Talk:Monkey Kung Fu

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art; -Add yourself!
See: List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art. --Cyprus2k1

Merging Monkey style kung fu
I propose merging Monkey style kung fu into this article - these seem to be two and the same thing. Google searches: "monkey style kung fu" (1,640 results) and "monkey kung fu" (53,000 results). --Lox (t,c) 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Absolutely. --maru (talk) Contribs 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fighting other styles
I would like to know how the author of the article came up with the conclusion "Monkey is the style best suited to fight snake style kung fu, and eagle claw is the best suited to defeat monkey." I'm not necessarily disputing the statement, just saying that an explanation would be nice.


 * There is a lot of bull going around about Kung Fu, some of which purport to give a (quasi-alchemic) cycle of styles in which a style vanquishes another, to itself be vanquished, until it goes around full-circle. I doubt it is based on anything, but is a mere adaptation of that. --maru  (talk)  contribs 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds very iffy - a reference would be nice. The "six styles of Monkey" are also probably a feature of only the Tai Shing Pek Kwar version of Monkey; note that there is no "the" monkey style, as there are several (for example, the Monkey style of the late Xiao Yingpeng). Edededed 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

i actually was the one who added that. i actually practice this art, and i was told that monkey beats snake etc by the grandmaster that teaches me. if a grandmaster trained in a temple by a abbot in china doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to kung fu i'd love to know who does. and his son does snake, and also told me that...as he is a master himself so i have two very qualified sources. i just didn't really want to source a verbal account from a particular individual cuz no one knows who the hell they are. i source joe smoe isn't very convincing. --147.26.232.92 23:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's not very convincing. Every "master", ect. says their art is the best or even "undefeatable", etc. but it doesn't mean it is true. Makes great 1970s Kung-fu movie plots though. --Mista-X 01:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * not master GRANDmaster the highest rank attainable outside of a temple. and he's a grandmaster of SEVERAL styles not one. dragon, monkey, drunken, praying mantis, choy li fut, snake, crane, tiger, eagle claw, leopard and a whole lot more. more so the MASTER that told me that was snake not monkey, he was technically pointing out faults in his style not strengths...read stuff before you say stuff.--147.26.232.92 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You still have no source to cite. Put up or shut up. --Mista-X 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i already told u my sources but i'll get specific anyway. sources: the abbot Wang Fu Yein (deceased: former abbot of a buddhist temple in china that focuses on shaolin kung fu), Grandmaster Ricky E. Anderson youngest person ever certified by the people's republic of china and the shaolin temple as a grandmaster. (well over 32 years of experience in monkey, snake, and eagle claw.) Master Ronnie anderson (20+ years doing snake).--147.26.232.92 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is everyone just supposed to take your word for it? Or will you actually cite, quote, or mention and publication? Are any of these people reputable? Can you prove any of it? Again, please show us references so it isn't just hearsay. --Mista-X 01:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * dude that's exactly why i DIDN'T cite it already. how am i supposed to prove it? i've given you my source, but if there is a way to post a citation from expert opinion that doesn't have a publication i'd love to know what it is. see i already told you this in my first fricking comment. its not a citable source, but it is a souce none the less there isn't anything i can do about that. it doesn't make anything i said wrong, or ungrounded. just because the source is unciteable doesn't mean it has to be dismissed. so unless someone writes a book on it they don't know what they're talking about? however, i flipped through an unnamed book is a good enough source? and let me ask you this, if a grandmaster came in and edited something does he need a source? he techinically is a source himself, does he cite himself? just because i can't point u to a publication doesn't make my source any less valid. and if abbots grandmasters and masters aren't reputable...who the hell is a reputable source regarding kung fu?--147.26.232.92 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can't prove it then you must write it in a way which shows that it is myth/unproveable. Anyone who knows anything about REAL FIGHTING knows this is all bull; artistically very beautiful but nothing to do with actual fights. Anyone who thinks otherwise took those old school kung-fu flicks too seriously or watched too mcuh Dragonball cartoons. And yes, you can cite yourself, but obviously what your citing should be published in some way that it's verifiable (for example a web page)... --Mista-X 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * really, do u do monkey kung fu? i do. who out of the two of us is more qualified to talk about its applications? for someone so worried about valid sources u should remember you aren't one. u really should note the part in question starts "it is said..." that does indicate it is not fact. it doesn't say it for sure, it is just SAID that monkey beats snake etc. and its not gonna let me beat a master of snake either, it's a minor advantage at best. u make it sound like i think i could take a snake master just cuz i know monkey, and no one is saying that. if two people are equally skilled the style will decide the winner, if one guy is totally underskilled i don't care what he does he's gonna get a whoopin.--71.145.182.13 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * btw this same theory is presented in the Leopard Kung Fu article in more depth, even mentioning the elements associated with the styles. "The proof behind this element/animal system is the contention that one animal "beats" another, and their appropriate corresponding elements also "overpower" one another. For instance, Tiger (Fire) is killed by Snake (Water). And Tiger (Fire) beats Leopard (Metal). Water puts out fire, whereas fire "melts" metal. This can be further explained by the Snake's waterlike movement (Kung Fu masters may tell their students to "imagine a river" during movement), and the Tiger's ferocious overwhelming of the calculating, fast Leopard with constant linear strikes. This Shaolin system teaches one to identify an attacker's natural or learned animal, and use its antipode to defeat it effectively." --147.26.232.92 02:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that's all very nice but I'm concerned with this article at the moment. Either cite the source or leave it alone. --Mista-X 16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * oh ok so whether or not the noob article mentions it matters, but the leopard article mentioning the samething here doesn't matter? the whole point is that this isn't a left field theory and has backing behind it. the other article is an example of this as it references the same thing, clearly i'm not just making it up as others seem to think the same thing. --71.145.182.13 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence referring to Monkey vs. Snake et al, has been waiting for a source since August to no avail. I did some digging around and couldn't find any reference to this anywhere. I agree, that it is mentioned in the Leopard Kung Fu stub, but that article is highly disputed and also cites no sources. I'm removing the line, I think it's best until someone finds something more concrete.MArcane 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you guys need to speak to Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung. Mista-X your info says you are in Canada, I wish there was a way to give you the Grandmaster's telephone number without exposing it to the world. I too have been told that Monkey boxing beats ALL other styles but do I really believe it? Well I don't know. I have also been told that the Eagle is the best style to fight the Monkey, again I don't know if its true so I just accept them all as legends. What I do know is that in the Monkey variation of the Bak Sil Lum Eagle claw system, the ultimate Monkey Form is called Monkey God Of War. Incidentally the head of my son's kwoon was a personal student of Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung. - Debon 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As interesting as I'm sure it would be to meet or talk to a grandmaster of the art, it wouldn't really help with the article. Unfortunately, we can't source original research on Wikipedia. Now, if GM Chan were to write a book, we could readily source from that. It's kind of a shame, because so much about the martial arts in general is unrecorded verbal history. Still, I understand the reasons for the rule as far as an encyclopedia goes.MArcane 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MArcane, I sense what I believe to be disdain and/or sarcasm in your comments (if I am wrong I apologize) however this is about increasing knowledge and further, there are many books on Tai Shing Pek Kwar, the history of Tai Shing Pek Kwar and there is one in particular called Essence Of The Monkey and there is also an excellent movie called Monkey Boxer Kau Sze but these are only available from the Tai Shing Pek Kwar International Kung Fu Federation and they are very secretive. This I believe to be one of the mystiques about Monkey Boxing, you are right MArcane it is really a shame because there is so much knowledge that is at risk of passing away with the elders of this technique although I believe they may have documented everything. For instance, GM Chan Sau Chung was a personal student of Sigung Kan Tak Hoi who was himself taught by the founder Kau Sze so the lineage is pure and provable. GM Chan Sau Chung is one of the only few who were authorized by Sigung Kan Tak Hoi to open a school and teach Tai Shing Pek Kwar. I am not trying to suggest that the rules for the encyclopedia are irrelevant, but quoting from a book written by someone who may be considered an authority in kung fu generally but who cannot be traced directly to Tai Shing Pek Kwar is in all fairness and with all the love and respect in the world imho lacking in credibility. I am still not sure why you believe speaking with GM Chan Sau Chung wouldn't help the article. I am assuming we are operating on the honor system here; if primarily you or Mista-X as guardians of this article, were to speak to GM Chan Sau Chung and state that you did and then quote from your conversation with him, would that not be acceptable? His english is not very good and he is very advanced in age so you would probably have to speak with his son Master Chan Kai Leung.


 * By the way MArcane, I don't believe you understand the gravity of the situation, GM Chan Sau Chung is not simply a grandmaster of the art, he is the only surviving student of Sigung Kan Tak Hoi. Sigung Kan Tak Hoi was the Great Grandmaster of Tai Shing Pek Kwar and was a direct student of Kau Sze the founder. GM Chan Sau Chung is the current defacto head of the Tai Shing Pek Kwar technique. Further he is one of the very few who have mastered all five techniques and even more significantly he was personally selected by Sigung Kan Tak Hoi himself, to teach Tai Shing Pek Kwar which he started doing at the age of 22yrs in 1954 in Hong Kong. There is a lot of knowledge available, one just has to know where to look to find it. Here is a very interesting article in kungfu magazine http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=448 I trust it is OK to post the link here. The Tai Shing Pek Kwar website is currently being re-constructed and so is unfortunately unreachable at this time. -- Debon 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. You definitely misread my tone, since I neither meant to be disdainful or sarcastic. As for the the rules about sources in Wikipedia, you are wasting your time arguing with me. I am nothing more than another member making edits to articles that interest me. If you want Wikipedia to change their rules, you'll have to take that up with the powers that be. Regarding being the "guardian" of this page, thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just someone with an interest in the subject that took an active role in editing an otherwise neglected page. In fact, I can think of no one less qualified than myself to conduct research on this art, as I am neither a practitioner nor acquainted with any. I do feel that I have some grasp of how to arrange an article in a meaningful and useful way, which is why I like to play around on Wikipedia, a site that I believe to be meaningful. Again, per the administrators of this site, Wikipedia is not the place for original research, so I am not going to conduct interviews for the purpose of writing this article. You are obviously passionate about the subject, so why not put that passion to use constructively in an article like this, instead of lecturing other editors about how they should write. If there is pertinent information in any of the sources you mentioned (kung fu magazine included) add it and cite the reference. MArcane 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS- Please sign your posts to the talk pages by typing ~ at the end. Again, this is wikipedia policy, so not trying to be a pain here.MArcane 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Rock Style beats my Scissors Style and day, but Paper Style boxers better watch out.


 * MArcane it looks as though it is now your turn to do the misreading (*smile*), it was never my intention to argue with you or lecture you or anyone else for that matter, anyway no harm done, but let us take a look at what has transpired in terms of increasing knowledge; just from our discussion so far, would you agree that a lot of new information has emerged? New in the sense that these pieces of information are not present in the main article. But as is also wikipedia policy, because I say these things do not make them factual and once again am not arguing with the rules of the wiki, I am just having a very good discussion with you and am enjoying it too although toward the end of your response you seem to be a little offended (I may have misread you once again there bro). You are correct though, I am very passionate about Monkey Boxing and I believe a discussion is a wonderful thing as it allows for an exchange of ideas and inclusion of new information so this has imho been very constructive use of that passion, at least from the standpoint of increasing knowledge. I am thinking about doing articles on Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung, Sigung Kan Tak Hoi and Kau Sze along with some of other elders whose names are at risk of becoming lost in future years and so am attempting to get the permission from the folks at Tai Shing Pek Kwar International Kung Fu Federation and am also thinking of putting up the official Tai Shing Pak Kwar Family Tree. I am also severely limited by a lack of available time. As I said before, I have enjoyed our exchange and I did not in any way intend to offend you. So CHEERS dude, you are a great sport!!! Do have a good day MArcane!!! -- Debon 11:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those sound like great ideas for articles! I'm glad to hear you're considering diving in and doing some editing. Sorry for misreading your post, but (as is often the case with posts and emails and so on) it's easy to attribute emotions to words that might not actually be there. I wasn't so much offended, as feeling a bit defensive. Heh heh. Anyway, glad to see you've set up an account and are looking at improving this page and those related to it! Welcome aboard, and I'm game for discussion anytime.MArcane 04:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cluv 33 (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This section has been updated by High Priest, Ricky E. Anderson (Praying Mantis Kung Fu), Grand Master Joseph Robinson (Dragon Kung Fu) and Corey M. Thomas (Webmaster) in a combined effort to establish accuracies and discredit the former. Our sources are available for contact and scrutiny at your convenience.

The entire Shaolin Kung Fu system is comprised of originally 435 books or styles/systems. There is no man on the planet who knows all 435 systems. During temple burings books where lost and now 356 remain, split between northern and southern Kung Fu styles, both Internal and External; Tai Chi(or Ji), Chin Na, Quaw Jau, Sau Sho and Wu Shu.

Abbot Wang Fu Yin (alive: 103 Years of age, Abbot of a Shaolin Buddhist temple in china) http://skf63.com/gallery/pics.html

High Priest, Ricky E. Anderson (alive: 46 years of age, Unites States) http://www.skf63.com Anderson is the youngest person ever certified by the people's republic of china and the Shaolin temple as a grandmaster and was elevated to High Priest in 2006. High Priest Anderson has well over 43 years of experience in monkey, snake, dragon, tiger, crane, eagle claw, and the list goes on to include 210 of the 356 remaining books/systems. His teacher is the Abbot Wang Fu Yin.

Grand Master Joseph L. Robinson (alive: 39 years of age), concentrated 26+ years in Dragon, located in the United States, http://www.grandmasterrobinson.com. Grand Master Robinson was elevated from Master to Grand Master in 2006 as certified by the Abbot Wang Fu Yein and High Priest Ricky E. Anderson and the United States and People’s Republic of China Federation of Certified Masters and Instructors. His teachers, High Priest Ricky E. Anderson.

Grand Master Ronnie Anderson (26+ years doing snake) was elevated in 2006 from Master to Grand Master. His teacher, Ricky E. Anderson.

Cluv 33 (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Drunken Monkey
I have a few problems with the discription of "Drunken Monkey" and I am planning to create it's own article after a bit of research.

But first...


 * "Drunken Monkey Kung Fu style is similar to Drunken Boxing."

Other than the fact that it imitates drunkeness, how are the styles similiar? My understanding is that this style imitates a "Drunken Monkey" and it's origins are based on a fairy tale about a Monkey King who drank some Empresses' wine without permission, then ruined her palace in a drunken brawl with her guards and warriors... Well Zui Quan (Drunken Fist) is supposed to be based on a human fighter mimicking drunkness and is also based on learning to be soft/loose...


 * I believe the fairy tale to which you refer is called "Journey To The West" and information on it can be found here http://www.vbtutor.net/Xiyouji/journeytothewest.htm however, be advised that there may be variations of this information found elsewhere on The Internet or from other sources. After one reads a book on this or any other topic, one must be very careful how one presents the information to others e.g. the Leung Ting book on the Drunken Monkey technique. I have read that book cover to cover myself and it shows I believe two or so forms (one single man and one or two two-man forms), but the Drunken Monkey techniques is a complete system with many more forms. In fact the Tai Shing Pek Kwar curriculum consists of greater than one hundred twenty six forms. Anyway I do not believe Dr. Leung Ting meant to give the impression that his book covers ALL Drunken Monkey forms. One must be aware also, that simply quoting that book does not make ones statements factual. After all that is just a regurgitation of Dr Leung Ting's writings. The big question is, "What is Dr Leung Ting's standing in the Monkey Boxing community?" and "Can he be traced to Tai Shing Pek Kwar and if so who was his teacher and his teacher's teacher etc?" It is my humble opinion that if one is really after the facts, one needs to speak to a living legend on the particular technique such as Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung who now resides in Vancouver, Canada. He is The Real Monkey King and the final authority on ALL aspects of Monkey Boxing. I am sure some will say that this is a POV, it may very well be, however, it is shared by all who practice this technique. His son Master Chan Kai Leung who also lives in Vancouver, Canada is head of the Tai Shing Pek Kwar International Kung Fu Federation and is also considered an authority (although a much lesser one than his famed father) on this technique. If we are really interested in building this topic in the wikipedia, we need to be actively seeking knowledge through communication with Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung. Such communication imho would give much greater credibility to the knowledge pool being built here. -- Debon 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a guy who has started an organization and who now addresses himself as grandmaster and who claims to be the monkey king of a particular country but fortunately not many people in the kung fu world or even in the particular country, take him very seriously. He has even gone as far as inserting himself, his teachers and his top students into his organization's version of the Tai Shing Pek Kwar family tree but don't be fooled by this. On their website there is a picture of a hung gar grandmaster who they say was a protege of Sigung Kan Tak Hoi and who they claim helped him with the Hong Kong school. The fact is, it was a very young Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung then in his late teens to very early twenties who had worked alongside Sigung Kan Tak Hoi at the school in Hong Kong and what is even more startling is that the people at Tai Shing Pek Kwar International Kung Fu Federation have never heard of this hung gar guy and his name does not appear anywhere on the official TSPK Family Tree or on any of their historical records. When one looks at this organization's version of the TSPK Family Tree, one sees that they had no option but to include Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung but what they have tried to do as well, is to include themselves as part of the family tree, therein lies the problem. The last three persons who have mastered all five TSPK techniques are Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung, Master Chan Kai Leung and Master Roger Smart who happens to be the only non-oriental on the Official TSPK Family Tree. The official record-keepers at TSPK International Kung Fu Federation have maintained excellent records going all the way back to the days of Kau Sze the founder. -- Debon 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Drunken monkey uses a lot of joint locking,"

I flipped through a book on this style, and didn't show ANY joint locks in the pictures. There may well be "some", but I think we need a reference to say "a lot".
 * lmao i love how a book someone "flipped through" is a valid source. i don't think i added this stuff but the drunken monkey article says itself "There is also many unusual grappling and blocking techniques". guess what grappling consists of? joint manipulations, projections (throws), and joint locks (holds). and i highly doubt one books ability to contain all the techniques in a style. --147.26.232.92 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I read the entire book before writing Drunken Monkey and did some internet research. Labeled the article a stubbed based on what I wrote. Even writing the article half ass I did a better job then you, so you really shouldn't talk. Also, grappling isn't necessarily any of the things you said. "Grappling refers to the gripping, handling and controlling of an opponent without the use of striking, typically through the application of various grappling holds and counters to various hold attempts". You really should read stuff before you say stuff! --Mista-X 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"application of various grappling holds and counters to various hold attempts". uh thanks for proving my point for me. as for writing better than me...i didn't write this article. the only articles i've actually created were for characters in the anime bleach cuz i was bored. and i don't care how many books you've read, reading a book will never overwrite actually DOING the style. Gripping = holds/locks, handling and controlling = projections(throws) and Joint manipulations. using different terms same thing. i linked the grappling page for a reason.--147.26.232.92 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK buddy, obviously you are a 12 year old kid or something. Either cite the source or shut up. I cited my source, author (Leung Ting), date of publication and ISBN. He is an INTERNATIONALLY recognized source on Kung-Fu. Where's yours? --Mista-X 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm probably older than u actually, but thats irrelevant. i already cited a source its at the bottom of this segment. i also cite the article YOU wrote based on leung ting, and the grappling article. and i ask you again if someone who has studied the art for over 30 years isn't qualfied who is? being in the martial arts hall of fame doesn't make u a recognized source? --71.145.182.13 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "...Drunken Monkey is one of the most fierce fighting styles around,and very hard to defeat."

Too POV. a lot of martial artists say that about their style, including the ones that never did anything but watch Jet Li movies and then made up a fake name for their style, say they killed a bunch of communists with AK47 in a dark jungle unarmed, then sell DVDs on the net, etc. etc.


 * "It is the most advanced monkey form, and the most difficult to learn."

Not disputing this, but a source would be nice...

--Mista-X 04:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

found a source for all these "problems" http://www.shaolin-society.co.uk/Animal_Styles/The_Monkey/the_monkey.php --147.26.232.92 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Drunken Fist?
Also, the article states: "Drunken style kung fu actually evolved out of the drunken monkey variation." I checked the Drunken Fist Origins and there is five mythological stories of the origin mentioned, but none of them mention Monkey Style as a possible one... --Mista-X 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * eh there are like 50 billion origin stories...there are actually two for monkey that i know of. one has to do with some guy in prison watching monkeys and the other says it was created by the same dude who invented praying mantis kung fu. most of the styles have questionable back stories at best so its not surprising, and not really provable or disprovable. --147.26.232.92 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that "there are like 50 billion origin stories" should give you a clue about the unreliability of it. I have sited my source in Drunken Monkey (Leung Ting) at least. If you have at least one source that say's Drunken Fist came out of Drunken Monkey (and you even go as far to say that all "Drunken" variations did), then please, by all means cite your source. --Mista-X 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ur confused, i'm not even saying thats any of them is right. i'm just saying it's pretty hard to prove where the stuff came from. for christ sake shaolin kung fu is over 1500 years old, reliable stories from that far back are hard to come by is all i'm saying. more so u said urself 5 MYTHOLOGICAL backstories. most of em are just that, myth. i'm providing one theory of possible legitamate evolutions i've heard, as opposed to over-romantized stories. for example the concept of drunken monkey may have come from a book (like myth says) but i doubt the techniques were pulled out of thin air, the monks of shaolin didn't just suddenly have an ephiphany and come up with all the moves in a style in 5 min. they obviously came from somewhere, and i doubt the techniques were included in that story.--147.26.232.92 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a Christian so I don't care about the sake of Christ; but archiological evidence suggests many of the Shaolin styles may have Indian origins, and the animal styles are similiar. Whatever your myth is, back it up with a source. This is not very complex, simply cite what you write. If you can't do so then your contribution is not worth much. --Mista-X 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * so the animal styles are simliar but me suggesting that one led to another is completely ridiculous? and your the one self-admitatedly spreading myth as true origins. do u even think before u write or do u just drift in and out. i have various sources not one in particular, and i've heard at least 20 different evolutions of what came out of what...and thats just for monkey. so you can add 5 potential stories, but i can't add one alternative that isn't an over-romantized myth? you want a source...same guys as above and the various masters i've met through the years.--147.26.232.92 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 147.26.232.92, what is your problem? Do you not understand how wikipedia works? Either cite the source IN THE ARTICLE, a source that people CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY, not HEARSAY, i.e. someone from an anonymous I.P. who say's they heard master such and such say this or that is not reputable. Understand? --Mista-X 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * what is your problem? i've already told you all this stuff...i've pointed out at least twice already that i didn't cite it in the first place because it isn't a citeable source. the only reason i even brought it up in the first place is cuz someone asked where it came from. more so hearsay is a legal issue dealing with evidence being usable in court, it has nothing to do with citablity of a source. more so eyewitness accounts can be used as evidence, interviews can be used as evidence, even conversations are evidence...none of which are verifiable or citable, but no less valid. and i'm not anonymous i'm just too lazy to log in i have a user name Grimjaw. --71.145.182.13 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More inaccuracies?
Whoever wrote this article didn't do much fact finding.


 * Liu Kang: Other than the fact that the article mentions Liu Kang studied "animal styles", there is no mention of Monkey Style and it notes his primary as Jun Fan

I believe I have heard Liu Kang trained in many forms of nothren Chinese martial arts, and this probably includes monkey, but as far as Mortal Kombat goes, Noob Saibot is the only one that actually applied the style in game, and loosly at that.


 * "Drunken Monkey" (the Movie): Do we have any reason to believe that this movie even exists? It is quit possible, but there is no mention of who starred in it, or anything. For all we know who ever wrote that simply made that up.

oops, I wrote the above but forgot to sign --Mista-X 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the movie is referring to this: Chui ma lau. --maru  (talk)  contribs 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you are right Marudubshinki. Here is a link to the actual movie page in this wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Monkey_%282002_film%29 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.131.187.127 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Noob Saibot
If anyone has a source or reference to show that this Mortal Combat character had anything to do with Monkey Kung-fu, please cite it.
 * u've clearly never played deception, as i do monkey i'm the first to point out little to nothing he actually does in deception is an actual move in monkey kung fu, but they call it monkey. --147.26.232.92 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked you for a source, that's all. I checked the wiki article and their is no mention of this. Just because a move or another might appear like monkey to some guy from IP 147.26.232.92 doesn't mean it is and certainly isn't worth putting it as fact in an encylopedia. --Mista-X 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * yet again ur confused. i said the moves DIDN'T look like monkey. the reason it is listed as monkey in this article and it was in the noob article when i looked WAAAAAAYYYY back, is because the game lists the styles in the corner, and most charcters have 2. as noob and smoke are a team fighters each fighter has one style. when u hit the switch style button it switches characters. so when noob is out in the corner where the style is listed it says "monkey". you want a source how bout the game itself, play it for 2 seconds and you'll see monkey in the corner when u fight as or against noob.--147.26.232.92 03:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

btw it IS in noobs wikipedia article on the side under his picture it lists the 3 styles he has been given in the games over the years. u'll notice under MKD (mortal kombat deception) the style monkey. yet again u need to read things, or at least pay closer attention before u claim someone's claim is ungrounded.--147.26.232.92 03:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, you appear to be correct about this one. I did actually read the whole article on Noob Saibot but must have not read the profile on the right-hand side for some reason. --Mista-X 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * for someone so concerned about validity and sources u really can't talk. you never even played the game yet you are qualified to argue about an aspect of it? see i've never played MK: shaolin monks, so if you told me somethin like noob does drunken in it...i'd just take your word for it cuz i'm not qualified to argue. see i was always told if you don't know what ur talking about, shut up. i love how throughout our arguments you are a valid source yourself, despite not playing the game or doing the art in question, yet i am not when i've done both. u said ur not christian...why should i believe that, can u prove it...no. i just take ur fricking word for it cuz i assume u have better things to do than pretend to be an atheist. u should have a little more faith in humanity. --71.145.182.13 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually could prove I'm not a christian, as I have written letters about ahteism and such that are available online. That's besides the point. No, I don't do Kung-Fu but I do martial arts and study them. I am interested this article because I was studying the style out of interest, I'm simply trying to help keep this article accurate, well you want to make it POV. I'll I have asked of you is to cite something and you won't do it. Names, places, something... but no. Well, fine... go ahead and mess the article up. Why should anyone ever take wiki seriously, right? --Mista-X 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief, to respond to the comment above, play the games for starters, that way you have a valid arguement because right now you're digging yourself a hole of innacuracy and stupidity, to answer about Noob saibot, It seems to me he seems to perform genuine monkey, but I do agree, most in game moves don't appear to be monkey, but, watch his ending sequence in Mortal KombatArmageddon. You want to keep the article accurate? That's all fine and good, but if you don't understand what you're talking about and more than 5 people seem to agree on something you have little knowledge about, it's most likely true. Don't search too hard for problems, because eventually you'll have to make one up to sound like the hero you wanted to be, saving the article from propaganda I know, I like praise for fixing stuff too, but I do it when it's needed, and that's what gives me good reputations across the net. --Severen 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have still yet to see any source that he does in fact do monkey. Right now it is all based on unsourced assertions. I went to the article on noob, and asked for the source, i.e. does it say so in the game, manual, or what? As of now I recived no answer. I don't really care anymore, however. The point I was making originally is that it should be sourced. It doesn't matter if 5 people or 500 people say "it looks like monkey" if there is no source that says it is monkey. --Mista-X 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
This article had a great start but needed some cleanup and some sources citations.


 * I rearranged the layout a bit, adding the 'Origins' section for the historical info on this style. MArcane
 * Moved the info on the different monkey sub-groups to a 'Techniques' section.MArcane
 * Did some copy editing and rewording to remove weasel words and try to push a bit more towards NPOV.MArcane 05:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the movie section, adding english titles and ordering the films by release date.MArcane 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a section on Hou Quan, which is ostensibly the more ancient precursor to this style, and found a source regarding the link from Mantis footwork to Monkey styles.MArcane
 * Added both the 'Other Articles of Interest' and the 'External Links' section.MArcane 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added some redirects.MArcane 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added Martial Arts Info Box from Martial Arts Wikiproject page.MArcane 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed profanity left by an editor - Debon 01:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos
This page desperately needs some photos. Maybe if someone (ahem) knows a high-ranked practitioner, they could get a picture of him doing some meaningful stances or forms and release the image to the public domain for upload to wiki per their fair use policies. That would be helpful on two counts...we could show some pertinent pictures, and we could talk about a known expert. Just a thought.MArcane 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (ahem) I could put up a picture of a very young Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung standing beside a seated Sigung Kan Tak Hoi - but I got it off The Net and being new to the wiki, am not sure about the Fair Use issues etc, so I will need some guidance - Debon 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (ahem) I could also put up an image from the article in Kung Fu Magazine, in fact there are other images that I could use as well. - Debon 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for some action shots, or something that gives the reader an idea of what the style looks like. I thought maybe you could take some shots yourself, if you have a camera, since those are easiest to use on wikipedia as far as rights are concerned. They are VERY strict about photo rights here, so not sure we'd be able to post something from Kung Fu magazine. It's the same reason we can't pull images from websites and such.MArcane 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I plan to visit Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung this summer along with my 13yr old son Kareem who also specializes in Monkey Boxing, I will take some pictures then and will certainly get a copy of the family tree at that time. Bear in mind also that great great grandmaster Kau Sze, Sigung Kan Tak Hoi, and the other elders have long since passed away and all that remain are very old pictures, some taken during the 1920s and 1930's and only available in books. Am not sure how the wiki feels about using such images, failing that we may have to stick to text and whatever images persons such as myself and others may be able to take. There are also some other issues that I need to finalize before I start editing and as you already know, Monkey Boxing is very dear to me, so I will keep very close to the main article. CHEERS!!! - Debon 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think very old images are public domain, and thus not a problem. Here's the policy page on images Image use policy.MArcane 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have included a new section in the main articled called Additional Information in which I have tried to give an impression of what a monkey form looks like at a tournament. I have also included two images of my son as personal/own work to show what it looks like. Here hoping I won't get flamed for doing so. - Debon 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I moved that section higher in the article, since it seemed like it belonged before the trivia items like movie references and so forth. The External Links and See Also sections should really be at the end of the article. I also formatted the photo to imbed it in the article and give it a caption.MArcane 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the help bro, by the way I also did an article on Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung, I see where it needs to be wikified, please I need your help as am not in touch with all the terms and their meanings as yet. I am currently working on an article on Kau Sze (the founder of Tai Shing Kung Fu - hope to have it ready by this upcoming weekend or very soon thereafter. - Debon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tai Shing Pek Kwar - move to new article?
Although both Tai Shing Pek Kwar and Houquan are "monkey kung fu," perhaps they should be separated, as they do not share the same histories, practitioners, or techniques. I personally would move Tai Shing Pek Kwar to another article - any opinions? Edededed 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that until there is so much information on both forms that the article becomes cumbersome, we should leave all info on this page. As you say, both are 'monkey kung fu.' Perhaps even when the information on the page becomes excessive, they should both be moved to separate style pages and linked from this page. Until we are spoiled for information, however, my vote would be to keep it simple. The article is short enough as it is, and is not technically inaccurate. MArcane 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what I am trying to say is that, in actuality, Houquan and Tai Shing Pek Kwar are unrelated styles that developed independently of each other (according to their histories); as such the only thing that relates them is that they both imitate monkeys (which in English some people generally call "monkey kung fu" - although to be exact, "Pek Kwar" = Pigua, so only the Tai Shing part is monkey). Sort of like convergent evolution, I guess?  Anyway, right now, the article is short, but Tai Shing Pek Kwar information is far greater than Houquan (or other monkey style) information, so the article does seem unbalanced.  Edededed 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone tag
Sentences that have things like "We note with respect..." are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, so someone needs to clean that sort of thing up. Please leave the tag until this is done. --Mista-X 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Mista-X, point well made, and taken in good spirits. --Debon 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Neutrality/Dispute
A tag has been added advising that the section on Tai Shing Pek Kwar was in dispute and that I should check the talk page to see what specifically was causing the dispute, however I am unable to find it here, Can the person who added the tag kindly provide some specifics about this dispute? - Debon 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad for not putting something in here, edit summery covered it though, it was turning into an attack on the style not a description. Think you've fixed most of it though. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So can the Neutrality/Dispute tag now be removed? Debon 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes for my part article still needs cleaning up but not big POV flags. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement
As usual many thanks for your comments Mista-X. I have removed what I think was causing the problem and have taken the liberty of removing the tag. Can you kindly take a look again. CHEERS!!!

With this in mind can the Neutrality/Dispute tag be now removed? Debon 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Five Monkeys?
So... anyway, I took a look at some Chinese pages (like this - seems to be an official HK Tai shing pek kwar site: http://www.hktspkalumni.com/start1.htm) and there are only five monkey forms (not six), i.e. stone monkey (石猴拳), crafty monkey (企猴拳), wooden monkey (木猴拳), lost monkey (迷猴拳), and drunken monkey (醉猴拳). There seems to be no "tall monkey" at all...

Also note that Tai Shing = Tai Sheng = Da Sheng, and so on... These are just different English (mis?)spellings of the same Chinese (大聖) (although sometimes Cantonese, sometimes Mandarin) and thus there should be some merging of these. In the same sense, pek kwar = pigua, and piguaquan is not exactly a monkey style (it just happens to be taught alongside Tai Shing), so perhaps the piguaquan blurb should be merged with the piguaquan article? For example, piguaquan is also often taught alongside bajiquan, but piguaquan history is not included in the latter article.

Finally, Tei Tong = ditangquan also, so that should be changed as well...

Edededed (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Monkey fist history
The opening sentence of the history section reads: "Hou Quan (猴拳), literally Monkey Fist, can be traced back to the Han dynasty and is recorded in the Mi Hou Wu dance performed at the Emperor's court." The information is cited by an article taken from Kung Fu Magazine. Despite being a long time subscriber of the magazine and a member of its online forum, I don't think The cited article is a valid source as it doesn't provide any sources of its own. I would like to see some type of corroborating source written by, perhaps, a martial historian. All of the sources I have been able to find are just simple mirrors of the wikipedia page or the article (take this for example). If such a supporting statement can't be found in a week or so, I'm going to erase it from the page. This is an encyclopedia after all. We should be holding sources to a higher standard.

I would like to point out the first entry about "Shaolin Kungfu" on the Kung Fu Magazine article is incorrect. Historians have disproven Bodhidharma created Shaolin martial arts. This casts a shadow of doubt on the rest of the material presented on the article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As promised, I have removed the information mentioned above due to insufficient sourcing. If any editor disagrees with this move, please find a verifiable source and mention it here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)