Talk:Silat

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles Malaysia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Silat Cekak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Silat. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Silat is an Indo-Malay origin fighting style. This is pure nonsense. You can even tell by the name that Silat is of middle east influence. Tamils live in south-India or Sri Lanka, with little to no connection to Indo-Malay culture. It has been historically proven that Silat is definately NOT Hindu or Chinese origin, but unique to the Indo-Malay territories and culture. Stop the propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the word Silat is of Arabic origin. There is a town in Palestine called Silat ad-Dhahr.

Islam has been in the Indo-Malay region for 800+ years. Stop the Islamophobic propaganda and lies.

Silat means “connection” in Arabic. See here: http://sufinews.blogspot.ca/2009/01/silat-chooses-you.html

Such uninformed assertions hardly even merit a reply. You say that silat is Indo-Malay and unique to "Indo-Malay territories", but then contradict yourself by insisting that silat is of Islamic origin and influenced by the Middle East? To say that Tamils have nothing to do with the Malay Archipelago shows that you know nothing of Southeast Asian history, culture or even the region's demographics. Silat is indeed indigenous to the Indon-Malay geo-cultural sphere, and was not of purely Hindu, Buddhist or Chinese origin. However, the influences of those cultures on silat is undeniable and has been verified by numerous sources in writing and on television documentaries. The first evidence of Islam in Malaysia dates back 800 years but the Muslim faith took at least a century before becoming widespread, and several more centuries before becoming dominant less than 500 years ago. Hinduism and Buddhism, on the other hand, have been the region's dominant faiths for nearly two millenia and remain the majority religion of most of Indochina today. Its impact on silat is seen from the very start of each training session when even Muslim practitioners perform the palm-to-palm greeting. Tamils and other South Indians had the strongest outside influence on Southeast Asia, as can be seen in linguistic and cultural evidence. Both Malaysia and Indonesia still have a large Tamil population today. The word silat is of uncertain origin. The most common etymological theory among Malay-speakers is that it derives from sekilat, from the root word kilat meaning lightning. Among etymologists, however, the Tamil origin is seen as more likely, since it deals specifically with martial arts. Silat may mean connection in Arabic but that doesn't prove any connection to the Malay word. Aside from the slight difference in pronunciation, I might add that I personally don't see how a fighting method would acquire the name "connection", a word which in its native Arabic has no connection to martial arts whatsoever. Blogs such as the one in your link do not make reliable sources, especially when the writer is not knowledgeable on the subject matter. That article in particular is riddled with easily-countered mistakes and inaccuracies, and therefore cannot be used to push your POV. Please refrain from accusing others when it comes to topics you are not familiar with. Looking at your Islam-related edit history, it's quite cleat that your intent is to establish a link between silat and Islam. Therefore, the only propaganda here is your own. Morinae (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that Silat is a Malay/Indonesian's pure martial art based on the research ran by O'ong Maryono, published in the Rapid Journal, Vol 4, No. 3 (Book 13, 1999: 38 – 39) under the heading The Origin of Pencak Silat as told by Myths. It is also published in the website www.kpsnusantara.com.

Moreover, there are many proofs that deny the theories that the silat derived from China/India. It is because as I told earlier in this "discussion page" that there are still exists a kind of Silat (Silat Sendeng of East Coast of West Malaysia- derived from a tortoise movements) that created by a man based on the nature. He once appeared on the tv news in Malaysia.

But I agree about some influences to some kind of Silat. The influences are only on the use of some weapons, for example the use of "tekpi" (tekpi is not a Malay weapon) but there are no influences about the movements since Malays/Indonesians created the Silat based on the nature.

For those who are not capable to view the journal in the website, I paste it belows:

The Origin of Pencak Silat as told by Myths Rapid Journal, Vol 4, No. 3 (Book 13, 1999: 38 – 39)

© O'ong Maryono www.kpsnusantara.com

It is not easy to trace back the history of pencak silat because written documentation is limited and oral information handed down from the guru or masters cannot fully answer all the riddles. In particular, it is very complicated to determine when and from where pencak silat begun, and who pioneered its spreading. Still, all the experts believe that our Malay ancestors created and used pencak silat as self-defense technique already in prehistoric times. Mariun Sudirohadiprodo, a renowned Indonesian pencak silat master and pendekar, for example claims that the animal's character was an inspirational source in the creation of pencak silat techniques and styles:

At the time, the ferocity of wild animals threatened the life of prehistoric people in the archipelago. Being the wild animals their natural enemy, humans had to pay attention to the animals' moves and adopt similar movements as self-defense techniques. They copied the movements of tigers, eagles, snacks, crocodiles, monkeys, scorpions and dragons. Gradually pencak silat styles were developed out of these observations such as the harimau (tiger) and garuda putih (white eagle) styles. (Marijun Sudirohadiprodjo 1982:1; see also Tisnowati Tamat 1986:15; Murhananto 1993:7)

During my research from 1994 until 1998 I gathered many myths and legends about the origin of pencak silat that stress the role of nature on the development of self-defense techniques in the archipelago. Although the historical value of such myths can be questioned, from an anthropological point of view they are worth attention since they express people's explanations of a certain cultural phenomena. In this case, pencak silat is considered an integral part and at the same time product of the surrounding environments. For example, in the small island of Bawean on the North coast of Java, the dominant legend claims that monkeys were the "pioneers" of pencak silat movements:

Rama Sukana went to the river to do the wash. Suddenly, she saw on the side of the river a pair of monkeys fighting. One of the monkeys repeatedly attacked the other one with a tree's tack while the other monkey was jumping and moving aside to avoid the blows. Rama Sukana stopped her activities and took notice of the monkeys' fighting techniques. She was so enthusiast that she did not finish her works and arrived late at home. The husband, Rama Isruna who had been waiting, become hungry and tried to beat her but she used the techniques she had just learned from the monkeys to avoid the husband's attack. In the end, Rama Istruna became tired and asked his wife where she had learned such fantastic techniques. After Rama Sukama explained to him her experience, the husband asked her to train him. Now these techniques are known as pencak Bawean.

Similar stories are also told in other Indonesian provinces. In West Java, the Silat Cimande style is said to derive from the wife of Mba Kaher who learned her techniques from a tiger fighting with a monkey. In Sumatra, the myth narrates how silat techniques were conceptualized by observing the fight of a big bird with a tiger. Also in neighboring Malaysia, such stories are popular:

One day in a village, a housewife who was carrying food in a basket above her head was attacked by a group of birds that tried to steal her food .The housewife tried to move from the right to the left and from the left to the right to avoid the attack of the birds. She also kept moving forward and back, trying to skim them with the hands. Doing so, she lost time and arrived late at home. She tried to explain to her furious husband what had happened, but he would not accept it. He attacked her and she had to defend herself with the same movements she had just practiced with the birds. The husband was unable to touch her, eventually got tired, and finally asked her to teach him the techniques she had just employed. With dedication, he practiced with his wife and developed what is now known as seni silat.(Tuan Ismail Tuan Soh 1991:36-37)

It is interesting to note that most of these myths give a prominent role to women as the initiators of pencak silat, in sharp contrast with today reality where men dominate the pencak silat world and only few women pendekar can still be found. Women's dominance does not imply that mythology totally neglects men as can be seen from the following Javanese legend:

There was a young man who watched some flowers fall into the river and being carried by the stream flow towards the waterfalls. The young man thought that the flowers would be completely shattered by the waterfalls but to his surprise this did not happen. Every time the flowers ended under a waterfall they soon reappeared pushed up by the upside down stream. From this experience, the young man was inspired to create attack and counter-attack movements. (Summary from Chambers and Draegar in Tuan Ismail Tuan Soh 1991:37-38)

Notwithstanding the different sex of the various protagonists, all these myths concur that pencak silat was inspired by nature. Our ancestors spontaneously developed their self-defense techniques by observing natural phenomena that occurred in their daily life. With this new knowledge, tribal groups were able to contain the many dangers that surrounded them. In the following centuries, these instinctive movements were adapted to new arising needs and in due time became a well-thought self-defense system.

References Marijun Sudirohadiprodjo 1982 Pencak Silat Kita Dihari Kemudian, Bulletin KONI no.7, hlm.10-14 Murhananto 1993 Menyelami Pencak Silat, Jakarta: Puspa Swara Tisnowati Tamat 1986 Pelajaran Dasar Pencak Silat, Jakarta: Maswar. Tuan Ismail Tuan Soh Silat Sekebun; Seni Silat Melayu Dengan Tumpuan Kepada Seni. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Kementrian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Maybe anyone can correct the facts in the Silat article. Thanks.

Mr. Knows (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tekpi is not a Malay weapon? According to Donn Draeger, it was probably created in Indonesia. Please read the history section of sai (weapon). Morinae (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watching animals, just like Chinese Kungfu styles, and learning from women, just like Wing Chun Kungfu. Maybe it was all down to convergence evolution. 81.129.182.221 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few weeks since the silat articles were divided into three and the question of whtther this was justified is largely over. Nevertheless, I thought I should bring up related points because I think it would improve the articles. First of all, silat's country of origin should be stated appropriately according to the articles. In the pencak silat article the only country should be Indonesia. In the article clumsily-named "Silat (Malaysian martial arts)", the countries should be Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei since it's supposed to be about the Malaysian forms of silat. Other countries like the Philippines could only be included if the title was re-named Silat Melayu which I would suggest doing. The origin of silat is not included in the history parts of any of the articles. All silat forms share the common beginnings in Sumatera which came through the Indians and Chinese. This article only glances at it by saying "There is evidence that Chinese and Indian martial arts influenced silat". This is a gross understatement since the Indians and Chinese provided the very basis for all of Malay culture. Can you imagine if a similar quote was applied to karate? Without the combined influences, silat would have probably more closely resembled Filipino styles. The article goes on to say that silat was spread along with Islam. This is very ignorant since silat dates back long before any Malay had even heard of the religion. Indon, I think you over-reacted about my changing the definition of kuntao. You could have just reverted, given your reason for doing so and I'd get the point. You didn't need to accuse me of vandalism. Although you have convinced me that I was wrong, I think that people should be more explicit in the books they quote from and not just assume that any book is an authoritative text. IMHO, Sheik Shamsuddin's book "The Malay Art of Self-defence" is an awful work which I wouldn't recommend to anybody, not even those with no prior knowledge of silat whom the book was aimed at. However there are very few English books about silat and anyway, I'm certainly in no position to stop people from quoting him. Another issue I think should be addressed is the modern Muslim interpretation of silat but that's another story. Morinae 09:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's even an awful work of an editor trying to push his/her own interpretation just popped-up from their heads saying they are more authoritative than somebody who had published their own books. You (morinae) is just anybody else in Wikipedia, an anonymous editor, no less and no higher authority without any sources. Try to understand

WP:V, read letters by letters before smacking somebody has an awful job of writing book. Who do you think you are saying that a book has no value at all? — Indon (reply) — 12:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Indon, aren't the guidelines to "assume good faith" and "be polite"? I don't think your harsh criticism of me is warranted since I never claimed to be anything more than another editor here. What I said about Sheik's book was, as noted, just my opinion. I don't think that any of what he wrote was wrong per se but it was hardly comprehensive or conclusive. And for your information I wasn't just writing what popped up in my head. Almost everything I write on the silat articles can be verified by one of Don Draeger's texts or some Malay book but I usually don't keep track of where they come from which I guess is my main weakness here. Can you be more specific about what I wrote that offends you so much? I already said that the current definition of kuntao is fine so there shouldn't be any hard feelings. Morinae (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Morinae, not

popping up from your head. That's simply said. — Indon (reply) — 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the link http://www.kpsnusantara.com/rapid/rapid2.htm

For your information, Silat is Malay/Indonesian's pure martial art.It didn't come from any foreign influences such as Chinese and Indian. It was created from the animal(s) and nature acts.

For example, in Malaysia there is a kind of Silat that is called "Silat Sendeng". The Silat Sendeng was created based on the acts of a tortoise(kura-kura in Malay).

He is old man. He once appeared on a tv news in Malaysia. The creator of Silat Sendeng is still alive(the time I watched the news). This is not a myth. This is a fact directs from the creator of "Silat Sendeng".

One more thing, Silat existed long before the arrival of Islam to Malay Peninsular/Archipelagos.

So the conclusion is Silat or Pencak is originally Malay creation from the animal(s) and nature acts not from Chinese and Indian influences.

Please correct this article.

P/S: Please forgive me if I aggrieved the reader of this discussion site. I didn't mean it. About the bold, I just using the bold to highlight my points.

Mr. Knows (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think you can add to the article, you are welcome to edit it. You can make changes as you see fit, but your edits may be edited mercilessly by others. --Pumpmeup 05:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks to you Mr Pumpmeup. But I think let the others do that.

I just want to add about my previous comment. About the name of the Silat which I wrote as Silat Sendeng. Based on my memory, the name is Silat Sendeng. But after I checked it on internet I found several kind of Silat Sendeng. There are Silat Sendeng Dua Beradik(Two Brothers Sendeng Silat-originated from Paya Kumbuh, Sumatra Indonesia) and Seni Silat Sendeng Muar(Johor, Malaysia). Both are not Silat Sendeng which I meant before. The Silat Sendeng I meant is a kind of Silat created by a man(maybe in East Coast Region, West Malaysia) which he created from the movements of tortoise.

Maybe anybody can correct the facts about the Silat history. That's all.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Knows (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I've missed the discussion on this subject (could anyone point me to it?) but I don't think I completely understand the reason to create three different pages for (Pencak) Silat... After all, though some styles really differ from each other, most styles are at least slightly alike... Also, some information (the same) occurs in two of the pages (like the weapons etc.) so I'm afraid that I don't see the reason... Chingchuanchiu (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys,

I think this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencak which is about the "history of Silat" should be accepted as the best/accurate facts to rewrite the section of "History" in this "Silat" article.

Mr. Pumpmeup, maybe you can rewrite the "History" section in this article by referring to "History" section in "Pencak Silat" article.

Thanks.

Mr. Knows (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr Knows that the history section needs a lot of correcting because it's just made of various quotes strung together with little relation to each other and not much actual information. For example the sentence saying that silat was spread along with Islam gives the impression that silat was uncommon or didn't exist before the arrival of Islam which we know is not true. And I don't see the need to point out "Silat has been acknowledged as a genuine Malay martial art". This sounds very defensive as if people are afraid of non-Malays claiming silat for themselves. However, I must disagree with Mr Knows on his statement that silat is "purely Malay" without any outside influence. This idea seems overly Malay-centric. First of all, what does "purely Malay" mean? Malays are actually a diverse group if you don't subscribe to the narrow view of confining the race to Muslims of the Malay Archipelago. In fact, Malays are descended from the Proto-Malay orang asli of Java who inter-married with Chinese migrants that came to Southeast Asia in large numbers at various points in history. This theory of the Malay origin also applies to various other ethnic groups. Therefore Thais, Filipinos, Khmers, Chams and the Li of China are also Nusantara Malays. All the peoples and countries of Southeast Asia have always been closely connected. It can be hard to make distinctions between some of their shared cultures. For example, should wayang kulit (shadow puppetry) be considered Indonesian, Malaysian or Thai? Or should it be considered Chinese since they brought shadow puppets to the region in the first place? Martial arts in Vietnam show influences from kungfu, kickboxing, silat, Khmer armed combat and similarities to Filipino and Indian styles. This shows just how close were the ties that bound back then. Does any of this make those martial arts less Vietnamese? I don't think so. From inside Southeast Asia, silat has many similarites to krabi krabong, banshay, bokator and others. And there's no question about the Indian and Chinese influence on silat. To deny it would be as illogical as saying that English developed independently of Greek. Let me remind you that India had penetrated nearly every aspect of culture in Southeast Asian countries all the way from Indonesia to Laos. Silat is an important part of Malay culture and I don't see how that would have been left untouched. Anyway, silat masters themselves have always maintained that their art has been influenced by India and China. There's also a wealth of evidence proving them right. Only today are the old ties being cut. It's interesting to see just how far people will go to avoid being associated with what they see as un-Malay. For example, all the main theories about the etymology of the term pencak silat are written in the silat articles except the one saying that pencak might come from a southern Chinese language or that the word silat may be related to silambam. Similarly, two silat articles have a list of weapons and I didn't mind when I saw that some like the Chinese sword had been removed. But I don't see why the kipas (folding fan) can't be included. Someone must have thought that it didn't belong in a silat article because it was invented in China. It should be accepted that Malay culture, silat included, is one which has benefited from the knowledge of others. Silat in its final form would have been very different without the influence of China and India but that is nothing to be ashamed of. The Chinese have influenced the Japanese and Koreans. The Indians have influenced the Nepalese and Burmese. No culture developed without any help at all. Besides, this doesn't mean that Malays are incapable of creating anything themselves. Every country in Indo-China had been influenced by India and China but their martial arts didn't turn out the same. So yes, silat is purely Malay but that doesn't change the fact that it was influenced by Indian and Chinese martial arts.Morinae (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2015, but I still like to talk about this. "This idea seems overly Malay-centric.", you said? How about "overly Non-Malay-centric"? Some race tend to claim that they're superior than the other race. I'm not racist, but only stating the truth that I believe you could also observe that, too.

They, too, claim that the natives are incapable of thinking and creating their own technologies, no original cultures, not capable of inventing their own martial art(s) and so on. Or, briefly, there's none was originally created or invented by the natives.

However, the "superior than the natives" syndrome or "overly Non-Malay-centric" should not be treated lightly. Even the natives of South East Asia had ever invaded Sri Lanka in 1247 by Chandrabhanu Sridhamaraja (a chieftain from Tambralinga Kingdom in Malay Peninsula). Hence, he could imposed or influenced his culture, custom, and language to the people there, out of his homeland.

The Malay language also was a lingua franca in South East Asia during the Srivijayan centuries of rule (at least starting from 7th century) and the Malacca Sultanate in 15th century, until foreign traders or visitors had to learn the language to do the trade with local people or other foreigners. Persians, Indians, Chinese, Arabs and among others had needed to learn and use the Malay language during that time. So, the natives were also capable of influencing the foreigners in terms of language, culture, and among others. But, ironically, there are some people ignoring this fact, or just a little stressing is done about how the natives of South East Asia had influenced the foreigners in some aspects.

Sometimes, some people are ignoring the local/natives' capability of inventing something and put their own race superior than the natives. Some archaeological findings about the local inventions are seen ignored, never mentioned, or are put as the last sentence in a paragraph/article. Is it to degrade the natives' capability of thinking even though they have been existing thousand years ago, interacting with each others, with the nature, and every thing around them that could actually helped them create/invent new things, ideas and concepts?

Interacting with the nature such as the wind, the leaves of trees, the animal's movement and among others absolutely would/will generate new ideas, concepts, custom, words, and even as told by myths - the martial arts origin (ie. silat). Even the "Silat Sendeng" of tortoise movements was created by a man in East Coast of West Malaysia. This is a fact. Thus, the article might be seen as trying to ignore the natives' capabilities of thinking and generate new things during their thousand years of existence, or as if the natives have never created something and had been influenced by foreigners since they went out of the caves. They have been influenced by foreigners, but not in everything in their life. Silat can have some influence from foreigners in terms of something, but its existence (and most of the movements) could be invented by the natives themselves, as what is mentioned in this article about the local tribes' war dances which are considered the precursor of the freestyle form in silat.

Finally, I raise this question, were Kung Fu and Silambam had not been influenced by foreigners? I believe they do. Or maybe the South East Asian peoples might be the one who influenced them, instead of the natives got influenced by the foreigners?

Mr. Knows (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things missing from this. Angie Y. (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Silat the term used to refer to ALL martial arts form of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei?Pwordisony (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Among other changes, I'm removing the infoboxes from this article and also from pencak silat and silat Melayu. These are all umbrella terms for regional martial arts but infoboxes are meant for specific styles like perisai diri, Silat Cimande, lian padukan, etc. Morinae (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the Spirituality section because the spiritual aspect of silat is specific to certain styles or teachers but doesn't belong in a general article. (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Weapons section, it lists the sarong as one possible weapon used. Is this the same as the article of clothing? And if so, how does one go about using it as a weapon? Or is there a different meaning of the word "sarong" that's implied here? Or does it just mean that one typically wears a sarong when using the tongkat? This statement could use some clarification. Lurlock (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Malay the word sarong literally means sheathe, as in a scabbard or some other kind of covering. The wrap-around garment which English-speakers are familiar with is actually referred to as kain sarong which means "sheathe fabric" (coicidentally, the sheathes of knives and swords can also be used as weapons). This wearable fabric is considered one of the most advanced weapons in silat. The cloth itself can be used to choke or lock an opponent. It also provides some padding when used defensively. Yes, it is the same sarong that you would wear, although you probably wouldn't wield it as a weapon if it's the only thing covering you from the waist down. Traditionally the sarong was worn in a variety of ways, such as draped over one shoulder or wrapped around the mid-section like a belt. Malays and other Southeast Asians carried or wore this fabric as part of their daily dress, so it was useful to learn its use if you didn't bring any other weapons.60.50.23.32 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silat also belongs to Singapore Manneuszuker (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this Wiki page should be merged to Pencak Silat. I think that a separate section consisting of what is written here should be created there. Pelautmalaka (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the proposal because UNESCO has clearly defined that Silat and the tradition of Pencak Silat are different.

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/silat-01504

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditions-of-pencak-silat-01391 Audit2020 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silat
UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
Country	Malaysia
Domains	Martial Art
Reference	01504
Region	Asia and the Pacific
Inscription history
Inscription	2019 (14th session)
List	Representative List

I noticed some editors persistently removing the UNESCO Infobox from the Silat page and would like to know the reasons. The UNESCO Infobox is just additional verified information from UNESCO and does not change any other existing information on the page.

Please list out the reason for the removal of the Silat UNESCO Infobox when other pages have no issue with having the UNESCO Infobox on the page. Audit2020 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Northheavenskyplease response Audit2020 (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]