Talk:Zui quan/Archive 2

Third Opinion re: Rock Lee
Proper disclosure: I despise trivia sections and have wholesale deleted several of them in a fit of pique. NJMauthor, I definitely sympathize with you here. However, I despise unreferenced content more than trivia and revert wars more than either. I think what needs to be done here is dropping the argument over the Rock Lee paragraph; it's the only thing in the article that's referenced. The other trivia? Slash and burn, if you like. Over the long term, this article will be a lot more well rounded and then it can be determined whether this particular factoid is worthy of inclusion. MahaPanta, thank you (a million times over) for providing a reference.

At this point, worrying about the rest of the article is far more important than dealing with the trivia sections. The trivia can be cut or not, but removing the only reference from the article seems counterproductive. Let's agree on whether this article's topic is even real, then worry about which animated characters may or may not use it. (On a side note, I'm wary of citing first sources and this instance is a good example. How do we know that the martial art mentioned in the manga is this martial art? If the author were quoted talking about Zui Quan, that would lend a lot more credibility to the citation.--Gimme danger (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I was patrolling for vandalism in the form of deletions since most people only check additions. I came across this deletion and I already knew the reference. It's been too long for me to remember enough of what was said in the manga for me to quote it, but the anime episode 124 "The Beast Within", it is referred to as either "Loopy Fist" or "Drunken Fist" depending on which version you watch.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How about those technique names you wanted to authenticate, Maha? NJMauthor (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor set back, my mother had an accident and I have been busy helping her. I added a video that I found. I know it's from YouTube, but Wiki policy is "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page", and it does since you can tell that it is coverage of a competition. I am researching references to back the video up. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And the only description on the video reads "some guy doing zui quan @ 1990 china nationals," which is not exactly proof of anything other than some fellow performing a form that appears to include falling around. NJMauthor (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

MahaPanta, perhaps you should post a thread about the authenticity of the Zui Quan style at www.bullshido.net forums, in the chinese martial arts section. Several CMA experts traffic the boards and might be able to help you. OUt of curiosity, do you have any experience in the chinese martial arts, or are you only interested in adding anime trivia to the article?NJMauthor (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in adding anime trivia to the article, I just knew the reference. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your expertise in the Chinese Martial Arts that would allow you to know what is Zui Quan and what is not? Is the mention referred to as Zui Quan? Is it referred to as a Chinese Martial Art, and not a Japonese, Indonesian, Kempo or Thai style? NJMauthor (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NJM, you are quite welcome to provide your own references regarding Zui Quan to build the article. MahaPanta's expertise or lack thereof is irrelevant to hir wikipedia editing.--Gimme danger (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I suggest you folks take this over to the mediation cabal if you can't resolve this in a timely manner. NMJ, I'm not sure what you'd like to happen here. Perhaps if everyone involved could summarize their position below this comment we could move on. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I opened it.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no other sources for this martial art? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are, I've been too busy trying to keep everything from being deleted, this article reduced to a stub, and merged into the list of fictional martial arts. It has been featured in some Discovery Channel shows, but I'm unsure how to add this and it not be more trivia. --MahaPanta (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I see those cites? I'm sure something can be worked up :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are some I've been going though:


 * 1) Shaolin website
 * 2) Proof Zui Quan has been a spectacle in China since before cinema and Jackie Chan's Drunken Master. From a 1927 German documentary.
 * 3) Another was an episode of National Geographic's Fight Science, forgot which episode.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. #1 can probably be added instantly; it appears reliable. Dunno about #2, and cite 3 I guess will have to wait. In the meantime, what are other folks' opinion on this? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew how to get a hard copy of number 2 and more information about it. Everyone else on this page seems to agree that this piece of trivia should stay since it's the only one referenced, see Gimme danger's Third Opinion. You can also tell from the article's history that I'm not the only one that reverts this deletion. See history "02:51, 19 March 2008 Gwern (Talk | contribs) (13,015 bytes) (Undid revision 199251545 by NJMauthor (talk) at it again...)" --MahaPanta (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering what'll happen if the main text is referenced instead of just one to trivia ;-) The Shaolin cite looks perfect. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the "Shaolin Site" is well constructed, how are we to know if it's a reliable source? The wikipedia video also gives no reliable historical information. NJMauthor (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the "Shaolin International Federation" is a reliable source. It lists this as one of the Shaolin "styles" (you could try and find the Federation of Drunken Boxers, but I dunno ;-)
 * At any rate, it substantiates several claims made in the article. I don't think it fails RS, but what do you think? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My main issue with websites of that sort is the fact that there are multitudes of "Shaolin" websites that have fancy names and are well-made. Many of these contain misinformation for the purpose of making money. If there is only one legit source on such a famous "style" I think something's up. I've spoken to many CMA practitioners who've explained that drunken techniques are utilized WITHIN styles, and that there is no drunken style. NJMauthor (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They'd be primary sources (good); are there any secondary sources(better)?
 * Hmm...it's certainly notable in fiction; perhaps create a section about that, citing the trivia instead of lumping it together unverified? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The website isn't charging anything for that. It's not the only legit source, there are others like this book. I've talked to CMA practitioners who've explained that there is a drunken style, and it has both traditional and modern styles. --MahaPanta (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the martial arts world is full of bogus information. Historical citation. Historical citation. Where is the Historical citation of a Zui Quan style that is not just a performance dance with no fighting (I.E. it's not a martial art)

Zui Quan is not an independent style. It never was. If it becomes a serious issue, I can get more opinions in this talk page.

Once again you site obscure sources with no detailed information, just saying "Zui Quan" or "drunken boxing".

NJMauthor (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an attributable claim, no? You could make note of this on the article, provided they're cited. Lots of discussions happen on the talk page that belong in the article, methinks. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to listen, Xavexgoem. There's a lot of B.S. in the martial arts, and a lot of false claims. You should have seen the nightmare over on the TKD page when some people didn't want to believe the art was based on Shotokan and formed in the mid 20th century. The fact is, websites using the name "Zui Quan" or "drunken style" offer no historical context or any sort of evidence for the martial art's existence. Putting up a youtube video of "a guy who does zui quan" that shows the guy falling all over himself proves nothing. Same with the "Shaolin" federation website, created by a couple westerners with no historical context AGAIN.

Also, for those claiming there's no profit in it for the website owners: http://www.shaolin.nl/_index5a25.html?ID=9

This article should be merged with fictional martial arts, because it is a fictional style. NJMauthor (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier you had said that it was a style-used-in-a-style, of sorts; And I know from playing several stupid fighting games that the Drunken Boxing style is at least notable enough to have its own article (IMO). Is there a way to reconcile that within this article? I hasten against stating unequivocally that it is fictional, as MahaPanta has said that (s)he (sorry) has stated that (s)he (sorry again :-p) knows about practitioners her/him-self (again, I apologize)...anyway, amongst all those parenthetical apologies, my point is that perhaps *sigh* s/he has a point :-p
 * Perhaps there is a failure to communicate exactly what we mean referring to this style. I see that you, NJM, contend it to be patently false (i.e., not real), but that it is used within styles; and that MahaPanta contends that this is a style-in-itself. Or am I wrong?

That's correct, Xave. It would be like calling "armbar" "right cross" "palm strike" or "positional dominance" a style. Zui Quan as some esoteric MA style is movie magic and folklore. NJMauthor (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha (though I await Maha's thoughts :-)
 * Are there any sources that back this up, namely that it is a kind-of and not a type-of (if you get my drift)? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean evidence for Zui Quan as techniques within a style? NJMauthor (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be very good :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some digging. NJMauthor (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

www.wle.com Bak Sil Lum sets, I can name one in particular, the Dragon Straightsword, contains stances and movements considered "drunken." I will give you an example: The Lazy Cat Stance, which is considered to be a drunken technique.

Many styles, such as Chow Li Fut have drunken FORMS often linked with the Eight Immortals. Here's an article I found that talks about drunken FORMS, and the form in CLF: http://www.martialarm.com/martial-articles/The_Rare_Drunken_Form_of_Choy_Lay_Fut_Kung_Fu.html

And look, the wle website sells a video for the CLF drunken form: http://www.wle.com/products/VL02-DVD.html

Here's an article inside wikipedia about the drunken monkey form from monkey style.

It, too, is accidentally made out to look like a style. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Monkey Which is contradicted (correctly, by the way,) in the Monkey style section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Kung_Fu

Here's another bit. This is an article from Kung Fu Magazine. This article talks about Drunken techniques and, while under the name of drunken style, if you read closely is talking about the techniques and fighting philosophy. http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=550 Here's a quote: "Invariably, Phillip Wong is called upon to perform the drunken style, his favorite form and the style for which he is best known. He credits the 1980 U.S. tour of the Beijing Wushu team with stirring his initial fascination. "Before their exhibition, most demonstrations were not up to par in terms of skill level," he notes. Explaining the growth of his own interest in the form, Wong adds, "I saw one of the members perform the drunken style and was captivated. Not until I saw that did I realize the potential behind the style." As you can see, in performance Wushu, Drunken Style is a form. This may be where the confusion arose with Maha, as performance wushu is completely forms. If you'd like anything clarified, I could ask Gene for you.

The controversial "Shaolin Do" (controversial because it's considered by many to not be CMA) teaches drunken forms to its blackbelts. http://www.austinkungfu.com/about_adult_forms.asp

So, to conclude, Drunken Style exists in traditional CMA and Wushu, as FORMS, not a STYLE. If Drunken is considered a style, we need to have "pass the guard" style, and "Crane's break" style and "raining knees" style and "bow-and-arrow" style, and also styles named after every form in CMA.

There's some info. I hope that helps. NJMauthor (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So is "Zui Quan" an umbrella over all drunken forms? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Zui Quan" means drunken boxing or drunken fist. It is a technique class/fighting philosophy if anything. Like how the term "In-fighter " applies to a boxing philosophy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#In-fighter_.28swarmers.29 Some traditional Forms used "drunken" to denote such a preference and the creators tried to instill that into the forms. Modern wushu uses drunken forms as performance pieces. And when I say "form" I mean Taolu when talking about Wushu, and if you want to call forms in non-wushu CMA that, you can. "Forms or taolu (Chinese: 套路; pinyin: tào lù) in Chinese are series of predetermined movements combined so they can be practiced as one linear set of movements." NJMauthor (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. So it is real, but presented incorrectly in the article? Why not fix it? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're debating at this point. Maha considers it an independent style. As an independent style, it is fictional, so it would go in fictional martial arts. As what I've described it as, it would no longer be considered an independent Martial Art style and would go under terminology. The others here don't want either of those things to happen. NJMauthor (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Page break

 * The "Shaolin International Federation" website is still a reliable source. There are others like this book. I've also talked to people who have taken Zui Quan classes and I’ve seen Zui Quan DVDs, both support there is a drunken style, and it has both traditional and modern variations.


 * It is not like calling "armbar" "right cross" "palm strike" or "positional dominance" a style. Zui Quan has its own variations, and its own collection of techniques. Yes, other styles use Zui Quan techniques, but only the Zui Quan style uses all of the Zui Quan techniques.


 * The article from Kung Fu Magazine proves what I have been saying, the Zui Quan style is not fictional. This http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=550 gives the Zui Quan techniques and fighting philosophy proving it to be its own style.

"Invariably, Phillip Wong is called upon to perform the drunken style, his favorite form and the style for which he is best known. He credits the 1980 U.S. tour of the Beijing Wushu team with stirring his initial fascination. "Before their exhibition, most demonstrations were not up to par in terms of skill level," he notes. Explaining the growth of his own interest in the form, Wong adds, "I saw one of the members perform the drunken style and was captivated. Not until I saw that did I realize the potential behind the style."
 * Look at what I bolded in that quote. Whether or not Zui Quan has been practiced as its own style for hundreds of years is irreverent to this discussion because Zui Quan is practiced as an independent style now, so as a current independent style it is factual and not a fictional martial art. Every style had to start at some point, whether Zui Quan style has recently started or not, you have given proof that it is practiced as a style. Zui Quan style may be controversial, but it is not the only one. Just because “Shaolin Do" is controversial, does not mean it is not a style.--MahaPanta (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You bolded that text out of context. Everyone here knows it. I even made it clear that it could be misinterpreted. Don't give me that, Maha. Even in Shaolin Do it exists in forms. You have offered no proof that Zui Quan is a style: I have offered proof that it is not a style but instead exists as a philosophy, as forms, and as techniques WITHIN CMA styles. NJMauthor (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No you keep taking things out of context. That article is proof that Zui Quan is it's own style with it's own philosophy, forms, and techniques.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's a style of WUSHU FORM, not a STYLE. Read context. By the way, am I to understand that you're a Shaolin Do practictioner? And what are these "book sources" that provide such reliable historical context that you refuse to name?NJMauthor (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am refusing nothing. Read the article, "Zuijiuquan" by Cai Longyun and Shao Shankang ISBN:962-238-003-4 and "Swordplay Under the Moon". --MahaPanta (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I supposed to check that article? You can't find a legit internet source? NJMauthor (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's this article. If you read this article then you would know that, and you would know that there already are reliable sources in the article that proves it is practiced as a style. And who are you to question the my sources--MahaPanta (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my absence; my freakin' computer up and died (I think it's the mobo, but whatever.)
 * Anyway, my involvement will probably be intermittent because of it (hopefully only a cupla days)
 * Here's what I'm thinking atm... The bolded text was not taken out of context; it can at any rate be used as a source that demonstrates that some people think it is indeed a style. This is a semantic issue. If you feel you want to take it further, at least attribute the claims for/against its style-osity; both of you have said that you know practitioners who say it does/not exist as a style. These are primary sources, so it shouldn't be too hard to find secondary sources. These can be weighed against each other in the article, as is proper (instead of keeping it on the talk page).
 * Whether or not the intent was to take things out of context to prove a point is irrelevant. Three sources have been provided that it is a style-in-and-of-itself, and these are attributable. I am confident there are sources saying otherwise, and those should be added as well.
 * I apologize for my tone; it's been stressful and I'm just happy to have a connection. Please stay civil while things get fixed, or I will whack everyone with a Mega Trout. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, there is a saying: "Sometimes there is no midmark; if a party is wrong, they are wrong." You are perpetuating a misconception by allowing the article to stand as a style. I will get more opinions here. NJMauthor (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not keeping anyone from editing anything :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, remember when I linked you to that article about "in fighters" in boxing? How it was a fighter's philosophy? The article I linked uses the word "style" in that manner. Wushu is a performance art that is comprised of forms only. The style with which one executes a drunken form (forms not organized as an independed martial art style or even as a wushu style) are not a style, it is a similar fighting philosophy. The author made sure to use the word "form" to describe the Drunken Forms, and "style" to describe the types of movements associated with the "drunken" fighting philosophy. If you'd like, I could get in contact with the magazine's editor and find out exactly what he meant, even though it should be obvious. Zui Quan is not a Martial Art any more than Infighter is a Martial Art. NJMauthor (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it describes the Drunken Forms that comprises the Zui Quan style, the style defined by the "drunken" fighting philosiophy--MahaPanta (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NJM, what is your dysfunction here? It is obviously practiced by some as a style. A style is defined by Webster as a distinctive quality, form, or type of something. Zui Quan obviously fits this as it has it's own distinctive fighting philosophy, form, and techniques.
 * "I will get more opinions here." You sound like you are trying to threaten us with opinions. That's a scary thought.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Xavexgoem, I perfer this over getting trout smacked.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You just defined the word "Style" not martial arts style. I could define the word "Herring" and it would not define the term "Red Herring." A martial arts style is an independent system with relatively constant core techniques, training methods, training techniques, etc. Boxing is a style, Infighting is a philosophy. BJJ is a style, Position before Submission is a philosophy. Many Wushu forms have martial counterparts; all drunken forms in Wushu were synthesized for wushu and were not based on the traditional drunken forms. For that reason, Wushu drunken forms shouldn't even be counted, but I'm not going to fight that point as you will just try to fixate on it if I do.

Who exactly told you that Zui Quan was an independent CMA system? NJMauthor (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am tired of repeating myself. --MahaPanta (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All you said was "CMA practitioner" Earlier when I mentioned Shaolin Do, even though I was pointing out something on forms and it was a small segment of my arguement, you brought it up in your reply. Did a Shaolin Do practitioner tell you Drunken Style was an independent CMA style? Because not even the Shaolin Do guys believe that. NJMauthor (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am tired of giving you sources. We have been at this for days. Zui Quan is practiced as a style.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you dodging my question? If you don't prefer to answer, you can at least have the courtesy to say so. NJMauthor (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you want to say that Zui Quan is, in modern days, practiced as a "style" by some, either a new article should be written, or this article should be re-written talking about these mysterious "modern-invented Zui Quan practitioners" and the history of their brand-new art. I seriously doubt these people exist, I'm just saying that even if it's true the article is wrong. NJMauthor (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How should the lead to the article read?

Before you create the article, think about this: You would be talking about a new style, perhaps dubbed "Neo-Zui Quan" that was invented in X location in the 20th or 21st century. If you want to say these people exist, provide proof of their neo-zuiquan style's creation, proliferation, etc. A date when the art was created. What traditional CMA styles the art takes technique from? Can you prove that they do? Who teaches the art? What country did the art develop in? Is it even a CMA art? What is the nature of this recently-created style? Why was the style created? NJMauthor (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Engage the article, instead. How should the article read? Especially the lead. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem: Because Zui Quan is a CMA fight philosophy (as opposed to MahaPanda's "Neo-Zui Quan") it would have to be listed as such. There's a list, similar to the list of martial arts, that is designated for martial arts terminology. However, Xavexgoem, before I make any changes, I want to make sure that they won't simply be reverted by Mahapanda because he doesn't want an article break. Thank you for keeping engaged, xave. NJMauthor (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't promise anyone will revert anything, of course :-)
 * However, it provides focus: someone makes an edit, it gets reverted, and the merit of that particular edit gets focused on, instead of jabbering back and forth while nothing gets done.
 * I can't promise I'll be here for the next cupla days (next cupla hours is about it), but this is the best way to get things done, if anything for the focus it provides, and because we begin to discuss the edits and not the editors. Does this sound agreeable to both of you? So long as we focus on the bits and pieces, and not the entire scope, we can begin constructing a better article. (for starters, take a look at the BRD cycle; some things are different in this case, but it's a good start) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * 1. I don't revert edits unless it's vandalism or it is discuss on the talk page. In this case it was decided to be kept by the Third Opinion.
 * 2. It is not "Neo-Zui Quan", it is reffered to as Modern and Traditional.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Zui Quan as an independent style does not exist. Modern Zui Quan only exists as a form or two in performance Wushu and is not practiced as anything even remotely recognizable as a martial arts style. Yet you say that "some people" practice something called "Zui Quan" as a style, TODAY. Therefore, it is neither Wushu (modern performance) or traditional (a distinct TRADITIONAL chinese martial arts system) It is something else. It is a style that uses the name Zui Quan, that is the only resemblance it has to traditional or performance CMA. There is no historical evidence for Zui Quan existing as a style before all these masters you seem to know that I haven't seen proof of started practicing the style of "Zui Quan" as a CMA system. If you want to provide information about this modern system, show evidence for: This modern style's creation What arts it was based on When/where was it created Who created it Where is it practiced today? And other general information. But it would be in a new, seperate article for your "Zui Quan" style. NJMauthor (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As per Xavexgoem's advice, Tomorrow I will begin editing the article to better reflect accuracy. You are free to either start your own article for that new Zui Quan style, or to debate my points here after I make edits. But you better back what you say up with LOGIC. NJMauthor (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As per Xavexgoem's advice, I split the article into "The Traditional Form" and "The Modern Style". You can address your form, and I'll address my style. This may be bolder, but I think it is a reasonable compormise.--MahaPanta (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be backed up with sources, not logic, and you can't fork it, either. Would it be enough if the idea that it is a style be attributed, and not substantiated through the entire text? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page break
I just want to reach a compromise so we can move on to bettering the article. That link defines forking as "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus.", and that is what NJM wanted when he suggested that I make the "Neo Zui Quan" article. What I am suggesting is that in the same article we can show how some styles use Zui Quan form, and some people practice it as it's own style. I think this would better the article.--MahaPanta (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm shaking this article up, but this article requires major improvements. I know we all want to help this article, and I want to do it by acknowledging and exploring all aspects of this subject. I am trying to go about this in as friendly manor as possible. That is why I suggested the compromise of exploring both aspects of Zui Quan in the same article.--MahaPanta (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta cite your sources, or it's all for naught ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, if I cite my sources, will that mean we've reached a consensus and can move forward with this compromise?--MahaPanta (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *shrug*
 * But we're all held to the same standards. Consensus can be slow-going. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, the term "modern style" when attributed to CMA, means performance Wushu or Sanda/Sanshou. Because your "neo-Zui Quan" style is not this, it would be misleading. NJMauthor (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not "neo-Zui Quan".--MahaPanta (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Modern" zui quan refers to synthesized drunken wushu forms. It is misleading to call your Zui Quan style "modern style". NJMauthor (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahapanda, would you mind putting some information up about the founder of the Zui Quan style as it exists today? I mean the person who founded it within this or the last century. NJMauthor (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahapanda, remember?

"It gets reverted, and the merit of that particular edit gets focused on, instead of jabbering back and forth while nothing gets done." -Xavexgoem

We make edits and then discuss the merits of those edits. Don't blank my edits and THEN discuss. NJMauthor (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * YES but NJM apparently doesn't remember, he got rid of all the edits we made last night, and I reverted back. Now I'm going to put last nights edits back.--MahaPanta (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)