Talk:Chinese martial arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese martial arts article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Chinese martial arts is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Minor Changes

This article is excellent, it uses verifiable references and not myths or nonsense legends. However the author still exagerates the importance of Shaolin. In the references he/she uses like prof. Meir Shahar and Stanley Hening, fails to mentions that there are not records of specific empty hand styles practiced by the monks, which could be that these were the same practiced elswhere as Stanley Henning points out. Also prof. Shahar, mentions that the number of monks with martial training were few and not as it has been believed , armies of hundreds of warrior monks. Tianshanwarrior 9:41AM 9 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible?

Basics (基本功) are a vital part of the training, as a student cannot progress to the more advanced stages without them; without strong and flexible muscles including the management of the "Chi" (breath, or energy), many movements of Chinese martial arts are simply impossible to perform correctly. Basics training involves a simple series of simple movements that are performed repeatedly over a short interval. Examples of basics training includes stretching, stances, meditation and special techniques.

What?? so no one can perform some moves as they are IMPOSSIBLE? How is this? Should the text be "very difficult to perform" or it it referring to theoretical moves of the art that really are impossible?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.205.42 (talk • contribs)

I think that the article is stating that, without extensive training in the basics, such as strength, flexibility, and proper internal and external coordination, certain moves are impossible to perform correctly. This is true of most physical skills. You could just as easily say, "In figure skating, without first practicing how to skate, it is impossible to perform a triple axel." I suppose you could argue that it theoretically is possible, but in reality it would be so extremely difficult and incredibly improbable that calling it impossible is not so far from the truth that it needs to be changed. Bradford44 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section?

The article claims to have a trivia section, but I don't see it, is it out? Xargque 05:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is still there. It is titled Anime and manga. I added the original tag to the top of the page, and another editor moved it to the top of the section (which is fine, there is currently controversy over whether the {{trivia}} tag goes at the top or just above the alleged trivia section - either is ok with me).
Anime and manga section has been removed - no one put it back. Trivia tag has been removed. Ottawakungfu 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick wording edit

In the 'Modern Forms' section, where traditionalists are said to scorn the "evolution" of today's Chinese martial arts, I changed the word 'evolution' to 'trends' and added 'renditions of' before Chinese martial arts, because part of 'evolution' is being better than what came before. Thomas Keefe 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution only implies development by its dictionary definition. VanTucky (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do we need to get this article to a A class article?

Can the community develop and post a check list on the requirements needed to get this article to an A class status. Besides that - here are my objectives for the next couple of months:

  • Re-organize the history section
  • Start a couple of new subsection for history for example: Chinese Martial Arts in North America, Chinese Martial Arts in Europe, etc.

Ottawakungfu 01:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you begin by trying to get the article to GA-class. Review the GA criteria at WP:GA?, and make sure it meets all of them, then nominate it at WP:GAN, and wait for it to be reviewed. Even if it doesn't pass (right now, it is very close, in my opinion), you should get useful feedback for improvement from the reviewer. Good luck. Bradford44 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the More References Needed tags

If there are no objections, I am going to remove those tags, i have added enough sources to justify their removal. -- Ottawakungfu 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already 50+ references in this article already so adding a general "verification is required tag" will not help to improve the article. For contributors, please add tags at specific locations where you think a reference is required and then we as a community can address those issues. -- Ottawakungfu 10:48, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Again, general comments on requiring more sources will not help to improve the article. Unless contributors provide more specifics on which sections / paragraphs / sentences require additional reference, we will not get anywhere. If the community is happy which such general tags, I will leave it. My personal preference is to have more specific tags because the structure and tone of this article is relatively mature. -- Ottawakungfu 9:34, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines state that there should be at least one citation per paragraph. Look on the page and count how many paragraphs that are lacking citations. One good example of is the controversy section. "Whitewashing" the page of the tags is not going to solve the problem. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That is news to me .. where is the link to this suggestion that "there should be at least one citation per paragraph". As i have suggested, if you want to contribute, point out where you feel a reference is needed as I have done, then the community will address those comments. Having a general tag and with no one wanting to do anything about it is just as bad. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the general tag: Ottawa is right, a general request for sources in an article that is as well-sourced as this one is not going to help things out o much. I put a section-specific tag in the controversy section requesting sources there, because of Ghostexorcist's concerns. There is no requirement for one citation per paragraph, at least, not absolutely... but I would expect to see that level for featured status, which I hope this article is heading towards. Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well sourced? Is that a joke? I could rip this article to shreds with {{fact}} tags. I chose not to and put the aforementioned tag at the top. And let's not forget about all of the uncited speculation that is present throughout the entire page. Having 50 or more citations does not mean it is well sourced. I'm afraid that people's love for martial arts is blinding them from the actual pitiful state of this article.
It's been around since 2004 and it's still B class. There is an entire wiki project devoted to martial arts and so you would think that this page would be at the top of their to do list. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
All articles can be improved, please contribute if you are interested. Ottawakungfu (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Ghost - that's really not a very helpful comment. It's not sufficiently clear what needs sourcing from an external perspective, so the general tag is inappropriate. Fact tags would be, but if you're not even interested in doing that, perhaps you could at least offer some specific criticism? Mangojuicetalk 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I already have. Ok, here is another one: the "notable practitioners" section. It has only one reference for the entire lot. Linked articles do not constitute a reference. How do we know that all of the info presented in that section is correct? I know for a fact that I had to correct the Yue Fei entry. There is no historical evidence that he even created any styles at all. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the section on Popular Culture Trivia?

Based on the current structure of the article, I do not think the Popular Culture section is trivia. This section has been tagged as such twice already and I have removed those tags. Please provide feedback on this viewpoint.

Ottawakungfu 10:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special Techniques?

In a recent review, the section on special techniques as part of basic training was removed. Special techniques includes iron palm training, etc. Should it be added?

Ottawakungfu 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category, need articles

I have created a subcategory for Category:Stock characters by characteristics called Category:Fictional elderly martial arts masters. I'm sure there are some people on here that know of some articles that can fit into this category. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Bodhidharma material

I have put the following comment under its own subheader because the editor directed it at me in the wrong section. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I support your removal of Bodhidharma from literal history, calling him "a myth" without siting a source proving he never existed is inaccurate. NJMauthor (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant his connection to martial arts. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, where's the evidence that shows he had nothing to do with martial arts? Are you saying this because he only taught exercises, or because you doubt his affiliation with the shaolin temple at all? NJMauthor (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

See Prof. Meir Shahar's new book called The Shaolin Monastery. Shahar relies on authentic Shaolin records to show that Vajrapani was actually the deity connected with Shaolin arts centuries before Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma would later be connected to Shaolin arts during the 17th or 18th century (I don't remember which since I don't have the book in front of me) when the Sinew Changing classic was written.
Shahar has also shown that stories regarding the origins of Shaolin arts are not reliable because they include or were influenced by popular fictional characters from Chinese literature. For instance, the story regarding the origin of the Shaolin staff method was influenced by the Monkey King from Journey to the west. (see here for more details) --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a new and unverified (by other commonly known sources) claim. This information is valid for our purposes now because you have a source and there's no contradiction from other sources, but it's liable to change in the future. NJMauthor (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On the lack of a genuine historical link between Bodhidharma and martial arts, Shahar's conclusions concur with those of Tang Hao and, writing in English, Brian Kennedy & Elizabeth Guo and Stanley Henning. JFD (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the material will change because he relies on authentic Shaolin steles and martial arts manuals to chart the evolution of Shaolin legends. You can find the book here: http://uhpress.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-shaolin-monastery/ . It's $54, but well worth the price if you want to read a true scholarly treasure. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the following comment to the appropriate section. It was placed at the top and partially directed at me and another editor. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There are significant POV issues on this page. First of all, it seems that there are quite a few people (ex. Tianshanwarrior, Ghostexorcist). According to Wikipedia policies, "One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of ALL RELEVANT SIDES OF A DEBATE, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

I understand that many of you are passionate about the Chinese origins of Kung Fu. However, completely removing the idea that Bodhidharma played a role in Shaolin Kung fu is to push a biased point of view. Note Tianshanwarrior's statement that this article "uses verifiable references and not myths or nonsense legends" (a tangential reference to Bodhidharma's involvement in Shaolin kung fu). This article should at least mention the theory and that there are documents supporting this theory, and that there are historians that disagree with it. To completely remove any reference to Bodhidharma is not proper history, but revisionism. While you may disagree with the role of Bodhidharma, or if he had any role at all, you must acknowledge that historians debate the issue, not take one side and pretend that the other side does not exist. This is de facto POV bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.7.17 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I only have a problem with the addition of Bodhidharma material when it is presented as fact. Please forgive me for my rudeness, but you seriously need to read some scholarly books (i.e. a university press) and research papers on the subject and not rely on martial arts websites that blindly recite legends as fact. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest there should be at least a sentence mentioning that to a vast majority, Bodhidharma is related to the Shaolin martial arts. However, leave the debate and details on the actual relationship of Bodhidharma and Shaolin to the main article in Shaolin Kungfu (which requires a lot of work). ottawakungfu (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it and you know it, but you would have to have a supporting source that says many people believe he has historical connections to Shaolin martial arts. I'm positive Prof. Shahar mentions it in his book. However, the connection has been destroyed by martial art and mainstream historians many times over. It should only be mentioned as a legend. A brief paragrah wouldn't hurt to explain the situation. It could be explained in depth on the Shaolin page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding masters to the "Notable practitioners" section

User:199.173.225.25 continues to add a master to the "Notable practitioners" section that is just not notable enough (by the way I have put a WP:3RR warning on their talk page). My major problem with the addition is that the person is not notable to even have his own wiki article. Red links should never be added to the list. My other problem is that the list would be a gigantic unverifiable mess If every person added a skilled master from their lineage to the section. The currently listed masters do have articles and many of them are important outside of the martial arts community:

  1. Yue Fei - National hero, portrayed in novels, comic books, folktales, and movies (hereafter SAME)
  2. Ng Mui - Creator of several noted styles, SAME
  3. Yang Luchan - Creator
  4. Ten Tigers of Canton - Famous old world masters, SAME
  5. Wong Fei Hung - National hero, SAME
  6. Huo Yuanjia - Natrional hero, SAME
  7. Yip Man - First person to teach Wing Chun openly and master to Bruce Lee
  8. Bruce Lee - Creator and famous actor (DUH!)
  9. Jackie Chan - DUH!
  10. Jet Lee - DUH!

I have notified them of this discussion on their talk page. Hopefully we can resolve the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with Ghostexorcist on his list and crtieria for inclusion in the list. As noted in the article, this list is representative and is not meant to be comprehensive. Yes, everyone likes to have their personal favourites listed but it would make the article unreadable. Please add notable Chinese Martial Artists under their respectative styles as well as in the list of Chinese Martial Artist. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to see a more detailed list of practitioners with the styles from which they are notable under. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We could start seperate list article, e.g. Notable practitioners of Chinese martial arts and link that, but do think that the bar should be an article or a good secondary source that indicates an article could be written in the future. However it might be easier to just list the ones above and then link the category Category:Chinese martial artists --Nate1481(t/c) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a related article called List of lei tai fighters a long time ago. It is a horrible article, but it is at least sourced. I have not updated it for at least a year. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)