Talk:Tien Shan Pai/Archive 3

A fresh start
Please note that I have started archiving this discussion page and replaced it with a clean slate/look. Thus, all discussions pertaining to the article page should only be started below this section and nowhere else, note also that there will be no tolerance for those using this discussion page as a forum for other purposes. Thank you for your cooperation. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality issue
Let me just say this, it becomes a Conflict Of Interest when an editor here is involved in that organization and yet edits here with some dubious inputs and weasel words (references should always be from reliable source or a neutral third party such as newspaper or magazine), thus violating the neutrality of this article. Neutral point of view should always be observed when providing edits, or else it defeats the purpose of having this article on Wikipedia in the first place. Also, I am considering to suggest a complete rewrite of this whole article in order to comply with Wikipedia's manual of style as well as for verifiability. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing this article is a particularly thorny issue. There is little information out there that does not come from someone who has an ulterior motive in the ongoing dispute regarding the style.  And the situation is further complicated by a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Tien Shan Pai as it is discussed.  Ignoring some of the details about founding legends and the like, basically it breaks down into two distinct schools of thought.  One is that Tien Shan Pai is a stand alone style that contains stylistic and technical differences from other martial arts, including a curriculum of forms and techniques that are unique.  The other school of thought is that there is no unique Tien Shan Pai, that it is a fusion of several styles learned by Wang, and that what is special is the unique way that those individual styles are taught.  This fundamental disagreement has deterred me from attempting to write a more neutral article, as I remain unsure how to approach this difference in opinion, and am unable to obtain reliable secondary sources that would validate either claim. Junzi (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion runs into the same impasse time and time again. Objectivity is not a "thorny issue" when presented with primary source material in the form of testimony, photos, etc. from that generation of TSP masters and students who were part of Wang Jyue Jen's "Lei Shung" Taiwan school in the early years (prior to 1968.) This material is out there and has been made available in the form of photos, written testimonials by Wang's early students, and in programs which were printed and distributed by Wang, himself.


 * Wang Jyue Jen taught a fusion of the several styles he had learned. Look at films from the Nanjing Gwuoshu Academy from the 1930's, and see for yourself. Wang's contribution was that he was able to take the best of what he had learned, and shape it into a comprehensive curriculum... that is to say, a "system." HE DID NOT CALL WHAT HE WAS TEACHING "TIEN SHAN PAI" UNTIL AFTER IT WAS "BRANDED" AS SUCH IN THE UNITED STATES.


 * There is no verifiable proof that Wang's curriculum existed prior to the late 1940's. There is no record of either this curriculum, or any of this curriculum's practitioners having "moving eastward" (on what had to be journey of several hundreds of years,) from the Tein Shan Mountains to Taiwan. Other than annecdotal stories and legend, the first documented proof of TSP does not appear until after Wang begins his private kung fu teaching in Taiwan.


 * THIS DOES NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT WHAT WANG TAUGHT WAS NOT A "SYSTEM." IT HAS BEEN A "SYSTEM" SINCE WANG TOOK ON HIS FIRST "DISCIPLES" (in the early 1950s,) with the intention that they pass it along to subsequent generations.


 * Whether TSP is old or recent should make no difference. It has been around for over a half a century already. It has hundreds of thousands of people who practice it. It has produced champions. This is TSP's verifiable legacy. The rest is smokescreen. TeamResearch (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First, let me say welcome back, I appreciate the critical point of view that you bring to this discussion. You have made my point quite clearly.  Indeed you represent the portion of the debate the clearly believes that Tien Shan Pai is a fusion of several styles that Wang learned and integrated into a system.  There is another side to this debate.  Indeed, according to Huang and others, Wang specifically stated that Tien Shan Pai was an ancient martial art with a long tradition.  This is, of course, a primary source, and Wikipedia is naturally suspicious of primary sources.  Much as it would be suspicious of written testimonials from other masters and students who studied at Wang's Taiwan school.


 * While I appreciate the point of view, and it is a valid one, I do not believe that this in any way clears up the issue of what is to be done with this article, as there is still debate of the nature of Tien Shan Pai. Is it a fusion style created by Wang? or is it an ancient martial art that also includes techniques and forms from other styles in the curriculum that it teaches?  As there is clear disagreement on this point from various points of view, the question of neutrality is difficult to address.


 * I must, however, respectfully disagree with your statement that Wang never referred to his style as Tien Shan Pai until it was branded as such in the United States. Please read Willy Lin's essay on the truth of Tien Shan Pai, and note when Willy Lin first referred to the style as Tien Shan Pai in the US (1971), then note when Wu Ming Jer referred to the style as Tien Shan Pai on a tournament application, at Wang's instruction (1957). Junzi (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The “neutrality dilemma” is not a dilemma at all. It has been allowed to continue because neither “side” is willing to give credibility to the other side’s testimony regarding the “claim” or “non-claim” to the Generations question. How about if, going forward, this discussion focuses not on “testimonies”, but rather on the photos, and other “hard” TSP evidence that may help to clarify this divisive issue?


 * Please recognize that I suggest this simply as a way to move the discussion along. I, personally, do not understand what appears to be a dogmatic unwillingness to evaluate all historical source material, where available… and then draw conclusions based on reason and logic.


 * As I see it, all the primary source testimony (except for Huang’s) supports that TSP is a recent system, synthesized by Wang, Jyue Jen, etc. The most undocumented and unverifiable testimony always tracks back to one source…Huang, himself.
 * My question is where is the hard proof that TSP exists prior to its emergence (via Wang) in Taiwan in the late 1940s? There may be temples in the Tien Shan Mountain Range, but they have never been verifiably linked to TSP.
 * As I said in my earlier post: There is no record of either TSP curriculum, or any TSP practitioners having moved eastward (on what had to be journey of several hundreds of years,) from the Tein Shan Mountains to Taiwan. Other than anecdotal stories and legend, the first documented proof of TSP does not appear until after Wang begins his private kung fu teaching in Taiwan.
 * It is my understanding that Huang was not even involved with Wang, Jyue Jen until after 1968. Most of Wang’s early students did not know Huang, Chien Liang, or know of him.


 * Why would so many who knew, and were involved with Wang choose to lie? They have nothing to gain by their statements...other than to set down for the record how they remember. Anyone willing to categorically dismiss the testimony of so many of Wang’s early students and disciples, should also be willing to discount the testimony of his later student (Huang) as well.
 * The statement that “Huang and others…reported Wang specifically stated that Tien Shan Pai was an ancient martial art with a long tradition” may be true… but may not be valid. Have you never heard of “marketing a product?”
 * The truth is no one really knows the intention of anything Wang said… especially in his later years, on the few occasions he was actually visiting this country. Wang did not speak English. Unless these “others” referenced were there over twenty five years ago… and spoke Chinese… they are relying on what they were told… after the fact.
 * Huang, Chien Liang’s photo “evidence” on his web-site, as well as his sword, only dates from the mid-1980s, and about 5 years before Wang, then an old man, died. Photographic evidence representing the claim that TSP is a recent system, dates mostly from the mid-1950s through the late 1960s. Most significantly, the pictures of Wang’s own 1974 program, from his Lei Shung school, does not mention TSP in any way.


 * Therefore, in my opinion, other than the primary testimony from Wang’s early disciples and students (which I do accept,) this program may be the only verifiable evidence that can be traced back, unfiltered, to Wang, Jyue Jen, himself. Ironically, Wang chose to publish this program with one page in Chinese, and the facing page in English. As these pages don’t name or mention TSP, one can only conclude there were no previous generations to mention. TeamResearch (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have raised several points so I will attempt to address each of them in turn.


 * 1) That the two sides cannot agree because they disagree about the issue how many generations there are.
 * It may be of interest to those people who are reading this, to note that the argument originated with a series of questions asked of an Inside Kung Fu article. The response to the question of lineage and of how many generations were documented was raised at that time.  The response from the article writer was "I agree with your point. I explicitly noted the lack of information regarding Late Supreme Master Wang's predecessors. I too am curious about his predecessors. It was my intention to discuss this matter in public to encourage anyone with information to come forward."  So it seems that both sides agree that there is a lack of information predating Wang.  The argument seems to actually come in where Huang and his disciples are continuing to propagate what they believe their teacher's teacher (or in Huang's case his teacher) told them out of a sense of respect for Wang.  They all seem to understand that there is little to substantiate Wang's claims, but it is the understanding that they continue to make these statements out of respect for Wang that seems to be lost on the other side of the debate.


 * 2)Photographs and other forms of "hard" physical evidence are the only way we will understand what is going on here
 * Photographs are complicated. A picture is worth many more than a thousand words, because in addition to the picture itself, one must talk until one is blue in the face providing context for the picture.  As such, pictures are not as reliable a source of evidence as one might like to think.  An example, is Willy Lin's pictures of his visit to XinJiang province.  From what I have seen, he has two pictures of him having dinner with a couple of older Chinese people, a picture of him by a tent, and a picture of him riding a donkey.  This does not constitute proof that he was indeed in Xinjiang province, though I do believe him when he says he was.  Additionally, he goes on to claim that there is no temple at Heavenly Lake, yet I have found pictures that I believe are of a temple at Heavenly Lake.  Does that mean he was not where he thought he was?  Are the pictures I found from tourists not of Heavenly Lake?  As I hope is apparent, context is vitally important to understanding what a picture conveys, and may not be as reliable as we think it is.


 * 3) All the evidence that comes from any source other than Huang points to the idea of the style being recent, that is from the 1950's
 * So far, I have only seen evidence from Huang and Willy Lin. As such, your point (to my perspective at least) boils down to "All information from Willy Lin points to the idea that the style is recent."  This goes hand in hand with your point asking what people might have to gain from saying that Wang created the style.  I will point you to the ads in Inside Kung Fu where Willy Lin is selling DVDs of Tien Shan Pai forms under the byline "Authentically taught by Grandmaster Willy Lin".  I submit to you that Willy Lin, at least, does have a significant financial interest in debunking or at least diluting Huang's claim to being the only successor of Tien Shan Pai.


 * 4) There is no evidence of the style having moved Eastward, nor is there evidence of the style predating Wang
 * I agree with you. I have addressed this point earlier.  Those students and masters of Tien Shan Pai who cite an origin in the Tien Shan mountain range, or who recite the 64+ generations may be engaging in self-promotion as you say, or they may be doing so out of respect for Wang.  We cannot know.  Willy Lin has said that his teacher explicitly said that the style was ancient and that it came from Xinjiang province.  Both sides seem to agree on what Wang has said.  It is not a question of fact as we do not know it, but a question of what each individual chooses to think of the testimony of the Lineage holder (potentially founder) of the style.  On the comment of self promotion, let me say that I find it incomprehensible that Wang would engage in unverifiable generation inflation, rather than to style himself the founder of a martial art that was producing world champions.


 * 5) While we should look at the photographs and testimony on Willy Lin's site (not explicitly called out here), we should not pay much attention to Huang's pictures of his disciple sword, nor of the calligraphy at his school as it is comparatively new.
 * I was hesitant to put your point up this way, as I feel a bit as if I am putting words in your mouth, but after all this vague discussion of testimony, photographs, and hard evidence, you breeze past Huang's evidence and dismiss it out of hand. I note it is the only evidence you actually directly cite.  Indeed, I will go on to note that it is the one of the few pictures of the swords that Wang gave out (though you can see pictures of a couple of other swords on the websites of some of Huang's students).  Since this constitutes hard physical evidence, and it is, according to Huang, something like a disciple diploma, then we must ask where the evidence is of discipleship for the other students of Wang.  All the other disciples and grandmasters that are being invoked have not had to undergo as rigorous a scrutiny of their credentials as Huang.  So, if we are to accept that there are several others of Wang's students who have in testimony said that they question Huang's status as lineage holder, then as the person interested in hard evidence and testimony, you should be ready to provide their testimony, and some proof of their credentials.


 * 6) Wang never mentions Tien Shan Pai directly, and as such we must conclude that there are no preceding generations
 * First, Wang has his student Wu Ming Jer compete under the style name Tien Shan Pai, so he does publicize it a little. Second, you invoke logic and reason early in your discussion, but I am having trouble following your reasoning when you say "As these pages don’t name or mention TSP, one can only conclude there were no previous generations to mention."  I do not understand how you reached that conclusion, though I must acknowledge that it is a wonderful rhetorical flourish.  On a side note, I must ask if you agree with me that Tien Shan Pai was named prior to Willy Lin's arrival in the US, according to testimony on Willy Lin's on website, rather than the style being named by him in the US for promotional purposes. Junzi (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Junzi, it seems like you and I have been going around and around on this forever. I respect that you represent Huang's P.O.V. I also respect how every TSP teacher out can be charged (whether true ot not) with doing what they do for personal gain. I can also respect that Inside Kung Fu articles are usually written and submitted, on behalf of a given teacher or sensei (by his or her own student or publicist,) for purposes of self-promotion. Martial Arts magazines sell equipment. They are not unbiased sources of information

As to your response to the rest of my "points": I've said what I had to say based on the "evidence" that is out there. Respect it or not. (I'm only surprised that you haven't figured out yet that what was said over 50 years ago in Taiwan, in outdoor, literally "backyard" classes, or written down for convenience on one tournament application, was never intended to be academically "documented" for future scrutiny. These men and women were learning, and practicing kung fu. That's it. They weren't creating a "History" as they lived it.) TeamResearch (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. Though I must say that I feel somewhat slighted by your statement that I represent Huang's P.O.V.  Indeed, I have refrained as much as possible from pushing Huang's specific point of view to the fore front, while still allowing it space to have its say.  Most of the documentary evidence around at the time this article first apppeared came from Huang, so it is natural that we should start with what he provided freely before people were trying to influence this and other discussions.  I have seen few direct references to specific evidence.  I hear all about testimonials and pictures, but have seen little so far.


 * I will note further that is difficult to try to be even handed in a discussion, when it seems that every other individual involved in the discussion has a similar take on events. Just because one disagrees with the majority does not mean that that individual is not trying, as best they can, to be reasonable.


 * Let's focus our attention on the section I created below, and the ones to follow, where we can try to hammer out some of the confusing verbiage in the article. Hopefully even though we do not agree on a variety of issues we can reach concensus on what the article should say. Junzi (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Verbiage Discussion - Summary Paragraph
In an attempt to focus on the article, rather than on the philosophical, I wanted to begin discussion on the first paragraph of the article. I hope that in bringing this up we can work to improve the article, provide proper citations for all statements (particularly controversial ones), and ensure that the article holds together better than it currently does. The summary paragraphs of this article are as follows:


 * Tien Shan Pai (天山派) is a northern style of Kung-fu which stresses rhythm, the demonstration of power accentuated by solid thuds made by the hands, the emitting of power from the entire body, the coordination of the hands and feet as well as blocks and strikes, high kicks and low sweeps, as well as locking and throwing techniques. At the same time it also contains graceful empty-hand and weapons forms. Tien Shan Pai self-defense is characterized by angular attacks coupled with multiple blocks. If one block fails, the second can cover. Footwork is considered essential to countering attacks. Tien Shan Pai focuses on low and steady steps to the side, along with swift "hidden" steps to trick the opponent. Paired boxing forms and exercises are emphasized for timing and accurate evaluation of distance in reference to a moving, responsive adversary.


 * According to the legend taught by Master Wang to his students the style originated in the Tien Shan mountains of northwestern China; however, first person testimonials by many of his still living senior disciples and students state that it is an eclectic system, some of which has older antecedents, but which was first taught as a system by their teacher beginning in the late 1940s.

I feel that the second paragraph is confusing. It might more cleanly say something like:


 * There is some controversy over whether Tien Shan Pai is an ancient style that originates in the Tien Shan Mountains, or is a curriculum that combines several other Chinese martial art styles into a successful fighting system.

Note that this proposed sentence would find itself at odds with the entire first paragraph, if accepted. Junzi (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I strenuously object to your proposed revision of the second paragraph of this article (as above.) Your editing eliminates months, if not years, of Wiki discussion (and negotiation over verbiage relating to the lineage issue.) The paragraph 2 language has been in place for months unmodified. "As is," it appears to be acceptable to people on both sides of the lineage discussion. TeamResearch (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, I was trying to propose language that I felt was more inclusive. But, if you disagree with the verbiage, and feel that the current verbiage is the best that the article can present, then we should probably leave this portion alone.  I do note that the second paragraph of the article does still disagree with the first paragraph, in that it explicitly states that Tien Shan Pai is a northern "style" of kung fu.  Yet, later it says that Tien Shan Pai might be an eclectic system, which would be notably different than a style of kung fu.  Truthfully, I believe that both paragraphs require significant reworking.  But, if you argue that they should be left alone, we can move on to other sections of the article. Junzi (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's move on to the next section of the article TeamResearch (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Section 2 - Modern History
Regarding the next section: I don’t know that this is a great idea revise this article section by section at this time. The more I get into it, the more I hear how Wang Jyue Jen “spun” his personal history to benefit himself. It appears this was his habit, since his earliest years. In the interest of full disclosure and transparency, this information comes through Willy Lin, with whom I have had numerous conversations. Mr. Lin had maintained written contact (and still does to this day) with Wang Jyue Jen’s family… both in Szechuan and in Taiwan.

Here's the long version: In the 1970’s, on Wang’s first trip to visit Lin in the US, China had been “opened” to Americans because the US government had already established relations with China. The Taiwanese government had not. Lin asked if Wang wanted to re-establish contact with that family in mainland China, whom Wang hadn’t had contact with since he left Mainland China with Chaing Kai Shek’s army to come to Taiwan. Wang did not want to do this on the grounds that his family in Mainland China was “Communist.”

A few days before Wang returned to Taiwan, he apparently changed his mind. He gave Lin his original home address, family name, and the names of several family members still in Szechuan. Lin went to the Chinese Embassy in DC, and asked their help in getting addresses for the people Wang named. Lin knew Wang could not send letters to mainland China from Taiwan, so he contacted these people by letter, on his teacher’s behalf. Wang’s elder half-brother’s wife (who Wang called “Da-Sao”) responded. At that time, her husband (Wang’s elder half-brother) had died, so she was the elder in the family who could write back. For the next several years, Lin acted as the “go-between” passing messages from Da-Sao to Wang. She did not contact Wang directly because, at the time, it was dangerous for someone from Mainland China to have written correspondence with someone in Taiwan. Lin was uncomfortable forwarding Da-Sao’s letters directly to Wang in Taiwan, because the (KMT) Taiwanese government regularly checked letters… even from those originating in the US. So he held on to them.

When Wang came back to the US for his next visit (several years later,) Lin gave Wang all the letters from Da-Sao that Lin had received. Lin had arranged for Wang to be in telephone contact with his sister-in-law (from Lin’s school in MD to her office in Szechwan province.) For whatever his reason, Wang did not choose to make the phone call. Several months after that, Lin received another letter from Wang’s Sezchuan family. This time the letter was written by Da-Sao’s grand-daughter, (Wang, Ji-Ping,) asking why Wang Jyue Jen had never made the phone call to her grandmother. Lin did not have an answer for her. Ever since, Lin has maintained touch with Wang, Ji-Ping. In the 1980’s, while on a business trip to Mainland China, Lin actually visited with her at her home, which was then in Canton province.

Over the next several years, Lin visited with Wang, Ji-Ping and her husband whenever he was in Canton province on business. On one occasion Lin was invited to Wang, Ji-Ping’s home for dinner. At that time, her parents (Wang Jyue Jen’s nephew and wife) were there. During that visit, Lin asked many questions about his teacher’s background.

He learned that Wang Jyue Jen’s father had three wives… as was custom in those days. #1 wife was Da-Sao’s husband. They had one child, a son, who was Wang, Ji-Ping’s father. #2 wife had no children. #3 wife had 2 children only… both sons…Wang Jyue Jen and his younger brother. Wang, Ji-Ping’s great-grandfather (who was Wang Jyue Jen’s father, as well as the father of Da-Sao’s husband) was an herb doctor. He knew a little kung fu, but he was not a Master. Wang Jyue Jen learned his early kung fu from local teachers near where they lived in Szechuan Province. When Wang Jyue Jen was young, the family was not wealthy. When Wang Jyue Jen was 18 years old, he had to ask for, and was given money from Da-Sao’s husband in order to be able to join the army (the KMT.)

Lin says he has kept quiet about this up until now, because Wang’s “story” wasn’t hurting anyone. However, as a result of recent intense interest in the history of TSP, he feels an obligation to deal with that history he and his senior classmates lived.

It seems clear that Wang’s students and their own students repeated what little Wang told to everyone, regarding his personal life. No one should be faulted for believing what they were told by people they respected. However, to insist on something (dogmatically,) when there is evidence to the contrary, should be reason enough to re-evaluate even the most closely held belief. It is my understanding that Mr. Lin is now writing a History of TSP, which, upon its completion, will be published. This work will include this material, as well as much more information from the early TSP years… but in much greater detail. As to paragraph #2- the Lei Tai tournaments: It seems that an explanation of Lei Tai Tournaments has gotten mixed up with the kind of tournament Wang’s students participated in. Lin and the senior masters agree that no one ever fought in a Lei Tai Tournament. Wang’s first students to participate in any tournament at all were Wu, Ming Jer (who presently lives in Taiwan) and Lin, Yen Yuan (who presently lives in Canada.) This was in 1957. This tournament was a major one called the Taiwan-Hong Kong- Macau International Tournament (the “Tai-Gang-Au.”)  It was a full contact tournament. It was not a Lei Tai tournament.

The Tai-Gang-Au tournament had weight classes. For protection, the participants wore thin gloves on their hands, and “cups” to protect the groin. Mr. Lin, then still in his teens, was a spectator at this event.

The third paragraph, “as written” seems accurate.TeamResearch (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This does go back to my comments about neutrality. We now have testimony from Willy Lin (perhaps he could add some letters with translations so we can better understand what he's saying) that seems to be in direct contradiction with testimony we have from Huang.


 * Neither of these sets of testimony should be taken at face value, as both count as primary sources, or at best unreliable secondary sources. So, we are left with the question of what to do.  Since you have brought this new testimony to light TeamResearch, I would ask that you provide a potential re-write of the these paragraphs. Junzi (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the only thing that is truly "neutral" would be as follows:

Wang Chueh-Jen (also known as Wang Jyue-Jen, and before that Wang San Jer) came from Szechuan Province in China. He is the person credited with bringing the Chinese martial art system known as “Tien Shan Pai”to the public. He taught his curriculum beginning in the late 1940’s, in Taichung, Taiwan.

Through many years of study and teaching, Wang Jyue Jen refined a style of combat he called "radar style fighting". Many of his early students competed in tournaments, all giving outstanding performances, with some winning championships. Wang continued to teach Tien Shan Pai, in Taiwan, until his death in 1990. Some of the curriculum he incorporated into his teaching included forms from the Central Martial Arts Academy in Nanjing. TeamResearch (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks great, though a little bare bones. I think there are a couple of more things that are generally agreed about Wang.  For example, both Lin and Huang have stated that Wang taught martial arts in the military.  So perhaps we can include that detail, particularly as it is implied that Wang taught for a significant period of time prior to teaching his curriculum in Taiwan. Maybe the first paragraph could read as follows:


 * Wang Chueh-Jen (also known as Wang Jyue-Jen, and before that as Wang San Jer) came from Szechuan Province in China. He is creditted with bringing the Chinese martial art known as Tien Shan Pai to the public.  After training members of Chiang Kai Shek's army in the martial arts, he settled in Taiwan, and began to teach his curriculum in the late 1940's.


 * Also, is there a reason that the words "lei tai" are controversial at all in the second paragraph? It seems necessary, particularly as the paragraph highlights the combative side of Wang's curriculum to point out that the tournaments referred to here were primarily of a combative nature.  Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is “bare bones,” but that may be the price of “neutrality.” As for your comments/questions: I think the first paragraph (as below) is fine.

"Wang Chueh-Jen (also known as Wang Jyue-Jen, and before that as Wang San Jer) came from Szechuan Province in China. He is credited with bringing the Chinese martial art known as Tien Shan Pai to the public. After training members of Chiang Kai Shek's army in the martial arts, he settled in Taiwan, and began to teach his curriculum in the late 1940's."

I still have a problem with referencing “lei tai” in the next paragraph of the text. There is nothing in the article (as it stands) to suggest that Wang promoted a curriculum that was of a “combative” nature… unless you’re suggesting that, essentially, ALL martial art is combative by nature... which is probably correct.

I offer, for your consideration, a conclusion based upon three things: 1) According to the TSP Senior Classmates and Disciples, no one trained by Wang competed in any tournament (in Taiwan) prior to the 1957, (and, on that occasion, the tournament entered was the full contact Tai-Gang-Au International Tournament...NOT a ‘Lei Tai” tournament.) 2) Lin's statement that no one competed in any “lei tai” tournament, in Taiwan, between the years 1957 and 1968, (during which time Lin was directly involved with Wang, Wang's students and/or Wang's "Lei Shung Yuan" School as Wang's Assistant and Head Instructor,) and 3) that these men have no reason to lie.

Therefore, unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that the brutality associated with “Lei Tai” is being inaccurately attributed to, and associated with Wang’s curriculum. For this reason, I suggest any reference to “lei tai” be omitted.TeamResearch (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think if you read Nate1481's writing on the tournament that Wu Ming Jer participated in, though from the perspective of Wong Shun Lung. It seems that the description of brutality might be better associated with The Hong Kong Taiwan Macau tournament of 1957, than with modern Lei Tai tournaments.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nate1481/Wong_Shun_Lung#Open_Kung_Fu_Competition


 * Based on this outside testimony, I would argue that it seems like the words "Lei Tai" should remain in the paragraph. While it is not clear from the writing that a raised platform was present at the tournaments (though at least one cited account refers to opponents flying out of the ring), it seems clear that the full contact nature of Wu Ming Jer's fights is without dispute.  Additionally, considering the historic nature of Lei Tai fights, I would be somewhat surprised if at that tournament at least, the fights did not take place on a Lei Tai. Junzi (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lei Tai
Per definition of "Lei Tai", could we get “擂台赛” (Big5：　“擂臺賽”) anglicized into "Challenge Tournament" (abbreviated as "CT") for the benefit of other editors here on Wikipedia? Thoughts, anyone? --Dave1185 (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see TeamResearch's concern with the phrase Lei Tai. Per the wikipedia article Lei Tai (Traditional: 擂臺 Simplified: 擂台 – “Beat (a drum) Platform”).  The article goes on to define a Lei Tai as a raised rail-less platform on which weapon and bare knuckle competition takes place.  I have been unable to find a citation for this tournament that indicates a raised rail-less platform, with authors refering to a 'ring', rather than a platform.  Though one author does indicate that fighters won by sending opponents flying out of the ring.  I am not absolutely certain that the tournament fighting occurred on a Lei Tai.  However, as the tournament in question was an invitational tournament by the Taiwan Kuoshu Association I would be surprised if the fighting did not occur on the Lei Tai. Junzi (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You might wanna work it out amongst yourselfs but I'm all for the term "CT". --Dave1185 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the "lei tai" or not "lei tai" discussion: Any "ring" whether for boxing or wrestling, etc. is always "raised." Otherwise no one can see! Are you going to suggest that any fighting competition, by virtue of the fact that it takes place on a raised platform, is "Lei Tai?"

Also, I checked out the link to the Nate1481 wiki page referenced in Junzi's last response. (Footnote #52 & #53 which refer to Wong's "stretcher" incident, and what I suppose can only be an indirrect assumption of some kind of intentional "brutality") Footnote #53 goes nowhere. Footnote #52 goes to a blog discussion which makes it clear there is infighting going on as to whether to credit or discredit the validity of this other person (Wong)and his claim to be a great fighter. (PLEASE NOTE: THIS "NATE ARTICLE REFERENCE" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TSP) My objection still stands. On the one side there are statements from people in attendence at the event, as well as the Senior TSP disciples and students in Taiwan that the 1957 Tai-Gang-Au Tournament was NOT a Lei Tai tournament. Was this competition held in a raided "ring?" Easy enough to find out... but not the point. Even if the ring was "raised" there is no evidence that this was "Lei Tai" in the traditional and usually understood meaning of the term. On the other side of the discussion is the statement "I would be surprised." In the absense of better than that, I see no reason to mention, let alone associate TSP with Lei Tai fighting. TeamResearch (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I specifically chose an article that has nothing to do with Tien Shan Pai to indicate that other sources do seem to indicate a minimum-rules full contact fighting competition in a rail-less ring. If the fighting occurred within a raised ring that lacked a rail, and then it meets the wikipedia definition of Lei Tai fighting. So I would now assert, with TeamResearch's statement that the ring in the 1957 tournament was raised that the article must include at least some mention of Lei Tai.  Perhaps a rewrite that contains the following:


 * Many of his early students competed in tournaments, some on the lei tai. All gave outstanding performances, some winning championships.


 * I go back to my prior statement that this paragraph begins with a sentence talking specifically of "radar style fighting", so it is necessary, in relating how Wang's curriculum translates into tournament success to indicate that it is this radar style fighting which matters. So, since lei tai tournaments are the way that modern readers will recognize an older full contact fighting competition, I assert that we should use the words.  If TeamResearch feels that we should not, then I need some indication of what differentiates Lei Tai from other full contact fighting.  And, I will argue that "brutality" is not sufficient criteria as that goes to the fighter rather than to the tournament. Junzi (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This argument is totaly specious. Sound good at first, but on examination, lacks merit.

I did not say the "ring" at the Tai-Gang-Au was raised. I said it should be easy enough to find out. I have no idea what this competition area looked like. Do you? It could have been square, or round, or had ropes around it, etc. Only way to solve this is with either a picture, or a first person account from someone who was actually there (like Wu Ming Jer, himself.)

You point to "radar style fighting" as some kind of proof of something. But what? What exactly does "radar style" mean? In what way does this differ from other styles of kung fu fighting?

You say "lei tai" is the way modern readers recognize the "older" style of fighting. Since when is 1957 so "old" that it should be put in the same category with those authentic lei tai tournaments (from over a hundred years ago) which, apparantly, were fights to the death?

You are muddying the water with things that are truly extraneous...especially when you cite articles that, by your own statement, have nothing to do with TSP. Let's move on to the next section of the TSP article. TeamResearch (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I do not think this point is settled.


 * First, Lei Tai is a modern term that has a certain recognition within the martial arts community as a full contact fight at a tournament generally run by Chinese martial artists.


 * Second, my pointing to the use of "radar style fighting" has to do with continuity of ideas within a paragraph, if we are attempting to avoid the martial aspects of Wang's curriculum, then why mention radar style fighting in the first place? If we are to focus only on the forms aspect of Wang's curriculum, and avoid his well known prowess as a teacher of successful fighters, then we should not include the sentence on radar style fighting in this paragraph, and thus the whole paragraph requires a re-write.


 * Third, I had made some presumptions about the size and dimensions of the ring in 1957, but we do not know for sure, you are correct there. However, you stated that the ring was raised, and that the idea that it wouldn't be raised was foolish.


 * Fourth, I pointed out citations from other sources, unrelated to Tien Shan Pai (as Lei Tai is by no means a TSP specific term), as a means of bolstering the argument that the ring was likely rail-less, and that the fights had few rules, minimal protection, and were full contact. The citation is not extraneous at all, nor does it muddy the waters.  It is a means of bolstering ones claims by citing utterly disinterested sources.  You can see in this paragraph what claims I am supporting with the citations.


 * The term lei tai has a modern meaning which does not necessarily refer to the traditional Chinese martial arts fights to the death. Thus, it is by this more inclusive understanding of the term Lei Tai that I am interested in including the words in the article.  It draws the martial art of Tien Shan Pai more completely into the world of Chinese martial arts, rather than diminishing that aspect of its identity by preferring a more generic term like "full contact fights".  Which is true as far as it goes, but does not seem to me to be complete.


 * I am concerned that we are getting so hung up on a minor point of verbiage within a sentence, particularly as the last time this started to happen the only reason we were able to move on was because I let the point go. It seems to me at this point that we may need to consider mediation as a way of addressing the article content, verbiage, style, and grammar.Junzi (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I, too, am concerned that we seem to be constantly hung up on inconsequential (when it comes to reporting the TSP story) points of verbiage. This discussion should not be  about winning or losing points as per edits. It should be about co-operating to find a middle ground for what is going to be referenced (and relied upon) in Wiki.

As to your particulars: I agree with you. "Radar style fighting" probably does not belong in this discussion. I had the inclination to question the meaning and use of this phrase from the beginning, but chose not to in the interest of not wanting to belabor every word. My mistake.

The only thing I know about Lei Tai comes as a result of the link that is presently imbedded in the TSP article. This link leads to info that speaks to the brutality and potentially lethal nature of Lei Tai competitions. “Lei Tai” is neither presented nor defined as a synonym for "full contact competitions." If we lose this link to the other Lei Tai article...problem solved.

As to whether the 1957 ring was raised or not. I do not know. It could have been on a flat surface, and the seating raked (as in stadium seating). Why are you trying to make a major point out of something that matters so little?

"Full contact" may be generic, but it speaks to what was going on at the Tai-Gang-Au in an unembellished way.

TSP doesn’t need to be "drawn more into the world of Chinese Martial Art." It is a Chinese martial art with a history of over 60 years. This history makes no reference to outside Lei Tai tournaments, or even intra-mural ones in which TSP students participated.

A while back, you asked me to come up with a re-write on this section: I offer this, for not just your own, but for the other readers of this discussion as well:

“Wang Chueh-Jen (also known as Wang Jyue-Jen, and before that as Wang San Jer) came from Szechuan Province in China. He is credited with bringing the Chinese martial art known as Tien Shan Pai to the public. After training members of Chiang Kai Shek's army in the martial arts, he settled in Taiwan, where he began to teach his curriculum in the late 1940's. Wang’s early students competed in tournaments in Taiwan. Most notable among the successes of these early students, was Wu Ming Jer’s victory in the International Taiwan-Hong Kong-Macau Tournament (the Tai-Gang-Au)  in 1957. In this tournament Wu Ming Jer, won the lightweight division (full contact) championship title.

Wang continued to teach Tien Shan Pai, in Taiwan, until his death in 1990. Some of the curriculum he incorporated into his teaching included forms from the Central Martial Arts Academy in Nanjing.” TeamResearch (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am at this point mostly happy with what you wrote. The reason I think the use of Lei Tai is important comes from the fact that I have found articles about modern Tien Shan Pai stylists who compete in Lei Tai fighting.  Their training is derived from the teachings of Wang, and I am interested in having the words here as a way of establishing some continuity between what they have learned and what was originally taught.


 * That said, I will make the edit to have the section conform with your verbiage, and it will then be the joint responsibility of the editors to find appropriate citations for the verbiage. Junzi (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Having done some careful reading, I am now going to have to reopen discussion on the verbiage of this section. It was asserted that Wang did not come from a well to do family, in apparent contradiction with the bio on the Tien Shan Pai Association website.

Evidence was based on some supposed statements from Willy Lin, which we do not have in writing from any source, but were agreed upon because it made the article more neutral by removal of information. However, it seems that Willy Lin would be in contradiction with those statements himself, per his own webpage.

Therefore, as there is clear corroborating evidence from multiple sources that Wang's family had money, I will be reverting the paragraph to include some mention of this fact. Junzi (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Much has been said about Wu Ming Jer and his fight application. So I think the students in Taiwan MUST be also included in the article. Why use their names only if convenient? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Founding Legend
This is probably one of the most edited sections of the article, and the clumsiest in its use of style and grammar because of that. I argue that we should remove everything in this section after the sentence "Then he left to pass on his skill to other dedicated students."

Alternatively, we could edit this section down to a very short and pithy description of the colorful story that has been passed down as the founding legend of the style. I am actually in favor of this second approach as I feel that the founding legend as stated here is a bit overcome by details. For examples of how other martial arts articles do this, please look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_Gar#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_chun#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizongyi#Legends

Thoughts? Junzi (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of both: 1) that the "legend" section stop after the actual telling of the legend, and 2) that the "legend" be edited into a much shorter recounting of the story. Want to take a crack at this? TeamResearch (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is some initial text that we can work from:


 * Wang Jyue Jen told many of his students a founding legend to instill martial virtue in them. The details of that legend vary in the re-telling, but the story is essentially as follows:  At the urging of his mother, a young shepherd who lived in the foothills of the Tien Shan mountain range followed an old monk into the mountains to learn his martial art.  Upon proving his dedication to learning, by kneeling in the snow overnight, the shepherd was taken into the monk's temple.  After many years of training he left to pass his skill on to other dedicated students.


 * Clearly, this is just initial text, but I believe it touches on most of the main points. Junzi (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! You might want to insert the name "Red Cloud" into what you've written as follows: ...a young shepherd (Hong Yun Szu aka "Red Cloud,") who lived in the foothills... etc.

I noticed you added two "citations needed" to the History section of the article. Are these necessasy? Everyone seems to agree that Wang Jyue Jen is the man who made this system available to the public. And as for needing a reference for Wu Ming Jer... it's already there in "Note #4," which clicks to a link that is an actual photo of the newspaper article in question, and has (as part of it) a picture of Wu Ming Jer standing with his championship trophy. TeamResearch (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A good suggestion on the verbiage. I'll add it as I alter the article.


 * As for the citation needed tags that I added, I am simply trying to be thorough. I can easily cite a lot of the verbiage, but as the verbiage about Wang making the system available to the public is something of a compromise, I do not have a citation for it, and would like some.  As for the citation for Wu Ming Jer, inline citations are best, and since you know where the citation is (and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by Note #4), why don't you add it? Junzi (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern Practitioners
This section has the potential to be the most problematic. I think we should retain the paragraph at the top in essentially it's same form, and then keep to the structure of a brief blurb about a few of the well known masters of the style. As TeamResearch seems to have had conversations with Willy Lin, they should probably write that section, as they are probably the clearest on his history. I may request citations from TeamResearch, but have no intention of fiddling much with the verbiage that is chosen, other than perhaps from a grammatical perspective. I will volunteer to write a brief paragraph on Huang, and will likewise offer citations where requested, and request that other editors make only grammatical edits.

The controversy is well known to most of the subject specific editors of this article, so I think the best way to address it is to raise the credentials of each individual, rather than to waste time attempting to cast doubt on the claims of others.

The only proposal I have for an update to the lead paragraph verbiage is a return to the alphabetical listing of names. I do not understand how we ended up listing the names by arrival in the US, as this seems a confusing metric for readers not steeped in the history of this topic. Thoughts? Junzi (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Modern Practitioners Section is in pretty good shape the way it is. Certainly it has been through the wringer over the past year and a half...with edits from MANY contributors (not just yours and my own.) However, if you want another crack at Huang's bio, you go for it! I think Lin's says pretty much what needs to be said.

I would strongly suggest that the last paragraph in this section be left "as is." After all, isn't this the crux of what is contended? To omit it, or water it down is not in the best interest of a neutral Wiki entry. For this reason, I suggest the last paragraph in this section remain intact as it stands:

"Huang's claim that he is the only true disciple of Wang Jyue Jen, as well his claim that he is 64th generation are strenuously challenged by at least nine of Wang Jyue Jen's other disciples, all of whom presently live in Taiwan, and all of whom are "senior" to Huang. Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students."

As to why the list of practitioners in the US went from alphabetical to "in arrival order": I have no problem with the "arrival order" concept. After all, this information is an attempt to inform the general public about what is VERIFIABLE. Not only is this way of organizing a list just that (verifiable,) but it speaks to the history of TSP (as it evolved in the US.)

It's sort of like, if you are trying to say something that speaks to the History of our country, you list the US presidents in the order in which they served. You don't put Adams, Carter and Ford ahead of Lincoln and Washington, even though their names come first "alphabetically." TeamResearch (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to leave most of this section alone, then I will simply be putting in citation requests. Inline citations are considered ideal for an article, and we should attempt to adhere to those guidelines as best we can.


 * I suppose the justification for the paragraph raising doubts about Huang's claims (backed up by physical evidence he has presented on the internet), has to do with the controversial nature of his claims. If that is the case, then we will be adding a paragraph beneath Willy Lin's bio taking issue with his claim to have named Tien Shan Pai, as well as with his claim that Wang was the founder of the style (both of which are only backed by his words and suppositions).


 * In the interests of avoiding this back and forth, I suggest that we remove the paragraph you cited, rather than add another paragraph, which by your own justification would be important in the interests of a complete and neutral wikipedia article, but only perpetuates the argument.


 * As to the alphabetical or temporal listing of names, I will point out that your analogy is flawed. For US presidents it matters a great deal who came first, and who followed whom, particularly when speaking in a historical context.  Here we are providing a series of fairly limited biographical paragraphs about specific masters of a specific art, and dates and times are assumed to be included in the paragraphs.  We are not providing one long paragraph that contains the history of the style as it came to the US, where a temporal list would make more sense.  If a reader who knows little of the style comes to read about it, I don't think they're going to care about the order of arrival of practitioners stateside.  They are going to care about the credentials of the teachers and how to locate those credentials quickly.  Thus, an alphabetical listing is logical, rational, and what we should use. Junzi (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem that is engendering all of this nit picking back and forth may lie within the structural organization of the article itself. The original article’s information assumed that TSP was an ancient system. Over the past several years, this assumption has been challenged by many of Wang Jyue Jen’s still living disciples. In fairness, it is also true that this “ancient” assumption has been consistently maintained and insisted upon by Huang Chien Liang. Hence the “dispute.”

The use of the word “Modern” in a section title presupposes there is a distinction between an “ancient” verifiable history and a “modern” one. I suggest that all section headings be reworked so they’re more neutrally “on point,” and historically more accurate.

I suggest replacing the existing section titles with ones like “TSP- in Taiwan,” “TSP- the Founding Legend” and “TSP- in the US.” By using this organizational structure, we allow for everything: 1) what is legend (Red Cloud), 2) what is the verifiable history of Wang, the school he ran in Taiwan, etc., and 3) what has proved to be a major development in TSP history… the introduction of Wang’s system to the US. We also create space to deal with Willy Lin’s contribution to TSP history, as well as allow room for those contributions made by the men Lin sponsored (Tony Lin, Huang, and C.C. Liu) when he brought them from Taiwan to expand the teaching staff at Lin Kung Fu Schools.

As an added bonus, this keeps the focus of the article on Wang (and not on the “dispute” which, by rights, is more appropriately explored via private websites or the blogs.) We can, also, use most of the verbiage (in all sections) that we have, already, agreed to modify. TeamResearch (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a few things I'd like to address here. First, I have heard a lot about these "several living disciples" who dispute what Wang taught to his students about the origin of the style.  I do not know who they are, what their words are, or what proof there is that they are disciples.  The only evidence I have seen as to their existence has been your writing, and some half-hearted hand waving on Willy Lin's website.  This is hardly proof, and is not much of a base from which to make claims about the nature of the style.


 * Interestingly, Huang does not actually seem to maintain the assumption that the style is ancient. He has basically said (per a posting on the rotten tomatoes forum) that he does not know how old the style is, that out of respect for his teacher he is simply stating what his teacher told him, that anyone with other information should come forward, and that if anyone knows more about of the martial art than him then he (Huang) will bow down before them.  Most of the argument since then has been a lot of fancy stepping around what Huang has said, as well as attempts to reframe his statements on the matter.  Fundamentally, I think the dispute (without quotations as I believe that the arguments on both sides have some validity) derives from a desire on both sides to propagate the teachings of Wang as those teachings are understood by the individuals in question.  It is not a question of right or wrong here, but a question of impressions, and I feel that both sides impressions deserve an airing.


 * I don't believe a re-working, as you have suggested, is workable. Changing the names of the section headings does little to change the actual information and verifiability of the article.  The focus of the article should actually be on Tien Shan Pai, and not on Wang.  If this were an article about Wang, then that is where the focus should be.  Instead, we should talk about what is verifiable about the history of Tien Shan Pai (such as the name being at least as old as 1957, rather than coming from Willy Lin as he claims), and not be distracted by the unsubstantiated claims spread all over the internet.


 * Finally, if you would like to remove the dispute from the modern practitioners section, then feel free to remove the paragraph that questions Huang's credentials, as that is really the basis of the dispute. Junzi (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read periodically the discussion about Tien Shan Pai. I am one of the disciples of Mr. Wang Jyue Jen from 1961 to 1964, and I haven’t tried to give inputs until today. My name is Mr. Justin Chen, and I have been in the States since 1968. I work as a forest consultant and a voluntary Taichi instructor on my spare time. I would like to give some of my personal experience and thoughts which may help clear the argument.

During the entire period under Mr. Wang’s teaching, I had never heard his mention about Tien Shan Pai, not even once. I say that “Tien Shan Pai” was created only by the martial art popular fiction novelists. If Tien Shan Pai does exist, then what are the core forms/styles? A “Pai” should have a core content. What Mr. Wang taught was his learning from various teachers/sources. There is no unique one belonging to so-called “Tien Shan Pai”.

A lineage of Tien Shan Pai, if one does exist, should have a book detailing the Head Masters from its beginning to the modern day, but Mr. Wang had never mentioned such a book or the Head Master before him. Not to mention such a book would be disrespectful to any “Pai” according to Chinese tradition. Mr. Wang didn’t mention it only because there was none before him.

I am one of Mr. Wang’s disciples, but I am questioning his statement about his claim as the 63rd Head Master of Tien Shan Pai. This is not disrespectful to Master Wang because a claim should be able to stand the scrutiny. His claim, apparently, can not.

As to Mr. Huang Chien Liang’s claim to be the only true disciple of Mr. Wang’s and the one who learned the most from Mr. Wang: This is purely from the air. Does Mr. Huang dare enough to sit down in the same room with those seniors and make such a claim? Mr. Tsai Cheng Hsiung, one of Mr. Huang’s mentors, will be the first one to challenge such a claim.

The title “Modern Practitioners of Tien Shan Pai” is ridiculous to me because there is no Tien Shan Pai before Master Wang. I have strongly disagreed with Mr. Willy Lin about his use of Tien Shan Pai on his books, because there has never been proof that Mr. Wang inherited ay core system. The only thing we can say is that Mr. Wang is the one started his kung fu style based on a core system he put together, and that Mr. Willy Lin brought it to the States, where he “branded” it as Tien Shan Pai. Mr. Willy Lin hired those mentioned in this discussion from Taiwan to help with the teaching of Mr. Wang’s martial art style.

Hope the above clear some of the argument. JC 10/14/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.3.97 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. If you intend to continue to engage in discussion here you may wish to get a username so that it is easier to recognize you and we are not left guessing if it is you to whom we are speaking.

Unfortunately, your comments do not noticeably clear up this debate. Verifiability is standard for wikipedia content, and while your testimony is appreciated, the verifiability of what you say is difficult. First, as I have previously requested, there is a lack of any physical evidence to back up your statements. Second, your statements are problematic in a variety of ways that I will discuss in a moment. And third, you are actually making a clear assumption in your final paragraph, an assumption that is unverifiable, and apparently contradicted by evidence.

I assume that you may be one of the disciples that TeamResearch has mentioned. If so, then there would need to be, beyond your anonymous testimony in this forum, some demonstration of your having been a disciple of Wang's. I will note that you mention having been a disciple from 1961 to 1964, and will assume that you mean student, rather than disciple, as I do not understand why you would state that you (or Wang) terminated your discipleship.

You make a claim that there should be some kind of book if we are discussing a traditional martial art. This idea is not necessarily consistent throughout the traditional martial arts world. See, for example, the Wing Chun dispute over lineage. If one person had a book, they would have displayed it for the world to see, and that would have become the focus of the debate (much as Huang's sword and the calligraphy on Huang's site have drawn a great deal of fire). As one can see there is actually little that is constant between the traditional martial arts, and so I am somewhat doubtful abut your assertion that there should be a book.

We cannot, in fact, say that Willy Lin "branded" the style as Tien Shan Pai. On Willy Lin's own website he mentions that Wu Ming Jer competed in 1957 under the name Tien Shan Pai, many years before Willy Lin ever came the US or used the name Tien Shan Pai at his school Lin's Kung Fu. That Willy Lin, himself, has published this fact leads me to the conclusion that this fact is likely correct, and we even have a citation to an article about Wu Ming Jer on the article.

And as to your comments about Mr. Huang. He has publicly made the statement that if anyone can demonstrate more knowledge of Tien Shan Pai than himself, he would bow to that person as teacher. This was not only on the Rotten Tomatoes Forum, but in an email that went out to many of the people involved in this lineage dispute from the beginning.

Finally, the only way we could state that Wang created a fusion system based on a core that he learned elsewhere would be if he had said so himself. To do otherwise is to speculate in the face of a lack of any empirical evidence. Indeed, the person who would know such a thing would have been Wang himself, and I continue to be startled that no one has a good answer for me as to why (in the interests of self promotion) he would not want to be known as the founder of a successful fighting style. Indeed, his calligraphy and other effects that he left behind leave no doubt to his affirming statements as to the long lineage of Tien Shan Pai. Thus, the only thing we can actually say, is that Wang stated on more than one occasion that the style was ancient, that he learned it in his youth, and that he clearly stated his place in the lineage as the 63rd generation grandmaster of the style.Junzi (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In our tradition, a martial art practitioner should learn to respect his/her brothers and sisters under the same master (ton min su shun di ja mei同門師兄弟姐妹) and obey the martial art virtue (武德). Also, one should learn to appreciate helps from fellow practitioners. If Junzi is one of Mr. Huang’s students, please go back to Mr. Huang and relearn those virtues.

When we were under Wang’s teaching, all under him were called “Tou Di or 徒弟”. There was no separation of “disciple or student”. If Junzi is one of Mr. Huang’s students, please go back to Mr. Huang and asks him to clarify it. There were only two groups: basic training, three times per week emphasizing the basic forms, and advanced training, one time per week including Chin-Na, free fighting skills. One had to learn enough basic forms and pass a test before entering the advanced training. The advanced Tou Di had to participate the basic training. Those hadn’t passed the test were not allowed to participate the advanced class. These two were held at different time. Junzi was not under Mr. Wang at that time and he is unaware of this. Junzi never studied under Mr. Wang. He was not there. He only repeats things about TSP that he has been told, and about which he has  no personal knowledge. This case of the use of "Tou Di" is just one example.

I used my real name in my previous input in order to help clarify the discussion. If Junsi does not believe who I am, he can check with Mr. Huang and he can find my name in the correspondence directory supplied by the Taiwan senior “Tou Di” to all those who trained under Wang Jyue Jen himself.

It is no use to say further because Junzi will never be willing to accept facts. I would advise that he goes to Taiwan to visit Wang’s senior Tou Di and learn the facts.

JC 10/21/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.5.185 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise some points that should probably, as TeamResearch has pointed out, be aired in another forum. This discussion page is intended to foster discussion regarding improvement of the article to which it is attached.


 * I assume you are arguing that we should leave the paragraph questioning Huang's claims about his status as grandmaster, yet not put in a paragraph regarding some of the claims that Willy Lin has made which are also open to discussion. In instances where there is room for controversy it seems best to either provide both sides as reasonably and exhaustively as one is able, or simply side step the controversy entirely.  Thus, my statement above that we should either remove the paragraph questioning Huang's claims, or add a paragraph that similarly questions Willy Lin's claims


 * You have said a great deal in your response, and it was most informative. However, making a statement is not proof of the truth of that statement, nor more importantly is it proof of verifiability.  In this instance I would point out again, that the standard of evaluation on wikipedia is not truth-hood or falsehood, but verifiability WP:V. Additionally,, wikipedia policy does not encourage the publication of original research WP:NOR.


 * It is certainly difficult to amass any real information on this subject without appeal to original research, which is why I have been so interested in physical evidence, particularly any writings by Wang that have been left behind. There is an abundance of such information on Huang's website, calligraphy from his teacher, a rubbing from the sword he received from his master , and so forth .  I have not seen similar physical evidence from others.  The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim.  It seems that Huang has backed up his claims, now it falls to others to back up theirs.  Thus, it is up to you to provide any evidence for what you have said.  I look forward to seeing it. Junzi (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Same old same old" and honestly, this is boring. Why is Junzi so willing to dismiss the "oral history" of TSP, especially when it comes from anyone other than Huang? Why does he not understand that, when dealing with oral tradition, "original research" IS first person accounts coming from those who actually lived through the events! You want to scrutinize statements? Scrutinize Wang's.

Wang's disciple, Huang, posts on his website that "Supreme Master Wang himself wrote on this board that he is the 63rd generation Tien Shan Pai grandmaster" yet there is no proof that Wang was telling the truth about this statement. In what year did Wang even write this on Huang's "board"?

There is hard evidence (Wang's own 1974 school Exhibition Program... follow the link to the "Truth About TSP article"... as well as testimony from Wang's own disciples (same article) that the ancient lineage of TSP is a fiction. Junzi doesn't get to dismiss such evidence as inconvenient.

There seems a high liklihood that Wang Jyue Jen was being "creative" after the fact, and the bottom line is: who cares? "Marketing" has always been "marketing." TSP is a good system. It works. It has at least a 60+ year verifiable history, and hundreds of thousands who practice it around the world. That's all that matters.

If Huang wants his students to believe their system is thousands of years old, he can say that. His prerogative. His opinion, based on the "hear-say" of what Wang told him. (And before Junzi responds with more of the "same old," let me suggest that he find ONE published "proof" prior to 1974 when, in Wang's own written and published bio, he clearly does NOT claim to be in the lineage of anything!)

I say we should agree to leave the TSP article alone (the way it's been for months now.) Everyone has had their say. That should be enough. TeamResearch (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, if you think it would be best to cease to argue, I will simply strike the paragraph after Huang's bio, the one that starts with "Huang's claim..." That should tie up this line of discussion completely.  We can leave it to the reader to determine if this is Wang engaging in marketing, and some of his faceless students who are correct, or if it is Wang who has the right of his own system.


 * I agree that there is an oral history. But, it is important that oral history be documented in a secondary source that is not wikipedia.  And before you say that Willy Lin's website is a secondary source, I will point out that like Huang, he has a vested interest in a particular interpretation of the chain of events.  The only reason I am favorably disposed to Huang is that he has presented physical evidence of Wang's statements.  This program book is quite interesting, and it is a point to note that Wang considered his education in the art of kung fu that was handed down from generation to generation to be more important than the widely recognized Kuoshu Institute.  Marketing?  Maybe.  But, it is still interesting to note the use of the phrase "generation to generation" in this instance.


 * But, let's get to the actual crux of the discussion. All of this is about whether or not Huang get's to claim to be the sole lineage holder for this generation of Tien Shan Pai.  That is the fundamental of this argument.  Huang has said that he received a Tao name, and that in 1986 he decided to use this as his formal name .  Further he goes on to say that Wang was very happy about this.  We can request some evidence of this from Huang if you think it is important.  However, I have seen no one else claiming a Tao name, and since this does seem to be an, at least, historic part of acceptance into a discipleship/temple/whatever in China, I am surprised that no one else has come out with one.  Huang has his sword (cited above) that says he is 64th generation.  I have seen no sword from others making this claim.  I had heard (from the wikipedia discussion) that Tony Lin was among the recipients of a sword, yet I have never seen any pictures of it.  Huang has calligraphy from his teacher, showing Wang's support for Huang's teaching endeavors.  Other students of Wang did and do still teach (particularly if Mr. Chen above is to be believed), yet no one else has a sign, or at least displays it.  Thus, while others may make claims until they are blue in the face, I am somewhat doubtful as to their specifics.  And, thus we should simply striking that one paragraph in the interests of consensus. Junzi (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No! Without that paragraph, (beginning with “Huang’s claims…”,) how does anyone know that there is an opposing point of view? This paragraph represents the view held by the majority of those who have trained in TSP… but NOT under Huang. No matter how loudly you talk (on Huang's behalf) he and his students are in the minority, not the majority of TSP practitioners world-wide, past and present. TeamResearch (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this does not have to do with what the majority of practitioners think, but simply what is out there in the discussion. But since you are certain that the paragraph needs to stay, I submit that certain claims made by Willy Lin should also be questioned in a paragraph below his entry (which should be consolidated to a single paragraph by the way).


 * I propose verbiage as follows:


 * While Willy Lin has recently claimed that Wang was the originator of this style, evidence had previously been made available to the public that Wang described himself as a member of the 63rd generation of this style.  Additionally, though Willy Lin describes himself as responsible for naming the style Tien Shan Pai in the 1970's, his own website makes reference to a student of Wang's fighting under the style name Tien Shan Pai as early as 1957.


 * I understand that this verbiage is going to be met with some skepticism on the part of my fellow editors, but I believe that if we are to address the controversy on this page, then if one is to question the claims made by one side, it seems fair that the other side should have to weather similar questions. I will note that if a claim is good and strong, then it should be possible to address any questions raised regarding that claim. Junzi (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Spin, spin, and more spin. That's all you seem to post! When dealing with Oral History, you have to rely on "majority rule." What else is there? Unfortunately, in this case, the "majority" does not favor Huang's position. Take Huang's claims (in what is clearly a lineage war and which... as this discussion has explored... are all based on hear-say from Wang) and your posturing about them to Rotton Tomatoes or some other more appropriate forum. Maybe you'll find a more sympathetic audience there. TeamResearch (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, it depends on how you count majority in this instance. From a quick search of the web, it seems that the majority of schools that claim to teach Tien Shan Pai have lineages that originate with Huang.  And, since at least a couple of those schools have been in continuous operation since the 1980's, I would be surprised if their student populations did not overwhelm contributions from others.  I suspect you are talking about these senior students of Wang that I have heard so much about.  I still do now know who you are talking about, and every time I have asked for some form of evidence to verify their existence all you do is become argumentative, rather than factual.


 * Second, if the lineage descends from Wang (as I believe no one has claimed that it would not), then does it not make sense that statements from Wang (or hear-say as you are calling it) would be the important deciding factor? Why do his students know more about his art than he does?  Clearly, I again can see the point about self promotion, but again, it has not been explained to me why Wang would not want to be known as the founder of a successful fighting system.


 * Finally, again this is devolving into personal attacks, which is unfortunate. As such, I will be requesting mediation. Junzi (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The question seems to be "Is Huang the Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai or not?" The question is not "Who do I like?" or "Who do I believe?" but "What factual evidence exists?" It seems both sides have had their say and perhaps all of the evidence we are going to get is on the table. People are free to believe he is or is not the Grandmaster. It seems hard to definitively prove either way. Therefore, I believe it is fair to present both viewpoints in the article- essentially saying that there are those that follow Huang as the Grandmaster and those that do not.

As far as majority vs. minority, I think you need to present some factual evidence/statistics to support the claim that the Huang and his followers are in the minority. Have you counted the number of schools in each group and figured out how many students train at each school? Have you somehow figured out how many people practice Tien Shan Pai at non-commercial schools? Of course not. You could never be sure and as Junzi said it isn't the issue so I think we should just drop that point.

Now, since Willy Lin is a name often heard and cited as an accurate source of history by the group that opposes Huang, the fact that his account of things has been shown to be inaccurate in at least one case is important and relevant. In his essay regarding the truth about Tien Shan Pai, Lin claims Wang used the name Tien Shan Pai in the 50's, then claims he himself (Lin) named the style in the 70's. So if we are going to cast doubt on Huang's claims just because they cannot be definitively proven, we should definitely cast doubt on Lin's claim that HAS BEEN DISPROVEN.

Regarding the fact that Huang's claim is challenged by his senior classmates- Again I think it would be best to back this up with some names and direct quotes of these so called senior classmates. Otherwise, we are basing our position on exactly what TeamResearch just accused Junzi of: hearsay. Therefore, in absence of direct quotes and names of these mystery "disciples", I contend that the section regarding their "challenge" of Huangs claims be removed. Broncosfan74 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Broncofan! I am delighted to see a new name appear in this discussion. Welcome! I will attempt to address the questions you raise based on what I have come to understand and observe over these past few months. PLEASE NOTE: I AM GOING TO WRITE USING CAPITAL LETTERS SIMPLY TO DISTINGUISH WHAT ARE MY COMMENTS AND WHAT ARE THE WORDS OF OTHERS.

AS TO YOUR FIRST POINT: “The question seems to be "Is Huang the Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai or not?" The question is not "Who do I like?" or "Who do I believe?" but "What factual evidence exists?" It seems both sides have had their say and perhaps all of the evidence we are going to get is on the table. People are free to believe he is or is not the Grandmaster.”

I AGREE WITH YOU. PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHAT THEY LIKE... AS WELL THEY SHOULD. HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD BE CLEAR ON ONE THING: GRANDMASTER LIN HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE THE SOLE INHERITOR OF TSP. HIS CLAIM (ACCORDING TO HIS WEBSITE) IS THAT ALL OF WANG’S DISCIPLES SHARE IN THE BURDEN OF PASSING TSP ON TO THE FUTURE GENERATIONS. HUANG IS THE ONE CLAIMING TO BE THE SOLE INHERITOR...NOT LIN.

YOUR SECOND POINT: “ It seems hard to definitively prove either way. Therefore, I believe it is fair to present both viewpoints in the article- essentially saying that there are those that follow Huang as the Grandmaster and those that do not.”

AS I READ THE ARTICLE BOTH OF THESE POINTS OF VIEW ARE REPRESENTED AS THE ARTICLE STANDS.

YOUR THIRD POINT: “As far as majority vs. minority, I think you need to present some factual evidence/statistics to support the claim that the Huang and his followers are in the minority. Have you counted the number of schools in each group and figured out how many students train at each school? Have you somehow figured out how many people practice Tien Shan Pai at non-commercial schools? Of course not. You could never be sure and as Junzi said it isn't the issue so I think we should just drop that point.”

ACTUALLY, I COULD PUT TOGETHER THE EVIDENCE YOU REQUEST, (INCLUDING TESTIMONY FROM SOME OF HUANG'S OWN FORMER DISCIPLES THAT THEY NO LONGER SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF 63 OR 64 GENERATIONS.) HOWEVER, IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE AND TSP GOING FORWARD, I AGREE, WE CAN DROP IT. YOUR 4TH POINT: “since Willy Lin is a name often heard and cited as an accurate source of history by the group that opposes Huang, the fact that “ (Willy Lin’s }… account of things has been shown to be inaccurate in at least one case is important and relevant. In his essay regarding the truth about Tien Shan Pai, Lin claims Wang used the name Tien Shan Pai in the 50's, then claims he himself (Lin) named the style in the 70's.”

USING A NAME ONCE TO CONVENIENTLY FILL IN AN APPLICATION BLANK IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT TO BE AN ANCIENT SYSTEM. IF TIEN SHAN PAI WAS AN ANCIENT SYSTEM, WANG WOULD HAVE CLAIMED THAT AND USED IT FOR HIS OWN MARKETING AND PUBLICITY PRIOR TO 1982 (the Baltimore tournament.) THERE IS BOTH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (AS WELL AS TESTIMONY) THAT PROVES HE DID NOT. AS FAR AS LIN’S CLAIM TO HAVE NAMED THE STYLE IN THE ‘70s, I BELIEVE THE REFERENCE IS THAT HIS BOOK PUBLISHER (OHARA PUBLICATIONS), WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF BRING HIS FIRST BOOK TO MARKET, INSISTED HE USE TIEN SHAN PAI TO DISTINGUISH HIS BOOK FROM THE OTHER MARTIAL ART BOOKS ON THE MARKET AT THAT TIME.

YOUR FIFTH POINT: “Regarding the fact that Huang's claim is challenged by his senior classmates- Again I think it would be best to back this up with some names and direct quotes of these so called senior classmates.”

YOU JUST HAD A REFUTATION OF HUANG’S CLAIM FROM ONE OF WANG’S DISCIPLES… A MR. JUSTIN CHEN… POSTED IN THIS DISCUSSION LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO (10/14/09). I QUOTE FROM MR. CHEN: “During the entire period under Mr. Wang’s teaching, I had never heard his mention about Tien Shan Pai, not even once. I say that “Tien Shan Pai” was created only by the martial art popular fiction novelists.”

MR CHEN GOES ON TO SAY… AND AGAIN I QUOTE HIM: “I am one of Mr. Wang’s disciples, but I am questioning his statement about his claim as the 63rd Head Master of Tien Shan Pai. This is not disrespectful to Master Wang because a claim should be able to stand the scrutiny. His claim, apparently, can not."

THE QUOTE CONTINUES: "As to Mr. Huang Chien Liang’s claim to be the only true disciple of Mr. Wang’s and the one who learned the most from Mr. Wang: This is purely from the air. Does Mr. Huang dare enough to sit down in the same room with those seniors and make such a claim? Mr. Tsai Cheng Hsiung, one of Mr. Huang’s mentors, will be the first one to challenge such a claim. The title “Modern Practitioners of Tien Shan Pai” is ridiculous to me because there is no Tien Shan Pai before Master Wang. I have strongly disagreed with Mr. Willy Lin about his use of Tien Shan Pai on his books, because there has never been proof that Mr. Wang inherited ay core system. The only thing we can say is that Mr. Wang is the one started his kung fu style based on a core system he put together, and that Mr. Willy Lin brought it to the States, where he “branded” it as Tien Shan Pai. Mr. Willy Lin hired those mentioned in this discussion from Taiwan to help with the teaching of Mr. Wang’s martial art style.”

AS TO YOUR LAST POINT: “in absence of direct quotes and names of these mystery "disciples", I contend that the section regarding their "challenge" of Huangs claims be removed.”

THERE IS NO ABSENCE OF PROOF. ON THE CONTRARY, THERE IS LOTS OF PROOF! IF YOU WANT THE ACTUAL NAMES OF WANG’S TAIWANESE DISCIPLES, I AM HAPPY TO GET THEM FOR YOU. THE LIST IS AVAILABLE ON WILLY LIN’S WEBSITE… BUT AS I DO NOT SPEAK CHINESE, I HAVE TO GET SOMEONE TO TRANSLATE THE NAMES FOR ME SO I CAN RENDER THEM INTO PINYIN.

And by the way, Junzi, I, too have requested mediation. TeamResearch (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Broncosfan74. I, of course, agree that there should be some mention made of the questions raised regarding Willy Lin's claims. However, I do not think that the paragraph questioning claims made by Huang Chien-Liang should be removed. I think that the paragraph should remain, but citations should be added to it to provide some verifiability. At this point in the editing process, we should make the request, but if citations are not provided for these statements, then at some later date the paragraph would then be a candidate for removal.

Where have you requested mediation TeamResearch? If you are ok with mediation, perhaps you can go to the mediation cabal where I have a dispute request in place and signal your acceptance of an attempt at mediation. Case file is located as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-25/Tien_Shan_Pai I think it's good that we have moved back to the question of verifiability, rather than difficult to substantiate measures of who is in the majority. Remember, that it is not only the active students and practitioners of this style, but also many other individuals in the larger martial arts community when we speak of people who have some opinion or perspective on these matters. Though I will say that I am curious how you compiled your data. Did you call up various schools and ask how many students they have had going back to the start of those schools? Junzi (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I also feel I cannot let this point go as you are not actually responding to Broncosfan74. You make two statements


 * "USING A NAME ONCE TO CONVENIENTLY FILL IN AN APPLICATION BLANK IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT TO BE AN ANCIENT SYSTEM."

and


 * "AS FAR AS LIN’S CLAIM TO HAVE NAMED THE STYLE IN THE ‘70s, I BELIEVE THE REFERENCE IS THAT HIS BOOK PUBLISHER (OHARA PUBLICATIONS), WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF BRING HIS FIRST BOOK TO MARKET, INSISTED HE USE TIEN SHAN PAI TO DISTINGUISH HIS BOOK FROM THE OTHER MARTIAL ART BOOKS ON THE MARKET AT THAT TIME."

Your first statement is true. But it is not what I was originally alluding to. I am asserting that filling out an application form with a "convenient" name constitutes a naming of the style. Though I, at least, do not pretend to state with certainty if that is the first time that Wang's teachings were named Tien Shan Pai.

Your second statement is a matter for Willy Lin. I shall take it as fact for the purposes of discussion. It does not constitute a new naming of the style, as the filling out of a tournament form in the 1950's with the same name makes this naming of the style redundant. It is possible that Willy Lin accidentally invented the same name that Wang, his teacher, did twenty years prior. But I consider the possibility unlikely at best.

As such, it does not seem that you have answered the question of how it can be stated that Willy Lin originally named the style. It can be stated, and I agree with you, that the tournament application from 1957 does not constitute proof of an ancient style. But, it does constitute proof that Willy Lin is not the style name originator as he claims on his website. Junzi (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

___________________________

Here are the Pinyin names for Wang’s Senior Disciples still living in Taiwan. (Their last names appear last): Fu Shung Luo, Dzu Long Luo, Yi Ming Guo, Ming Jer Wu, Shih Kuang Lin, Chorng Chung Chen, Chi Long Tsai, Chung Jien Lin, Gao Yue Lin, Yung Ji Lin. (The citation proof for this is the document posted on Willy Lin’s website and already referenced in the Wiki article.)

Wang’s Disciples living in US: Willy Lin (same person as Shih Kuang Lin above), Justin Chen, C.C. Liu, Chien Liang Huang, Tony Lin.

On the contrary, I think it is ONLY Wang’s disciples who have credibility in the lineage discussion. Everyone else, however well intended their comments may be, is relying on  “hear say” from their teacher or their friends.

I’m happy we both seem to agree that "USING A NAME ONCE TO CONVENIENTLY FILL IN AN APPLICATION BLANK IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT TO BE AN ANCIENT SYSTEM."

I still take issue with you regarding Willy Lin's alleged "claim" and the naming of TSP. Willy Lin has never claimed naming his teacher's system as TSP. What he says is that he named it that “in the US.” To substantiate this, I quote from his article, “The Truth About Tien Shan Pai” as it appears on his website (the reference to which has already been footnoted in the Wiki article.)

“The naming of our system as “Tien Shan Pai” in the US, was my doing. It happened in 1971…years before my teacher ever used “Tien Shan Pai” to refer to what he was teaching. I named it “Tien Shan Pai.”

When I opened my first Lin Kung Fu school in the US, (in 1971,) I told my instructors to refer to the curriculum we were teaching as “Tien Shan Pai.” I did so for several reasons: 1) We were constantly asked by our students what “system” we were teaching. 2) I knew we were only teaching Master Wang’s curriculum. I knew no other style to teach, (since Master Wang had been my only Martial Art teacher.) and 3) As one of Master Wang’s disciples, I understood that he intended for his curriculum to be passed on to future generations.

Therefore, I felt all right referring to my teacher’s curriculum as Tien Shan Pai. I had no problem with acknowledging Tien Shan Pai as our “system,” because it, in fact, had become one…complete with disciples, all trained by Wang, Jyue Jen!

Let me be clear: Although I was the one to introduce Master Wang’s curriculum to the US, to name it “Tien Shan Pai”, and to popularize “Tien Shan Pai” in the US as a system, I have never claimed either it, or the name “Tien Shan Pai” for myself. I have always credited it back to my teacher, Wang Jyue Jen.“

As to my own mediation request: I made the request to “Dave” (who seemed to be the mediator for this article before.) This is my first time requesting such a thing. If I did it incorrectly, sorry. Where on the Wiki site do you find the detailed info on how to make a new request that gets you to a “cabal?” (Actually, “mediation” may not be necessary, since we seem to be making progress.) TeamResearch (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things based on your statements.


 * First is that Willy Lin's statement on his website is a bit difficult to parse. You are saying that he is only claiming to have propagated the name of the style to the US, as he was apparently not providing a unique identifier for the style, but simply a way for Americans to know what style they were practicing.  Based especially on the quote you provided.


 * Unfortunately, I don't think this is a correct interpretation. Look at Willy Lin's webpage more carefully and you will find the following:  The naming of our system as “Tien Shan Pai” in the US, was my doing. It happened in 1971…years before my teacher ever used “Tien Shan Pai” to refer to what he was teaching. I named it “Tien Shan Pai.”


 * These statement, implies that your interpretation of Willy Lin's statements is unlikely to be correct. He was not simply claiming to have propagated the style and name Tien Shan Pai to the US, he was asserting that he had provided a name for the style for the first time (that is before his teacher ever referred to it as the same).  A statement that is contradicted by Tournament application from the 1950's.


 * Thus, I do not feel that this constitutes a place where a careful reworking of the words is sufficient to allow readers to better understand how you think the sentence should be parsed, and I do feel that Willy Lin's claim here needs to be more directly questioned. Just as you feel that Huang's claim needs to be more directly questioned.


 * Indeed, I have found a couple of places where that claim is challenged, so by your own standard, we must have a paragraph, or how else will people know that there is any controversy?


 * Second. I found the list of the disciple names you are referring to, and am curious to find no record of them having asserted the statements made on Willy Lin's website.  The document in question can be construed as proof of a meeting between these persons.  But nowhere on it do I see anything that indicates their having signed onto statements made on Willy Lin's website.  If we are to accept Justin Chen's statements above (without any verifiable proof, thus making it ineligible for citation by wiki's editing standards) then I have two students of Wang.  That is not sufficient for the statement "at least nine" as used on the article.


 * I do not think that the lineage dispute is something which requires a definitive answer here. Indeed, I would prefer that we simply raise the points here, and move on.  Willy Lin has an impressive set of credentials from the 1970's and 1980's as listed in his biographical section (which again should be condensed to a paragraph), I do not think that students of his students would feel at all that he is overshadowed by others in this section.  Thus, I again argue that we should either remove the "Huang's claims..." paragraph, or add some verbiage that provides raises some questions regarding claims made by Willy Lin.  If both sides get to make statements, and you argue that one side requires a rebuttal, then both sides should get a chance at rebuttal, or neither should.


 * Well, now we have two (at least) other editors examining this page. So hopefully that will help to improve the quality that much more.  A search for Wikipedia:Mediation will lead you to most of the mediation tools that you might be interested in.  Also, please follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-10-25/Tien_Shan_Pai and agree to mediation under Mediator Notes so that we can move ahead.  Particularly as I think for all of this, we are still at an impasse.Junzi (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys. Please excuse the length of my next post, as I do feel very strongly about these points. TeamResearch, I do appreciate that you are standing up for someone you obviously have a lot of respect for, and who I am sure deserves that respect as a martial artist. I have 4 main points I would like to discuss:

My first issue is not whether the style is ancient or not, but whether Lin’s claims regarding the naming of the style are accurate. I will concede that had Master Lin simply stated, “The naming of ‘Tien Shan Pai,’ in the U.S., was my doing,” that statement might be open to interpretation. That could simply refer to Lin being the first person in the U.S. to refer to the style as “Tien Shan Pai,” though I would still believe it to be a poor choice of words and misleading. However, Lin then goes on to state clearly, “I named it ‘Tien Shan Pai.’” Furthermore, he claims this was before Wang “ever used ‘Tien Shan Pai’ to refer to what he was teaching.”  Lin himself has already shown this to be inaccurate by his mention of the tournament application from the 1950’s, as Junzi pointed out.

I’m really hoping you guys can help me with my next point/question, as I am still new to the martial arts. Lin claims he started using the name “Tien Shan Pai,” because people were always asking him what style he was teaching. He also asserts that the tournament application was one of the only times (if not the only time) Wang ever used the name. Was this the only time Wang was ever asked what style he taught? What did he say all the other times? Additionally, why was Lin forced to start using this name in the States? I live in the U.S., and I would imagine if a teacher is asked what style he teaches, he could easily say, “Kung Fu,” or “Kuoshu,” and that answer would be satisfactory. Perhaps a few people would say, “What style of Kung Fu?” But not many, and certainly less than in Taiwan, I would imagine. Why would he have to get more specific about the name of the style the further he was from home?

I have done my best to sift through the pages upon pages of essays challenging Huang’s claims. Although there are many pages they seem to have mostly been written by a couple of people. Many of these pages are filled with statements such as, “Mr. or Mrs. _____ says that this or that did or didn’t happen.” These statements are not written by Mr. or Mrs. _______, and are almost never direct quotes. For all I know the person may have said it as a joke, or maybe they did not say it at all. If it could be shown that Huang’s classmates do not acknowledge him as Grandmaster, then that could be considered evidence. By itself it wouldn’t prove anything, but it might be interesting. Right now the only thing that I know for sure is that Willy Lin had dinner with a group of elderly gentlemen, as per the photographs on his website. We need some names and quotes for these so-called "challenges" to be taken seriously.

Lastly, I have read time and again from the anti-Huang crowd statements to the effect of(these aren't direct quotes but if requested I can find plenty):

Next week I’m interviewing so and so and then it will all be out in the open. So and so is preparing a formal statement discrediting Huang. Time is running out, soon Huang’s house of cards will fall down.

Etc. etc. you get the point. My point is, since none of this has happened and this controversy has been going on for 4-5 years now, isn’t it safe to assume they didn’t find the evidence they thought they were going to find? If they really could discredit Huang, wouldn’t they have done it by now? Why is it taking these mystery disciples so long to come out and set the record straight, as they keep saying they are going to do? Broncosfan74 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I would respond that the issue is complicated. Most of the people out there who are raising issues about Huang and his credentials probably believe that they have exposed "Huang's House of Cards", and are surprised that with the revelation of all this new material in the past few Huang's students have not departed his organization in droves.


 * The problem is a matter of perspective, at least from what I have seen. The group of people that seem to have an interest in disproving Huang's claims approach the issue with the matter already decided.  That is, they know for sure that Huang is lying, and so this colors their view of the evidence.  I suspect most of Huang's students believe firmly that their teacher is not a fraud, and this colors their view of the evidence.  It is rare for someone to enter the dispute with any actual dispassion.  As such, a rational examination of evidence can be hard to find.  Indeed, if one insists on a rational examination of evidence, and finds one side lacking, it is likely that they will be shouted down (or at least badgered) by those invested in that point of view.


 * As to your question about Wang's students not asking him what style he taught. I will say that in the old style of learning, one likely did not ask one's teacher many questions.  That one learned about the style at the time one became a senior student and not before.  Generally, following the teacher's instructions was how you learned.  Indeed, Willy Lin's relating of Wu Ming Jer's anecdote is telling.  Likely, Wang had never mentioned a style name to anyone.  Even if he had decided to create a style whole cloth and name it Tien Shan Pai, that was the first time Wu Ming Jer ever heard of it, and only when he had no choice but to ask his teacher such a question.  I should point out that for most styles, you would not want some junior student to enter into a famous tournament at all (a loss would reflect poorly on both style and teacher), particularly if the teacher of the style were interested in self promotion, so that would mean that Wu Ming Jer had likely been a student of Wang's for some time and had earned his trust when he learned the name of the style. Additionally, it has been said that other students did not know of Wang's name for the style (though we have no actual quotes to back this up with the possible exception of Justin Chen above), but again this does not surprise me, as I would suspect only senior students of Wang's had any hope of learning any of the details and history of the style they were learning.  Basically, in the old style of learning, you did what your master said and learned as he thought you should.  In the US we are more "enlightened" and ask our teachers many questions often with no small measure of impertinence, but we probably learn more slowly. Junzi (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the explanation. So it would seem that the issue was not that there was no name for the style, it was that the question simply wasn't raised very often. I agree 100% everyone already has their mind made up regarding the Grandmaster issue, and that mediation by an unbiased 3rd party would therefore be beneficial. Broncosfan74 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If everyone has their mind made up then what questions exactly are we mediating?TeamResearch (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a place for various editors to convince people of the rightness or wrongness of their position. Mediation here serves to help the individual editors find concensus regarding the article, and the content the article should have. So, again, I ask you (TeamResearch) to go to the link I provided above and accept mediation so that we can begin the process.Junzi (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - I wonder how Huang with only 7 yrs with Wang could or would be considered higher than 20 + yr students and even instructors of Wang. Traditionally, old grandmasters teach/taught students very very slowly-so how much could Huang have learned in 7 yrs while also attending college. And in regards to the supposed calligraphic signs-how can we even be certain that Wang painted these signs. Does anyone have a picture of Wang painting them?Bengalsfan09 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - Ok, Two issues are raised here.

First is how Huang might get to claim to know more of Tien Shan Pai than others based on his apparently limited training time. There are two points I would make in response to that, and they come from the same source. Huang made a post several years ago on a Rotten Tomatoes Forum thread where a lot of these lineage issues were being discussed. He said exactly how long he studied with his teacher (5 years) before coming to the US, and mentioned his subsequent training. If this were a point of embarassment I would have expected him to dodge the question or talk around his answer. He did not. To him, it seemed, time training was a less important measuring stick than about learned. As whether he has learned enough to call himself the grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai, he goes on to say in that same post that he has traveled around the world, met no one who knows more, and that if anyone demonstrates greater knowledge than him he would bow down and call them teacher. This is a very bold statement, and I do not think that someone who was at all unsure of their claim on the title of grandmaster would be willing to make it. That is, I have seen a lot of people talk about the time of their training, but I have seen no other student of Wang's state that they would be willing to match their knowledge of Tien Shan Pai against Huang's. Also you make a comparison between Huang and "someone" who was an instructor at Wang's school. Really, the students who matter would have studied under Wang directly, so whether someone was "assistant instructor" or the like, is not actually relevant when you are speaking of who knows the most of the system. The point would only have any potential to stand if Wang maintained a school where he had his students teach, and we could then say that his assistants probably had a good command of the basics.

Second, you ask if we can possibly know that the calligraphy on the signs that Huang has posted pictures of are actually from Wang. My first thought would be to ask people who were around at the time, but of course they are probably Huang's students and might be seen as untrustworthy sources due to potential bias. Instead, I will turn you to other pictures on the same site. As you can see on the scabbard of Huang's sword (which no one disputes came from Wang and was engraved at the time of being received by Huang) there are two columns of green characters. If you look at the one on the right, and compare the third character from the top to the same character on the sign (right most column fourth character down), you will see how very similar they are. This is the character for 6 in chinese, and is not really written that way. There is an extra stroke that is omitted in both cases, it's rather distinctive. It is not definitive proof, but upon cursory inspection that does look like the same handwriting. There are a few more examples of one to one character comparisons between the sign and the scabbard, but this comparison makes my basic point.

Now, I need to point out, yet again, that this is not a forum, and we are starting to wander away from discussing the article. Please focus all discussion on potential improvements to the article. Junzi (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any transgression-but with the calligraphy being mentioned in the article, I felt it was fair game to raise questions to its validity or non validity. There is also a link which takes you to it so I do not understand your rebuttal. The second portion of my inquirey relates to exactly whats being challenged by many other readers-so once again why was it dismissed? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

______________

Actually, Junzi, this is a "forum." that's why it's called a discussion page. I completely agree with Bengalsfan. His questions are fair. You should not dismiss them out of hand.

Also, please stop treating us to Huang's Rotton Tomatoes response. What you read as "a virtuous statement," I read as bluster and "damage control." Huang may have traveled the world, but did he speak with Wu Ming Jer, Willy Lin, C.C. Liu, and Tony Lin when it came to his claim about "knowing the most about TSP?" If he didn't, it's quite the omission, since all four of these men are Huang's senior (disciple-wise) and each has the experience, skill, and long history with Wang to make Huangs challenge appear audacious and disrespectful in the extreme. Each has the credibility to make Huang's exact same claim... but they don't out of respect for each other, their fellow disciples, and their system.

Do I also need to point out that these four men (just mentioned) trained with Wang when he was in his 40s, and they were all young men? Huang's most intense involvement with Wang came toward the end of Wang's lifetime (Wang died in 1990.) We know this because I have learned here that he studied Tai Chi with Wang (while he went to college.) I also have learned (either here or via the websites) that Huang was in the US by 1973 (teaching at Lin Kung Fu School.) I also understand that he moved around between Ohio and MD for many years after he left Lin to open his own school. At no time has there been any mention that he went back to Taiwan to train more extensively with Wang. Does that mean he got this extensive TSP training on those occasions when Wang visited all four of his disciples (Lin, Lin, Liu and Huang) in the US?

On balance, it appears Huang got his TSP knowledge fairly late in the game. He also got his knowledge at a time when Wang wasn't at the top of his own game. By the 1980's Wang Jyue Jen was in his mid to late 70s. So we are talking about an old man training/teaching a middle aged man. (Not a middle aged man training four young men who will go on to fight in tournaments for Wang, and run his schools in Taiwan for him.) Wang may have had the best of intentions, but (as you can see in the 1982 Baltimore video) when it came to his demonstrating his skill and art, his legs, speed, and precision really was no longer there. TeamResearch (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey everybody. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask for proof that the calligraphy was indeed done by Wang’s hand. If the handwriting is similar I would consider that to be supporting evidence.

TeamResearch, you make some very good points. However, I believe your points actually support Huang’s position.


 * “Do I also need to point out that these four men (just mentioned) trained with Wang when he was in his 40s, and they were all young men? Huang's most intense involvement with Wang came toward the end of Wang's lifetime (Wang died in 1990.)”

I would imagine Wang would name his successor toward the end of his life. In other words, he would be choosing a successor right around the time Huang was most involved with him. So, to me, Huang’s claim as Grandmaster seems consistent with your facts.

Regarding this part of the article-
 * "Their (Huang's senior classmates) position is that all of (Wang's) disciples are equally vested their system (SIC), and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass 'Tien Shan Pai' on..."

This statement, even if it were shown to be true, is not at all the same as saying that Huang is not the 64th generation Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai. In other words, it isn't a challenge to Huang's claims, and doesn't contradict anything Huang has said. Just because they are all equally vested in the system and have a responsibility to pass it on doesn't mean Huang is not the Grandmaster. The statement's placement in the article makes it seem as though it is contrary to Huang's claims of being the 64th generation Grandmaster, which is misleading.

Additionally, we are still waiting for evidence that Huang's claims are challenged by "at least 9" of his senior classmates. Broncosfan74 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

______________

Is it possible that Wang, toward the end of his life, decided to change his mind and discard those other of his senior disciples that he named earlier and also charged with passing on his system? Anything is possible. Unfortunately, we only have Huang's claim that this is what happened.

There is nothing in writing from Wang other than some calligraphy (undated, but attributed to the 1980s) where he claims to be 63rd generation. As has been pointed out many times in this discussion: both the truth and validity of Wang's claim (to be in the lineage of anything) is highly suspect.

If you accept the 63 generations lineage story, then 64 follows 63. Huang's followers seem to accept this, as well as his convenient, (and certainly self-serving) "sole successor" story as articles of faith. Their prerogative. That doesn't mean the rest of the TSP world, or the contributors to this discussion have to do the same. TeamResearch (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - Actually, the calligraphy on the sword scabbard given to Huang at the demo cited in the article says both 63 and 64 on on it, so that dates that writing to around the same time period as the demonstration. Since Wang passed that down to one of his students it would be the story he wants passed down through that student.

I agree with you that Huang's followers accept this (though they do base it on the physical evidence of the calligraphy on the sign and the sword, rather than as an article of faith), and that others do not. As I have said before, we can leave the paragraph that starts "Huang's claims..." if we add a paragraph elsewhere that points to other controversial claims made by Wang's students, such as the much harped on statement from Willy Lin about the naming of the style.

Though, the overall section, and the overall article needs some serious work. Junzi (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since much is being made of the swords scabbard and signage-just curious if these items actually have the signature of Wang on them. As an artist, he would have signed the signage with his chop or actual signature. Maybe this would clear the air if these items contain his signature. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed my last post. I was having some serious trouble getting it aligned properly last night. I agree we should try to verify that the calligraphy does indeed come from Wang. I haven't looked into this myself yet because I'm not familiar with the language and frankly I take Huang at his word, but by all means, for the sake of the article we should be objective in this so let's investigate the calligraphy.

Junzi (I am addressing Junzi since I saw he mentioned this section, but others are free to respond as well), regarding that part of the article(Huang's claim being challenged)-

Do you agree that the second sentence is not, in fact, a challenge to Huang's claims? All the classmates are saying (assuming they said this at all) is that they are all responsible for passing on the system and that they are all vested equally in it. However, the placement of this sentence (immediately following the one about Huang's claims being challenged) makes it appear as if it is contrary to what Huang has said. In addition to lacking citations, this statement is irrelevant and misleading. Can we edit, move, or remove this? Broncosfan74 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Broncosfan74, I would like to agree with you on this point, but I don't think that the sentence you're mentioning can be squared with other parts of the article.


 * This sentence is somewhat at odds with this other sentence from the prior paragraph.


 * The reason these two ideas look to me to be at odds, is that the first quote seems to imply that all Wang's disciples are equal. Where Huang here makes several claims, but the relevant one is the statement that he is the only one to receive in initiatory Taoist disciple name, which is compromise verbiage from much older verbiage that stated that Huang was the only formal disciple of Wang's, which would indicate that he has a greater responsibility to see to the passing on of the knowledge, and theoretically the only one who can pass on the lineage.  As such, these ideas at least seem to be in opposition to each other.


 * I just noticed BengalsFan09's comments, and will see what I can do to verify Wang's name. My skill with reading Chinese is extremely limited, and an artist's chop is usually in a kind of stylized script which very hard to read.  But, I will see what I can do to verify Wang's calligraphy. Though it may well be the case that Wang did not put his name on the sign because doing so might have indicated that he did not believe that Huang could stand on his own. Junzi (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

________

How does Wang's not putting his name on a sign lead to a statement that "doing so might have indicated that he (Wang) did not believe that Huang could stand on his own?" As much as I may love this speculation, I don't see where you're going with it or why. TeamResearch (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It was idle speculation because I have no idea what Wang's procedure was for the making of signs for his students. If I could see signs from some of his other students to compare, that would be most instructive. Particularly, considering that all his students are apparently equal, I would be looking for signs created by Wang that were displayed by those other of his students who had schools while Wang was alive. This is even more amplified if it can be shown that he visited them at their schools at some point. By looking at these other signs we would be able to tell quite easily if this sign is consistent with his other calligraphy, and if there was anything special about the sign that Huang has been displaying since before Wang's death.

Of course, if Wang's other students do not have signs, this would be quite an interesting fact also. Junzi (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think once again Junzi has missed the mark. Since no other of Wang students with schools have ever claimed to own signage declaring them to be the next TSP Grandmaster, the proof does not lie with them, but on Huang. As far as we know, anyone could have painted them. Proof is in the pudding. Why would it fall on other Wang students to prove the authenticity of Huang's signage? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - Actually Bengalsfan09, it is you who missed the point. Let me try to say it more clearly.

The question of the creator of the sign has been raised. It is interesting that you are hanging onto this point. What evidence do you have that the sign is a fake? Just as I am willing to accept Willy Lin at his word that the gentleman in a photo on his site are students of Wang, I am even more willing to take Huang at his word about the origin of his sign due to such things as the fact that the sign was displayed in Huang's school when Wang visited it, and the fact that the provenance of the sign has not been raised as a question by other students of Wang during its long years of public exposure, though they supposedly strenuously protest the more general statement that Huang is grandmaster.

I had then taken the statement from the article about all of Wang's students being equally vested in the system, and extrapolated that to mean that any of his students who had schools before Wang's death ought to have signs and we should search for evidence of those signs existence. I am not asking for that evidence to prove Huang's sign's veracity, but rather as a way for them to demonstrate the truth of their claim that they are all equals in the style. Also, I would be interested in such signs from a more academic perspective, as I have seen relatively few of such things, and would like to see if there is a specific procedure that is followed in their creation, and what sorts of things are put on the signs.

Finally, I pointed out that if we can find no evidence of the signs of others it would be interesting to note as a piece of evidence setting the stage for those "senior" students to make their statements about Huang's claims, particularly if one believes Huang's sign was created by Wang. Junzi (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since much is being made of the signage, why not release a full translation of them? Then we can determine whether they contribute much to the article or whether they are just fluff. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are translations on Huang's site for parts of the sign. I think the request for a full translation should go to Huang. Junzi (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

______

Brancofan is the one on the mark, Junzi. Not you. No one was questioning whether Wang did his own calligraphy on Huang’s sign before you questioned it, yourself.

What makes you think any one of the Taiwan disciples (who live in Taiwan) or that W. Lin, T. Lin or C.C. Liu would have spent  any time in Huang’s school (post mid-1980s)  scrutinizing a sign? What makes you so certain that there are other “signs” in existence…or that they should be hanging in the other Disciples schools? All the testimony I have read states that, in the “old” days” (prior to the mid 1980’s when Huang apparently got his calligraphy,) discipleship between Wang and his disciple was a strictly private matter, entered into in a private ceremony, and not something to be discussed (let alone posted publicly.)

Once again, what you posit what isn’t factual. The whole concept, that upon completion of a ceremony Wang gave his new disciple a hand written calligraphic “sign”  is something coming out of your own head. Huang’s sign is only evidence that Huang got Wang to write a sign for him sometime in the mid-1980s. Did Wang decide to do this on his own, or did Huang request it? We’ll never know. TeamResearch (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) --- I had not noticed BroncosFan74 having posted anything recently.

However, you are incorrect, the initial question regarding Wang's calligraphy came from BengalsFan09 when he said this:

My point was that Huang has not hidden his sign away, and that this whole round of questioning has shown up very recently. Up until now, no one has really questioned the provenance of the sign and scabbard in any serious way.

As to my question about there possibly being signs for others, I am putting the idea that Huang's sign is genuine together with the statement from the article that other students of Wang's claim to be equal with him. If that is so, I would expect at least a few of them to have signs. If the others of Wang's students are equal to Huang, then I would be startled to discover that Huang's sign is unique. Junzi (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

________

My error: Indeed, it was Bengalsfan, and not Broncofan who posted. Too many NFL team names!

Once again, who is questioning if Huang's sign is genuine? If Huang says Wang gave it to him, give the man the benefit of the doubt. That's not the issue. Where we keep going in circles is that you keep assuming that just because you see calligraphy on Huang's wall/website that such a gift of calligraphy (from Master to Disciple) was part of any long-standing TSP "ritual." There is no evidence this was the case.

I could make the case that (especially in the age of photography which goes back over 100 years) it would be more usual for a disciple to have had his picture taken with his teacher (whether formally or informally) over the years. Photos of Huang and Wang together (the usual proofs of close or long-standing association between people) are strangely absent.

The fact that Wang gave Huang calligraphy in the 1980s has nothing to do with the statement that Wang's other disciples understood that all Disciples were equal, etc. The subjects are unrelated. Why should you have any expectation that "at least a few of them" (Wang's other Disciples) would have signs? Huang's calligraphy may very well be "unique."

The truth is, we will never know under what circumstance that calligraphy was given to Huang (unless it was presented publicly.) We have no evidence of such a public presentation.

Who really cares? Huang's students have every right to accept whatever Huang says. He is their teacher and martial art students are trained it is a sign of respect (and also good discipline) to accept whatever that teacher says without question.) TeamResearch (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Team Research. Photos would be more definitive of their relationship. I questioned the signage only because I have doubts how it relates to someone being made the "sole grandmaster". These are in relation to their being used in the article as somehow being proof that no other Wang disciples are as high (?), knows as much etc. Secondly, just because someone says, "I know the most TSP and have travelled the world etc." doesn't make it so. Who can verify this statement? Surely other TSP masters have and will continue to challenge this-so why is it included? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out Huang's statement from before as a means of showing that he had spoken up at the beginning of this discussion. We have seen a lot of finger pointing since then, and a lot of people have said the equivalent of "I don't believe you", but no one has actually said the equivalent of "I'll prove that I know more Tien Shan Pai than you" and considering how vicious some of the attacks on Huang are out there in the internet, I am startled no one has come forward and said such a thing.

The scabbard is being cited as proof of Wang's claim that he was the 63rd generation grandmaster of the style, and that Huang is a 64th generation disciple.

The sign is among a body of calligraphy that Huang has put forward indicating that he had the lineage passed on through him.

So, if BengalsFan09, and TeamResearch are in agreement, then I do not see any reason to continue this branch of the discussion, as it seems clear that the meaning of the calligraphy presented by Huang is an accepted fact by, at least, Huang's students. So references to them should be made. If they (that is BengalsFan09 and TeamResearch) feel that matter is disputed, then by all means we can continue to cover the controversy in this section.

I will go on to note (as I have always done) that if we are to include the controversy in this section, then it seems logical to either raise issues with the Willy Lin bio in this section by adding verbiage beneath it (which, again, should be reduced to a single paragraph as for other practitioners) or to remove some of his claims about Wang and Tien Shan Pai, as those statements are also controversial. Junzi (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

_________

Bengalsfan and I do seem to be in agreement. Can we move on?

I still do not agree to remove the entire paragraph that begins "Huang's claims..." This references the major difference of opinion between the two camps. To remove this statement in its entirety minimizes the "heat" that Huang's statement has engendered. Anyone interested can go to the various GM websites and read what each has to say.

And by the way: Huang already has all of his claims (as to calligraphy, sole inheritor, etc.) fully enumerated and included in the paragraph relating to his name. No one has suggested that be removed. He is entitled to his say, as is everyone else.

The paragraph you don't like (beginning "Huang's claims...") actually is the "say" of the rest of the TSP disciples (especially those senior disciples in Tawian.) All of these men (and we have their names) are "Modern Practitioners," and therefore have every right to have their "say" included in this section.

In the interests of reaching an amicable conclusion to what has become endless and mostly redundant commentary, I would agree to remove the second sentence in this "Huang's Claims" paragraph. This is the sentence that states, "Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students." TeamResearch (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read my previous post, you will note that at this point, as at previous points, I state that since you are so adamant we can keep the paragraph in question. I feel a need to be nit picky and state that I am certain that you can not realistically say that all of Wang's students disagree with Huang's claims. But, either way, let's move on.

Which is, that we should now move on to the claims made by Willy Lin, as spoken of in the portion of the modern practitioners section about him. He has claimed the following. So, let's break this down into the relevant claims and what I feel is necessary for a proper article that encompasses the controversy regarding Tien Shan Pai.

We've spoken of the naming of Tien Shan Pai, and I state that this statement (particularly your interpretation that his naming was only for the US market) is a gross mis-interpretation of the statements Willy Lin originally made on his website. This claim requires a statement that indicates the questionable nature of this claim by Lin.

He states that Tien Shan Pai encompasses all of the curriculum taught by Wang, when this is clearly at odds with other sources on the internet, this statement also requires a caveat of some kind, indicating that the broad community of Tien Shan Pai practitioners has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.

He states that Wang is the founder of the style, but provides no evidence other than his own hypothesis, when these are at odds with Wang's own written record in this regard. A statement to this effect is required.

He states that the style originated in the 1940's. This statement is also not backed up by evidence, and a caveat is required.

These issues may all be raised in a minimum of words, but I do not believe that a complete article that addresses controversial topics within the Tien Shan Pai community can circumscribe any of these issues. Junzi (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Why do I fear this discussion is going to degenerate again, and quickly? Too bad. Junzi, you are positing and posting concepts that are just not so. There is no "written record by Wang" other than his Bio in the 1974 program. If you have access to... or evidence of such a record... how about posting it? (I would expect this "record" to be hand written and in Chinese, as Wang did not speak, read or write English.) TeamResearch (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You request records from me. Why is this?  The one who has made claims is Lin, and the burden of proof rests with him.  The lack of evidence presented by him, and the fact that there are, indeed, others who disagree, causes me to say that agree with a previous statement of yours:


 * I have since agreed that the paragraph you were referring to is necessary if we are to include the controversies of the style in this section. Following that logic, as these claims that Lin has made are controversial, and at best difficult to verify, they too should be questioned in a paragraph that follows them. Junzi (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

______

Lin's claims are only controversial to Huang and his followers, and these are the very people who have a vested interest in denying them. What Lin says (about Wang, and Wang's claim to be in the lineage of anything) is backed up by the other senior disciples, who were there at the time in Taiwan. One of these men (Justin Chen) has already posted his corroboration of what Lin says on this discussion page.

So, yes. I have every right to ask you to show proof that Wang identified himself as in the lineage of anything prior to the early 1970s... which was when Lin, in the USA... not in Taiwan, publicly (and at the suggestion of his book publisher, O'Hara Press) "branded" his teacher's system as TSP for commercial (marketing) purposes.

As for your repeated attempts to discredit the testimony of the senior disciples: Consistantly claiming to be the lineage of an ancient system, and using the words "tien shan pai" to conveniently fill in a blank on a 1957 tournament entry form are not the same. If Wang, indeed, had any place within a lineage to exploit, surely his Taiwan students and disciples would have heard about it prior to the 1980s. Makes much more sense that Lin, did in fact "brand the system" in the US (exactly as he says) and THEN Wang jumped on the bandwaggon. He may have even embellished what was being said, in support of Lin, Lin, Liu, and yes, Huang... who were by then were actively marketing their "style" to the US Kung Fu community.

As to verifiable (neutral) historical "evidence" relating to this: the only evidence we have that does NOT come through either Lin, Chen or Huang is Wang's own 1974 program Bio. No mention there of Wang claiming to be in the lineage of anything in that program. We are debating politics here, not facts.. and politics will not be resolved via a Wiki discussion. That's a matter for Wang's disciples (not his disciples students) to address. TeamResearch (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone. This has nothing to do with the age of the style or when the name Tien Shan Pai was first used to promote the system. The issue is that Lin states that he "named it 'Tien Shan Pai,'" and claims that this was before Wang EVER used "Tien Shan Pai" to refer to his system, and yet he also claims Wang used the name in the 50's to refer to what he was teaching. Now, I know what several readers are thinking- something along the lines of, "Well that was just for a tournament application.  He didn't mean for it to be used in public." To which I would respond that it does not matter. The fact that it was for a tournament application doesn't mean that somehow this incident didn't happen or "doesn't count." I'm not saying Lin is deliberately being dishonest, just that he must be confused, as the dates don't add up. We can say, "Oh well Lin means he was the first person to use the name in public," but unfortunately, he claimed to have "named" the style- not at all the same thing.

Also, another point I want to make. Clearly the tournament application was not the only time Wang used the name "Tien Shan Pai," as both Wu Ming Jer and Willy Lin had heard it on separate occasions. So it seems the name meant more to Wang than just words he pulled out of the air to fill in an application. Broncosfan74 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the pleasure of reading a copy of Wangs Program of 1974-"Introduction of Chinese Gwo-Shuh Demonstration By Lei Sheng Wuu Yuann". My friend has a copy given to him by Wang in 1981. He says he may be only American with a copy. Its 28 pages and covers Wangs school curriculum. Interesting though is the complete absence of any reference to Tien Shan Pai. Those words are strangly never found anywhere in the booklet. I wonder why? My friend also showed me several items given to him by Wang including his business card and a lapel pin-both which also never say TSP on them. After looking at these items, I think Lin may have some validity to several of his claims. If you doubt my claim, visit his website where these items are displayed under photos: Bengalsfan09 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) [

Unfortunately, the program book from 1974 is predated by the 1957 tournament application. If the name Tien Shan Pai was used at that time, then it is somewhat irrelevant what the program book does or does not contain.

I think many editors are attempting to infer (without saying that they are doing so), Wang's intentions. And without written evidence as to his exact intentions, we are only left with the body of writing that has been provided. But, let's focus on the article directly.

We are discussing some of the claims made by Willy Lin, and it seems that people want to talk about the naming of Tien Shan Pai, so let's do that.

It is clear that the style was named Tien Shan Pai well in advance of Willy Lin's arrival to the US. That this name was in usage before Willy Lin ever began to study with Wang (per Lin's own comments), and the statement that he only branded the style in the US is a poor reflection of Lin's comments on that same site. . This claim is demonstrably problematic, and while it is correct to leave the claim on the article (as Lin certain claims that he named the style), it is also correct to point out the problems of this claim. Junzi (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

_______

Hello, Brancofan! The devil is in the details. Lin NEVER states anywhere that he “named” the system. He states that he named it “IN THE US.” Also, how do you know “clearly” that the 1957 tournament application was NOT the only time Wang used the words “Tien Shan Pai” to refer to his system? Wu Ming Jer says the words were used as a convenience to fill in a required blank in a form. Is Wu Ming Jer lying?

Others who were there at the time (the senior disciples) say Wang never claimed that “Tien Shan Pai” was the name of that curriculum he was teaching them. Are they all lying? What in the world would all of these people have to gain by lying about something like this?

If Lin is “confused”, then so are the other senior classmates (many of whom are also Wang disciples) who corroborate Lin’s statement. What kind of “secret” name is so secret you don’t even let your own disciples in on it...especially when it's the very name of something they have just pledged to follow? Is everyone “confused” except for Huang (a man much younger than the Taiwan senior disciples.) In fact, Huang wasn’t associated with Wang or his Lei Shung School, or the other senior disciples during the time-frame under discussion. On balance, it appears that, prior to the Baltimore tournament in 1982 (when Wang was visiting in Baltimore with Tony Lin and Huang) that Wang never claimed to be in the lineage of anything.

I am perfectly willing to agree that, during the LAST eight or so years of his life, Wang claimed to be the 63rd (or 62nd?) Grandmaster of TSP. Don't you find it curious that there is no record of Wang claiming to be in the lineage of anything during the FIRST thirty five years of his teaching career (in Taiwan)? I sure do. Makes this johnny-come-lately "revelation" (in the last 8 years of Wang's seventy nine year long life) highly suspect. TeamResearch (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you would like to discuss the question of generations. That's another good avenue that we should discuss, but let's just remember the point so we can come back to it.

On the question of the naming of the style I think it is easy to be confused. Not too long ago you said of Wang that

Though you have since stated the following, which seems to contradict your prior statement.

If you (an editor who has spoken to Lin, apparently at length, about the specifics of this topic) might have been confused about Lin only having branded the style in the US as compared to being the originator of the style name, then it is clear that a reader of this page who likely has not spoken to Lin might be even more confused. Though I can hardly fault you for essentially paraphrasing Lin, who said on his website

Which seems to argue strongly, at least on that portion of his webpage, that he believes he is the originator of the name. Though this is contradicted by Wu Ming Jer's tournament application. Speacking of which, you have several times referred to the usage of the name Tien Shan Pai on Wu Ming Jer's 1957 tournament application as a "convenience". I am unclear where you are getting this from. Lin says on his website

Your use of the word "convenience" here sounds like editorializing (and I'm unclear how the word convenient can really be used to describe the usage of a style name). Perhaps it is based on undocumented conversations (which would not meet wikipedia's standard of verifiability). So we should avoid such language. Junzi (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TeamResearch, I appreciate that you are trying to make sense out of Lin's contradictory claims. However, as Junzi pointed out, Lin does claim to have named the style BEFORE his teacher ever used the name to refer to what he was teaching.

The reason why I can be reasonably sure that Wang used the name "Tien Shan Pai" on more than one occasion is because Wu Ming Jer and Lin had both obviously heard it on separate occasions (Lin was unaware of the application incident until 1999). Broncosfan74 (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Hi, Brancosfan74!

As I see it, the question we are speculating about is not did Lin say he (and here I quote you) “named the style BEFORE his teacher ever used the name to refer to what he was teaching," but in what way might the words "Tien Shan Pai" have been used by WANG prior to 1971?

The focus of this discussion needs to be on WANG, and verifiable evidence as it relates to him, (since he is at the center of the "naming" discussion.) This is not not the place for a referendum on either Lin or Huang. Their own students and/or disciples can (and should) pursue what are essentailly political agendas on other forums.

The heart of this discussion seems to come back to what was Wang’s “intention” as it relates to using the name "TSP." This is something no one will ever know for sure... BUT the EVIDENCE we have points to NO evidence (other than to fill in a tournament form one time in 1957) that Wang used ANY words to refer to what he was teaching until much later in his lifetime (after 1982.) Lin may not have been the first to ever string the words Tien+Shan+Pai together (he never claims he was,) but a published program, photos of Wang’s business card, his school pins, etc.,  and other corroborative testimony on this very discussion page) provide compelling credibility that Lin did, in fact "name" TSP by branding it in the US, and by popularizing it here as a system.  TeamResearch (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi TeamResearch. Sounds great. If we can just remove the section of the article regarding Huang's claims being challenged, I will be happy to drop the challenge of Lin's claims.

You state that there is no evidence that Wang used ANY words to refer to what he was teaching until after 1982. Then my question to you is this: Where did Lin get the name Tien Shan Pai? How did he come up with it? Broncosfan74 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Hi, Brancosfan74! You are going to have to ask Lin that one directly. I would suggest you contact him through his website page at info@linkungfu.com

As for the "Huang's claims..." paragraph: as I have said before, this represents the position of the "other" modern practitioners" (the senior disciples) most of whom are old men who still live in Taiwan. It is important that their position be stated, or the majority of Wang's Disciples (the other "Modern Practitioners") would be denied their say.

I would agree that the elaboration of their position (the second sentence that "Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students") could be eliminated. But the first sentence should remain.

By the way, I find your suggestion that (and I quote) "If we can just remove the section of the article regarding Huang's claims being challenged, I will be happy to drop the challenge of Lin's claims." to be surprising. Challenges to anyone's claims should be based on evidence available, not on what someone suggests be used as a bargaining chip. TeamResearch (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Team. I do agree that challenges should be based on evidence. Please examine the following pieces of evidence:

Wang used the name in 1957 to fill out the application. This same name was used to describe the style later on in the U.S. (in the 70's). Lin claims to have named the style, although some have interpreted his statements to mean that he was simply the first to promote the name to the general public. In either case, Lin was not present when the application was filled out, which very strongly suggests that the name Tien Shan Pai was used on more than one occasion before Lin brought it to the U.S. Both Wu and Lin had heard the name. Then this name, which was supposedly just made up to fill in a blank on an application, became the name that was presented to the public over a decade later. Lin seems to believe the words "Tien Shan Pai" meant little or nothing to Wang prior to Lin's promotion of the name. Do you see why that is a long shot?

I've given this a lot of thought and the only two possible scenarios in which I can imagine that happening are:

1. There was an amazing coincidence and someone came up with the same name Wang used on the application many years earlier.

2. Someone essentially said something along the lines of, "Wait, what was that name we made up for the application 14 years ago? Yeah, let's use that!" The second scenario is even harder to imagine when you consider Lin was unaware of the application until 1999.

When I stated that I might be willing to drop the challenge to Lin's claims, I was referring to the article. In other words, if we agree that this article is not the place to challenge such claims, I would be perfectly fine with leaving out anything that could cast ANYONE in a negative light. However, if we are going to challenge Huang's claims just because they cannot be proven, we should also include a section that challenges Lin's claims which, frankly, don't make sense.

Now, if we are going to leave in the sentence regarding the challenges to Huang's claims, I think three things ought to happen:

1. Direct quotes with citations should be provided 2. A clear statement regarding the position of these so called senior classmates should be provided. What exactly is their side of the story? 3. We should provide a section explaining the challenges to Lin's claims. Namely that he named the style and that the style was not referred to as Tien Shan Pai prior to the 70's.

Let me state my beliefs here clearly: I believe Wang considered his system to be "Tien Shan Pai" at least as early as 1957. I base this on Huang's and Lin's statements (listed above).

Lastly- Junzi, I appreciate you educating me on how the martial arts were practiced in Wang's day (where students did not question their teacher as they do now). This could explain why there isn't much written record of Wang's use of the name Tien Shan Pai prior to more recent times. However, I still find it hard to believe that the application was the ONLY time Wang was presented with the question of what style he taught. Maybe he wasn't asked this question every day or even every month, but it must have come up more than once in 14 years. Therefore, I have to wonder what answer he gave on those other occasions, and why he wouldn't give the same answer on the application. Broncosfan74 (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I agree with you, Broncofan! A statement from the Taiwan "senior classmates" would go a long way toward clearing the air regarding their positions. We already have one such statement from Justin Chen. But I agree that more would be even better. The problem becomes where (and how) to "post" additional statements, should we succeed in getting them into formats that can be transported.

Would Lin's website be an acceptable place we could all agree to access their responses (should they choose to give them to us?) Lin seems to be the "computer" connection to these men, as pictures of them, bios of them, info on current events they hold etc. already appear (on a fairly regular basis} on his website. Please hear this as a "suggestion." If you have others, I'd like to explore them, too!

It's going to take an act of good faith on everyone's part to agree where this "more" information should be posted. My only request is that this "place" be able to handle jpg files so that, should responses come in Chinese, we'll be able to see them in the original (and also, hopefully, read them in translation.) Your thoughts?TeamResearch (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Certainly written statements from these "senior classmates" in Taiwan would be useful for the verifiability of the article. I don't think the location of the statements is particularly of concern. Everyone presents what evidence they have, and if Lin has evidence for this statement on wikipedia, then in the interests of verifiability we should get it cited in the article.

However, I do have to take issue with your statement about Justin Chen. We have no way of knowing for certain that the anonymous user who said he was Justin Chen and a student of Wang's was in fact who he claimed to be. When asked for evidence to provide us with verifiability, he became short, provocative, and ultimately unresponsive. As such, I do not believe that those statements on this talk page can realistically be considered a piece of evidence which can be cited.

This change of topic has prevented us from reaching closure on the issue of the "naming" of the style. Is there concensus at this point? I believe both Broncosfan74 and I believe that the issue needs to be raised in the article. What are your thoughts TeamResearch? Junzi (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

______

If we attempt to “resolve” any ”naming issues” before we’ve heard from the other senior classmates, then what gets revised may have to be revised again… depending on what they say. I suggest we put this on hold a little longer. Let the paragraph (that refers to the position of the other modern practitioner senior classmates) stand as it is. What kind of “evidence” are you asking of Justin Chen? Why not just ask Huang about him? According to Chen’s statement, ("If Junsi does not believe who I am, he can check with Mr. Huang") the two know each other. I strongly object to your dismissal of Chen’s evidence as not worthy of being cited. TeamResearch (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, Wikipedia is kind of a living document. Editing of articles is encouraged, and I don't know that waiting around for evidence is in the best interests of the article. Additionally, I'm unclear what these "senior classmates" might have to say that could noticeably alter the fact that Lin has made some claims that are problematic at best. Thus, I believe that some verbiage is required to point out the issues regarding Lin's claims about the naming of the style.

As for these statements that are apparently from Justin Chen, I do not see them as citable because I cannot verify that they were made by Justin Chen. It is possible that practitioners of Tien Shan Pai might know of such an individual, but from there problems arise.
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a place for original research, so Justin Chen would have to publish (or have an interview of the like) where his account is made public, and it should be in a trustworthy secondary source.
 * 2) We do not know that the words said here were Justin Chen's words. I could pull names off lists all day and claim to be those people.  It does not make it so.  Verifiability is the standard, not simply some anonymous posting on an internet board.
 * 3) I feel I should point out that Justin Chen cannot be counted against the "at least nine" students of Wang as he does not meet the requirement of living in Taiwan. But, that's a technicality.

Hopefully by this list you can grasp my objections to the use of Justin Chen as a cited source in this article at present. Junzi (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I still believe that to wait a bit is the only way to proceed. Give it a month or so. I'll try to contact Lin through his website (www.linkungfu.com.) You contact Huang, since you seem to have access to him. If you want to verify that Justin Chen actually wrote what's posted, call him up or e-mail and ask him. Apparently (from Chen’s statement) Huang has all his info. Once again, you should be able to verify this fairly easily.

We have to deal with one issue at a time. Nothing will ever be resolved about Lin, until closure is reached on the Generations question. If there are no 63 or 64 generartions, Lin's telling the truth. There is no verifiable claim on Wang's part to a TSP ancient lineage prior to '82,(other than as hear-say and for purposes of marketing.)This is proof (in and of itself) that none existed. If you can come up with something new that's verifiable... or even new first person testimony from someone who was there at the time... I'll be happy to reconsider my position.

We need to seek out fresh, verifiable data or statements that anyone can provide. (Such as Bengalsfan referring us to a photo on Kenneth Ware's website which shows Wang's business card and pins (c. 1981) all of which bear NO reference at all to TSP! (As I suspect you know, Kenneth Ware was one of Huang's most senior disciples, and for years.) This is the kind of hard evidence I accept as both credible and neutral. TeamResearch (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

-

I do not believe that closure will be reached on the generations issue in the near term, and so Lin's statements are indeed questionable at the moment, and likely to remain so for some time. Both sides have a vested interest in particular versions of events. It is the job of the editors to provide as neutral a point of view on the article as possible, even on contentious issues where the actual facts are not fully known. Wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold in editing, and we should not hesitate to be so. If later evidence appears, then by all means it should be included, and the article edited to reflect that evidence.

You have made a complicated statement in your prior post.

By this statement you seem to assert that because we have found no direct evidence of an ancient lineage, it is apparent that none exists. First, the piece of evidence we have is the name of the style that Wu Ming Jer competed under in 1957, you dismiss this piece of direct evidence outright, but are willing to accept indirect evidence such as a pin that does not contain the name Tien Shan Pai? That seems a bit unreasonable. Second, you seem to conclude that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is a logical fallacy. As to the aforementioned physical evidence, these items (a pin and a business card) are useful for establishing context in this instance, but please examine my point about absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

Wang seemed to maintain in the later years of his life that Tien Shan Pai was an ancient and unique style. Marketing? Perhaps. The truth is that we do not know, and I doubt that we can do anything other than provide evidence for each side of the dispute, which seems to be the main thrust of where I think the article should go. We present each side's claims, provide verifiable evidence that those claims are indeed what each side thinks, and then if we are to include questions, provide verifiable evidence for why those claims should be questioned.

Holding up Kenneth Ware as an example is dangerous in this instance, because it skirts on the edges of the politics that are ongoing. I note that his evidence has only been publicized recently, and from his own interview with a site that seems aimed at attacking Huang, he admits that he is on the outs with his teacher. So, while you hold the evidence up, realize that I find the timing suspicious. Junzi (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Junzi, are you implying that Mr. Ware somehow invented the program guide, business card and lapel pin? No matter what his relationship is with Huang, it does not take anything away from the evidence on his web site. He started studying tsp in 1978 and was a member of Huangs group over 30 yrs and as such was there from the beginning  for most of the period in question. Secondly, I think many people are confused by the term program. This so called program lays out everything Wang was teaching in his curriculum. Lastly, Ware's website is not something new at all. Its been around for some time along with the pictures referenced too here. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, I am not implying that he invented any evidence. What I am stating is that it is difficult to consider him a neutral source of evidence, and thus calls into question anyone who would consider him a neutral source of evidence. His current conflict with Huang is documented in public for all to see, and so it should be apparent that he has a bias, and we might even presume that he is presenting some evidence and holding others back. Indeed your own statements about Ware here imply that he is somehow neutral, but the tone of his interview is anything but neutral. He practically calls Huang the devil.

It is clear that Wang did not go to particularly great lengths to make the name Tien Shan Pai known, so it comes a no surprise that it is neither on his lapel pin, nor on a business card. The program book is clearly for public consumption. Wang had not spoken of Tien Shan Pai in public since he had Wu Ming Jer use the name to fight at a tournament in 1957, as far as we are aware. Clearly he was not interested in having the public ask a bunch of uninformed questions about his fighting style.

It is telling that he had his student fight under that name, but made little mention of it. It calls the whole idea of Tien Shan Pai, and the 63 and 64 generations as a marketing tool into question. Why would Wang suddenly change his tune about marketing? Clearly he had no need to. His statements about Tien Shan Pai should not be seen as some marketing grab. In context he was a famous martial artist, his students were well known, why would he bother with marketing at the tail end of his teaching career? That he goes and publicly makes a small number of statements about Tien Shan Pai should lead us to the conclusion that he was throwing his support behind the people he spoke of in the same context as the name of the style his student had fought under many decades ago.

Honestly, we should ask a more telling question. Irrelevant to where the style came from, if Wang was willing to publicly associate one of his students with that style and not others. What should we then conclude about that student? Junzi (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: I found and read the article/interview linked to the Wiki article as "Tien Shan Pai Now" under the interviews section and read what Mr. Ware had to say. To say he almost calls Huang the devil is a gross mischaracterization to say the least. I encourage others to read the interview for themselves. Secondly, it appears that Ware and Wang had a very nice relationship-one that I haven't seen with other Americans. Ware has said that Wang even visited his home in Cincinnati. As far as his web site, once again his evidence is impartial and was posted long ago-nothing new if you had taken time to examine. It was also posted long before his split with Huang. I also see pictures of Wangs late wife from when she took Ware on a tour of the tea region of Taiwan in 1990 and also pictures of Wang's daughter attending Ware's school picnic while she attended college in Cincinnati. Seems if the entire Wang family liked Ware. I even see on Ware's website where he gave Huang one of Wangs original paintings as a gift. So please spare us the drama. There's also a picture of the sword Wang made for Ware also displayed on his web site. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! If you know Mr Ware, could we get a close up image of the scabbard so that we could compare the calligraphy on it to what is written on Huang's sword? That would be an excellent piece of evidence to have for the site.

But, I agree, a discussion of Ware and his relationship with Huang, or with Wang for that matter, is not particularly important to the article, as this is an article about Tien Shan Pai.

I will point back to my previous post and the question I raise there. Wang seems to have been interested in spreading the name of his school, yet not the name of his style (which we know is at least as old as the 1950's). His student competed under the name Tien Shan Pai in 1957, yet he makes little mention of it, so we must conclude that he was not interested in marketing the name of his style. That he would then choose to associate that name with one of his students, and to go on to make mention of the many generations that he claimed the style came from is telling. Other students have gone on to associate themselves with that name, but did Wang associate them with the name of the style his student fought under? Did he associate them with the many generations that he claimed the style came from? Junzi (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: Ware says that Huang already has a close up of his swords scabbard. So I'll throw it back to you-if you know Mr Huang, ask him to show you the pictures of Ware's scabbard. Yes this is an TSP article but you bring up things, then when your claims are refutted, you change to say lets all get back to the article. I once again encourage all to read the article link-Tien Shan Pai Now and read for themselves what was said leading you to claim Ware was almost calling Huang a devil. I found that to be a very inflammatory accusation but now once again you want to get back to the article after making such a statement about someone who began studying TSP in 1978 and was associated with Huang for over 30 years. From the pictures on his web site, it appears that he and his students are very accomplished martial artist-did you see all those trophies? He even has a student who's with President Obama everyday! I also am now wondering-does Huang have a copy of this program that Wang gave to Lin, Ware & others? Also, I notice a lack of pictures on Huangs web site of Wang, Wang's late wife or Wang's daughter. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

-

I would actually think that Ware, as the owner of the sword would be the best person to ask for a picture. Though, I am interested to note on his website that he seems to agree with Wang's claims about many generations, as he refers to his sword as his 65th generation disciple sword.

My hyperbole aside, Ware's "interview" on a site which clearly has an axe to grind with Huang can hardly be considered journalism. Particularly when the interview contained only slanted questions about Huang and his students. As such, I am concerned, and raised this concern openly, that Ware is a biased (or at least apparently biased) source. We can certainly use this interview as evidence that Ware is not in agreement with his teacher, but this means that the motivation for statements coming from Ware are suspect.

As to this discussion of Ware's students, for example his student who is with Obama every day (who I could find no mention of on his website), it is irrelevant to the article because Ware is not mentioned in the body of the article, to say nothing of his students.

His place in the discussion seems to be as a source of indirect evidence that is being used by the anti-Huang side of this discussion to drive the debate in a particular direction. Most especially away from questions where their position is still not clear to me.

Here are the questions that I feel require answers.

1) The first documented usage of the name of the style as Tien Shan Pai is clearly Wu Ming Jer's 1957 application. How can we edit the article to allow Willy Lin his claim, while still making it clear that the style name predates his usage unless we wish to call Willy Lin a liar?

2) How do we interpret the statements made about generation? There is much confusion in this regard, but Wang (the one I would expect to know the most about his own style) clearly maintained that there were many generations, with his generation as the 63rd.  There have been several places where Wang refers to himself as the 63rd generation of Tien Shan Pai, and Huang as the 64th.  Where is there evidence of him referring to himself as the founder?

3) If we are to believe that Tien Shan Pai is only a marketing term, then why are we to believe that Wang only used it (with the exception of the 1957 tournament application) at the end of his career after he had already made his name, rather than at the beginning, when it would have been useful?

4) We have documented evidence of Wang referring to Huang as 64th generation, and demonstrating his confidence in Huang as a teacher of Tien Shan Pai. Where is the evidence for him referring to others of his students in this same way?  While swords and calligraphy have so far been the only presented evidence, surely they (in their collective many long years of study with him) have some tokens to show that they were considered equal inheritors of the 64th generation, as they apparently have claimed.

These are the main questions that have caused this section to become so contentious. I am hopeful that we can move away from distracting side arguments, and focus on how to address these points to improve the article. We should proceed with improving the article based on what evidence is known, and how it applies to these questions. When new evidence comes to light, the article can be edited accordingly. Junzi (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Glad you’re still in this discussion, Bengalsfan! Your comments and observations are right on!

Junzi wants us to “proceed with improving the article based on what evidence is known,” yet the “evidence known” raises questions that have to be answered, not covered over, double-talked around, or dismissed “until new evidence comes to light (at which point), the article can be edited accordingly.” The article, as it stands now has already been negotiated...and over months, if not years. I say leave it "as is" until someone comes up with new and credible info that isn't hearsay. TeamResearch (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: A couple of things. I went to Mr Ware's school last night to ask about the student w/ President Obama and why its not on his web site since you seem to want to imply something must be up. He showed me several pictures and said he decided not to post the students pictures or name due to National Security. This is a very admirable position in my opinion. Mr Ware's only position in this debate relates to pictures on his web site, so I'm confused why you seem to hold such deep dislike for him. Why not go to his web site[http://www.cincinnatikungfuandtaichicenter.com and read some of the testimonials posted there. Seems he's given several cars (Lincoln Town Cars) to 2 different college students because they needed transportation. Lastly-it seems you danced around my question regarding if Huang has a copy of the program detailing Wang's curriculum, a picture of Wangs late wife or other Wang family members pictures. Just curious. Ware told me he sees no need to provide you with pictures of his swords scabbard since he has nothing to prove to you. He said let Huang provide them and he'll verify if they're authentic or not. Shout out to team research-thanks for kind words and keep up with your good work here. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the reference section. Am not a tech person so it seems I added Mr Wares site the wrong way. Maybe someone could be nice to correct it. Thanks Bengalsfan09 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengalsfan09, I have no answer for you on whether Huang has a copy of the 1974 program book. You keep emphasizing that it has Wang's curriculum, but I do not see a list of forms in the copy on Lin's website, only a list of some styles (notably followed by 'etc.' in the english, so it cannot be considered exhaustive). Nor do I know if Huang has photographs of Wang's family. I am unclear as to why you are harping on this point, but if you are curious, you could contact him and ask.

I was interested in pictures of the Ware's 65th generation disciple sword in terms of the context it would place Huang's 64th generation disciple sword, but if Ware does not want to provide pictures, then a loss for the article and community more than anything else.

My interest in Ware's student who is apparently close with Obama not being on his site had to do with your own apparent closeness with Ware. I can understand why he might choose not to put up pictures, but you are clearly getting a particular set of information from him, and it is simply a point that I felt should be made.

To TeamResearch (and really all editors), we have been told by the admins that this page is not up to wikipedia's standards. The writing (which is the result of a lot of compromise) is strained and difficult to understand, the article seemed to contradict itself in places due to the negotiation over verbiage. This was why I was so interested in a top down overview of the article.

At this point, the article is already notably different from the shape it was in as of this time two months ago, so it is no longer the article that is the result of negotiation that supposedly ended (I would argue that the negotiation continues, but mostly on the talk page).

But, by simply insisting that the page remain the same you dodge my questions. I will paste them here so they are easy to find.

1) The first documented usage of the name of the style as Tien Shan Pai is clearly Wu Ming Jer's 1957 application. How can we edit the article to allow Willy Lin his claim, while still making it clear that the style name predates his usage unless we wish to call Willy Lin a liar?

2) How do we interpret the statements made about generation? There is much confusion in this regard, but Wang (the one I would expect to know the most about his own style) clearly maintained that there were many generations, with his generation as the 63rd.  There have been several places where Wang refers to himself as the 63rd generation of Tien Shan Pai, and Huang as the 64th.  Where is there evidence of him referring to himself as the founder?

3) If we are to believe that Tien Shan Pai is only a marketing term, then why are we to believe that Wang only used it (with the exception of the 1957 tournament application) at the end of his career after he had already made his name, rather than at the beginning, when it would have been useful?

4) We have documented evidence of Wang referring to Huang as 64th generation, and demonstrating his confidence in Huang as a teacher of Tien Shan Pai. Where is the evidence for him referring to others of his students in this same way?  While swords and calligraphy have so far been the only presented evidence, surely they (in their collective many long years of study with him) have some tokens to show that they were considered equal inheritors of the 64th generation, as they apparently have claimed.

If anyone can find a place where these arguments are based solely on hearsay, I would like them to make that argument now. If it can be proven, then we can strike the question. If someone has an understanding of the evidence that raises other questions that are not already addressed in the article, then I would like to hear them. If someone can directly answer any of these questions, I would like to hear it. Wikipedia articles are not in stasis. Significant statements have been made over the past year by modern practitioners, and the article has not had a chance to absorb those statements completely. Junzi (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: In my opinion the Program should hold as much weight as the sword scabbard you seem to be harping on. I returned to Mr Ware's school to examine the Program and within the first 5 pages saw the following: Ba Jyi Chyuan, Mei Huea Dan Dau, Pu Dih Jiin Goen Tarng Shuang Dau, Tay Jyi Chyuan, Sheau Horng Chyuan, Iuan Iang Puu, Fei Cha, & Yann Shyng Jiann. Mr Ware said these are forms. I examined the Program for any mention of Tien Shan Pai-but not 1 word of it. Mr Ware was surprised when I showed him the printouts from this site. He is not an internet fan, but said he does not know you but wonder if maybe he owes you money considering your tone towards him. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Junzi- This whole thing would be laughable, if it wasn’t so sad. I’m truly sorry you’ve pushed this to such an extreme. I find it impossible to address your questions honestly without bringing up the obvious. So here are my responses to your statements, as I see them:

Statement #1- Simply make it say, “The first recorded use of the words “Tien Shan Pai” as referring to a style is found on Wu Ming Jer's 1957 application to participate in the Taiwan-Hong Kong-Macau Tournament.” This is all that can be prooved.

Statement #2- This is not resolvable in this Wiki discussion and, in my opinion, warrants little further discussion. The facts: (A) In the early days, Wang was described (in his own words and by others) as a kung fu “Coach.” Nothing more. In the same way that it fell to Plato to recognize their teacher, Socrates, as the “founder” of his system of thought, so did it fall to Lin and his fellow senior classmates in Taiwan to recognize and acknowledge that their teacher (Wang) was the “founder” of the “system” they had studied. (B)  If Wang was in the “lineage” of anything he would have said it from the beginning, (at least in private to his disciples.)  (C) The first focus on any kind of so-called “lineage credentialing” appears in the US… most seriously after 1982 and most specifically at Huang’s insistence, and through his efforts. And why not? This claim of being in a TSP “lineage” is the chief credential in Huang’s own Bio. (D) Huang was the “English voice” for his teacher during the last eight years of his teacher’s lifetime. (1982-1990) Apart from the calligraphy on the now-infamous swords (which were sold for profit... but benefitting who?) there is nothing in Wang’s own hand (relating to the use of the NAME "Tien Shan Pai" as a system) that pre-dates the intro of TSP to the US. (E) The concept that Huang would have done anything to detracted from his own generational claim (his “bread and butter” credential) is ludicrous. No way would he call Wang a “founder.”

Statement #3- Yes. Evidence shows that “Wang only used it (with the exception of the 1957 tournament application) at the end of his career after he had already made his name, rather than at the beginning, when it would have been useful.” No one has ever claimed that Wang was a marketing genius. Huang is the one who has always excelled at that. (And yes, I agree with you: if Wang had any kind of legitimate lineage claim, he was foolish not to exploit it early on in Taiwan.)

Statement #4- Once again, this is all happening after 1982, at the height of Huang’s 64th Generation marketing blitz. My guess is the Disciples and students in Taiwan had no idea how they were being referred to in the US. (Most of them don’t speak or read English.) Did they have any contact with Huang to even know what he was calling them (by implication and through inductive reasoning?) We already know the senior disciples don’t recognize “63 or 64 Generations.” We already have that their understanding is that ALL of Wang’s Disciples are equal, etc… the very referencing you want to strike from the “Modern Practitioners” section.

So we come to your reference to this “something” demonstrating Wang’s confidence in Huang as a teacher of Tien Shan Pai. Are you are suggesting that Wang ONLY had confidence in Huang? What an incredible leap of faith… to which you are entitled!

Does it make any sense that Wang would allow someone else (Lin) to be his head instructor and assistant for 8 years in Wang’s own school in Taiwan… and NOT have confidence in that person’s ability to teach in his teacher’s name? I would suspect that the very act of confirmation of “discipleship” on any one of Wang disciples would be considered as “proof” of their own individual competence to teach in their teacher’s name.

I can also play devil’s advocate and suggest Huang might have prevailed upon Wang to give him something in writing (in addition to the sword as a marketing tool) at the time this “statement of confidence” was created. This is exactly the kind of thing that sells product in the USA. Huang may have been worried that, since his own main claim to fame has always been the “64 Generations” that he might have been questioned about his apparent lack of other credentials. (No record of tournament wins, etc.)

Leave the article as is. Leave Huang with (at least) some dignity intact. Your posturing is hurting him more than you realize.TeamResearch (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone who knows how to make Bengalsfan's reference to Kenneth Ware's website go "live" please do it? I tried, but can't get it to work. I also just realized I may have inadvertantly deleted the other references. Please put them back!!! TeamResearch (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to each of TeamResearch's points above.

1) The reason I harp on the naming is as part of a general pattern. I do not expect people to wade through Lin's site.  As an wikipedia editor, I believe it is my responsibility to sum up available evidence and claims, and present them in a comprehensible manner.  On his site Willy Lin says,

That is provable, and a claim which should remain on the article as a claim. However he also says on the same page.

Oddly he follows this statement with a clear contradiction.

Thus, we cannot simply say that the first recorded mention of the words is in 1957. Lin's claim on the article that

is problematic. Context on his own page indicates that he believes that he never heard the words from his teacher, that his teacher never said Tien Shan Pai, yet this is contradicted by the 1957 application form.

Thus, there need to be words on the article showing this inherent problem with Lin's claim.

2) I will simply point out here that while you say that it falls to Lin and his classmates to conclude that his teacher is the founder, we have multiple examples of Wang claiming to be of the 63rd generation, and none of him claiming to have founded the style. In terms of verifiability, Lin certainly claims his teacher is the founder, but the evidence is not on his side.

3) Additionally to failing to market his style, Wang somehow, in all that time, failed to mention that he was the creator and founder of a fighting style that had bested the extremely well known style of Wing Chun? I'm sorry, I find that very hard to pass off as simply him not being good at marketing.

4) No no, you offered to strike that from the Modern Practitioners section.

I have taken no position on it, and in fact have stated that I have no problem with the paragraph remaining in its entirety (with a proper verifiable citations, for which I am still waiting).

But that's not the important point here. I am stating that the Wang's calligraphy explicitly calling out one of his students as the generation following him is a sign of his support for that student. I am stating that I have seen no similar verifiable demonstration of support for others. I am stating that these verifiable examples of Wang's support, also support the claim of a many generations long origin of the style. I am stating that Wang at no time in that calligraphy refers to himself as the founder of the style.

You can ask, and suspect, and assume all you like, but the standard for an article is verifiability. I keep harping on verifiability here because unlike normal forums where words alone can be sufficient evidence, wikipedia has a higher standard of what is acceptable in the body of an article. Junzi (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengalsfan09,

I feel I should point out that at least two of the names in your list (translated into more recognizible pinyin), Bājíquán and Tai Chi Chuan (written on the program as Ba Jyi Chyuan and Tay Jyi Chyuan) are actually styles of kung fu. Junzi (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: We anticipated your response. So if this program shows the various forms and styles included in Wangs curriculum, why no mention of Tien Shan Pai? This program was produced by the Grandmaster of the system but there's no mention of that system, style or forms in his curriculum book? How odd. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We? I assume you mean the royal we?

It is strange I will admit. However, I think it is at least as strange that Wang had a student use the name Tien Shan Pai in 1957, that student went on to win a major tournament, and then he (according to Lin) made no mention of that name again for many many years. If he were at all interested in promoting his style I would have expected him to mention it at some point in the intervening years.

That it is not mentioned in the program book is consistent with this pattern of silence from Wang, and so I do not think it is particularly noteworthy, other than to further prove that Wang did not seem interested in making his style famous.

What is noteworthy is when he chose to break that silence and for whom. That is, he chose to write of his style and his lineage in calligraphy that has been presented in the article and in this discussion.

To state that there was no Tien Shan Pai, and that Lin is responsible for the name is to cherry pick evidence by ignoring Wu Ming Jer's tournament applicaiton. A piece of evidence brought to light by Lin himself! Junzi (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: By we I was referring to Mr Ware & I. He said this would be exactly how you'd respond. Now, in the long history of Chinese martial arts, can you name 1 other Grandmaster who kept his style's name top secret? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

- Did he know I would respond this way because the argument was flawed?

As to your question, Yip Man was the first to teach Wing Chun openly (according to the wikipedia bio for him). There were clearly teachers before him, and from him we have some sense of what his lineage was. But, for previous teachers to not teach openly indicates they were secretive about what the source was of their knowledge and techniques, which I understand was fairly common in the more traditional Chinese martial arts.

Secondly, you had previously (essentially) claimed that this was an exhaustive curriculum of what Wang taught at his school. Otherwise how can you make any claims about Tien Shan Pai not being mentioned on the program book? It cannot be a list of forms alone, as some are clearly missing. I do remember the words for Red and River, and I do not see either. Nor do I see the Chinese names of several other forms that one can find associated with Tien Shan Pai with a single search on Youtube. I do, however, notice an "etc" on the end of the English list of arts of the fist, and must conclude that Wang intentionally left names off his list.

If you would like to continue to discuss a source which is not currently cited on the article, then could you please indicate where in the article you think a mention of it should be made?

I will now reiterate my questions so they do not get lost in the shuffle (I'll be as brief as I can).

1) The naming of the style is contentious and I believe requires verbiage indicating the contradictory claims made by Lin.

2) Since Wang says on writing that he is 63rd generation, in the absence of any evidence to contradict him, Lin's claim that Wang is the founder is questionable, and verbiage should be added to make this clear.

3) I am happy to relegate this question to the dust heap, but will probably have to return to it, as it is a discussion about setting the context of many of the pieces of evidence, and statements that we have on the subject of Tien Shan Pai.

4) Since Wang presented Huang with his disciple sword (it is insinuated that Huang bought it, but that is actually an unproven statement). It is clear that Wang wanted Huang to bear the name Tien Shan Pai, and the mantle of 64th generation disciple.  Otherwise, why would he put such calligraphy on the sword?  Does anyone else present us with any physical evidence that Wang wanted them to also bear the name Tien Shan Pai, and the title of 64th generation disciple?  This raises some questions about even hypothetical statements from classmates in Taiwan. Junzi (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I see a lot of good points have been made recently that I want to address when I have the time. Meanwhile, however, I want to share something I just found while browsing Lin's website, under Wang's bio page:

"By the mid-1950's, Wang had retired from the military, and was teaching his system, which he called 'T'ien Shan Pai,' full time."

"Although Wang never actually told any of his instructors that he was 'yi ben' or the inheritor of the mantle of the 'T'ien Shan Pai', it was understood by both his students, as well as his instructors that he was. Once Willy Lin had become Wang's assistant, and head instructor, Wang Jyue Jen made it clear to all of the members of his Lei Sheng (Thunder Sound) School, that Willy Lin was 'yi ben', also."

The wording of the first statement strongly implies that Wang was referring to his style as "Tien Shan Pai" as early as the mid-50's. As for the second statement, why would his students understand him to be the inheritor of a style he created? If he really were the founder, he would not have inherited the style from anyone. Broncosfan74 (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this discussion page is now truly outrageous.

Junzi is asking for a jointly developed and written entry for Tien Shan Pai that is at least acceptable to some of the major parties involved. TeamResearch and BengalsFan09 continue to thwart Junzi’s efforts.

The article still has a number of contradictions and shortcomings. TeamResearch is willing to spill a lot of digital ink arguing with Junzi but not on improving the article. If the article cannot be improved with TeamResearch’s collaboration, then it will simply be re-written without your involvement.

Evidence and documentation is still lacking: where are the citations needed to support the assertions made here? Some elements do not make sense – those that have been re-written and those have yet to be addressed.

Junzi has proposed that either some of the language which is critical to Huang be removed or a similar level of criticism will be leveled at Willy Lin’s role here. Choose one or the other. If you choose the later, I will start by raising questions such as:

What exactly did Willy Lin do for 20+ years (1982/3/4 until 2005) when he completely dropped out of sight in the Chinese martial arts community? It appears that Lin has spent just as much time out of the martial arts world as in it.

What evidence does Willy Lin or any of the other self-proclaimed disciples have to back up their claim of discipleship? Nearly 20 years after the death of their teacher, they say that they were disciples but can they produce something – anything – written by their teacher that demonstrates their discipleship?

And so on. As for TeamResearch – you have been criticizing Junzi for his association with Huang (despite Junzi’s willingness to work with you). Why don’t you disclose who you are? What is your stake here? I believe that you are very close to Willy Lin, either his wife (Patricia Lin) or someone who works for Lin. Re-read in that context, your criticisms and disruptions are logical. But also hypocritical.

As for BengalsFan09 – you are clearly Kenneth Ware. Re-read in that context, your comments are laughable. When you write that you “spoke to Mr. Ware,” are you talking to yourself? And then there are all the other names that you have created and used over the past few months: KayeDubbe, Quailhollow, Huanglow, Daprofessor09, Kungfumom, TomC1964, and Mikehaung. How do you keep them all straight?

--WuWeiRen (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I agree: this discussion page is now truly outrageous, and honestly? Hardly worth the effort.

You ask who I am: I was a serious student of TSP for around 3 years (between 1974-1977.) I was taught by TSP Masters and GMs Willy Lin, Tony Lin, Huang (then known as Huang Wei Her,) Gene Gause and Dennis Brown. I was never taught by C.C. Liu. He wasn’t in the US at the time.

Have I have maintained contact with former TSP classmates and teachers over the years? Of course. TSP played a major role in my life, as it has in the lives of so many. I became active on this discussion page because what I read in the article did NOT jibe with my recollections.

That’s who I am. Who is Junzi?

Is it possible to take on all of Huang's supporters who have a vested interest in maintaining their teacher’s position? No. Do I want to do this? No. Do I care? Not really. People are going to believe what they want…as they have every right to do… no matter what evidence to the contrary is provided. Do we even know how many Huang supporters are contributing to this article… or is it just one person who submits under many aliases (a charge WuWeiRen has leveled at Bengalsfan.)

Will this article “simply be re-written without your (my) involvement” as WuWeiRen suggests? Probably. Will that make the dispute go away? No. Will someone else who cares… whether it’s me or others… continue to monitor this site and re-revise hearsay that’s actively challenged by those senior to Huang? You betcha!

One last question: who is WuWeiRen, that he takes on such an imperious tone in his very first posting? Obviously someone who thinks he has the right to be in charge. Obviously someone who’s been following this site (and others) for a quite while now. Sounds like someone standing next to, if not superior to Junzi. So much for “unbiased.” TeamResearch (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome WuWeiRen. I would like to remind everyone, particularly WuWeiRen and TeamResearch that wikipedia has a clear policy statement that it is considered a form of harassment to post personal information about other editors WP:OUTING.

In the midst of this back and forth about identities, I would like to point out that Broncosfan74 had an interesting point. He quotes Lin's site

This implies two things. One is that the style was called Tien Shan Pai as of the 1950's, and second that there are multiple generations, or how would Wang of inherited the mantle of Tien Shan Pai, and that many of Wang's students from that period knew this fact. Thoughts? Junzi (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Junzi: you asked about the Red over the River Form in the program Its on page 41 item 22. Also, not quite sure of your comparison of Wang to Yip Man. We do have a history of Wang's teachers. I have seen the Martial Family Tree of Wang for both internal and external arts. We may not agree on things, but I will not attack you personally. It seems that anyone with a point of view contrary to Huangs have very personal attacks leveled against them. If Mr WRen wants to call me Ware-I am honored. I have seen letters from 2 U.S. Congressmen, Gov. State of Ohio, several cities mayors, letters from P&G, G.E., American Airlines and several large universities on Ware's wall-so he's not what you may believe him to be. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengalsfan09,

You are clearly citing come piece of evidence which is not available for consumption. While it would be a useful piece of evidence to have, unless it is provided to the editors it cannot be cited, and it thus does not meet wikipedia's standards of verifiability.

It is good to hear that you will not attack me personally. One of my big reasons for bringing up the wikipedia harassment guidelines (and indeed for knowing about them) was due to a series of unfortunate incidents that happened a couple of months ago, when a series of user names were used to vandalize this talk page and make many bigoted and unseemly comments. During that episode the attacks were leveled specifically at people who were tied (or were perceived to be tied) to Huang.

Let's keep wiki chatter to a minimum, and focus on the article and its content please. Junzi (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If Mr Ware post the Family Tree of Wang on his web site, will this meet the requirements? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, progress. Not really.

Thank you Junzi for your reminder about Wikipedia policy. I think it is appropriate to follow Wikipedia policy on this discussion page as well as in the article. That said, the problem here is that you, Junzi, are too nice. You keep citing Wikipedia policy but the other folks on the page (most recently TeamResearch and BengalsFan09) do not follow these policies.

Remember when Dave1185 called for a “fresh start” stating that “there will be no tolerance for those using this discussion page as a forum for other purposes.” And then what happened?

So here’s an opportunity to get the page back to the matter at hand – the article, one that observes a “neutral point of view.”

TeamResearch is unlikely to get her desired “unbiased” approach. Instead, let’s work toward an article that:

1.	Cites source material for its assertions 2.	Adopts a consistent approach to addressing their material – either consistently positive or consistently critical 3.	Keeps the chatter and personal attacks to a minimum on the discussion page

However, as long as TeamResearch, BengalsFan09 and others choose to violate the Wikipedia policies, they should expect the same treatment back.

TeamResearch – I believe all of your assertions about who you are. You provided a lot of information that is all technically accurate. It just falls short of disclosing the other critical facts that puts everything in a new light: that you are Willy Lin’s wife. And therefore, it is like so much of what has been said here and elsewhere: each item is technically “correct” but doesn’t say those last few things that puts everything is a new light.

All of your writing has a particular style which has permeated through these Wikipedia posts, the description of the videos for sale of Willy Lin’s website, and his “Truth About Tien Shan Pai.” So you wrote, edited and/or translated these materials, suggesting a very close relationship.

Now, I have no problem with you being involved in this discussion and working on this article. But it is hypocritical, however, to harass Junzi on the grounds of neutrality when you are not neutral. And the point is not if Junzi has a bias, the issue is does the article present a “neutral point of view?”

And then there is BengalsFan09 who, like TeamResearch, also has a particular writing style which is consistent through all of his postings. So when you say you are “not Mr. Ware” I believe you too. No, not really.

BengalsFan09 says that “It seems that anyone with a point of view contrary to Huangs have very personal attacks leveled against them.” Where are the “very personal attacks?”  It is another instance of using this page to attack Huang directly or indirectly – to suggest what a bad person Huang is. This page is covered with these kinds of shots. It is time to get back to the article.

--WuWeiRen (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, here we go again. Seems like deja vu with Mr Ren. Not sure when/how I may have violated any rules-so heres a public mea culpa. Now to business...the Wang Martial Family Tree will be posted soon on Mr. Ware's web site. Junzi: Please give Mr Ren another warning-please before this gets out of hand. Thanks in advance. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Folks, let's stick to the facts and the article.

The facts, if you care to read the lengthy challenges to Huang's claims on various internet forums, are that the challenges have shifted over the years. Originally, it was claimed (by people in close contact with Lin) that Wang never claimed to be a Grandmaster or 64th generation of anything. Once Huang provided the evidence showing that Wang did indeed claim to be the 64th Generation Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai, the argument changed to something like, "Well Wang made it up but Huang is still being dishonest for repeating what he was told."

Remember that it still has not been PROVEN that Wang created the style. What has been PROVEN is that Wang used the name Tien Shan Pai to refer to what he was teaching as early as the 50's.

We have 3 statements on Lin's website that are contradictory to the arguments Lin and his supporters have made.

1- The statement regarding the tournament application from the 50's 2 & 3 - The statements Junzi and I have quoted in a few posts above; namely that Lin states on his website that Wang's students understood he was the INHERITOR of the style, and that he was teaching his system (which he called Tien Shan Pai) since the 50's.

I bring all this up to point out what I feel are inherent weaknesses in the arguments against Huang.

Finally, in absence of any citations or references (preferably with direct quotes) I move that the challenge to Huang's claims be removed from the article. If such evidence does come to light, the challenge can be added back in, but right now we are leaving a statement in the article that is not backed by evidence, simply because some people think that in the future such evidence will exist. In the meantime, the statement regarding the "9 senior classmates" should be stricken from the article. Broncosfan74 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no authority to warn anyone that is greater than any other editor. However, I should remind everyone that in addition to the mentioned guideline, it would be a good idea to read the wikipedia guideline that we are to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH.

Broncosfan74 has raised some good points, and I generally agree with. However, it is important to remember that articles should represent a neutral point of view for which there is a consensus. This is why there has been so much argumentation (on some level it's better than an edit war).

So, the editors on this page need to reach a conclusion. Are we going to be critical of the claims made by modern practitioners, dragging everyone's public image down, and furthering the perception that this is a contentious and extremely political style, or are we going to decide to avoid being critical of the claims made by modern practitioners and allow each to have their say, acting in a more reporterly role.

I don't care which way we go, but a judicious application of either approach is necessary. That is, if we are to question the claims of one practitioner, then we must question the claims of all. And if we decide that one practitioner's claims are exempt from challenge, then they all must be.

Which approach do the editors on this page want? Junzi (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Everyone gets to claim what they want, so long as it remains clear these are “claims” I would agree to change the paragraph you find so offensive about the senior classmates in Taiwan to read as follows:

“There are at least nine others in Taiwan, most of whom are older than the Disciples presently living in the US (Willy Lin, Tony Lin, Huang Chien Liang and C.C. Liu), who claim they are also Disciples of Wang Jyue Jen. Their names are: Fu Shung Luo, Dzu Long Luo, Yi Ming Guo, Ming Jer Wu, Chorng Chung Chen, Chi Long Tsai, Chung Jien Lin, Gao Yue Lin, Yung Ji Lin.” (followed by a footnote referencing the document posted on Willy Lin’s website and already referenced in the Wiki article.)” TeamResearch (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good and quite fair to me. Hope others will agree to this wording. I still want someone to advise if a posting of the Wang Internal & External Martial Family Tree would be of any help ? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bengalsfan09 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interruption
Sorry for the interruption. This page just came to my attention not too long ago. Coincidentally, I've just written an article on the fictional Tian Shan Pai (aka Mount Heaven Sect) featured in Wuxia fiction. Please look at this page. I know that the two sects are not related at all, except maybe for sharing the same name. Can someone please help me make a distinction between the real Tian Shan Pai and the fictional one on this page? Thanks. _LDS (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

____

The “Tien Shan Pai” of Wuxia fiction, and the style of Kung Fu currently known as “Tien Shan Pai” are two different things. The confusion comes about because one branch of TSP (as represented on Willy Lin’s website: www.linkungfu.com) considers the words “Tien Shan Pai” to identify that curriculum being taught in Taiwan  beginning in the mid-20th century by a  Kung Fu Coach named Wang Jyue Jen. The other branch (represented on Huang Chien Liang’s website: www.tienshanpai.org) considers TSP to be an ancient style that traces its lineage back for 65 generations. If you have questions I suggest contacting each of these men through their respective websites. Two other sites that may be of interest are www.cincinnatikungfuandtaichicenter.com and another one called “Tien Shan Pai Now” which can be accessed through the last “link” on this TSP article page. TeamResearch (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I see, now the confusion between the real and fictional TSP comes about because of the name of the sect. I never knew that a real TSP exists until today. Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have this page and the TSP page on Baidu Baike contains only information about the fictional TSP. So can I conclude that the real and fictional TSPs are two mutually exclusive organisations? _LDS (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as anyone knows there is no connection between the fictional TSP style and the real TSP. Junzi (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Modern Practitioners Continued
Man, I just wrote a long response that somehow didn't get posted. Anyway, I was basically trying to say that as long as there are claims there are going to be challenges to those claims; especially when the claims are inherently hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd like to see the article focus more on the positive characteristics of the style, rather than the politics. Provide links to current teachers' websites, where people can read about them and their claims there. Make the article about the style itself, rather than the politics. It's a difficult situation, but let's do our best to avoid any verbiage that could offend any parties involved and set off an editing war. Broncosfan74 (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I agree with you Broncosfan. Links to websites should be provided. Just before this "Interruption" section got started, (and in response to Junzi's question,) I posted a possible solution to our impasse. I am posting it again, because there may be editors who only check the last posting on this discussion page, and not the last in each section.

In response to Junzi's question: Everyone gets to claim what they want, so long as it remains clear these are “claims” I would agree to change the paragraph you find so offensive about the senior classmates in Taiwan to read as follows:

“There are at least nine others in Taiwan, most of whom are older than the Disciples presently living in the US (Willy Lin, Tony Lin, Huang Chien Liang and C.C. Liu), who claim they are also Disciples of Wang Jyue Jen. Their names are: Fu Shung Luo, Dzu Long Luo, Yi Ming Guo, Ming Jer Wu, Chorng Chung Chen, Chi Long Tsai, Chung Jien Lin, Gao Yue Lin, Yung Ji Lin.” (followed by a footnote referencing the document posted on Willy Lin’s website and already referenced in the Wiki article.)” TeamResearch (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good and quite fair to me. Hope others will agree to this wording. I still want someone to advise if a posting of the Wang Internal & External Martial Family Tree would be of any help ? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am simply trying to organize the page properly. Hopefully this helps rather than confusing everyone. Junzi (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

TeamResearch, if you intend for the verbiage presented to replace the "Huang's claims" paragraph, on some level I'm going to have to argue against it. While I would prefer not to drag the controversy into the article, it makes little sense to list out other living disciples (who are not going to be of much interest to readers of the English Wikipedia), unless we are going to list them all, or you follow that statement with an indication of why they are listed, ie they challenge Huang's claims (which would require more citation than you indicate a capacity to provide). Additionally, as compromise verbiage that paragraph does not flow logically from the previous one, so stylistically it's not an ideal choice.

The Huang bio paragraph presents physical evidence of Wang's (and by proxy Huang's) claims about the style, and indicates that Huang then claims a few specific things which would make him the lineage holder. The physical evidence does not constitute a claim. Huang's specific claims are called out as such in his paragraph and should not require further questioning.

Either raise the controversy in the following paragraph (and provide citations not only proving the existence of living disciples but that they actually agree with the challenge) this would then require(under Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines) a paragraph that challenges Lin's claims, or strike the paragraph in its entirety. Junzi (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

Why wouldn’t a list of Wang’s disciples names (whatever country they live in) be of interest to Wiki readers? Is this an article about TSP, or just TSP in the US? TeamResearch (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to only list students of Wang who are going to be fairly well known. I have no way of estimating the notoriety, nor the impact any one student of Wang's currently has on the style, so it seems reasonable to list only those students who are themselves demonstrably active (such as Huang and Willy Lin), or who have well known students (such as CC Liu). Junzi (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you guys think about simply providing a list of active TSP teachers in one section and providing links to their websites (if applicable) without saying much more about them in the article. Anything past that and I think we are going to continue going in circles. The rest of the article can focus on the characteristics of the style itself, rather than its practitioners. Would that solve the problem? Broncosfan74 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Much has been said about Wu Ming Jer and his fight application. So I think the students in Taiwan MUST be also included in the article. Why use their names only if convenient? Bengalsfan09 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Bengalsfan09 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the statement regarding the Taiwan disciples is to stay in, it does need to be re-written. In its current form, it is awkward.

In addition, I am uncertain of the status of C.C. Liu and Tony Lin as disciples. Where is the source or sources that assert that these two men are disciples? Can someone provide a citation? I did not see either of their names on the “disciple list” provided on linkungfu.com.

--WuWeiRen (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I believe Tony Lin and C.C. Liu were introduced as "disciples" of Wang Jyue Jen at the 1982 Baltimore Demo. (How do you cite an audio track on a 25+ year old videotape?) At this same demo., didn't Wang publicly present them both with the same token of Discipleship (the same kind of carved wooden sword) he gave Huang?

Why would you think that list on Lin's website is intended to be exhaustive? It, along with the accompanying photo, is simply a record of those people who happened to be at a gathering of the Taiwan Senior Classmates in Taiwan in February, 2009. At this gathering the men whose names are listed personally and publicly declared themselves to be Disciples of Wang Jyue Jen. That's all. Neither Tony Lin nor C.C. Liu live in Taiwan. As they do not appear in the photo Lin provides, I conclude neither Tony Lin nor C.C. Liu was visiting Taiwan at the time. TeamResearch (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So, now we are going to get into some of the issues that I raised earlier – in particular, citations.

A citation needs to be provided for each key assertion on the page. The first issue here is saying C.C. Liu and Tony Lin “disciples.” Surely there is some resource that can be cited (like an article or book), where they are described, or describe themselves, as a disciple of Wang. If sources cannot be located, then that portion of the statement needs to be removed.

Also, where is the evidence or citation that Wang publicly presented Huang, Liu and Tony Lin with swords at the 1982 demonstration? This is another statement that will need to get re-written in the article.

The swords are not wooden swords, nor are they “tokens” of discipleship. The reason that Huang’s sword is relevant is that the inscription on the scabbard by Wang states that Huang is 64th generation disciple. That is the written evidence of discipleship.

I don’t think that Lin’s site is meant to be exhaustive. I mentioned that site because your original statement referenced that Lin’s site and the materials there do not provide the citation necessary to say that Tony Lin and C.C. Liu were disciples.

--WuWeiRen (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

My appologies. The Wiki article says "carvings on the scabbard". Wood is the substance generally associated with "carving". I accept that it is the scabbards of these swords that must be made out of wood, and not the swords themselves. TeamResearch (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be great. An image of these scabbards (particularly with a closeup so we could see the carvings) would constitute verifiable evidence, if presented publicly. If we are simply told that such items exist, it does not meet the standard of verifiability. Thus, at best any article that says CC Liu and Tony Lin claim to be Wang's disciples would require a citation needed tag (and those claims should be subject to deletion if citations are not provided within a certain time period). Junzi (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the citation that was added to the article by TeamResearch; however, while I initially moved the reference to the appropriate place in the article (as the reference only proved that they claimed to be students of Wang), when I looked at the citation needed template page on wikipedia, I found a link to the following page WP:GRAPEVINE.

This guideline says that contentious or poorly sourced material about a living person is to be removed from wikipedia immediately. I was incorrect in requesting a citation previously. Thus, until we have a source for each of these students, from Taiwan, who are "senior" to Huang, where they specifically state that they challenge Huang's claim to be 64th generation etc. the paragraph cannot be returned. Junzi (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

This is nonsense. You asked for source material in the words of the senior disciples (in their own hand) regarding their position, and you got it with an appropriate citation. Just because you don't like what they have to say doesn't mean you get to remove their very existence from this article or this discussion. TeamResearch (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. However, upon review of wikipedia guidelines. Any unsourced, or poorly sourced statements that are contentious about a living person are to be removed immediately from wikipedia. Please see my above entry for the exact guideline. Junzi (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

____

How is this "unsourced?" The source is clearly cited and photographic evidence provided at http://www.linkungfu.com/newtips.php.

I was willing to compromise before (and I still am) but within reason. Reinstate the original "Huang's claims" paragraph" to the article (but omit the 2nd sentence only.) The existence and credibility of the senior classmates in Taiwan has to be acknowledged and respected. How can a Wiki article that speaks to the whole of TSP not include them? TeamResearch (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The unsourced portion of that paragraph was the portion of the statement that indicates that they question Huang's claims. There is no doubt that they claim to be disciples, as that is clear from the sheet. There is no indication of their opinions on who holds the lineage, nor how many generations there are based on that sheet. Junzi (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I would suggest we agree to re-instate the "Huang's claim" paragraph, but with a narrower focus as follows:

"Huang's claim that he is the only true disciple of Wang Jyue Jen is strenuously challenged by at least six of Wang Jyue Jen's other disciples, all of whom presently live in Taiwan, and all of whom are "senior" to Huang. Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students. TeamResearch (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here: how to word this statement and whether to include the statement.

How to word the statement: the materials that I looked at on Lin’s website did not support the statement you have proposed.

First, Huang does not call himself the “only true disciple.” If you disagree, please provide citation as to where Huang calls himself the “only true disciple.”

Second, the phrase at “at least six” is vague, since we do not know the disposition of any other “disciples.”

Third, you say these disciples “all of whom presently live in Taiwan.” I counted six signatures on Lin’s website that indicated they are disciples; two of these people were Willy Lin and Justin Chen. Do they live in Taiwan?

Fourth, what does “senior” mean in this context? Senior how?

Fifth, the last statement “ Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students.” It is unrelated to the section that it is listed in. It is also vague and serves no purpose in this article.

Whether to include the statement: clearly, the position and inclusion of the statement regarding the "six other disciples" is meant to be disruptive to Huang.

As I have said to you before, we have two paths we can take: a generally positive, affirmative entry about Tien Shan Pai or a more critical, contentious entry about Tien Shan Pai. Please choose one path or the other.

If you choose the positive route, then strike the statement regarding the “six senior disciples.” If you choose the critical route, then expect that criticism will be included in all aspects of the article, including Willy Lin’s biography. Again, your choice: take one route or the other.

Since we are working on the section on Modern Practitioners, I offer the following questions to the editors.

Provide citations for the distribution of the swords and the inscriptions on the scabbards, or that section will be re-written.

Provide citation for Tony Lin. There are no citations to affirm his residency or instructional activities.

Provide citation for C.C. Liu. There are no citations that attest to his currently owning a school.

--WuWeiRen (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

______

And a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

You want to omit the words “who presently live in Taiwan,” from my proposed paragraph… go ahead. The list is accurate. There were six TSP disciples present at the recent “senior classmates” meeting in Taiwan...whether they live there or not.

As to your next question: What TSP practitioner does not know that “senior” is determined by when you first begin to study? Someone who began to study TSP before I did, is always ranked “senior” to me, no matter what level of accomplishment he or she attains. (I could be wrong, but I believe the same holds true in most Martial Art schools, not just for TSP. But no matter. This is an article about TSP, not other schools or other Martial Art systems.)

The senior Disciples position that “all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system” goes directly to the heart of the lineage question… which leads directly your challenge that Huang doesn’t claim what the Disciples accuse him of saying. Technically, you are correct as per the Wiki article’s text. But that’s only part of the story.

As the Wiki article text stands, it states that “only he (Huang) received the initiatory Taoist disciple name from Wang Chueh-Jen, as well as engraved and painted calligraphic documentation that the lineage was being passed on through him.” Not a problem with this text.

The problem becomes apparent, though, when you link this statement with the reference which follows (reference #10 on the article page.) This reference-citation links to photos on Huang’s Gallery website page. In the caption under “The Rubbing Photo,” it clearly states that, “Because he (Huang) was the only formal disciple of Tien Shan Pai upon Wang's passing, Huang thus became the Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai after his teacher's death.” Sure sounds like Huang’s claiming TSP for himself and no other Disciples.

Now, I agree… this is Huang’s website. He can post whatever he pleases. But for Wiki to allow reference #10 to stand as proof of something, is not only objectionable, it’s a double standard (considering the challenges you have mounted against the other Senior Disciples.) Reference #10, which links the contents of a self-serving, and unverifiable caption to the contents of this Wiki article has no business here. It should be removed.

I also suggest References #9 and #8 be removed for similar reasons.

Reference #9 links the Wiki article to the exact same “Rubbing Photo” text which is being repeated in Reference #10… only this time it makes its way into the Wiki article through a link to The Tien Shan Pai Organization, which is not a neutral party.

Reference #8 links the Wiki article with caption text which proclaims (in italics for emphasis?) that “ It is important to note that other students of Supreme Master Wang received swords, however, only Huang's sword contains carvings by Supreme Master Wang stating that he is a 64th Generation disciple.” How does Huang know this? This is “hearsay” which is not acceptable criterion for Wiki citations. (But once again, Huang’s website. His party.)

If you don’t want to remove References #8,#9 and #10 from the Huang paragraph on the article page, then the only way the TSP Senior Disciples get their say is to reinstate the “Huang’s claims” paragraph… but possibly in a more focused form. As the article stands now, the message delivered (via these three potentially contentious references) is clear: Huang claims to be the “only” formal disciple (whatever that means), and the only true lineage holder (of TSP) and Wiki is abetting his claim by giving it credibility via reference-citations that don’t meet their own rigorous standards.

If you don’t want to remove these three references from the Huang paragraph, then my suggested (more focused) revision for the “Huang’s claims” paragraph is as follows:

Huang's claim, that he is the only formal disciple of Wang Jyue Jen, is strenuously challenged by at least six of Wang Jyue Jen's other disciples, most of whom presently live in Taiwan, and all of whom are "senior" to Huang. Their position is that all of Wang Jyue Jen's Disciples are equally vested their system, and that it is the responsibility of them all to preserve, promote, and pass "Tien Shan Pai" on to their next generations of students. TeamResearch (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TeamResearch,

Much of the article is filled with imprecise, unproven, personal thoughts, insights and speculations. I’m glad that you have a new found interest in citations.

When you proposed that the six disciples “all live in Taiwan,” it is not until I point out that Willy Lin and Justin Chen actually live in the U.S. that you realize the problems with your statement. How many more problems are there – in this small statement and all the others in the article? Things that at first seem correct, but when tested, quickly collapse. I mean, this was just a matter of counting the names and then reading the Wikipedia article and discussion pages. The article says that Willy Lin lives in New York City but your statement implies that he lives in Taiwan. I bet that you know where he lives!

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – and not specific to the martial arts – it might not be readily clear to the reader that “senior” in this context, means started training earlier as opposed to ranking, accomplishments, training, skill, etc. That is my concern with “senior.”

As for the sword engravings: please, please, please have someone – anyone – come forward with something written by Wang naming them as a disciple. With so many disciples popping up, there has to be someone with something written by Wang naming them as a disciple. Something. Anything. That would be a good start.

You really like throwing around that word “hearsay.” Maybe you should look up the definition. It seems like “hearsay” is the label for anything that you don’t agree with.

But really, this is getting ridiculous. Again, you choose: affirmative or critical article.

Affirmative means that each side makes their own positive case, without any direct by name references to the other practitioners and without any challenges to their claims. It means just laying out this is what he says, that is what the other person says. There may be things that you don’t like, or that contradict the claims of the other people mentioned.

Critical means that each side will have its position challenged in the article, presenting evidence that contradicts the assertions made and singles out people by name. Again, if you want, I can furnish some examples of how the article could be re-written in a critical fashion where challenges to Lin are inserted in the paragraphs on his biography.

You seem to want affirmative for Willy Lin and critical for Huang. The tone cannot be split in this way. One path or the other.

Also, we still need some citations for Tony Lin and C.C. Liu. And the section on sponsoring C.C. Liu implies he was in the U.S. by 1975. Is that correct?

In the interim, please expect re-writes to be posted on the main page, to reflect corrections to punctuation, redundancies, contradictions, additional citations, and so on.

You may want to read through some of Wang’s letters from the late 1980s recently posted on the tienshanpai.org website. 

Have a great holiday!

--WuWeiRen (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

_____

I don’t think I need to point out that I’m not the only contributor to the Modern Practitioners section as it presently stands. And yes, I believe you are correct. C.C. Liu did not show up in the US until the late 1970s. (’78 or ’79?).

This is a Martial Arts article. “Senior” should be taken in the context of Martial Arts. If you think people won’t understand, then educate them as to how it’s commonly used. I have no problem with that.

Disciples are not “popping up.” They have been there all along. They are simply making their statements NOW in response to Huang’s statements, (whether made on his website, at his tournaments, or implied through Wiki reference links.) Their statement is simple: Huang is not the only Disciple of Wang Jyue Jen, and he is not the only lineage holder of TSP.

As for your proofs positive: We have primary source evidence (from Lin’s website) that during the first 10-15 years of Wang’s teaching in Taiwan, disciple ceremonies were personal, private  and secret. Lin has spoken with other disciples in Taiwan, and they confirm that rituals used during Lin’s own Disciple ceremony and theirs were similar. Did Wang change his ritual for inducting Disciples at some point in time? If he did, that’s fine. His prerogative. That doesn’t negate the “place in TSP” of those Disciples who Wang took on before. A son is always a son. Huang’s continuing challenge of the legitimacy of Disciples senior to Huang is as disrespectful as it is contentious. I hope it can be dropped from Wiki references.

Just out of curiosity: when and where did Huang become a Disciple? Was his ceremony public? When did he receive his sword? (I thought it was at the 1982 exhibition, because that seemed to be “common lore.” If I am wrong, please correct me.)

I read Wang’s letter to Huang with interest (both the dated and the undated one.) Although neither speaks to anything that substantiates the claim that Wang considered Huang the only TSP lineage holder, the letters do reveal a caring and personal relationship between the two men.

Wang himself says (in the undated letter) that “there is no way we can get the details” about TSP history. He also says “there are no written records from previous generations.” Guess Wang corroborates what has been suggested from the beginning: TSP history is an oral history. The only way to get historical information about it is to talk to those men and women who participated in it. Fortunately, those who studied with Wang in the early years, are recording their recollections (both individually and collectively) and publishing them for all to access.

So let’s move on. I agree that the article should be affirmative. I suggest you make the changes you see fit, and then we’ll see where we are, and respond accordingly. Wiki articles are nothing if not “works in progress,” right? TeamResearch (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Senior Classmates Challenge Disciple’s Claim

On November 7, 2009, a meeting was held in Taichung, Taiwan of senior students of Wang Jyue Jen’s Lei Shung Wu Yuan School. All present had studied personally with Wang during the 1950s or 1960s. Several were known among their classmates as Wang Jyue Jen’s Disciples. At this meeting they signed the following statement challenging a claim which has been made loudly and repeatedly by one of their junior classmates, Huang Chien Liang of the USA. http://www.linkungfu.com/newtips.php Tianshanwarrior (talk) 10:30, 02 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.44 (talk)

'''Supreme Master Wang's Letters to Grandmaster Huang Published '''

Preface by Grandmaster Huang (contents on the tienshanpai.org website):

"The letter posted here is one example of the feelings that he [Supreme Master Wang] shared with me. I have provided both the original Chinese letter, which was sent on May 2, 1989, and an English translation, which I have tried to make as accurate as possible. His letters, along with our phone calls and visits, both in Taiwan and the United States, helped me appreciate how important it was to Shi Ye that I commit myself to his vision, and they compelled me to work through all challenges that have arisen so that his wonderful legacy will endure."

Excerpt (translation) of Letter 1 from Wang to Huang, written in 1989:

"By comparison, for our students teaching in the U.S., the condition is going down, especially in recent years. This is due to an unfortunate lack of cooperation as well as rampant jealousy and selfishness.

Furthermore, there are a few "bad horses in the herd" who have launched personal attacks in order to advance themselves with no regard for others. We have even had the appearance of a so-called new founder name for our style, which was done with enmity and in blatant disregard for our sacred traditions. Such lack of respect and gratitude is appalling and runs counter to our martial ethics. Other people have only one teacher, respect each other, and have had more success in the Pan-American area. Consequently, these schools have grown and achieved more success.

You [Huang] have been teaching in the U.S. tirelessly for many years, promoting and teaching our style's martial arts. You have made tremendous contributions to Tien Shan Pai. I hope you continue to work hard and move forward. Your future will be bright and boundless."

Excerpt (translation of Letter 2 from Wang to Huang:

"With regards to the questions that you [Huang] have raised, here is my response. All of the questions you have raised have already been answered many times yet you continue to ask. I have shared with you, without reservation, the history of Tien Shan Pai. As you recall, we have discussed this on several occasions both during an interview by one of the students in your school and in our many chats. I really don't know what else to tell you."

"With regards to the origin of Tien Shan Pai, this has been addressed already. As I explained to you [Huang] many times, there is no way we can get the details. Other pai [branches] face the same issue; i.e., nobody knows the details. Traditionally, it is all transmitted from master to disciple verbally and understood confidentially. Tien Shan Pai is no exception in that there are no written records from previous generations. In our personal lives, it is a difficult proposition to be able to trace nine generations. Tien Shan Pai has more than sixty generations, so how can you expect me to trace and write those down? I will not compromise my integrity by making something up, as some of the people are doing. Some of the questions, you can figure out yourself, you have recollections and records. If anyone knows, it is you."

http://www.tienshanpai.org/news/wangletters.htm

--WuWeiRen (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

_____

I am still having a problem with the statement in the article,"As evidence of his full, formal discipleship, Huang has said that none of his classmates learned as much of the actual Tien Shan Pai curriculum as he did, that only Huang received the initiatory Taoist disciple name from Wang Chueh-Jen, and that Huang has produced written materials from Wang documenting that the lineage was being passed on through him[15]." This sentence, as it reads now, is contentious, and blatently self-serving.

The first part of the sentence says "as evidence he (Huang) has said." I believe Huang has said this. Unfortunately, simply saying something without hard evidence to back it up is hearsay and not acceptable under Wiki standards.

As to the second part of the sentence: I have pointed out in a previous post that the written materials (the letters) from Wang do NOT speak to any lineage holding position designation. They only speak to a warm and caring relationship between the two men.

The only thing that indicates the existence of a 63rd and 64th generation is the sword carving. Carving is not commonly thought of as "written material." It is three dimensional by nature. You already talk about the sword carving in the first part of this paragraph. By sliding (what is in fact) your sword carving evidence under the banner of “written evidence” you are over-reaching and being redundant. You already have the “sword evidence” cited. Once is all that is necessary.

If WuWeiRen and Junzi would please either modify this contentious sentence (or remove it completely), it would be appreciated. Otherwise we’re back to the digital ink wars. TeamResearch (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, some of the questions you raise have an explanation that is somewhat subtle so I'm not surprised by them. But it is clear from the letters that Wang had stated again in these writings that there were more than sixty generations. He additionally has harsh words for those who have invented a "new founder name" and says that it was done with enmity and a disregard for sacred traditions.

So it is clear by those statements that he endorses in written evidence that there are multiple generations (more than sixty) so this would be seen as corroborating evidence and included in the article as a citation.

As to the more complex question of it being evidence of Huang as a full and formal disciple, you will note that Wang refers to Huang by the name he goes by now "Huang Chien Liang", which was the disciple name given to Huang by Wang. That Wang does so endorses the fact that this was a name that Huang received from Wang. That no other student has a disciple name, even though they have argued that they are all equal, corroborates the statement that Huang was Wang's only formal disciple, and thus the lineage holder for his generation. Junzi (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)