been adament that traditional stick fighting styles were used to teach swordplay. You attack Ken for having the audacity to hold his stick in one hand. It therefore follows that you believe the Irish were holding their swords with one hand on the handle and the other on the end of the blade. I think perhaps there might be a family in Boston still teaching "bloody paw sword dancing", the patriarch is called "Six Finger Jack"

I know you don't care what I think...I've lurked on enough of your conversations to know that you don't care what anyone thinks. Its very sad really, your contributions will forever be overshadowed by your abusive and absolutist personality. But that's no reason why Wikipedia should have to suffer. (Alleyward (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

You don't have a scholarly background and can't debate (note you chose "argue" which is obviously your real intent), but you continue to attack me anyway. Huh. Anyway, your racist remarks about Irish people being drunk and dancing in boats reveals more of your real agenda plainly for Wiki to see. The "h" that Glen uses for the name of his style is of course grammatically correct; the one that Ken uses is not, hence his "Cuman Bhata" or "Boat Society". The grammar of it depends on the placement, gender and noun being referred to. See how things can work when you know what your talking about? I have never once attacked Ken for holding his stick with one hand that is an absolute lie. Infact all I have ever critisized him for is using the weak lower end of the stick to block all over the left side of his body. Those blocks don't work and it's obvious to anyone who tries them. So your gratefulness to me amounts to character assassination, lies, and on-line stalking. Hey man, thanks. Keep up the good work of being a total whack job. My work will long be remembered by the people who actually care about Irish culture and are the carriers of it, not the weirdos like you, Ken and the rest of your cult group. And hey, just because Wikipedia deleted your first blurb (bata) because it was so poorly written doesn't mean you have to take it out on me. In all honesty, whatever it is you're looking for I hope someday you find it and I hope you get the mental help that you obviously need bro, really. And stop stalking me or I will take legal action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.250.221 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue to check the page and correct the incorrect references, no matter how many times you guys try and shift it away from my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. You certainly have every right to validate references/etc. However, while you may "own" your original research and publications, you do not "own" this article. Please bear that in mind when editing. Or commenting for that matter. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, when fallacies are deliberately added to my work inorder to distort it, wherever it appears, I will continue to point them out. Or are you suggesting that you prefer inaccuaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One correction, one observation: Correction: boat, as in water-going vessel, in Gaelic is bád. Grammatical modifications can cause it to become báid or bháid but not 'bata';'bhata' etc. Observation: I am Irish and live in Ireland. I have quite literally never come across an Irish practitioner of 'military sabre fencing', I have never heard of any school or club practicising this sport/art and I have never in my life seen any reference to this in any Irish media - newspapers/magazines, radio, television - nothing, zip, nada.

I don't wish to participate in the slugfest going on in this discussion, but Wikipedia old chum, I think someone is seriously pulling your leg with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Observation: There's a traditional Irish song called "Fir an Bhata" or "Boatman" popular among some Sean Nos singers. I've updated the citation about the use of the term "bataireacht" and now that the proof is there I do hope it will not yet again be tampered with. As for proof of information about this in Ireland, simply contact Rob Corwell the Editor of "Irish Fighter Magazine," as I've already published 2 articles on the subject of Irish stsick-fighting for him. "Irish Fighter" is available on newsstands throughout Ireland - I've even seen it there myself. : ) As for Irish practitioners of 'military sabre fencing' there are a number in the Defense Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fir an Bhata is not an Irish song, it is a Scots Gaelic song, and I believe it is to be found on Éist Arís, which may be the reason for your confusion. The séimhiú/lenition i.e. 'h' when succeeding an initial consonant has only a grammatical, not a semantic function. The difference therefore between the word Bata and Bhata is grammatical then, the lenition in the latter perhaps indicating possession, genitive, or that the word in it previous context was preceded by a preposition. Those words however, have the exact same meaning, and if someone did not realise that, it would indicate to me to be that they are in no way competent in the Irish Language. Likewise "Aontroim Bataireacht" shows a clear misunderstanding of the syntax of the Irish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.188.233 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest actually adding to the information here rather than arguing over the facts? If any of you really is knowledgeable in this area, perhaps they could present some new information so that those wanting to learn about Bataireacht can learn more about it here than elsewhere. As it is, I can do a simple google search and a youtube search and know five times more information than I would get from this article. Why can't that information all be in one place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.150.226 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

History - Deleted Final Paragraph

The paragraph said:

As the push for Irish independence from Great Britain gained steam toward the end of the 19th century, leaders of the Irish community believed it was necessary to distance themselves from customs associated with factionism and division, to present a united military front to the British, hence the "United Irishmen" of the Republican movement. Foremost of these customs were the arts of bataireacht, and the shillelagh was soon replaced with the gun of the new unified faction of the Fenian Movement.

Toward the end of the 19th Century then; but the United Irishmen were a movement of the late 18th Century, inspired by the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence. The paragraph calls them "The United Irishmen of the Republican Movement" somehow managing to conflate them with the IRB and/or IRA in the late 19th and 20th Centuries. Can you cite any reputable source on the primacy of stick fighting in this period? How is the Fenian Brotherhood (I take it this is what you mean) "the united faction"? Paul S (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been theorized by Clark and Donnelly (among many others) that the United Irishmen of 1798 continued to flourish after 1798. They sought an Irish Republic based on French Republican ideals; so did the Irish Republican Brotherhood (hence the self-evident name) of 1858. But in addition to this it has been noted by Clark and Donnelly that a middle-class, nationalist "faction" emerged in the early 19th century which contained in it some of the remnants of the United Irishmen (that is both in membership and in ideology). This faction was known as the "Shanavests" who fought with the "Caravats" during faction fights. At a later stage and within the lifetime of members of the Shanavests a faction calling itself the Fenians appears in Tipperary in the same area that the later leader of the Irish Republican Brotherhood John O'Mahony lived. So it is well within logical reasoning (as I point out in my book) to see that there was probably a "genealogical" relationship going from the United Irishmen, to the Shanavests to the Fenians Faction to the Irish Republican Brotherhood (which was popularly known as "the Fenians") and which espoused the same anti-factionism as the UNITED Irishmen. I would hasten to add that just because anti-nationalist "revisionist" historians haven't felt the need to point this relationship out does not mean that it did not exist. But for "reputable source on the primacy of stick fighting in this period?" there are many. Since you will reject contemporary accounts though, I'll refer you to Carolyn Conley's book, "Melancholy Accidents: The Meaning of Violence in Post-Famine Ireland" (note that this link already exists in the article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_33/ai_56027317/) and James S. Donnelly, "Irish Peasants: Violence And Political Unrest, 1780-1914". My book "Shillelagh: The Irish Fighting Stick", is the only one that I know of which points out the link between factionism, its decline, and its corresponding replacement with Irish Republicanism, which is why the IRB/IRA of the 19th century were indeed the "uniting" faction as it was the Fenian faction of Tipperary (heirs of the Shanavests) who were largely responsible for bringing faction fighting to an end and replacing the ideal of the Irish stick-fighter with the ideal of the Irish soldier fighting for a free united Ireland; replacing the stick with the gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.38.5 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tone and sources

I am noting down here certain parts of this article that I would suggest are in need of editing.

On the subject of bataireacht

1- "Bataireacht literally means “fighting with sticks” and has no specifically “Irish” connotation at all, but Hurley thought it a convenient word to use for non-Irish speakers since it is indeed Irish and does connote fighting, or fencing, with 3 foot sticks."

This sentence does not seem relevant for the summary of the term bataireacht. I am not sure what point it is trying to make. It notes that the word has no Irish connoatation, but while also being Irish. The next section mentions that bataireacht is a martial art from Ireland. Is the article trying to say that bataireacht is an Irish word for stick fighting, regardless of origin?

On the origin of the word "shillelagh"

2- "This is the meaning that many British authors of the 18th and 19th centuries used when talking about shillelaghs, for example William Carleton who talked of cudgels made of "good shillelah" which had a leather thong attached."

In the last round of edits, user Shillelaghman 123 added two parts to this sentence. The word "British", and " which had a leather thong attached". The addition of the first term seem to have been made to strengthen the user's idea that the Shillelagh forest theory is a British one. But then the example given is that of William Carleton. While it could be argued that Carleton was technically a British subject at the time he lived- like everyone residing in Ireland at the time- I would say this categorization is incorrect and misleading, as Carleton was born and lived his whole life in Ireland. Biographies of the writer, including his wikipedia entry, all note that he is an Irish author. This should be modified.

The second point seem to have been added to undermine the credibility of the Shilleagh forest theory in favor of the thonged cudgel one. Firstly, this point is somewhat moot if one reads the story cited in the source. The story talks about St. Patrick's crozier being made of "good shillelagh", and nowhere is it said that it is equipped with any kind of thong, nor is it even a cudgel. I think those edits should be removed as they undermine any attempt at presenting facts in a neutral manner and damage the credibility of the article.

3- "the expression there is used side to side with "Andreaferrara", used by the protagonist to refer to his sword in the same manner as he refers to "Shillela", further relating the Irish fighting stick to broadsword fencing. Again, this explanation can be found in many different Ango-centric sources from the 18th and 19th centuries, and is therefore the most popular one in English. "

Adding the part about broadsword fencing is irrelevant to the point being presented in this section, and is a non sequitur. That the character of the play uses "Andreaferrara" to refer to his sword, and "shillela" to refer to his stick, two distinct objects, it does not create any sort of link in their martial use. If in the same discussion I mention that I own a "xerox machine" and that I need a "band-aid", it does not mean that Xerox and band aids are used the same way. This is a false equivalence.

The addition of "Anglo centric" and "English" here and in various parts again seem to have been added to attack this theory, and do not help this article in striking a neutral and disengaged tone. I suggest they be removed.

4- "The other explanation is well documented in Irish language texts. For example, Gaelic scholar and native Irish speaker Patrick S. Dinneen in the 1927 edition of his Foclóir Gaedhilge agus Béarla dictionnary notes that Sail Éille means "thonged cudgel", and explains that it was later anglicised as shillelagh. Dineen was actually born and raised at a time when stick-fencing was still actively practiced in his home area. The first use of the word “sail” for cudgel goes back thousands of years so other native Irish speaking linguists have repeatedly confirmed Dineen’s explanation for the origins of the word throughout the years."

Here, the language seems to have been modified to strengthen the credibility of the second theory, but without really backing it up with sources and making false attributions. The article cited demonstrates the opposite of what is being argued by these edits. Namely, that the theory is actually not well documented. Nowhere is Dineen explaining why or how the word was anglicized as shillelagh. It simply gives the word Sail Éille which he equates to shillelagh or thonged cudgel. No explanation as to the source of this assertion, or the reasoning behind it, is given to the reader. All subsequent authors using this theory simply repeat Dineen's entry without bringing any more evidence to support it.

That Dineen was alive when faction fights were carried would not make him privy to the origin of the expression, which began to be documented more than a century before his birth.

5- "That definition has been dismissed only by Maxime Chouinard a French Canadian, who is noticeably not fluent in Irish and prefers the Anglo-centric explanation"

This sentence sounds like a gratuitous attack. Origin has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and the fact that they would be fluent in the Irish language or not is irrelevant, since only English language sources are being presented. It is also wrong to argue that they are the only author arguing for this theory, as the source given clearly demonstrates the contrary. The use of "Anglo-centric" is again used to undermine the credibility of the author by associating them with some anti English sentiment and poisoning the well. This whole part is an ad hominem and should be removed.

On the links between broadsword fencing and bataireacht

6- "Others disagree as fighting with sticks while using broadsword techniques was common practice in Britain, France and Germany throughout the 18th and part of the 19th century. And we have period texts wherein the Broadsword fencing instructors themselves advise their students to use broadsword techniques with walking sticks, in civilian settings."

This part is tied to the first point I raised. Such edits made by Shillelaghman 123 have somewhat blurred the definition of what exactly is bataireacht. I would argue the term is usually reserved for styles of stick fighting that originated in Ireland, as shown in the various websites and discussion groups of the various associations that practice it, but here the argument was brought up that styles originating from outside Ireland are also bataireacht if they were practiced by someone in Ireland at some point. This would in effect mean that escrima, jodo or canne de combat all are bataireacht as well. While it is, in a strict linguistical view, true to say that these are all technically bataireacht, since they are all stick fighting arts practiced in Ireland, this does not reflect the way in which people perceive bataireacht to be today. The same way as escrima refers to stick fighting originating from the Philipinnes, or that jodo is from Japan. Irish stick practiced in Japan would not make it jodo. This article needs to better define what its subject matter is.

7- "This of course does not apply to systems using a 4 foot stick such as those shown in Walkers manual. So it is puzzling why those same critics (those using a 4 foot stick) find the Irish broadsword stick-fencing style so threatening. It’s now a proven historical fact that 3 foot walking sticks were used almost exactly like the broadsword."

This part reads like a rant and the tone is not neutral. The allusion that bataireacht only applies to 4 foot stick is not reflected by well known sources like the San Francisco Call article which uses a 3 foot stick, and so the distinction by length seems artificial and unjustified. The last sentence is related to point 6. Whether manuals teaching to use sticks in the manner of British, French or German broadswords existed is a non sequitur if we subscribe to a more precise view of what bataireacht is; as a unique product of Irish culture.

Please, let's discuss those edits and come up with a better version of this article. Kick Sugar (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article (and the "art" of bataireacht itself!) isn't one big hoax; or, at least, an attempt to legitimise a couple of American martial arts dojos. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The history of the practice is well established by now. Please see:

-Lyons, P. (1943). Stick-Fencing. Béaloideas, 269-272.

-Allanson-Winn, R., & Phillips-Wooley, C. (1890). BROAD-SWORD AND SINGLE-STICK WITH CHAPTERS ON QUARTER-STAFF, BAYONET, CUDGEL SHILLALAH, WALKING-STICK, UMBRELLA,and other Weapons of Self- Defence. London: G. BELL & SONS.

-Walker, D. (1840). Defensive exercises; comprising wrestling, boxing, &c. London: Thomas Hurst.

-The San Francisco call. [volume], August 20, 1905, Page 4

Otherwise, I would prefer the above discussion to stay on topic. Please do open a separate subject if you want to discuss the validity of bataireacht itself. Kick Sugar (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On your original post: I have no objection to any of your proposed changes. On the validity of the subject, lads laying into each other with sticks - even "formally" in the sense of "faction fights" - undoubtedly happened. Whether lads laying into each other with sticks can be classed as an "ancient Irish martial art" is absolutely open to question; certainly you'd expect more than circa 13,000 google hits (many to Wikipedia clones and Irish-american "dojos") and a teanglann translation (de Bhaldraithe) that says the word means "singlestick" ,for something that's supposed to be a martial art dating from the 1600s. One of your links above is to a book that also outlines the martial uses of umbrellas (which I've seen done as a 'chapter' in kung fu), but nobody is claiming umbrealla-fighting is a distinct martial art. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest reading through the sources above first. I think you will find the information you are looking for. Kick Sugar (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shillelaghman123: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— 70.55.207.169 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC).

And I’m sorry you are who exactly? I’m asking only because I would like to know level of knowledge on the subject. Cheers. Shillelaghman123 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

N Shillelaghman123 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Historical Archaeology reference

I've removed this reference. It makes literally one mention of "bataireacht", and that's cited to Hurley's 2007 self-published book - which isn't a reliable source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've unremoved it. You don't get to remove published academic papers because you don't happen to like them. They're peer reviewed and they've been published. I suggest you read WP:SOURCETYPES which states "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." JMWt (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is, you've added back a dodgy reference, despite now knowing the issues with it, after they've been pointed out to you? Again, it's based on a self-published book by an author (who has a COI and WP:NOADS issue here on WP!), who is making money from his invented martial art and resulting dojo. Further, its use is redundant - what is it actually citing? That the term exists? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the way this works is that we don't get to decide if a published paper is taken in by a fraud or not. Because it is a published paper.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to fight against perceived wrongs or to correct errors in published papers or to uncover falsehoods. It is simply to reflect what others say on the topic.

Anyway this is all academic whilst there is an AfD under way; if you are correct on consensus then the page will be deleted. And if you are not correct then the !keep will be based on these sources. There is nothing to be gained whatsoever from deleting them at present, it only seeks to obscure from sight possible references that AfD editors are considering during the discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is the "source" citing? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)