Talk:Chinese martial arts/Archive 1

Some disabugation please

I read somewhere about liuhexinyiquan and xinyiliuhequan in the article, can someone clarify the article? Gammadion

http://www.kungfuinchina.com/articles_xingyi01.html HISTORY- THE ORIGINS OF XING YI QUAN By Will Yorke :

'Xing Yi Quan evolved from Xin Yi Quan (Heart and Intention Boxing) otherwise known as Liu He Xin Yi Quan (6 Harmonies Heart and Intention Boxing)...' Lok hup

Merging of wushu, kung fu and Chinese martial arts articles

Please see Talk:Wushu for some new thoughts on this matter.

- Wintran 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

First version

Alright, I've finally taken some time to post my rewritten articles on Chinese martial arts, wushu and gungfu, even though I can say that they are not finished in any way; I will need much help to correct and expand them. At least you will now see my idea of how we can sort these articles better. I'm sure not all of you will agree to the changes, and I'm only glad if this can start a serious discussion.

- Wintran 00:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) Hi, is that possible to add "Kuoshu" as a Chinese term used to define Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Ref: www.TWKSF.org www.USKuoshu.org and Lei Tai Article. About your article it is pretty well writed Thanks Francombat 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice! I will tinker a little here and there, but your overall setup is pretty good the way it is, IMO. I expect to be filling out some paragraphs in a general way and providing links to more specific pages, and if anyone thinks it is too much tinkering, let me know... Once again, i would like that someone add the name of "Kuoshu" to define Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Kuoshu spread around the world with more than 104 countries member afiliated. You can take reference on the matter at www.TWKSF.org www.USkuoshu.org I still don't understand why don't you just add Kuoshu. Kuoshu was the official name given to the Chinese martial arts when it was formalized and standardized by the Kuomintang government in 1928, in recognition of Kung Fu's unique Chinese cultural heritage. In 1949, when the communists took over China, the original Chinese government moved to Taiwan. I think that you can find all reference on google as well as on wikipedia.org insert "Lei Tai". Before that wrote on wikipedia about Lei Tai no one was willing to add Kuoshu as an organization who promote the Lei Tai. Kuoshu is a term that is used in Chinese as a general term for all martial arts, but specifically refers to the Traditional Chinese martial arts also known as Kung Fu. The World Kuoshu Federation is the only organization who never changed taolu or even the platform (Lei Tai) in order to be more popular. Wushu is sport, promoted as a sport not Kuoshu that the difference. Wushu and Kuoshu are both great organization but there is a difference the way that they promote Chinese martial arts. I believe that you have enough reference online to make the correction.

Hope you will add, if not i have already share the point of view of our organization.

Thank you,

Best regard

Franco Richard President, The Canadian Kuoshu Federation (TCKSF) Chairman, Kuoshu Lei Tai Fighting Francombat 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

-Fire Star 00:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am gonna try to arrange the section and content to match the Wikipedia chinese edition. This will provide users with proper reference points.

-Ottawakungu 20:24, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be getting lots of reverts. Should the article be placed under semi-protection? --mh 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The Appearance of forms section seems out of place. Trying to compare 3 dimensional applications from one style of martial art to those of another seems awkward on the page and doesn't really explain anything about the appearance of Chinese martial arts forms. I plan on deleting most of the chin na vs. Aikido descriptions and adding some discussion on why Chinese martial training forms appear the way that they do. Comments? Fire Star 00:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Error found

Wingchun is not a external style martial art. It is internal. It focuses on sticking and sensitivity. The short range blocks are based on efficiency and directness.

-> Well, it may be internal or it may be not, but in general most do not consider it so, and so it has been left out. (Usually, only Taijiquan, Baguazhang, and Xingyiquan are considered "internal"; on the other hand almost every style says that it is internal, too.)

Edededed 04:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The general distinctions between internal and external is the final goals pursued with the majority of exercises in the styles content. Even though Wing Chun practitioners spend most time training sensitivity techniques (such as chi sao) this is done for a final goal of effectively controlling another. This is an external goal. Internal goals include energy building and better well being. If any goal is most over looked by Wing Chun it would be a desire for more internal energy. Whig Chun is one of the main examples of an external style.

Wushu categorization

Please post some comments about the categorization of wushu articles at Talk:Wushu. Shawnc 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. "Kung Fu" is much more widely considered to be the defining English term for "Chinese Martial Arts". Wushu, in it's primary form, is an exhibition sport derrived from Chinese martial arts and in-line with the Chinese Communist Party that "brothers do not fight brothers". --Phrost 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncited conclusion

Someone has written:

Researchers regard this claim with considerable skepticism, since historical record and modern archaeology report earlier sources for some techniques and schools dating as far back as 5000 B.C.

The development of Chinese writing occurred during the Shang dynasty (traditionally, 1766 BCE-1123 BCE, and the Oracle bone texts we have from that date are generally very brief and utilitarian. Our text claims to have support for the rather abitious conclusions, but I doubt any textual justification could possibly be given and will wait for any archaeological justification. We must have citations for extraordinary claims of this kind. P0M 08:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

External links out of hand

I found this page on recent changes patrol. It's my opinion that even having an external links section is inviting lots and lots of spam links here. My inclination is to simply remove all the external links. I'm going to be bold and do so. Part of my reasoning here is that there are gazillions of links related to Chinese martial arts, and Martial Arts schools are notorious for aggressive advertising. Plus, this topic is a vague grouping of many martial arts; are any of these links even about Chinese martial arts as a whole, as opposed to a specific Chinese martial art? Are they informational or largely promotional sites?

If anyone wants to put the links back, I think a consensus should be reached here first. Mangojuice 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I agree with you. Wintran 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added external links back. My criteria are as follows: neutral, unbiased, concerns Chinese martial arts in general (not specific styles), peer-reviewed or community recognized. I have added some links as an example. Ottawakungfu 15:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed all the links again. Although there may be a few links out there that are appropriate, they really aren't needed, although if used as references they can be linked from the references section. Having an external links section in this article is too encouraging of linkspam. Mangojuice^talk 13:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

uncited "New York Chinese kung-fu master who killed a man"

The reference to "... a relatively well known New York Chinese kung-fu master who killed a man (although with a firearm) in some quarrel and went to prison ..." needs a date and also clarification: who had the firearm? the kung-fu, or the now-dead? --Markhu 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted that claim. If this master was 'relatively well known' then what is/was his/her name; when did this happen; what was the quarrel over? Most importantly, what is the source? --Hydraton31 09:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

External and Internal differentiation

I think it would be wise (though I won't do it without any sort of confirmation) to add a note somewhere that concepts of 'external' and 'internal' are really invalid. The article itself states that internal styles used external training methods, and vice versa; and anyone with a strong background in Chinese martial arts knows that it is extremely rare to find a style that is solely one or the other. The only 'solely' external style that comes to mind is the Shandong heihu practiced in the traditional (read: not modern) Shaolin temple, and even that requires at some point the use of internal power.

I'd also like to note the terminology used in the article is based entirely off of current Chinese Wushu (the sport) lingo. The statement "The most famous are arts from the Shaolin Temple and descendant arts, like Shaolinquan, Luohanquan, Hung Gar, Wing Chun and White Crane" is a non-sequitur; Shaolin martial arts encompass Hung Gar, Wing Chun, and White Crane styles. Wing Chun and White Crane were both taught at the temples (Tiger, Crane, Snake, Dragon, and Mantis are the animals of Shaolin Ch'an; and in addition Bakmei, or White Eyebrow, style is taught). For a reference see 'The Shaolin Grandmasters' Text' by the Order of Shaolin Ch'an. There is no 'Shaolinquan' except in Wushu and in the modern temple created by the Chinese government. --Kronaster

Criticism

Are these articles written by kung-fu artists or by Jet Li movie fans. Wushu is not a fighting style, its Communist tumbling. The Communists killed many of the monks and disbanded the Shaolin temples, not realizing the true value of what they destroyed until much later. They then rebuilt and created Wushu, a style with no direct link to traditional Shaolin Kung Fu. The two are not interchangable and it is considered a insult in the traditional community to call someone's kung-fu wushu. Just a note from someone who take this stuff seriously. Save writing articles like this for someone who knows what they are talking about, not some movie buff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.124.20.174 (talk • contribs) .

Is this troll or what? I agree that Wushu is not a fighting style, but it's a martial arts anyway. I guess the main question is whether or not Wushu descended from Shaolin Kung Fu. That is not at all an NPOV problem!

Please sign your postings.

One of the problems would appear to be with the two or three meanings of the article title. On the Chinese side, the term wǔ yì has been present for hundreds of years (if you include its incipient presence in the term 5 yì it goes back to early Zhou dynasty times). The yì part came to mean something more like what we think of as the "fine arts," I suspect. For whatever reason the everyday global term for martial arts came to be wǔ shù. Very recently the term wǔ shù was "reappropriated" to apply to a performance art. As movie fans became more discerning, the movie actors had to go for realism, which brought them back toward the original meaning of the term. The criterion for techniques has to be how they look.

The neutral point of view criterion for Wikipedia articles insists that we should accurately represent what is going on in the real world as described by qualified (published in peer-reviewed articles, etc.) observers. and not to take sides. We could say, for instance, that the techniques displayed in movies starring Bruce Lee were chosen on the basis of how they would look on the movie screen, that the photography was skillfully edited to shorten the time it appeared to take to complete a technique, etc., etc., without saying or implying that Bruce Lee didn't know how to fight. P0M 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit, if wushu isn't made to fight, it can't be called a martial art. It's just a "dance art", a way to perform choreography, but by no means a MARTIAL art.

i hate to tell you this, but WUSHU is the general term for all chinese martial arts and shaolin kung fu is a subsidiary of this martial arts Kennethtennyson 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wushu literary means Martial Arts, and may or may not include Shaolin Kung Fu, because the latter involves not just aspects of fighting, but also self-discipline and mental cultivation with Enlightenment as its ultimate goal. In general, the term Kung Fu can cover all types of skills, from cooking to playing mahjong. Cottonball 04:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

im afraid to add fuel to the fire but cottonball is dead on. while most chinese people know what you would be talking about if you said kung fu, thats only because theyve accepted thats what foreigners mean when they mean kung fu. whether contemporary wushu should be categorized as martial arts or sports is a topic best left to other forums (which always have threads on this stuff). also i believe the article has done an adequate job of distinguishing between modern wushu and traditional styles within each subsection.

The shaolin temple, by legend, was the target of many attacks dependent on the ruling dynasty, and as a result was destroyed more than just once. The knowledge of martial arts in China was passed down to non-monks/nuns on more than one occasion, as organizations such as Hung society and Jing Wu societies existence would testify; some of these people did stay in China even though they knew the kind of consequences and very possible death they would suffer. Some have perserved over the decades and some of these people did pass on their knowledge during the creation of contemporary wushu; even being defiant of the government regulation with fear of death. I do think that as time has progressed, contemporary wushu has almost erased all self-defence. My point is, even though you have felt insulted, there are people out there who would be insulted that there is no link between the "sportified" wushu and traditional chinese martial arts. They risked their lives to live in their homeland and try to pass their art on in the face of a sentence of death. you should try not to associate actions of a government committee with these people. --Blckavnger 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text needs to be refactored

"As stated earlier, the Kung Fu that is practiced today developed over the centuries...." -- except, it wasn't stated earlier. And what's this about "accurate historical data relating to their inventors"? Not encyclopedic unless it's backed up. PenguiN42 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Protect

I am wondering if this article should be put under semi-protection or something. It seems to be getting lots of vandal edits and reverts. Anyone has any opinion? --mh 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the quantity is high enough. There have been about 4 such edits in the last week, not what you would call a problem we can't keep up with. Mangojuice^talk 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rank

I think it should be included in this article ranking/grading systems. As far as I know, Chinese martial arts do not use colored belts to denote ranks. What is used is naming system based on a 'family', for example, Shifu (martial father/master), Shige (elder martial borther), Shijie (elder martial sister), Shigong (martial gandfather) and so on, and their Cantonese and possibly Min Nan variations. Seniority is based on when the member joined the school/sect/family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redshift489 (talk • contribs)

Be bold. Xiner (talk, email) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The belt system came into Japanese MA when Jujutsu was transformed into Judo, i.e., when the martial technique started to be viewed as a kind of physical/spiritual culture. Apparently the schools needed some way of providing visual indications of which students were the more advanced.

I lived and trained in Taiwan for a total of about 7 years. I never saw anybody using belts. MA was organized by individual teachers, by the named "schools" (e.g., praying mantis), and by some umbrella groups that were friendly and collegial in nature. None but the most egocentric would have claimed themselves to be masters. Everyone defers to everyone else (even when there are underlying ego issues). I once heard an older student claim to be my teacher's "gao zu," (most favored student), but he was the only one who ever said it.

Belts have their utility within a single school or within a group of schools that coordinate their grading criteria. One school's brown belt may only be the equal of some other school's green belt, and some schools have 8th dan as their highest rank for living teachers while others promote people up to tenth. But dividing a continuum into 8 parts in one region and dividing it into 10 parts in another region does not mean that there is any real difference in the levels of attainment of the people at the top of both grading systems.

I like the real story in Moving Zen where the foreign student asks the Japanese karate master how long it will take him to get his black belt. The teacher gives him a new black belt out of a box and tells him to get out and never come back.

It seems to me that rank should be soft-pedaled in an article on Chinese martial arts. Any good teacher is trying to move students in the direction of greater all-around competence.P0M 06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very useful info, too, Patrick0Moran, but I don't think what Redshift489 is suggesting has to violate that. Chinese kung-fu movies/stories always refer to teachers/brothers/sisters, and I think it reflects what both of you talked about - an issue that's not readily apparent to those unfamiliar with the topic. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My school uses the Temple button or badge system to denote level of attainment in the curriculum. DashaKat 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I removed the following from the article:

That is why martial arts should be used for self defense only and not showing off, Chinese martial arts is created solely for the perpose of ending a fight and not starting one. It's use is for defensive perposes only and not offensive, this concept was misinterpreted by the commercial television which made violence popular under the term Kung Fu (功夫). Kung (Gong, 功) can be translated as energy and Fu (夫) as time, the term Kung Fu roughly can be translated as "hard work" and is considered solely as fighting skills.

This doesn't follow Wikipedia policy on article content. For one thing, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article on a concept, not a platform for delivering a lecture on "only for self-defense" to the reader: see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I think it's a widespread view that martial arts in general is for self-defense, but it's not the only view, and we need to cover all viewpoints equally and not throw weight behind one above others: see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, I really don't think that one reading of the literal translation of "Wushu" is actually at all the "reason" why martial arts should be used for self defense.. rather, the reason is that it's a bad idea to encourage mayhem and offensive behavior. What would be appropriate is to discuss general philosophic points about Chinese martial arts, based on what others have written about them in reliable sources.

I'm also concerned about the literal translation section itself, because it doesn't cite a source, and could be considered original research. Mangojuice^talk 17:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a really hard time accepting this, so remember that your policies make me feel bad. As a matter of fact if you people don't accept the evalution of moral values & civic virtues, I am not sure I want to be a part of this. Instead of deleting, you should expand it. Just look what happened to the construction of my arcticle, it's all out of balance now. You don't have to edit every post, it's not an obligation. The things I post about Chinese martial arts, was taught to me by my Chinese martial arts teacher from 1 generation to the other. So there is no need to dispute issues I've posted, the issues I address should be commonly known.

I didn't make this up, it was taught to me by my Chinese martial arts teacher. So I am just loyal to his teachings, otherwise it is just solely fighting skills.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey.. I accept that martial arts should be used for self-defense: that's what I was taught too, and I think it's the same for almost everyone. It's more about writing a good article about martial arts; this is not a place to learn martial arts, but a place to learn about martial arts. How should we cover this specific issue? I think right now, it's already covered reasonably well in the history section, which makes it clear that Wushu was a defensive art, at least at the beginning. It's probably hard to talk about the philosophy of Chinese martial arts generally, but if we can do that, we should... but what that would look like is a neutral presentation of the various prevailing philosophies attributed to sources and so on. As to the way you've done it, you've added some stuff about translation of the actual characters and added an interpretation about that translation. The translation seems fine to me, if unsourced, but the interpretation reads like a teacher lecturing his/her students, and that's not right in an encyclopedia article. Mangojuice^talk 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I was taught that wushu is a modern word that has no place in the traditional MA lexicon. The proper term for Chinese martial arts, according to my background of 30+ years and numerous lineaged teachers, is kung-fu wu-su...the disciplined techniques of war and combat.

Secondly, I was taught that martial arts, whether Chinese or Japanese, are not for self-defense, but for the defense of the innocent. This is how Yogis practicing Kalirayppattu, Buddhists practicing kung-fu wu-su, or samauri of Zen tradition are able to reconcile the practice of violence with their spiritual practice.

My point is that, all in all, we must agree to disagree in order to establish the balance and harmony both suggested and demanded by our various traditions. DashaKat 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted those comments mentioned, as well as some others that were in violation of NPOV and were weasel words (many/some martial artists believe...). The arugments for inclusion/deletion have nothing to do with the personal POV's of users editing the article and their respective schools. Editorializing statements not backed by verification in reliable published sources and that ignore representing all points of view (there are verifiable published POV's that reject your view of martial arts and martial morality) are not acceptable in articles. The test for inclusion is verifiability not truth. As a new user Phalanx, I suggest you thoroughly read the basic intros to Wikipedia carefully before continuing to edit. Your views, or the views of your teacher, are not reliable published sources. They constitute WP:Original research. The interesting, informative and citable facts about what the traditional view of Wude and wushu mean are acceptable if they are adequately cited and contain no subjective opinion as to their meaning attached. Also, you should remember that Wikipedia has clear rules for inclusion. Arguing around them or about the fundamental precepts of a wiki encyclopedia isnt getting anywhere. Address the application of Wikipedia policy to try and reach consensus. This isn't about any user's personal opinion of ethics or martial arts, and your comments about our personal beliefs are considered highly impolite. VanTucky 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Concept sections...

My sense, as an editor only, is the concept sections are very much out of place. I believe this should be addressed. DashaKat 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "concept of martial arts" section, as it addresses the meaning and etymology of the word wushu, which is already covered by the wushu article and does not belong on this page. VanTucky 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work .. was just about to do it myself. Ottawakungfu 20:14, 15 May, 2007

I am willing to delete my account on this dispute.

I leave permanently to prevent any further conflict.

I have a really hard time accepting this, so remember that your policies make me feel bad. As a matter of fact if you people don't accept the evalution of moral values & civic virtues, I am not sure I want to be a part of this. Instead of deleting, you should expand it. Just look what happened to the construction of my arcticle, it's all out of balance now. You don't have to edit every post, it's not an obligation. The things I post about Chinese martial arts, was taught to me by my Chinese martial arts teacher from 1 generation to the other. So there is no need to dispute issues I've posted, the issues I address should be commonly known.

So I give you one time more the oppertunity to delete my stuff, but I am willing to delete my account because you people are regardless of mercy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, we try not to bite the newcomers around here, but there is a learning curve. I'm sorry we haven't been able to make it clear what the problem with your contribution was. I hope that if you want to keep editing, you'll read over Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers! to get a general introduction. Mangojuice^talk 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I do not have problems with Phalanxpursos's contributions but rather with the style of your information and context where you are posting the information. I feel that VanTucky have already provided enough feedback and have already acknowledged your contribution Ottawakungfu 14:30, 16 May, 2007

Thanks a lot pal.

But I have 5 years of bad experiences with Internet communities, so I rather communicate with people from eye to eye than by glassviber connection. The things I've posted about martial arts are commonly known throughout China, Taiwan & Japan, you know I am sorry for starting this editing war. But I just want peace, so I am willing to defend the peace.

That is the motive behind my actions.

Phalanxpursos (Internet communities are not the right place for someone like me, judging by 5 years of experience I've had too few positive experiences regarding this issue.)

We hope you decide to stay, your experience with martial arts would be gladly accepted in contributing to Wikipedia. However, as others and myself have reminded you, all users are bound by the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. If you don't feel you can abide by them, then it may be best to refrain from editing. But polite disputes and discussions over content are what creates the consensus of conflicting opinions that makes Wikipedia a reliable and noteworthy encylcopedic resource. Having conflicts is part of what makes Wikipedia what it is, and you should not feel it's necessary to leave entirely just to avoid conflict. VanTucky 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chinese martial arts/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

(comment removed)

Last edited at 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)