Talk:Chinese martial arts/Archive 1

message: Please see Talk:Wushu for some new thoughts on this matter.
- Wintran 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging of [[wushu]], [[kung fu]] and [[Chinese martial arts]] articles

message: Alright, I've finally taken some time to post my rewritten articles on Chinese martial arts, wushu and gungfu, even though I can say that they are not finished in any way; I will need much help to correct and expand them. At least you will now see my idea of how we can sort these articles better. I'm sure not all of you will agree to the changes, and I'm only glad if this can start a serious discussion.
- Wintran 00:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First version

message: Wingchun is not a external style martial art. It is internal. It focuses on sticking and sensitivity. The short range blocks are based on efficiency and directness.
-> Well, it may be internal or it may be not, but in general most do not consider it so, and so it has been left out.  (Usually, only Taijiquan, Baguazhang, and Xingyiquan are considered "internal"; on the other hand almost every style says that it is internal, too.)
Edededed 04:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error found 

message: Please post some comments about the categorization of wushu articles at Talk:Wushu. Shawnc 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  "Kung Fu" is much more widely considered to be the defining English term for "Chinese Martial Arts".  Wushu, in it's primary form, is an exhibition sport derrived from Chinese martial arts and in-line with the Chinese Communist Party that "brothers do not fight brothers".  --Phrost 15:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wushu categorization

message: Someone has written:
Researchers regard this claim with considerable skepticism, since historical record and modern archaeology report earlier sources for some techniques and schools dating as far back as 5000 B.C.
The development of Chinese writing occurred during the Shang dynasty (traditionally, 1766 BCE-1123 BCE, and the Oracle bone texts we have from that date are generally very brief and utilitarian. Our text claims to have support for the rather abitious conclusions, but I doubt any textual justification could possibly be given and will wait for any archaeological justification.  We must have citations for extraordinary claims of this kind. P0M 08:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited conclusion 

message: The reference to "... a relatively well known New York Chinese kung-fu master who killed a man (although with a firearm) in some quarrel and went to prison ..."
needs a date and also clarification: who had the firearm? the kung-fu, or the now-dead?
--Markhu 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited "New York Chinese kung-fu master who killed a man" 

message: "As stated earlier, the Kung Fu that is practiced today developed over the centuries...." -- except, it wasn't stated earlier.  And what's this about "accurate historical data relating to their inventors"? Not encyclopedic unless it's backed up. PenguiN42 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text needs to be refactored 

message: I am wondering if this article should be put under semi-protection or something. It seems to be getting lots of vandal edits and reverts. Anyone has any opinion? --mh 09:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say the quantity is high enough.  There have been about 4 such edits in the last week, not what you would call a problem we can't keep up with. Mangojuicetalk 14:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Protect 

message: I think it should be included in this article ranking/grading systems. As far as I know, Chinese martial arts do not use colored belts to denote ranks. What is used is naming system based on a 'family', for example, Shifu (martial father/master), Shige (elder martial borther), Shijie (elder martial sister), Shigong (martial gandfather) and so on, and their Cantonese and possibly Min Nan variations. Seniority is based on when the member joined the school/sect/family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redshift489 (talk • contribs) 
:Be bold. Xiner (talk, email) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very useful info, too, Patrick0Moran, but I don't think what Redshift489 is suggesting has to violate that. Chinese kung-fu movies/stories always refer to teachers/brothers/sisters, and I think it reflects what both of you talked about - an issue that's not readily apparent to those unfamiliar with the topic. Xiner (talk, email) 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My school uses the Temple button or badge system to denote level of attainment in the curriculum. DashaKat 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank 

message: But I have 5 years of bad experiences with Internet communities, so I rather communicate with people from eye to eye than by glassviber connection. The things I've posted about martial arts are commonly known throughout China, Taiwan & Japan, you know I am sorry for starting this editing war. But I just want peace, so I am willing to defend the peace. 
That is the motive behind my actions.
Phalanxpursos
(Internet communities are not the right place for someone like me, judging by 5 years of experience I've had too few positive experiences regarding this issue.)
:We hope you decide to stay, your experience with martial arts would be gladly accepted in contributing to Wikipedia. However, as others and myself have reminded you, all users are bound by the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. If you don't feel you can abide by them, then it may be best to refrain from editing. But polite disputes and discussions over content are what creates the consensus of conflicting opinions that makes Wikipedia a reliable and noteworthy encylcopedic resource. Having conflicts is part of what makes Wikipedia what it is, and you should not feel it's necessary to leave entirely just to avoid conflict. VanTucky 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks a lot pal. 

message: Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment