Talk:Chinese martial arts/Archive 2

Minor Changes
The term Gongfu links to this article although it also refers to Gongfu tea ceremony. So I think there should be a link to "Gongfu_(disambiguation)" or some other solution.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.240.91.222 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.  Mango juice talk 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well sourced? Is that a joke? I could rip this article to shreds with 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?  Mango juice talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

antiquity frenzy
The history of martial arts in any culture "can be traced" to Homines erecti bashing each other's skulls in one million years ago. This is beside the point. We all know the Yellow Emperor is legendary, and his 2700 BC (the Chinese Neolithic!) date pulled out of thin air.

When we sit down and look at the evidence, it turns out that the earliest concrete records of Chinese martial arts set in around 500 BC.

Now this is still very early in the history of martial arts in general, because martial arts can only be taught by example, and it was completely pointless to write stuff down for much longer than in other fields. As in many other fields, this makes Chinese records of MA co-eval with similar records in Greek antiquity, bot not noticeably earlier.

So, I would ask that we put away the silly attempts to "trace Chinese martial arts" to the Neolithic or Bronze age. We can of course mention such hints as there are, but summarizing the history of anything tangible takes its earliest origin around 500 BC, and can be reasonably traced from about 500 AD. --dab (𒁳) 09:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dab just put the 720 degree butterfly kick to the correct. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of Qi
Note that the cited source (Kennedy/Guo) specifically includes alignment etc. under the heading of qi, with jin mentioned as an alternate or more specialized term. Also, biomechanical efficiency is not restricted to the explosive techniques often associated with jin/fa jin, but is found with various other attributes and techniques as well (rooting/stability being an obvious one). In any event the "shorthand" meaning of qi is not subsumed with the fa jin meaning, and the various meanings given to qi are worth mentioning - as the article stands, only the "life force" meaning appears, which is misleading. I'm re-adding some of the material, but with a clarification and link for fa jin. Ergative rlt (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with martial arts template
I have a problem with the martial arts template. It lists legendary figures along with actual martial artists. Scholars have proven Bodhidharma and Zhang Sanfeng both do not have historical connections to kung fu. I vote that we add another section to the template entitled "legendary figures" and list the two there. This is an encyclopedia after all and we have to be accurate. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the change. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Flabby implication?
The shape of most modern "practitioners" notwithstanding, traditional styles of taijiquan work on "improving muscle and cardiovascular fitness" as a prerequisite for martial training. Their definition of "fitness" itself is different, though. I suggest we reword the opening differentiation between internal and external to different approaches to improving muscle and cardiovascular fitness or some such... --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Change
The following paragrpah requires to be change. "According to legend, Chinese martial arts originated during the semi-mythical Xia Dynasty (夏朝) more than 4,000 years ago.[6] It is said the Yellow Emperor Huangdi (legendary date of ascension 2698 BCE) introduced the earliest fighting systems to China.[7] The Yellow Emperor is described as a famous general who, before becoming China’s leader, wrote lengthy treatises on medicine, astrology and the martial arts. He allegedly developed the practice of jiao di and utilized it in war.[8]"

First off it is not according to legends, but to actual passages in ancient writings, which is very different. Also it is not Huangdi but Chi You, who is credited for the creation of Jiao Di (see Chinese mythology: an introduction By Anne Birrell). (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.36 (talk)


 * The first comment "according to legends" is still accurate "actual passages in ancient writings" does not mean it is true.  The second comment is correct.  Chi You is the actual attributed creator of Jiao Di.  I will change the sentence accordingly. ottawakungfu (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Legendary founders
So Bodhidharma's involvement in martial arts is legendary. So what? So is the Yellow Emperor's. Just create a "legendary origins" section and discuss this stuff there. It beats sprinkling the article with html comments asking people to not mention Bodhidharma.

I created the Bodhidharma at Shaolin section-redirect. This should be taken as the main reference to this topic. As it turns out, this is a tradition dating to the 17th century. This makes it rather relevant, as it turns out that the history of Chinese martial arts itself dates to the 17th century. Let me explain what I mean.

So we have tons of references stating that "there was combat in ancient China". Yeah, there was also combat in Europe, in the North American plains, and in the Congo. As it happens, this article completely over-emphasizes the snippets of information from remote antiquity, and completely ignores the period of actual historical interest. Yes, I am sure there has been martial arts in China since before 1000 BCE. The point is that very little is known about it. We have an article dedicated to this stuff, at Asian martial arts (origins).

The actual history of Chinese martial arts (in the sense of historicity, i.e. we have actual sources that can be used to reconstruct what these people were doing) apparently emerges from around the 16th century. The period of interest here should therefore be the 16th to 19th centuries (late Ming plus Qing). Sadly, this period is completely neglected here. We hear about the Yellow Emperor, the Shang dynasty, the Spring and Autumn annals, and what have you, but about the period of actual historicity, all we have is the off-hand reference to
 * "various literary genres of the late Ming: the epitaphs of Shaolin warrior monks, martial-arts manuals, military encyclopedias, historical writings, travelogues, fiction and poetry."

well, that's great. These various literary genres of late Ming, especially the martial arts manuals, should be what this article focusses on, because they will be the source of any historical presentation of Chinese martial arts. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I have proposed merging Kung fu (term) into Chinese martial arts. The Chinese martial arts article itself specifies kung fu as a synonym. Granted the words in Chinese are not true synonyms but this is not a Chinese language article. These terms in English are essentially synonymous. To the extent that one could argue that there are subtle differences used in some contexts these can simply be explained in a single article. I don't see a rationale for two articles. As it stands the Kung fu (term) article is essentially just defining a term which, IMHO, violates WP:NAD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the Kung fu (term) article specifically states that its scope is broader then that of this article. I would suggest renaming Kung fu (term) to something making more sense instead. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose - I tend to agree with the IP that kung fu (term) is a dictionary definition, though if I have missed an obvious reason that it could be expanded into an encyclopaedic article then I might reconsider. Chinese martial arts is getting a little bit lengthy, perhaps, and it looks like it has already had material split from it several times, but I would not mind giving a little more space to the definition of kung fu there. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my recommendation to "oppose" because of Ottawakungfu's suggestion below that "kung fu" is a concept in Neo-Confucian philosophy, which was easily verified through a quick Google Books search. See, for example, this source. I agree with others that changing the name could be a good idea, though I'm not certain what to. Does anyone have any suggestions? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article has a broader scope and the term itself has enough notability to have a separate article and that will not violate WP:WEIGHT in this case. That being said, the article should rather be renamed to something that covers the full scope per Czarcoff. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The anon needs to provide solid proof that the term is considered 100% synonymous with Chinese martial arts. As mentioned above, the article has a lot of potential due to the all encompassing meaning of the term (i.e., skill in any given discipline through effort). I support the name change as well. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're getting at, but WP:DICTIONARY doesn't set the bar quite as high as that. For the article to be kept, what needs to be proven is that the term is an encyclopaedic topic in its own right - i.e. it should be possible to extend the article beyond a description of the term's different meanings, its etymology, and its usage. I think that Ottawakungfu's suggestion below that it is a concept in Neo-Confucian philosophy would be enough reason to keep it. I'll have a look for sources and see if I can find anything. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Kung Fu" is a Chinese term with many meanings historically e.g in Neo-Confucian philosophy, the term refers to moral effort. It is only recently that the term has been associated with Chinese martial arts.  As suggested, the name could be changed to make this point more explicit. ottawakungfu (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How real are the weapons scenes in periodic historic Chinese drama and films?
In historic Chinese drama and films, it appears that any Tom, Dick or Harriet can be carrying and displaying weapons such as long swords. Is this accurate? Could anybody just carry weapons in public in Chinese history? Did they need licences? Or were they simply banned? 86.176.190.115 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ch'uan fa
Why does ch'uan fa redirect here, when there is no mention of the term at all in this article? Rhialto (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I too have wondered about this. I have been told that the Japanese "kenpo" came from the Chinese "chuan fa", and that both mean "fist way"; that is, ken=chuan=fist and po=fa=way or art. I have noticed some movie titles which have "fist" in the English title have "chuan" in the Chinese title, which seems to support this translation. Also, see the article on tai chi ch'uan "Kung Fu" is shown, in this and other articles, to mean "human achievement". It seems that the two term "kung fu" and "chuan fa" are separate terms, with separate meanings. It therefore seems that, for the sake of completeness, this article should explain the term "chuan fa". Since I don't know the Chinese language, I would not be qualified to add such content.SRBirch922 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC) so long how to read — Preceding unsigned

Deleting: Earliest references to Chinese martial arts, reference Extremely unreliable
Deleting "The earliest references to Chinese martial arts are found in the Spring and Autumn Annals (5th century BCE)Journal of Asian Martial Arts.

It is being deleted due to being attached to "Journal of Asian Martial Arts" which does not cite any references or reliable sources. The magazine is not well know and the names they have given from the ref is unknown.82.38.160.13 (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)veda

Founding myths
There's an interesting discussion of these in Martial Arts as Embodied Knowledge: Asian Traditions in a Transnational World, State University of New York,. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's going on my TBR pile right away! Good find. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Balancing/leaping on posts
I know this is an ignorant question, but that's why I'm asking it- I'm ignorant about this topic and seek knowledge. In the movies and whatnot it shows various training methods supposedly used by those seeking to master the martial arts. I know that some of them are made up or greatly exaggerated (such as training one's ears so that one can hear snowflakes fall and plants sprouting) while some actually exist and have been used in real life (such as Iron Palm and meditating under waterfalls). One of the training methods depicted is balancing on posts/mountains or leaping from post to post (Some TV shows and movies exaggerate this to unrealistic levels, portraying martial arts practitioners leaping on stalks of bamboo or standing on the blade of a sword). My question is are there really martial arts styles in which balancing on posts is or has been used as a training method? I've read that there is a branch of Meihuaquan in which early practitioners practiced their balance by leaping from post to post, but I haven't found a lot of information overall. Evernut (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tán Tuǐ
Appears to be an article on the same subject. Wikipedia articles are organised by subject, not by name. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree. As Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia," look at any Encyclopedia and you will find entries by name. An entry on Tan Tui does not equate to any entry on Chinese Martial Arts, any more than an entry for carrot would equate to an entry of food nor even vegetable. Northwind (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

puzzling language about language
Chinese martial arts, colloquially referred to as kung fu or gung fu ( or Cantonese), and wushu ,

What does "or Cantonese" mean here? That there exists a Cantonese term??

I'd remove the comma before "and", but maybe I'm misunderstanding something. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know why google translate says 功夫 means "effort", because if that's what it means, this article should say the same. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)