Talk:Wudangquan

Neijia

Neijia is a more broad term used mistakenly in the West as a synonym for the more specific Wǔdāngquán; while neijia encompasses Aikido and Qigong, Wǔdāngquán does not.[11]

Is the term Neijia used in China? is the the defintion given , the chinese or w the western definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.173.247 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Neijia is a Chinese word, so yes, it is used in China. The definition is the Chinese definition. Please click the link and read the Neijia page. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

categorization of Chinese kungfu/martial arts

The page says 'In current-day China, the martial arts are generally classified into two major groups: Wudang (武當拳) and Shaolin.'. This is not the least bit true. Even though nowadays martial arts are named and categorized, unlike before probably one/a few centuries ago, Wudang and Shaolin kungfu styles are just two categories out of many.

To name a few that are unrelated to both, think of styles such as: wing chun, Mongolian crane, fukien white crane, bagua zhang, piqua quan, baji quan, some tai chi styles, and so on.

I am not going to alter this page because the last time I did that, I was accused of 'vandalism'. But please, review my comment above and improve for everyones benefit! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You say that it's not true that Chinese martial arts are split into the two groups; but I have given five literary references to this fact. Where are your facts ?

As to the styles you name: Wing Chun falls under the Shaolin catagory; Mongolian Crane is not Chinese; White Crane is Shaolin; BaGuaZhang is Wudang (yes, it is); piqua is Shaolin, even though some will argue it is "internal" or Wudang; there are actually two branches of Baji Chuan, one is Shaolin and one is truly Wudang; all styles of Tai Chi are Wudang.

And yes, this article is solidly written and referenced, so many vandals have been thwarted here. One such vandal even tried to take out 13 references in one edit. Your comment was posted here on June 13th. Today is June 17th. I will continue to watch out for vandals here forever. Also, notice how a real wikipedia editor signs his posts here: TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Internal"

It might be apparent to those that know, but it certainly won't be to those that don't. If you're going to use the term, define it (rather than using "quotes" and including a link at the end of the article). Bromley86 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new to this realm of martial arts, but there was a page called "Internal Martial Arts" that now redirects to neijia. Many English speaking people call Neijia the internal martial arts. When you learn more about Neijia, you might still call them internal martial arts.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

misguiding headline

i think the topic wudang quan or wudang chuan is misleading. i don t think there is such a style or fighting art, that is called that. in the article there isn t mentioned anything about such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.126.12 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange how you read the article but fail to read any of the references, some of which are online. Please go read them, and then you will think there is such a fighting art and that this is the appropriate name.TommyKirchhoff (talk)

Wrong article name

It's either "Wutang chuan" or "Wudang quan", but not a mix between romanizations. --2.245.110.199 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In years past, I would have argued that Wudang is the most common English usage for this type of boxing, and that chuan was argued ad nauseam on the Tai Chi page. But it seems you are correct, and the Tai Chi page no longer uses chuan. Also, the XingYi page is now using quan. I would support an article name change to Wudang quan.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it. I hope no one objects! --Difference engine (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work. You have considerably more wiki-specific skills than me.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

Following on from this, I have tried to make the spelling consistent, replacing Wade-Giles with pinyin wherever possible, though I've added the Wade-Giles in parentheses the first time taijiquan, xingyiquan and baguazhang are mentioned. I have made martial arts styles lowercase except where the capital letter serves to make it specific (e.g., "Wudang Sword"). In general, I have removed spaces, so that it's "taijiquan", not "tai ji quan" or "taiji quan", as searching books with Ngram shows this is by far the most common form. The exception is the term "Wudang quan" iself, which I have not touched. Some of the personal names seem not to follow the normal conventions, but I'll leave that to the people who added them. Pengliujian (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information

Dear author, i would like to clear up a few things, please do not take this the wrong way, we are all trying to write the right thing here: Wudang Quan encompasses the main 8 "Gates": Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, Baji, Baxian, Xuangong, Liuhe, Jiugong. Taiji is not only a reference to taiji quan. Taiji encompasses Liang Yi (Quick fist forms), Taiji (Quan) and Wuji (which is Qi Gong and meditation) as well as weapon forms. The Term Taiji is often misused and mistranslated. I hope you can add this piece of information where you seem fit.

Source: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=378 and http://www.wdgf.com/ I am a disciple of Grandmaster and Priest Zhong Yun Long.

• • Huang Shi Yue **

Wdsfp (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is the 4th reference on this page. I believe the link to the Tai Chi Chuan page covers what you are asking for. That info is not needed on this page. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"The changes you made to Wudang Quan are egregious mistakes."

Strong words. I was trying to set the record straight regarding the relationship of the Wudang tradition to internal martial arts in general. Your claims seem to be as follows:

1. Most (all?) internal martial arts have their origins in wudangquan
2. Most (all?) internal martial arts are currently classified (by whom? for what purpose) as wudangquan

Let’s start with the first claim. As others have pointed out, the definition of an ‘internal martial art’ is one that is dependent on skill and mental focus rather than strength, and so includes a number of arts such as Aikido and bajiquan that are clearly independent of wudangquan. But leaving that aside, let’s look for now at the origins of the ‘big three’: baguazhang (‘bagua’) xingyiquan (‘xingyi’), and taijiquan (‘taiji’), to see what role if any wudangquan played in their development. And let’s use Wikipedia as a source.

Bagua is the simplest case. Bagua was created by Dong Haichuan in the 19th century. He studied Shaolin-type Northern Longfist in his youth, and other types of martial arts in his travels as a migrant worker. There is no evidence whatsoever that these included wudangquan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baguazhang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong_Haichuan

Xingyi’s origins are not quite as clear. The story has it that it was invented by the great Song dynasty general Yue Fei, based on Northern Shaolin (Yue Fei fought the Jin on the dynasty’s Northern border.) The first person who definitely practiced Xingyi was Ji Longfeng, who was again associated with the Shaolin tradition. There is no evidence that any major figure associated with Xingyi's creation ever studied at Wudang.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xing_Yi_Quan

Taijiquan’s origins lie in the poor Henan farming village of Chenjiagou. The ‘Chen Style’ was first formalized by Chen Wangting (1580-1660) and the Yang Style was derived from it by Yang Luchan (1799-1872). Again, there is no evidence that the Chen family’s martial arts, or Yang Luchan’s, were derived from Wudangquan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_chi

So, in summary, none of China’s big 3 internal martial arts are derived from wudangquan. This is corroborated by the Wikipedia page for Chinese martial arts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_martial_arts), which classifies Chinese martial arts and provides a history of them, without mentioning Wudang even once. It would have been better if Wudang had been included, but only because it is an important style in its own right, not because it is needed as an ‘origin story’ for any other martial art.

Now let’s move on to the second claim – that all internal martial arts are now classified as wudangquan. Before asking the obvious questions (by whom? for what purpose?) let me briefly summarize my own background.

• I have been studying and practicing Chinese internal martial arts for over 40 years.
• I have shelves-full of cups and medals from internal martial arts competitions in the US, Canada, and China.
• I am the author of a very well-regarded book on the principles underlying internal martial arts (‘A Tai Chi Imagery Workbook’).
• I have lived in China for the past eight years, speak the language to an almost bilingual level, and am in constant contact with Chinese martial arts practitioners and teachers of all styles.
• I have studied wudangquan with Ismet Himmet (probably the foremost Western teacher and historian of the Wudang style) and with several excellent Chinese teachers.
• And I am just back from a fact-finding trip to Wudang Mountain with a group of Chinese teachers of the art, where we had in-depth face-to-face discussions with most of the Mountain’s most famous teachers.

Google me if you like (“Martin Mellish” taiji)

I am well aware that what I know from personal experience is not ‘evidence’ by Wikipedia standards. Even so, I would like to know what corresponding experience you have that you believe justifies writing off knowledge acquired over 40 years of study as ‘egregious mistakes’.

Getting back to the questions: ‘Classified by whom?’ ‘For what purpose?’ For everyday purposes, people teaching or studying, say, the Yang 24, Chen Yi Lu, Xingyi, or Yiquan certainly will not say that they are doing wudangquan. If they’ve heard of wudangquan at all, they will say that it is a different art from the one they are studying. Similarly, organizers of competitions and exhibitions in the internal martial arts - certainly in China and I believe in the West as well - will have an official government style section, a Wudang section, a Chen style section, a Yang Style section, a bagua section, etc. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Chen stylists, for example, should be competing in the Wudang section!

Similarly again for the Wudang teachers themselves. On my recent trip I heard the following statements from respected Wudang teachers:

• What Teacher X teaches isn’t wudangquan. It’s just some xingyi he picked up somewhere.
• Before we start teaching Western students wudangquan, we give them a foundation by teaching the Yang 24 form.
• The differences between taiji Chen style and wudangquan are as follows:

These Wudang teachers clearly recognize that wudangquan is one thing, and xingyi, or the 24, or taiji Chen style, is another.

As to the references given for the statement that all internal arts are classified under wudang: they are in Chinese (which means most people can’t check them) but lack Chinese-character titles and page numbers (which means I can’t check them either.) I’m no expert, but I believe they thus fail Wikipedia reference policies. Given a sight of the actual Chinese sentences supposedly making these claims might cause me to give these refs more weight. But only to the point that I might accept that this particular author, for his/her particular purposes, classified these particular martial arts under wudangquan.

One more thing: the Chinese Wikipedia page on neijiaquan zh:内家拳 states, in its penultimate paragraph, that taiji, bagua, and xingyi collectively are the SOURCES of wudangquan, rather than being DERIVED from it. 袁世凱一手建立的新軍把太极拳、形意拳、八卦掌等统称为内家拳，後來出自北洋軍的武術體系，演變成現代武當拳術: yuánshìkǎi yīshǒu jiànlì de xīn jūn bǎ tàijí quán, xíng yì quán, bāguà zhǎng děng tǒngchēng wèi nèi jiā quán, hòulái chūzì běiyáng jūn de wǔshù tǐxì, yǎnbiàn chéng xiàndài wǔdāng quánshù. "Yuan Shikai based the training of his new army on taiji, xingyi, and bagua, collectively called neijiaquan. These later (後來, hòulái) became the fighting arts of the Northern army, and gave rise to modern wudangquan."

Finally: reviewing the talk page for ‘Wudang’ as well as your own talk page, and even the deleted talk page on ‘neijia’, I find I am far from the first person to try to set you straight on some of these issues. It’s been my experience that whenever there’s an omission or error on Wikipedia, it’s not by mistake. It’s because there is someone who, for whatever reason, is prepared to devote more energy to maintaining that error or omission in place, that any better-informed person is to getting rid of it. This particular ‘storm in a teacup’ seems to be a perfect example of that.

ChengduTeacher (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Martin Mellish, aka ChenduTeacher, you continue to ignore the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm sorry to say you seem to have a problem with reading and comprehension. First, when you edit a page the new text goes at the bottom-- not the top. Every edit page directs you to do this. I have moved your tirade to the bottom where it belongs. Next, your tirade starts with, "Your claims seem to be as follows:" I am not making claims. I have done the research and I have written the page in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, especially using credible citations. You should read the whole of what Wikipedia says about credible citations. Next, you list what you believe my claims are, but you are unequivocally incorrect. In fact, if you carefully read the Wudang Quan page you might come to understand that it much more closely resembles something you wrote at the end of your tirade and seem to try to get me to understand: "that taiji, bagua, and xingyi collectively are the SOURCES of wudangquan, rather than being DERIVED from it." Yes, that is the point the page makes. Inserting your opinion in place of a statement backed by five credible literary sources was an egregious mistake. Deleting the references was an egregious mistake. Now all of this rhetoric in your tirade is also a mistake because it is mere conjecture and STILL offers no credible citations. You are simply stating a bunch of conjecture. Trust me when I say that my teacher, Grandmaster Victor ShengLong Fu (the lineage holder of Fu Style Wudang), knows much more about Wudang Quan than you do. I collect the general information from Grandmaster Fu and then do the research; then I write the passages and cite the credible sources (which are not a person). Please do not waste my time with conjecture. Try soberly to convey a point that disputes what is written in the article; show me the credible citations that dispute the article and support your counter point. If you can't do that then please go bother someone else. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Xuanwu Pai

I added a short section on Xuanwu Pai. Others more qualified may care to add to it. Pengliujian (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Liangyiquan

The article states "These masters and the Fu Family are the only two schools that teach a martial art form called LiangYi." This is somewhat misleading since although it is true that the same art practised in, for example, Xuanwu Pai is not called Liangyi (because they call it Taiyi), it is the same style. Pengliujian (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fu Style LiangYi Quan and Taiyi are not the same style. I am a certified master of the former, and I have reviewed TaiYi extensively. TaiYi probably comes from Grandmaster Fu WingFay's visits to Wudang in the 1970s, but TaiYi is not the same. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The problem is with the wording: "the only two schools that teach a martial art form *called* LiangYi" (my emphasis) Taiyi is sometime called Liangyi though as you say, it is not the same art. Pengliujian (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Wudang quan → Wudangquan – Chinese noun phrases of the construction 2 syllables + 1 are always treated as a single word, and written without spaces. source: Yin, Binyong & Felly, Mary (1990), Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation & Orthography, Sinolingua, ISBN 7-80052-148-6, pp. 94-96 SilverStar54 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Support. Per the referenced source,this follows the rules of Hanyu Pinyin for noun construction and so meets the requirements of WP:NCZH, and it meets the requirements of WP:CONSISTENT as well. Jōkepedia (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Bagua/Hsing-i" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bagua/Hsing-i has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 22 § Bagua/Hsing-i until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 06:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)