Talk:Monkey Kung Fu

message: I propose merging Monkey style kung fu into this article - these seem to be two and the same thing. Google searches: "monkey style kung fu" (1,640 results) and "monkey kung fu" (53,000 results). --Lox (t,c) 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Monkey style kung fu]] 

message: Also, the article states: "Drunken style kung fu actually evolved out of the drunken monkey variation." I checked the Drunken Fist Origins and there is five mythological stories of the origin mentioned, but none of them mention Monkey Style as a possible one... --Mista-X 05:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eh there are like 50 billion origin stories...there are actually two for monkey that i know of. one has to do with some guy in prison watching monkeys and the other says it was created by the same dude who invented praying mantis kung fu. most of the styles have questionable back stories at best so its not surprising, and not really provable or disprovable. --147.26.232.92 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that "there are like 50 billion origin stories" should give you a clue about the unreliability of it. I have sited my source in Drunken Monkey (Leung Ting) at least. If you have at least one source that say's Drunken Fist came out of Drunken Monkey (and you even go as far to say that all "Drunken" variations did), then please, by all means cite your source. --Mista-X 01:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ur confused, i'm not even saying thats any of them is right. i'm just saying it's pretty hard to prove where the stuff came from. for christ sake shaolin kung fu is over 1500 years old, reliable stories from that far back are hard to come by is all i'm saying. more so u said urself 5 MYTHOLOGICAL backstories. most of em are just that, myth. i'm providing one theory of possible legitamate evolutions i've heard, as opposed to over-romantized stories. for example the concept of drunken monkey may have come from a book (like myth says) but i doubt the techniques were pulled out of thin air, the monks of shaolin didn't just suddenly have an ephiphany and come up with all the moves in a style in 5 min. they obviously came from somewhere, and i doubt the techniques were included in that story.--147.26.232.92 03:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Christian so I don't care about the sake of Christ; but archiological evidence suggests many of the Shaolin styles may have Indian origins, and the animal styles are similiar. Whatever your myth is, back it up with a source. This is not very complex, simply cite what you write. If you can't do so then your contribution is not worth much. --Mista-X 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so the animal styles are simliar but me suggesting that one led to another is completely ridiculous? and your the one self-admitatedly spreading myth as true origins. do u even think before u write or do u just drift in and out. i have various sources not one in particular, and i've heard at least 20 different evolutions of what came out of what...and thats just for monkey. so you can add 5 potential stories, but i can't add one alternative that isn't an over-romantized myth? you want a source...same guys as above and the various masters i've met through the years.--147.26.232.92 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  147.26.232.92, what is your problem? Do you not understand how wikipedia works? Either cite the source IN THE ARTICLE, a source that people CAN ACTUALLY VERIFY, not HEARSAY, i.e. someone from an anonymous I.P. who say's they heard master such and such say this or that is not reputable. Understand? --Mista-X 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  what is your problem? i've already told you all this stuff...i've pointed out at least twice already that i didn't cite it in the first place because it isn't a citeable source. the only reason i even brought it up in the first place is cuz someone asked where it came from. more so hearsay is a legal issue dealing with evidence being usable in court, it has nothing to do with citablity of a source. more so eyewitness accounts can be used as evidence, interviews can be used as evidence, even conversations are evidence...none of which are verifiable or citable, but no less valid. and i'm not anonymous i'm just too lazy to log in i have a user name Grimjaw. --71.145.182.13 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of [[Drunken Fist]]? 

message: Whoever wrote this article didn't do much fact finding.
*Liu Kang: Other than the fact that the article mentions Liu Kang studied "animal styles", there is no mention of Monkey Style and it notes his primary as Jun Fan
I believe I have heard Liu Kang trained in many forms of nothren Chinese martial arts, and this probably includes monkey, but as far as Mortal Kombat goes, Noob Saibot is the only one that actually applied the style in game, and loosly at that.
*"Drunken Monkey" (the Movie): Do we have any reason to believe that this movie even exists? It is quit possible, but there is no mention of who starred in it, or anything. For all we know who ever wrote that simply made that up.
oops, I wrote the above but forgot to sign --Mista-X 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the movie is referring to this: Chui ma lau. --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe you are right Marudubshinki. Here is a link to the actual movie page in this wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Monkey_%282002_film%29 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.131.187.127 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More inaccuracies? 

message: If anyone has a source or reference to show that this Mortal Combat character had anything to do with Monkey Kung-fu, please cite it.
: u've clearly never played deception, as i do monkey i'm the first to point out little to nothing he actually does in deception is an actual move in monkey kung fu, but they call it monkey. --147.26.232.92 23:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked you for a source, that's all. I checked the wiki article and their is no mention of this. Just because a move or another might appear like monkey to some guy from IP 147.26.232.92 doesn't mean it is and certainly isn't worth putting it as fact in an encylopedia. --Mista-X 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yet again ur confused. i said the moves DIDN'T look like monkey. the reason it is listed as monkey in this article and it was in the noob article when i looked WAAAAAAYYYY back, is because the game lists the styles in the corner, and most charcters have 2. as noob and smoke are a team fighters each fighter has one style. when u hit the switch style button it switches characters. so when noob is out in the corner where the style is listed it says "monkey". you want a source how bout the game itself, play it for 2 seconds and you'll see monkey in the corner when u fight as or against noob.--147.26.232.92 03:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, you appear to be correct about this one. I did actually read the whole article on Noob Saibot but must have not read the profile on the right-hand side for some reason.  --Mista-X 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for someone so concerned about validity and sources u really can't talk. you never even played the game yet you are qualified to argue about an aspect of it? see i've never played MK: shaolin monks, so if you told me somethin like noob does drunken in it...i'd just take your word for it cuz i'm not qualified to argue. see i was always told if you don't know what ur talking about, shut up. i love how throughout our arguments you are a valid source yourself, despite not playing the game or doing the art in question, yet i am not when i've done both. u said ur not christian...why should i believe that, can u prove it...no. i just take ur fricking word for it cuz i assume u have better things to do than pretend to be an atheist. u should have a little more faith in humanity. --71.145.182.13 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually could prove I'm not a christian, as I have written letters about ahteism and such that are available online. That's besides the point. No, I don't do Kung-Fu but I do martial arts and study them. I am interested this article because I was studying the style out of interest, I'm simply trying to help keep this article accurate, well you want to make it POV. I'll I have asked of you is to cite something and you won't do it. Names, places, something... but no. Well, fine... go ahead and mess the article up. Why should anyone ever take wiki seriously, right? --Mista-X 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good grief, to respond to the comment above, play the games for starters, that way you have a valid arguement because right now you're digging yourself a hole of innacuracy and stupidity, to answer about Noob saibot, It seems to me he seems to perform genuine monkey, but I do agree, most in game moves don't appear to be monkey, but, watch his ending sequence in Mortal KombatArmageddon. You want to keep the article accurate? That's all fine and good, but if you don't understand what you're talking about and more than 5 people seem to agree on something you have little knowledge about, it's most likely true. Don't search too hard for problems, because eventually you'll have to make one up to sound like the hero you wanted to be, saving the article from propaganda I know, I like praise for fixing stuff too, but I do it when it's needed, and that's what gives me good reputations across the net.  --Severen 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Noob Saibot]] 

message: This article had a great start but needed some cleanup and some sources citations. 
*I rearranged the layout a bit, adding the 'Origins' section for the historical info on this style. MArcane
*Moved the info on the different monkey sub-groups to a 'Techniques' section.MArcane
*Did some copy editing and rewording to remove weasel words and try to push a bit more towards NPOV.MArcane 05:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Cleanup

message: To the individual that keeps adding the link to his personal website under external links, I have removed this inappropriate link for third time. Wikipedia guidelines state that "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority [are to be avoided]." MArcane 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added warnings to the talk pages of two IPs.~--Mista-X 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, thanks. Here's hoping the individual sees your message.MArcane 04:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops...spoke too soon. Just removed the offending link yet again.MArcane 04:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: This page desperately needs some photos. Maybe if someone (ahem) knows a high-ranked practitioner, they could get a picture of him doing some meaningful stances or forms and release the image to the public domain for upload to wiki per their fair use policies. That would be helpful on two counts...we could show some pertinent pictures, and we could talk about a known expert. Just a thought.MArcane 05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ahem) I could put up a picture of a very young Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung standing beside a seated Sigung Kan Tak Hoi - but I got it off The Net and being new to the wiki, am not sure about the Fair Use issues etc, so I will need some guidance - Debon 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (ahem) I could also put up an image from the article in Kung Fu Magazine, in fact there are other images that I could use as well. - Debon 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping for some action shots, or something that gives the reader an idea of what the style looks like. I thought maybe you could take some shots yourself, if you have a camera, since those are easiest to use on wikipedia as far as rights are concerned. They are VERY strict about photo rights here, so not sure we'd be able to post something from Kung Fu magazine. It's the same reason we can't pull images from websites and such.MArcane 04:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I plan to visit Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung this summer along with my 13yr old son Kareem who also specializes in Monkey Boxing, I will take some pictures then and will certainly get a copy of the family tree at that time. Bear in mind also that great great grandmaster Kau Sze, Sigung Kan Tak Hoi, and the other elders have long since passed away and all that remain are very old pictures, some taken during the 1920s and 1930's and only available in books. Am not sure how the wiki feels about using such images, failing that we may have to stick to text and whatever images persons such as myself and others may be able to take. There are also some other issues that I need to finalize before I start editing and as you already know, Monkey Boxing is very dear to me, so I will keep very close to the main article. CHEERS!!! - Debon 11:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think very old images are public domain, and thus not a problem. Here's the policy page on images Wikipedia:Image use policy.MArcane 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included a new section in the main articled called Additional Information in which I have tried to give an impression of what a monkey form looks like at a  tournament. I have also included two images of my son as personal/own work to show what it looks like. Here hoping I won't get flamed for doing so. - Debon 15:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. I moved that section higher in the article, since it seemed like it belonged before the trivia items like movie references and so forth. The External Links and See Also sections should really be at the end of the article. I also formatted the photo to imbed it in the article and give it a caption.MArcane 23:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the help bro, by the way I also did an article on Grandmaster Chan Sau Chung, I see where it needs to be wikified, please I need your help as am not in touch with all the terms and their meanings as yet. I am currently working on an article on Kau Sze (the founder of Tai Shing Kung Fu - hope to have it ready by this upcoming weekend or very soon thereafter. - Debon 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Although both Tai Shing Pek Kwar and Houquan are "monkey kung fu," perhaps they should be separated, as they do not share the same histories, practitioners, or techniques.  I personally would move Tai Shing Pek Kwar to another article - any opinions?  Edededed 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that until there is so much information on both forms that the article becomes cumbersome, we should leave all info on this page. As you say, both are 'monkey kung fu.' Perhaps even when the information on the page becomes excessive, they should both be moved to separate style pages and linked from this page. Until we are spoiled for information, however, my vote would be to keep it simple. The article is short enough as it is, and is not technically inaccurate. MArcane 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I am trying to say is that, in actuality, Houquan and Tai Shing Pek Kwar are unrelated styles that developed independently of each other (according to their histories); as such the only thing that relates them is that they both imitate monkeys (which in English some people generally call "monkey kung fu" - although to be exact, "Pek Kwar" = Pigua, so only the Tai Shing part is monkey).  Sort of like convergent evolution, I guess?  Anyway, right now, the article is short, but Tai Shing Pek Kwar information is far greater than Houquan (or other monkey style) information, so the article does seem unbalanced.  Edededed 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tai Shing Pek Kwar - move to new article? 

message: Sentences that have things like "We note with respect..." are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, so someone needs to clean that sort of thing up. Please leave the tag until this is done. --Mista-X 21:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone tag 

message: A tag has been added advising that the section on Tai Shing Pek Kwar was in dispute and that I should check the talk page to see what specifically was causing the dispute, however I am unable to find it here, Can the person who added the tag kindly provide some specifics about this dispute? - Debon 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad for not putting something in here, edit summery covered it though, it was turning into an attack on the style not a description. Think you've fixed most of it though. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes for my part article still needs cleaning up but not big POV flags. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Neutrality/Dispute 

message: As usual many thanks for your comments Mista-X. I have removed what I think was causing the problem and have taken the liberty of removing the tag. Can you kindly take a look again. CHEERS!!! 
With this in mind can the Neutrality/Dispute tag be now removed? Debon 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement 

message: So... anyway, I took a look at some Chinese pages (like this - seems to be an official HK Tai shing pek kwar site: http://www.hktspkalumni.com/start1.htm) and there are only five monkey forms (not six), i.e. stone monkey (石猴拳), crafty monkey (企猴拳), wooden monkey (木猴拳), lost monkey (迷猴拳), and drunken monkey (醉猴拳).  There seems to be no "tall monkey" at all...
Also note that Tai Shing = Tai Sheng = Da Sheng, and so on...  These are just different English (mis?)spellings of the same Chinese (大聖) (although sometimes Cantonese, sometimes Mandarin) and thus there should be some merging of these.  In the same sense, pek kwar = pigua, and piguaquan is not exactly a monkey style (it just happens to be taught alongside Tai Shing), so perhaps the piguaquan blurb should be merged with the piguaquan article?  For example, piguaquan is also often taught alongside bajiquan, but piguaquan history is not included in the latter article.
Finally, Tei Tong = ditangquan also, so that should be changed as well...
Edededed (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Five Monkeys?

message: The opening sentence of the history section reads: "Hou Quan (猴拳), literally Monkey Fist, can be traced back to the Han dynasty and is recorded in the Mi Hou Wu dance performed at the Emperor's court." The information is cited by an article taken from Kung Fu Magazine. Despite being a long time subscriber of the magazine and a member of its online forum, I don't think The cited article is a valid source as it doesn't provide any sources of its own. I would like to see some type of corroborating source written by, perhaps, a martial historian. All of the sources I have been able to find are just simple mirrors of the wikipedia page or the article (take this for example). If such a supporting statement can't be found in a week or so, I'm going to erase it from the page. This is an encyclopedia after all. We should be holding sources to a higher standard. 
I would like to point out the first entry about "Shaolin Kungfu" on the Kung Fu Magazine article is incorrect. Historians have disproven Bodhidharma created Shaolin martial arts. This casts a shadow of doubt on the rest of the material presented on the article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised, I have removed the information mentioned above due to insufficient sourcing. If any editor disagrees with this move, please find a verifiable source and mention it here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey fist history