Talk:Zui Quan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the China WikiProject.
More information about this article...
Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
1, 2



Contents

[edit] Archiving

I am archiving the older discussions on this talk page because Wikipedia has made a note of this talk page being too long.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern

* Note: I am breaking this up for easier navigation.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC) *

Why did you list Zui Quan as a style of Wushu? I already explained this to you. Unless you can give me a good reason not to revert it, I will next time I make changes. Right now I'll leave it in but bring back my definition as well.NJMauthor (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me, I meant to just restore the Ma Qing Lung reference and you marked one sentence as "citation needed" but it had one at the end of the paragraph so I moved it to the end of the sentence.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For the style section: When was the style created, and by whom? It is recent enough to easily find out with some research. NJMauthor (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Loa Wu Chang claims to have practiced the style in the 1960’s.
From my research it seems that different people may have combined the Zui Quan Forms and techniques with their own philosophy independently of each other.
I would like to get your opinion on each of these two possibilities.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Each is possible. It should be researched by the group. NJMauthor (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] legend

08:51, 7 April 2008 Xavexgoem (Talk | contribs) (10,414 bytes) (→The Modern Style: rmv last sentence; given (unless they're REALLY good)) (undo)

Yes it should be given, but it's still a misconception due to some of the legends around the origins of Zui Quan.--MahaPanta (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it me mentioned again? Because there is a big misconception due to the Jackie Chan movies that you have to be drunk to do any drunken moves. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about source # 9

Sifu Neil Ripski teaches drunken techniques within a CMA style, not as a style. It says so on his website. NJMauthor (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was basing it on the box for the DVD that I referenced. I also looked at other sites including this one: http://www.kamikaze.com/links/index.php?funct=show&id=332 --MahaPanta (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the website itself be a more reputable source, not some seller? NJMauthor (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the source be removed while remaining neutral? (I agree that the guy saying such-and-such is better than a DVD box saycing such-and-such, but that's just me; at any rate, "style" and "form" are easily confused, I suppose?) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also can you specify which site?--MahaPanta (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm having difficulty figuring which site is official; there seem to be many official organizations (or semi-official, at any rate) that cite him, but it's kinda vague to tell which is his, so to speak. I fear this will turn into a contest over a singular source; is there a better source available? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ripski's homepage is the eight shadows fist website. This is where it talks about the lineage of his style, which is called Ba Ying Kuen: http://www.eightshadowsfist.com/lineage.htm

And on this page we find Drunken Fist listed under the external method subsection of "skills taught in Ba Ying Kuen":

External Methods

   * Tiger Taming Fist
   * Monkey Fist
   * Drunken Fist
   * Mountain Snake Fist
   * Chang Quan (Long Fist)
   * Mo Tui (Devil Leg)
   * Mook Jhong (Wooden Man Training)
   * Northern Praying Mantis

NJMauthor (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto reference

So, NJMauthor apparently feels himself entitled to tell me to take this issue to the talk page.

So, I'd like to note some points. First, there's the interesting point that the fellow who opposes the status quo is revert warring with me. Second, he's the one who has singularly failed to cite any policy or guideline for his removal; I note that he actually hasn't given any reason at all for the removal (but he's the one who is telling me to 'Please head to the talk page').

Now, one might claim that a brief edit summary like "Trivia doesn't need sources" is in fact a feeble effort at justification, but I respect NJMauthor much too much to believe that; if I did, I'd have to also accept that NJMauthor has discovered some entirely new section to WP:V, one which adds a special loophole for trivia, one which renders moot the summary: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." (A smaller-minded editor might note that NJMauthor himself has in the past challenged precisely that item of trivia; but I know he was really just doing his best to instruct us lesser editors.)

And surely a superlative editor like NJMauthor with his years of experience would never make such a silly claim.

So. I await your explanation with interest. --Gwern (contribs) 23:20 20 May 2008 (GMT)

First of all: Check the attitude, son.
You first, thanks.
Second, having trivia material sources in the same reference section as the article sources is not only confusing, but undermines the relevance of the main article itself. I eagerly await your colorful attempts at journalistic wit, because raw communication is obviously not your forté. Peace out! --NJMauthor (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't even follow this objection. You're drawing some sort of weird distinction (how is one section of the article not part of the article?), then arguing that somehow multiple sources is confusing, and immediately undercut your own request for civility.
I find that explanation very unsatisfying. I held off reverting for a bogus rationale like that? No thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 17:36 23 May 2008 (GMT)
One more thing: I question the objectivity of your motivations based on the fervor you seem to be defending a minor edit to a minor article with. Please explain. --NJMauthor (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. You've found me out - I'm actually a POV-pusher hired by the International Federation of Drunken Martial Artists.
Now I will have to abandon this account and start over! All those years, for naught. --Gwern (contribs) 17:33 23 May 2008 (GMT)

I actually thought you were a fanboy pushing his fix on an innocent, non-consenting wikipedia article. NJMauthor (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; truly I've demonstrated my fanboyism by adding the reference in the first place, and by opposing its removal. Supporting keeping references? A classic symptom of fanboyism. --Gwern (contribs) 22:35 25 May 2008 (GMT)

If you can find a way to divide the reference box between trivia and the main article, go right ahead. I've no problem with that. Shouldn't an article itself be larger than its trivia? NJMauthor (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. Er, what? Why on earth should the article have a split reference section? That makes no sense to me.
  2. Yes, in some useless theoretical sense. --Gwern (contribs) 02:56 5 June 2008 (GMT)