Talk:Xingyiquan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyprus2k1 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 October 2004 (UTC)

MISCELLANEOUS

Also, pinyin naming conventions render three-character names as Familyname Firstgivencharactersecondgivencharacter rather than Familyname Firstgivencharacter Secondgivencharacter.

I'll consult what Chinese texts I have, to see if I can find the correct characters for the named individuals - then the romanization doesn't matter so much. --Medains 12:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wade-Giles

I have finished formatting the Xingyiquan article from Wade-Giles into Pinyin (redirects included) but related articles (like Taijiquan, Baguazhang, Five Elements, etc.) still need work. Perhaps someone could do this if they have time?

I argue for Pinyin over Wade-Giles because it is the standard method of romanisation taught at all modern Mandarin schools and also within China itself.

No problem with the use of pinyin, though this may cause issues with the names (I don't know the characters for the names of the famous people though, so whether they are presented in pinyin correctly would be difficult to check) -- Medains 09:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The passage about Cao Ji Wu and the nineteenth century suggests that he taught the Dai family in that century - the only date I have for Cao Ji Wu is a tentative birth year of 1665. Perhaps that needs rewording to show that it was Li Luo Neng's (aka Li Neng Ran 1807-1888) fame in the nineteenth century that you're referring to. -- Medains 09:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Lineage and dates are very difficult to check, and though most acknowledge that Ma Yue-Li was the founder of the Henan branch - there might be some disagreement with the claim that Ji Long Feng = Shanxi and Cao Ji Wu = Hebei, without describing another student of Ji Long Feng it would seem odd that there could be a Shanxi branch at all. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter that much - but people can be odd when lineage and style-founders are concerned (That's why I just put names in "famous people" and didn't put any lineages in) -- Medains 09:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be some section about the "8 Tigers", "An Shen Pao" and other famous sequences that don't necessarily fit into the other sections - there was a section on this but it was removed, why? -- Medains 09:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a reply! Ok sure, the Li Luo Neng passage needs rewording and the paragraph about the lineages needs a few qualifying statements. In other places I sacrificed content for the sake of flow. Sorry. 220.236.75.225

Schools vs Styles

Initially I used "Schools" to describe the Shanxi/Hebei/Henan divergence because I didn't want to conflict with "Styles" which was previously used to describe the animal characters (Bear style, Monkey style, etc.)

There is inconsistency among us as to which term should be used...we should resolve this Tarkovsky

Difficult to resolve, but the term "school" and "style" are in common usage - any resolution would have to be argued with the next person to add something; Hebei style also has a number of possible interpretations, some use it to refer to a particular style others for any style that originated in Hebei. The clearest distinction would probably be to separate "family styles" (Song, Dai, Che, Shang etc..) from the more generic style terms (Shanxi, Hebei, Henan), and use schools to refer to actual training groups (such as Mike Patterson's school, or Tim Cartmell's Shenwu school). --Medains 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between "school" and "style" is subtle but important. a school of martial arts is simply that, an independent system of instruction, and to found or be a member of a school does not necessitate an individual style. A style conotates a difference in excution of the art. Therefore, since the difference between Shanxi, Hebei and Hunan Xingyiquan is best described by the difference in form I propose we switch all references to style. VanTucky 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

On dropping "Quan"

Quan is a general Chinese word and can mean "fighting", not specifically "boxing" or "fist". Chinese words are less precise than English words and admit a spectrum of meanings. Therefore, Xingyiquan is still accurate when considering weapons training.

Books on the subject seem to be split equally between using "xingyi" and "xingyiquan", I think it's reasonable to mention that the "quan" is not always used - and the weapons section seemed an appropriate point, so we could use "xingyi jian" instead of "xingyiquan jian" for instance. I'll add some more book references to the page when I get the chance --Medains 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The clearest distinction would probably be to separate "family styles" (Song, Dai, Che, Shang etc..) from the more generic style terms (Shanxi, Hebei, Henan), and use schools to refer to actual training groups (such as Mike Patterson's school, or Tim Cartmell's Shenwu school).

For this reason, I tend to use the terms "branch" and "lineage" more often than "style," and rarely ever "school."

JFD 13:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

On the ambiguity of "ancient Chinese texts"

Under the controversy section. Ambiguious meanings in Chinese characters describes a general problem within translation and linguistics, not a specific controversy within Xingyiquan itself. This deserves removal.

It's not merely a problem of translation - but a xingyi problem in specific. Since if it were a translation issue, you could get a language scholar to help - but the terms that are mostly difficult to translate are terms that refer specifically to fighting arts and have been dropped from language usage. For example, if the term "pommel" in English had fallen from our language - you would have to consult an expert on ancient English weaponry in order to translate the term to another language (and potentially an expert in ancient weaponry in your target language as well). The wider problem of translation is that the behaviour of translators when they come across these terms is inappropriate (but very common). I think it deserves to stay due to the need to explain WHY translations can be so different. --Medains 11:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One example of this (that I've just noticed) it one of the reasons why Beng is described as "crushing", when it doesn't really make sense when describing the technique - I originally added the character 弸 which (according to the oldest Chinese dictionary I have access to, Matthew’s Chinese English Dictionary (1943) ISBN 0674123506) means to hold a bow at full draw - and someone (I can't be bothered to go through all the edits to check who) changed it to 崩 which means to rupture, split apart or collapse (from the online Unihan dictionary http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html - I don't have matthews to hand). Obviously, at some point, a translation has occured in which the double 月 character has been used as a key to find the "best fit" to translate the term - and it is not possible for us to tell at which point that took place and hence we cannot be certain which is "correct", except by experience and relating the meaning to the technique in question. (For the record, I prefer 弸 having experience of both xingyi and archery) This is one of the reasons why I left out the "crushing" and other one word terms and went for the more descriptive term. --Medains 12:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

A final note on the subject of translating fighting texts in particular - see http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_kennedy_0202.htm which lists a number of difficulties for the translator, besides those of basic character identification. --Medains 14:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Until reading this, I have only seen 崩, but I have to agree with Medains that from my experience in xingyiquan, 弸 is more appropriate. -- Qaexl Oct 28, 2006

Some more information on these texts and where the originals could be found would be helpful ----JESUS

Li Luoneng and the Dai family

The section in schools on this topic needs rewording. Currently, it seems to suggest that most xingyi practicioners would claim that Dai Family "style" is their ancestral style - I don't believe that that is the case. From what I have read, it would appear that the Dai Family "style" is that that has developed as a result of xingyi being taught within the family by Dai Long Bang (and descendants), though most practicioners would acknowledge the Dai connection in the lineage. Not sure how to go about rewriting it though. --Medains 07:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Misuse of Wikipedia information

It has come to my attention that information provided on this page has been used by some schools to add credibility to their teaching - though their blantant reproduction of sections of wiki text gives them away. I shall be adding no further information to this article as a result. --195.92.70.130 11:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Guo Yunshen and Baguazhang

It does seems somewhat unlikely that Guo Yunshen ever crossed hands with Dong Haichuan. The story has always been lacking detail and seemed a bit far-fetched to me. However, it is notable that Guo sent his then-student Sun Lutang to go train under Cheng Tinghua after Guo had taught Sun all of his Xingyiquan (See Sun Lutang's Xingyiquan Xue). It seems probable then that the first major contact between Hebei Xingyiquan and Baguazhang was through Cheng and Guo, since it appears that they knew eachother previously. I suppose all that we can know about their comparative skill is that Guo must have thought of Cheng as also being a great fighter. I think that Guo's temperament and attitude was such that if Cheng's skill did not match his own, he would not have sent Sun to him.

It's a common story (from students of both arts, though they disagree about the outcome!) and worth mentioning if only to refute it (as the Frantzis reference does) - the two were alive at the same time, and Guo at least travelled extensively, so it is possible that they met (though I agree that the story is quite far fetched). --195.92.70.130 11:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Xingyiquan vs. Xinyiquan vs. Xinyiliuhequan

Why does this article refer to all of the above as "Xingyiquan?" Xinyiquan and Xinyiliuhequan practitioners wouldn't be too happy about this - practitioners agree that these three styles have the same "root," but the resulting styles are still considered different.

Not to mention, there is also Shaolin Xinyiba, as well as Yiquan, which are also related, but different styles. Edededed 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Xingyiquan" is also known as "Xinyiquan", but not "Xinyiliuhequan" - in what way do you think the article refers to XYLHQ? -- Medains 08:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct Medians. Xinyiquan and Xinyi Liuhe Quan are both used to refer to the Ten Animals Hunan (muslim) style. My teacher and his use this term when formally refering to the style in contrast to others. But the pronunciation if Xinyi and Xingyi (and Hsing Yi as well) are all the same, they are just different romanizations. Google it or check the vids on YouTube if you are not convinced. VanTucky 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also another art that is known as XYLHQ, but this has now been clarified in the text as an alternate name for the Henan branch - so that matter is addressed. Xinyi and Xingyi are not just different romanizations of the same characters, XinYi is "心意" and I have some texts that refer to Ji Long Feng as using this term. Google and Youtube are not really that good as citable sources, and there is an awful lot of incorrect information that can be found that way -- Medains 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the animal styles relatively newer?

From my very flawed understanding of this art, weren't the animal styles later added on by another master? I thought Yue Fei (as legend has it) created the five fists of xingyi but the animal portions where not added until the Qing Dynasty. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

There are also legends that say that the animal routines came before the five elements, as well as legends that say they both predate Yue Fei. Only events from Li Luoneng onwards are well documented. JFD 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JFD, I might just be thinking of how Li Lao Neng (Li Neng Ran) expanded the original 10 animal forms to 12 with the inclusion of the Tou alligator and Tai Bird forms (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 04:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Most schools in the Henan branch (founded by Ma Xueli) has only 10 animals and do not include the five elements - which I take as a piece of evidence for animals predating the elements (my own opinion). As with all martial arts history, each student should gain his own opinion from his experience of the art. -- Medains 10:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Medains is right. Their presence in only in the Shanxi and Hebei styles of Xingyi means that the Five Element Fists are either younger than the split between the Henan and Shanxi-Hebei branches or entered the Shanxi-Hebei curriculum from another source. JFD 04:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible origins?

On a certain martial arts website, one paragraph says:

- "The origins of this most ancient of Chinese systemized combative art forms [Xingyi] are unknown. Yueh attributed a wandering Taoist as his teacher whom had no traceable name. And the history of evolution of the art is sketchy at best, although it certainly does pre-date Yueh’s time frame. Some scholars believe the art should be dated at least as far back as the Liang Dynasty (550 A.D.) which is certainly possible. Likely the myth of creation is attributed to Yueh because it makes for a very nice story. The art is so sophisticated it likely was several generations in evolution to its complete form." [1]

If this statement is true, it shows Xingyi predated Yue Fei himself (just as many on this talk page have stated). (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

We have to take at least one aspect of this account with a grain of salt — Yue Fei's attribution of a "wandering Taoist...with no traceable name" as his teacher — because this sounds exactly like the "wandering master of unknown name" who taught Xingyi to Ma Xueli in the accounts of the Ma family; I've even seen accounts where Ma's teacher is described using the exact words "wandering Taoist". Either that or those wandering Taoists really got around.

Whenever anyone talks about Xingyi predating Yue Fei all the way back to the Liang Dynasty, they're usually talking about Xinyiba, which mimics the movements of animals and human labor, a description that fits Xingyi as well, with its animal routines and Chopping, Crushing, Pounding, Drilling and Crossing fists. (Yes, I know this contradicts what I wrote above about the Five Element Fists postdating the Henan/Shanxi-Hebei split; that said, all branches of Xingyi share the Three Fists Drilling, Wrapping and Stepping Forward.) Xinyiba should have been part of the Shaolin curriculum by the time Zhou Tong (a named non-wandering teacher of Yue Fei) was there.
JFD 07:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Your knowledge of Xingyi-based styles is astounding. Maybe you would like the article I wrote about Zhou Tong (Shaolin Abbot) (he is not to be confused with the "Water-Margin" bandit, Zhou Tong). If you see any mistakes or would like to contribute to it, I would greatly appreciate it if you revised the article. I'm constantly adding new info to it, so it grows bigger each day (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

At the same as we discredit the "wandering Taoist" as a possible source, the same should be said for the Shaolin Temple, which is too often attributed as a source for martial arts generally, though the Chinese most certainly had refined fighting systems well before Boddhidharma. Furthermore, the kind of spear fighting style which is noted as an origin for Xingyiquan would most likely have predated or been developped outside of the shaolin temple, whose monks were more noted for their prowess with staves than with spears. Pierre, 19 October 2006

The always difficult problem of old martial arts - verifiability. There are enough sources that reference Yue Fei as the possible originator and Ji Long Feng as the earliest agreed upon teacher in several lineages to mention both in the article. Claiming Shaolin or "wandering Taoist" origins would need multiple reliable sources IMO. -- Medains 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wuji & Yue jia boxing

I'm sure several of you know about Yue Fei's other boxing style "Yuejiaquan" or Yue Family boxing However, I have come across another boxing style which names Yue Fei as its creator. It is called Wuji Boxing. It sounds very similar to Xingyi. The list of martial styles attributed to Yue Fei is just dizzying. Yue Family boxing does sound like it was created by Yue fei. However, Xingyi, Wuji, and Liu He Ba Fa have strikingly similar techniques but are supposedly different styles. Its hard to believe what Yue Fei created. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

Martial arts are like languages. Spanish and Italian are different languages, but at the same time they're related. So it is with martial arts.

The martial arts attributed to Yue Fei are generally variations on the material that Zhou Tong taught his students, including Yue Fei, which was mostly Fanziquan and Chuojiao.
JFD 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Xingyi Videos

I added links to free online xingyi training videos. All are more or less 60 minutes long (Chinese only). They download very quickly and the quality is okay. However, I couldn't figure out how to activate the links on the main article. The only way to view the videos is to paste the link into your web browser and that's it. Free videos! They are from an online martial arts forum in China. I'm not sure what school of Xingyi they belong to. If someone can figure out a way to activate the links, go right ahead and do it. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

Which school/style do these videos come from? It looks like Shanxi to me, but I can't be sure, since I don't study Shanxi. -- Medains 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what school of Xingyi they belong to.

This is what I originally said in the above paragraph. Sorry, I wish I could be of more help. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 11:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

That's why I didn't indent my question, to see if anyone else could identify them! :) -- Medains 12:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Unless I see less videos than anyone else, the ones linked to from the article are not "xing yi", but "xin yi". The difference is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.221.89 (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to Tai Chi Chuan

The links to Taijiquan have been renamed into W-G form, there is quite a big debate on that pages discussion about the title of the page - however this page uses pinyin almost entirely and it seems odd to use W-G for just one term. Perhaps we can link using [[Tai Chi Chuan|Taijiquan]] instead to maintain the convention. -- Medains 08:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's my bad. The argument behind leaving TCC in W-G is that it's already well-known in the English-speaking world by that transliteration whereas XY and BG are not. JFD 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's a fair reason - worth leaving the discussion here to clarify for later editors ;) -- Medains 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if the main body of an article is in pinyin that for consistency it would be OK to have a word like Taijiquan also in pinyin with a parenthetical (Tai Chi Chuan) or (T'ai Chi Ch'üan) or even (太極拳) after it. --Fire Star 火星 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

San Ti Shi and Styles

Whilst Dai Family doesn't have something that they call "Santishi", they do have "San Yuan Ju Yi" - which is a variation on the alignment principles that underly santishi. I have read that Dai Family practicioners claim that a nephew of DaiLongBang invented santishi. I must re-read my Henan Xingyi book to confirm or deny the santishi in that branch. -- Medains 11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As a practitioner of Henan (muslim) style Xingyi I can confirm that we DO use SanTi extensivley in both the forms and as zhan zhuang. I deleted the inclusion in the SanTi reference. VanTucky 21:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have Henan style Xinyi teachers in North America?
Sweet.
JFD 22:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Kicks

The 'except for a low kick aimed at the shin' implies that it is the only kick in the art. My school includes crotch height kicks used in the dragon and horse forms, and a kick aimed at the shin in swallow is not the same as a kick aimed at heel height in chicken. Not sure whether to just remove this text or rewrite. -- Medains 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Body as a stance

In my school, the described stance is not "dragon body" - it's a forward weighted stance that still maintains the principles of "san ti" though it is not "san ti shi". Dragon body is just one of the six principles of all structures. This section also either needs rewrite citing that X school calls such a stance dragon body and probably moving to a "stances" section, or simple removal. -- Medains 08:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

that dragon body is a principle of structure is what I meant. the description is just muddled, which is why I asked for some clarification. But the articel really needs some more discussion of what Xingyi frame looks like and what the general body requirements are. please feel free to edit of course. VanTucky 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Sickles

I have just added a large number of photos of the "Chicken-Saber Sickle" to my article. These weapons are considered the "special weapon" of Xinyi Liuhe boxing. Thank you to Dr. Stephen Yan and his student Mr. Dyer for supplying me with the photos. Check it out. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 03:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

if by special you mean, used uniquely by xinyi practitioners, yes. if you mean it is the weapon primarily taught to xinyi liuhe quan students, no. VanTucky 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think? Of course I mean used by xingyi people. I just typed what it said in Dr. Yang's book.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

sorry if I offended you, but almost nothing on wikipedia is "of course". you know what happens when we assume...VanTucky 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't offend me. I kind of figured since it was listed among the weapons used by Xingyi practitioners that people would look at it as such. It is my fault.

I also hope to be adding 15 - 20 more pictures to my article. They are of Shaolin Monk Shi De Cheng wielding a variation of the Chicken-Saber. They range from him doing forms to actual applications like guarding from a staff and attacks to the throat, ribs, tops of the legs, and back of the knees! It's pretty neat stuff. I've written "Doc" at russbo.com to see if I can use the rest of them. I don't think he would've minded me using the other ones, as he mentioned them in the letter giving me permission to use the first one. But I don't want to get overzealous and use them when I shouldn't.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

Merge

Someone associated with the Muslim Chinese martial arts article has written a stub about Liu He Quan. Actually the stub is about Xinyi Liu He Quan, they just named it wrong. I wikified the article the other day, per the request, but it does not cover any more material than what is already stated on this page.

1. Support - (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC))
2. Support I'm a practicioner of XYLHQ style myself, and though the name confuses people, its definitely the same art as XingYi. VanTucky 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support I'm not sure about the whole Muslim Chinese martial arts line, the islamic faith has little to do with the martial arts other than the founder of a branch being muslim. -- Medains 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Because there are multiple styles named Liuhequan and because including the material here shows how XYLHQ is connected to other XY styles. JFD 13:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged the pages together. (Ghostexorcist 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Spread

Where has Xingyiquan spread to? Where are it's major centers of practice? Where are it's Head Quarters on Different Continents? Tkjazzer 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no "head centers". As a style it doesn't have any organising bodies, even just for certain styles. VanTucky 23:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

what is Beng Quan

"Guo Yunshen 郭雲深 Listed as student of Li Luoneng. From Hebai province. An important Xingyi legend reports him as having been incarcerated for killing a man, and when confined to a prison cell only being able to practice Beng quan."

Shouldn't Beng quan be linked to another wikipedia article since it is not listed anywhere else in the article? What is Beng quan? Tkjazzer 23:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned. It is the name of one of the five elemental fist techniques. VanTucky 00:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

what is the spelling in the previous mentioning? I cannot find it with the "find" function for "beng" Tkjazzer 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ctrl-F for "Bēng" JFD 00:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Improving Style

I've made some stylistic improvements based on some WP:MOS guidelines (including extending the lead, which was really hard). I thought about chopping out the "In fiction" section entirely, as per discussion and related guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts. But thought that it was worth discussion first. Also, can anyone thinkg of a better title for the wushu and sino-japanese paragraphs than "Modern XYQ" since repeating "XYQ" in a subtitle is poor stylistically. -- Medains 15:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Modern day," "Present day," "20th century"...just throwing these out there.

extending the lead, which was really hard

Isn't it though?

JFD 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Recent history" JFD 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "Controversy" with "Disputed history" for titles, as sections solely focusing on controversy in general and giving simple exposition of two sides of an issue and their arguments refuting each other are being phased out. That's not what that section is, so it's better to rename it to avoid it getting tagged for removal. VanTucky 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for not removing the 'In Fiction' section. It clearly goes against the Martial Arts Project's guidelines. Maintainerzero 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Figures

The reason why we have "famous figures" and not "lineage" is because there is disagreement between sources on the "correct" lineage, and it's not really an article that would benefit from a lineage diagram. This table shouldn't become a lineage in a different format. So I propose a trimming of famous figures.

We've got a whole bunch of famous figures, most of which don't have their own article - and only have listed "Student of X" in the note. These should be cut down to those who a) have their own article, b) are attributed with founding one of the branches or styles, c) founders of other martial arts, d) have a reason for their fame explained in the note or e) have text about them elsewhere in the article.

After editors have had a chance to establish notability of these figures, I shall have a cull. -- Medains 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cull performed - if you want to add one, establish their fame or it adds no value. -- Medains 11:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The information on Sun Lu Tang is wrong. He was formally a disciple of Li Kuiyuan (李魁元) and a long time students of his grand-teacher Guo Yun Shen. Probably Li Cun Yi and Li Kui Yuan got mixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.195.214.63 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Navbox

You'll note that xingyiquan sits in the "striking" focus of the navbox - I propose moving it to the "mixed and varied" section due to the emphasis on weapons. Any objection before I go through with that? -- Medains 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Xingyiquan is absolutely a striking art. Weapons are taught in a secondary fashion just like other arts listed as striking; wing chun, karate, etc. VanTucky 22:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Xingyiquan begins with "striking," but ultimately has extensive training in the sword, saber, staff, spear, deer horn saber, and other exotic weapons; not only that, it includes training in other aspects as well (such as throwing). Karate, taekwondo, boxing, and savate are almost 100% striking arts with no weapons (at all) and no grappling (except for a few exceptions) and thus belong in the Striking category. In fact, baguazhang (which has extensive throwing and many, many weapons), wing chun (which includes training in 2 weapons), and Shaolin kung fu (which includes many, many weapons, 108 joint locks (far more than Aikido), and so on) should all be in the "mixed and varied" section (note that Taijiquan is already in this section). Of these, wing chun may still find a home in the "striking" category, but the others really should be "mixed". Edededed 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew this would happen, see my comments on the WP:MA talk page about the navbox. -- Medains 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As did I, but since we all get along rather well (and I'd like it to stay that way - I very much respect Nate and Scott, as well as you, Medains, even though although you and I disagreed with them about the navbox), so I'd like to encourage everyone to keep an open mind. I believe I remember reading a wikipolicy about not dramatically implementing changes you disagree with just to prove the changes were a bad idea, so for those of us who disagreed with the new navbox, we should try to avoid weighing in too heavily on whether arts should be moved into the "mixed" category.

That being said, it looks to me like at least Xingyiquan, Baguazhang and Shaolin kung fu should probably be moved. But rather than take my comments as a vote for moving, I would prefer everyone reach a decision based on the following two questions.

1. Are the throwing or weapons portions of these arts supplemental to the main training (the way weapons are supplemental in karate, and even completely omitted from some karate curriculae) or
2. are these arts in which you could fairly say that "true mastery or understanding" (whatever that means) cannot be acheived without the practice of the weapons or throwing portions of the curriculum?

Yes to number 1 is a vote against moving, while yes to number 2 is a vote to move to the "mixed" category. For example, in my personal practice, I happen to believe that a study of striking techniques is necessary to truly "master" aikido. On the other hand, I lack the experience to properly evaluate whether the top aikido practitioners who have never studied striking are in any way lacking in their "mastery" of aikido, so I may be dead wrong (ask me again in about 60 years). Also, I'm in the minority on this view, so in any event, aikido should not be moved. On the other hand, their are arts where beginners are exclusively taught strikes, and only once advanced far enough do the students learn weapons or grappling skills. Keep in mind that just because grappling or weapons are not taught until late in one's training doesn't automatically make them supplemental. The "true mysteries" of the art may be contained within those grappling and weapons techniques, and are not revealed to the neophyte. At any rate, that's my piece on the subject - please continue voting "oppose" or "support". Bradford44 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head there, it's my view of the arts as under your "number 2" phrase (at least with respect to weapons) that directs me to put it in "mixed". I would note that as far as striking and grappling, the fighters focus may change during a fight and depending on the animal being used (I find croc to be more throwing and snake and tiger to have more of a grappling focus than 5-element xingyi). Have we managed to persuade you VanTucky? (I'd like to join Bradford44 in noting my respect for the WP:MA team and all the editors of this article in particular - I think it's coming along nicely) -- Medains 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, aikido is less specialized than, say, karate/boxing/taekwondo (only striking), judo (only throwing/grappling), or kendo (only sword fighting). Some styles of aikido include weapon training (jo, sword, etc.) at higher levels; of course, aikido still has a marked preference for joint lock and throwing techniques. To that end, the "clear category" styles would include those examples above; aikido and taekkyon (some throwing, pushing, as well as kicking) would be in the "slightly iffy category" styles instead.  :) 202.246.252.97 06:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not discuss where other arts should be here, since editors of those arts articles may not read this - the current count seems to be supporting : Medains Edededed Bradford44, opposed : VanTucky. Any more for any more?

This discussion appears dead with consensus in favor of moving it - so I'm moving it. However, I'm happy to put it back if anyone wants to discuss further. Bradford44 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Late support added in case the discussion is ever re-opened. Xingyi spear is significant even in the underlying theory of the bare hand techniques. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sun Da Fa

The addition of Sun Da Fa to the Famous Figures list looks like an attempt to promote a certain teacher rather than the adding of an important figure. The only information given is his article (and in what I can find online) is that Sun is supposedly a master of qigong and teches xingyi (along with other arts), but nothing that suggests that he is more important than any of the many other modern-day teachers of these arts, much less the historically important people included in the list. For now I'm deleting this, though I will be following Sun's article to see if any more information is given. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ma xue li

i have not seen, in any other source, the assertion that ma xue li was a muslim. it s a really interesting detail, so i added a citation needed tag to it, because it would be really nice to know where the author read/heard this from. Cleobolus (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wudang Chuan

I would like to substitute Wudang chuan for the Neijia link in the beginning of this article. Wudang is more appropriate for the way the martial arts of China are dichotomized; also, there is another martial arts called "Neijiaquan" that can be confusing. We can add another sentence that describes how XingYiquang is also grouped as Neijia, but that this is a more broad term which includes all of the "internal arts." Does anyone have a problem with this ? I have a good reference from Sun Lu Tang's "Xing Yi Quan Xue." Also, the tai chi chuan pages exhausts the argument of using the Wade-Giles spelling of chuan over quan. I have put a lot of work into the Wudang chuan page, and followed the lead from the tai chi chuan page (in short, this English encyclopedia should make best use of recognizable terms; Wade-Giles is the English translation...) TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on the Wudang chuan talk page, perhaps we should link the the external/internal chinese MA page instead - allowing the reader to discover the details of such terms a piece at a time (going to external/internal for a light treatment, neijia for a deeper understanding and wudang for the final layer of info as a possible scenario). A reader having to follow from here to wudang to neijia to external/internal seems to be the wrong way around. -- Medains (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)