| Revision as of 21:39, 16 September 2009 editHuanglow (talk | contribs)10 editsm moved Talk:Tien Shan Pai to Talk:Huangs Domain: Huang is GOD← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:11, 17 September 2009 edit undoJunzi (talk | contribs)301 editsm moved Talk:Huangs Domain to Talk:Tien Shan Pai over redirectNext edit → |
| (No difference) | |
Revision as of 00:11, 17 September 2009
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Martial arts C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
There is clearly jockeying going on here that has to do more with personalities and political positions, rather than with verifiable facts concerning the legacy and history of Tien Shan Pai. Blanking out "discussion" is not an answer, however well intended. Check out, where available, the websites of the current TSP generation of Modern Practitioners: Grandmasters Huang, Lin, Lin and Liu. Get ALL of their points of view, before you post something that is either "heresay" or self-serving. Talk with the "modern practitioner" Grandmasters personally. All of these men all still alive, and have phone numbers, and/or web addresses through which you can contact them. If what gets posted here, in Misplaced Pages, is biased, then this entry page informs of nothing, and serves no one.
Blanking of this page was intended to remove slander - Junzi
Agreed. Slander has no business here.
It is confusing to me how one can claim to be a grandmaster of a style without having been the disciple of the previous grandmaster of that style. -Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that Huang is the ONLY person with the skill, knowledge and credentials to consider himself a Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai? I don’t think so!
Also, where is it written that a Martial Arts Master can only take one disciple? Many Masters (GM Huang included) have several “disciples.” I assume this is to recognize their instructors who show exceptional ability in, and devotion to their art.
We know that in the early days of Tien Shan Pai, (in Taiwan,) Wang Jyue Jen initiated his disciples in private ceremonies… not in public forums. We also know is that one such private ceremony was done for Willy Lin and his training partner, Tsong Chung Chen. We know this because Lin references this event on his website.
Was such a ceremony performed for either C.C. Liu, Tony Lin, or any of the other senior Masters in Taiwan before Lin and Chen? Don’t know. You would have to ask them.
What we do know (once again from Lin’s website) is that after the ceremony, and for the next eight years, Lin alone assisted Wang, and taught for Wang in Wang’s Lei Sheng Wu Yuan”, or “Thunder Sound Martial Arts Garden” school in Taiwan. As a result and at that time, Lin was regarded by his classmates, his junior classmates (those he taught,) and by his senior classmates, as Wang’s most senior instructor and disciple.
By virtue of this private ceremony, Chen would also be considered a disciple of Wang Jyue Jen… even though Chen never spoke of it publicly, never taught for Wang, and never followed any kind of public career as a Martial Artist.
It should be noted that, in Wang’s traditional school, becoming a “disciple” was not like becoming an Eagle Scout. There was no fixed quantity of “curriculum” that had to be learned, no exalted “belt” level that had to be achieved. In fact, there was no belt system at all in Wang’s school. You were either a student, or you were the Master.
“Discipleship” was more about Wang opening a door to allow his chosen access to the Master’s advanced knowledge. How deeply any disciple chose to take advantage of this opportunity was up to that disciple, and the time he had to devote to Martial Art.
I do not intend my statements to in any way diminish the accomplishments of any of Master Wang's students. However, the issue is actually specifically one of credentials, and even more specifically of those that can only be given by Master Wang. As such, I would respectfully request that Willy Lin present some evidence other than his words that he is a disciple of Master Wang. Huang has done so by providing photographic evidence of calligraphy in Master Wang's hand writing.
Additionally, a distinction should be made between being a disciple and being lineage holder of a style. While a lineage holder may have many disciples, generally only one of those disciples will go on to inherit the title of lineage holder, especially in traditional schools. The regard of classmates, junior or senior, is not relevant to the passing of the title of lineage holder. Huang has asserted that he is the only person to possess any tangible proof of his claim to the title of lineage holder, but of course such claims would have to be re-examined in the face of additional evidence. -Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
____________________________________
I accept that you have a strong predisposition to support GM Huang and his positions. Whether this is because you are one of his disciples, his student, or GM Huang, himself, I don’t know… nor do I care. You’re entitled to believe, support and follow whomever you wish. In the same way, GM Huang is free to post whatever he feels appropriate about himself on either his own website… or on those other websites which he controls because they are all connected under the umbrella of his organization (www.tienshanpai.org, , www.twksf.org, www.usksf.org, www.kuoshu.co.uk, etc.)
It feels like you are trying to turn the Tien Shan Pai page in Misplaced Pages into Huang’s exclusive domain. Most of the reference “footnotes” on this Misplaced Pages page can be traced back to Huang’s organization. Huang’s websites are not objective. They are his! Tien Shan Pai is larger than just GM Huang alone.
No one doubts Huang has a paper that says he is a disciple. The problem is, there are other disciples out there, too. Men in Taiwan who were told they were Wang’s disciples… and this was years before Huang even came on the scene.
Once someone is a person’s child, he is always that person’s child. Once someone is a person’s disciple, he is always that person’s disciple… no matter how inconvenient that may be for his fellow disciples.
In Lin’s 1976 book, TIEN SHAN PAI KUNG FU, Lin identifies himself as Wang’s disciple. He dedicates this volume to Wang. If Lin was not Wang’s disciple, you don’t think Wang would have taken exception to such a public statement? Obviously Wang did not because the same statement appears in both of Lin’s subsequent Chin-Na books (published in 1981 and 1984.)
Tien Shan Pai has been through too many generations, and through too many Sifus who studied under Wang and/or his disciples for any one person to try to appropriate it for himself. If Huang wants to be known as a “disciple & lineage holder” of Tien Shan Pai let him. Just know that there are many people (both practitioners and disciples) out there who DON’T accept he’s the ONLY one.
The controversy here is well known and well documented. Wang certainly had many disciples, that is not in dispute. I apologize if my statements imply otherwise, I did not intend for them to. Rather the controversy is manifold, involving, but not limited to, Huang's possibly exclusive claim to the title of grandmaster, statements made by Willy Lin's students regarding the origin of the style, the stylistic makeup of Tien Shan Pai, the extent (and origin) of the claim of many generations of the style, and so on. Most of the discussion regarding these fundamental questions has involved more personal attack and vituperation than actual exchange of knowledge.
Perhaps, rather than arguing over the placement of words and so forth, it would be simpler to re-organize the article somewhat so that the controversy can be laid plain for anyone who cares to read about it. Both sides have their points, and it would be quite simple to find examples of what both sides have to say about this from the Rotten Tomatoes forum discussion, as well as from articles and letters from the Inside Kungfu magazine. Anyone who actually cares enough to read some obscure article on wiki ought to have a careful analysis of the debate presented to them, as most of the discussion presented online is the posturing of people who have little or no actual knowledge regarding the intricacies of the situation. - Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
I appreciate your candor and thoughtful contributions to this discussion. I agree with you. The Tien Shan Pai page in Misplaced Pages should be re-organized. I would suggest, however, that the re-organization be done by those Grandmasters (both in the US and in Taiwan) who knew and studied under Wang … not by their students, or their student’s students.
I am aware of the Rotten Tomatoes discussion, and while I believe this forum originated as a good faith gesture, it does seem to have degenerated into a free-for-all filled with unseemly and inappropriate personal attacks.
I propose to approach Master Dennis Brown, who has been involved with Tien Shan Pai since 1971. Yes, he is GM Lin’s disciple, but he is also someone who was there at the beginning of “Tien Shan Pai” in the US. He is someone who has had professional and ongoing relationships with all of the Tien Shan Pai GMs in the US. He also had personal interactions with Wang, Jyue Jen, himself, when Wang was alive.
I will suggest that Master Brown be helpful in requesting the various Tien Shan Pai GMs to submit their own recollections of experiences in order to compile a complete and inclusive history of this Martial Art discipline.
Followers of Tien Shan Pai, as well as those who are just curious, deserve clarification from the men who were there regarding the fundamental questions that have been raised regarding lineage, generations and history which are currently “in dispute.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.150.157 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder wy this is not being followed? "include (alphabetically) Chien-Liang Huang, Tony Lin, Willy Lin, and Chao Chi Liu." If this is in "alphabetical order why Chien-Liang Huang is first? I can see there is a push from this teacher's followers to have him as the first on everything. User talk:Tianshanwarrior Dec 30 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.8 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Huang is the family name of Chien-Liang Huang, Lin is the family name of Tony and Willy Lin, and Liu is the family name of Chao Chi Liu. Thus, they are listed in order by family name as alphabetical orderings of individuals are supposed to be performed according to the wikipedia style guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Master Dennis Brown can not be considered an unbiased source for the suggested quality control of this article. His most recent website claims that he is the inheritor of the grandmaster title from Willy Lin, and as such he has attached his fortunes to one side of this discussion. So, his opinions and recollections on the matter cannot be considered unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
"Opinions and recollections" are always one person's point of view. How disingenuous to say that what Master Brown, (who lived through the era and had personal contact with all the principles involved in this "generational dispute") puts on his website should be discounted! Shame on you! Huang can say what he likes, Brown can say what he likes. BUT... the fact that there were about 100 witnesses to the photographed "ceremony" (during which Grandmaster Lin formally re-created an event which had taken place almost forty years earlier), and that this ceremony was reported in the Martial Arts magazines at the time... it seems to me to qualify Master Brown's statement not as "claim," but as "fact." Furthermore, why can't Master Brown "inherit the Grandmaster Title" from his own Tien Shan Pai Master, Willy Lin? (Willy Lin was assistant to, head instructor for, and disciple of Wang Jyue Jen long before Huang ever claimed this last distinction.) No one is suggesting that Huang can't have his own disciples. But why do you insist on this need to discredit Tien Shan Pai’s lineage as it is being passed through all of Wang Jyue Jen's legitimate disciples?
You are misunderstanding my comment. Dennis Brown's claim as lineage holder should be evaluated in the same light as any other claimant to that title. I am not stating that his claim is less or more valid than any other claim. Only that his claim to that title presents an apparent bias to any vetting that he might do for this article, as one might presuppose that his own claim to the title of lineage holder might be somewhat threatened by the claims of others. As such, his status as an apparent unbiased individual who was present for many of the events from decades past is readily called into question.
Indeed you make my point for me quite clearly. Dennis Brown could "inherit the grandmaster title" from his master, if his master had such a claim on the lineage to pass down. The point of the contraversy, and the need for an unbiased arbiter is apparent because the claim of individuals to the title of lineage holder, and thus grandmaster in a traditional system, has been called into question repeatedly by both sides of the conflict. Thus, by stating that he is the "robe and bowl inheritor", Dennis Brown has clearly delineated his position in this matter, and cannot be considered to be an unbiased arbiter for the purposes of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Huang Chien-Liang (then known as Huang Wei Her and sometimes Huang Wei Hoo) had only trained as a Tai Chi student with Wang Jyue Jen back in Taiwan. He learned most of his Tien Shan Pai Kung Fu from Tony Lin and other classmates in Taiwan. Once he came to the US, he learned TSP Kung Fu from Dennis Brown, and (once again) Tony Lin. He was also trained, to a lesser extent, by Willy Lin. Huang came to the US because he was being sponsored by Willy Lin. Lin needed someone he could train as an instructor for his Lin Kung Fu School, and he needed someone who spoke English. Huang spoke English, and was a friend of Lin's brother, Tony. When Huang first arrived to work for Lin, Huang did not have enough knowledge of the complete Tien Shan Pai system to support anyone's suggestion that he came to this country to "promote it."
Interestingly, this account is at odds with statements made by Huang himself, and others who were around at the time. Granted that the accounts may be considered somewhat biased due to current loyalties, but there is an equal onus of potential bias to be shared by those who would like to claim that Huang learned all his kung fu from them. At this point, it would be appropriate to produce a secondary source to verify this claim, or to produce some physical evidence to back up the claims made.
Huang has proudly displayed physical evidence demonstrating Wang's confidence in his abilities since before this controversy ever blew up. I have not observed any physical evidence from Willy Lin, Dennis Brown, or any others. Please direct me to it if it is available. Junzi (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
How can there be any meaningful discussion when it seems that only one person (Junzi) keeps "editing" everything back to reflect only Huang's point of view? There was no controversy until Huang started claiming the Tien Shan Pai lineage for himself,(as the ONLY discple of Tien Shan Pai.) Wang's other disciples (not just Willy Lin) have taken issue with this. There is a photo of their signed testimonial paper that affirms they were not only Wang's disciples, but Wang's disciples many years prior to Huang's ever coming on the scene. (see footnote 8 of the article page.)
Huang's NOW ability, or achievements (since he opened his own school) are not being challenged. What is being challenged is his desire to create a self-serving history (as it relates to his own place in Tien Shan Pai PRIOR to leaving his instructor's job at the Lin Kung Fu School.) Junzi's statements are entirely based either Huang's claims, or on the claims of "others who were around at the time." WHO WERE THESE OTHERS? I suspect they do NOT go back to Huang's Lin Kung Fu Years. All I see on Huang's website is "evidence" that dates from the 1980s. Seems to me that Huang is the one who needs to substantiate his position with hard evidence (post 1981.) It also seems that Junzi needs to be in touch with either Willy Lin, Tony Lin or Dennis Brown... and to approach these men with an "open mind." These men are all the "primary sources" who were truly "around" for the beginning of Tien Shan Pai in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.203.185 (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the blame falls on me for returning the language of the article to what I perceive to be greater neutrality. Were I to actually edit the article in a "Huang only" direction there would be no mention of Willy Lin, and no discussion of a variety of topics that have been raised. Additionally, while a piece of physical evidence, such as Wang's calligraphy is one thing, wikipedia actually maintains a policy which is opposed to the use of primary sources, such as Willy Lin's page on his view of the truth of tien shan pai. I believe that it would be within my responsiblities as an editor to remove that link, but I feel that it furthers the discussion, and simply placed it in a place that seems more in line with a neutral toned article.
You want to talk to me about being biased, yet your usage of edits has been disparaging yourself. You place the name Tien Shan Pai Association in quotes and surround it with words indicating that you do not believe that it is valid. This is an acceptable viewpoint, but is not in line with a neutrally toned article. I will note that as an editor who does not know much about Willy Lin I have largely avoided those sections of this article. Do you know Huang? Have you approached him to get his point of view with an open mind?
I am not attempting to attack anyone else with edits, only to retain neutrality on the article while maintaining everyone's point of view. I am not perfect in this regard. But, I believe we all have a lot of careful self examination to undergo before we start spouting off about who is right and who is wrong.
I was simply pointing out that with a relative lack of physical evidence to back up the claims made by Willy Lin, Dennis Brown, et al. I find myself in a position where their "primary source" accounts seem lacking from the perspective of a verifiable claim. If you can point me to any physical evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to examine it and to link it to the article.
Similarly, while I requested a clear and verifiable explanation of how the content we are currently editing is of any interest to the article, I have yet to receive an adequate response. Therefore, I will be returning the article to its prior form.
It is not the place/purpose of wikipedia to take a side in an argument, and I attempt as best I can to maintain that neutrality in all my edits. Junzi (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I was performing some searches recently, and stumbled across these webpages. I would like to link them to the wiki article in the Founding Legend section as they indicate the presence of at least one, potentially as many as three, temples on the shores of the Tianchi. This would provide some circumstantial evidence for the Founding Legend, but I am having trouble figuring out how to fit the verbiage in.
Links: http://scenery.cultural-china.com/en/109Scenery119.html http://www.worldisround.com/articles/319014/photo15.html http://jason.aminus3.com/image/2008-11-19.html http://www.silkroadcn.com/urumqi-tour-kazak-guide.htm
Perhaps I should remove the section discussing the relative size of the Tien Shan mountain range, and replace it with this? Or remove the whole section on the controversy surrounding the founding legend and simply place some citations as to the temple being possibly located near the lake but no one knows for certain. Thoughts? Junzi (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
In answer to Junzi's earlier question: yes, I knew all of the "principles" in this controversy (including Huang) back in the 1970s. So I guess that makes me a primary source (of sorts) and one not to be trusted by Misplaced Pages because my eyewitness accounts haven't been published by any "secondary source." I did not come to this article as "biased," but out of a sense of nostalgia, as someone who had enjoyed training in this system back in the day.
The only reason I have contributed to this discussion is because it seems to have turned into a "platform" for trying to prove or disprove an unprovable "Founding Legend." As Junzi said in his Mar 24 Article Page Edit Explaination: "The legend is just that, and while its details/veracity are in question, disproving a statement is much harder than proving one. It is a legend, let's go light on details." In general, I agree with this... with one exception: just because we agree that a legend exists doesn't mean that it is, of necessity, either true or valid.
It seems that Huang's followers will always attempt to give credence (through this legend) to their belief in the 64 or 65 generations of Tien Shan Pai. In the same way, Wang's older Taiwanese disciples will always maintain that their system began in the 1940s with their own teacher. Each disciple can say what he wants. He will anyway. But isn't it the responsibility of each person reading this (and interested) to do their own research (including contacting the still-living principles to hear what they have to say) and to make their minds up for themselves? It's not up to an "article by consensus" (on Misplaced Pages) to convince anyone of anything. Unfortunately, too many will accept as Gospel anything that appears in print... whether on line or on paper... and feel free to "paste" it and spread it.
Where is the hard data to support any pre-1940s exiastence of Tien Shan Pai? If Red Cloud and his temple did exist some 65 generations ago, there should be some record, some trace, some "footprint" of him or this system as it moved from the mountains in far northwestern China to the island of Taiwan. If this record doesn't exist in the records or lore of the Xinjiang countryside, then at least it should be found through the contacts this system had with other martial art communities as it made its way eastward (over how many hundreds of years?) This record (or reference) is the specific evidence we all want to see... not more references and discussions relating to generalizations about the Tien Shan Mountain range. The fact that so much emphasis has been placed on verifying what is legendary only calls into question the intention of the person (or people) who so doggedly are following this line of inquiry (before there is something historically verifyable...in terms of common academic practice... to report.
Tien Shan Pai is a good system because it works, it has produced champions, and it has a following all over the world in the present time. That's why it's worthy of being included in Misplaced Pages, and for no other reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.203.185 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The references provided do not attempt to prove or disprove the legend. Really, we discuss a "founding legend" as simply a story. However, Willy Lin has repeatedly claimed to have visited the area and not found any temples. The links provided call that claim into some question, though of course Tianchi is a very large lake and he may simply have missed the Taoist monastery located just on the edge of the water.
Either way, I would like some advice as to the kind of wording you would think best in integrating these references into the founding legend section of the article. I do not wish to make specific strong claims that these are the temples. I am simply seeking to point out that the histories that Wang claimed are not beyond the realm of reason as had been previously implied.Junzi (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to agree that this is a "legend" we're discussing. I would like to ask you about your use of the word "claim" (as in "Willy Lin has repeatedly claimed to have visited the area and not found any temples." Lin has three photos posted on his website (under the Sky Mountain link at the end of his "The Truth About Tien Shan Pai" article.) The photos are from 1985, and show Lin with some Xinjiang Wu Shu Association members, and also of himself traveling by donkey, and then standing in front of a yurt while on his journey to find evidence of Red Cloud's temple. This is not a "claim", this is the kind of hard evidence you keep calling for. (Unless you're suggesting Lin is making all this up, and that he never went to Sky Mountain?)
So to what links are you referring? Surely not reference footnote 4 (on the article page.) This reference takes us to a peakbagger.com page which talks about all of the major mountains in the Tien Shan range. Sky Mountain is not mentioned anywhere on their list. Why footnote something that disproves what you're hoping to establish? Footnote #3 takes us to a page from the World Wildlife Organization which is a general description of the ecosystem of the entire Tien Shan Mountain range. Why is this relevant when trying to shed light on alternate possible locations for the illusive "Sky Mountain?"
Furthermore: Under the "sources" section, one link goes to Huang's website, the other to Lin's. Fine. Under the "external links" section, the first three links go to two different organizations (The Tien Shan Pai Association and the Chinese Gwo-Shu Institute, UK) both of which are part of Huang's network (check out the Executive Board link on the UK website). The Tien Shan Pai Association website seems to function as an alternate (yet not very transparant website) for Hunag's school website (The US Kuoshu Academy.) The last two external links go to Lin's one and only website.
As for the footnote section: The first two footnotes refer to a book which can not be located in any store, or on line. Perhaps it was self-published, and only available through Huang's school? Footnote 3 & 4 have already been discussed. Footnote 5, 6 & 7 all link to Huang's website but with no dates, clarifying captions to the pictures, or translations of the material offered. Footnote 8 links to Lin's recent statement... dated and signed.
The reason I keep monitoring this discussion is because I hope true impartiality can be established within this article going forward. That means that, if people want to question either Huang or Lin or their motives, they should be encouraged to contact them individually through each's website. Tien Shan Pai deserves better than what it has gotten on Misplaced Pages thus far. It deserves an impartial accounting of itself in an article that people can rely on.
I am not disputing Willy Lin's travels to the Tian Shan Mountain (Probably more accurately translated as Heavenly or Celestial Mountain, it contains Bogda Peak and Tian Chi the Heavenly Lake). I presume that he did in fact travel there. It is the rest of his statements, where he says that he found no trace of any temples around the lake, and that when he asked Wang about this Wang did not reply that I find difficult.
The problem with this is that I have, in fact, found evidence of temples in the area purely through internet searches. Here are some links to pages that talk about a Taoist temple, or a set of temples around Tianchi
Links: http://scenery.cultural-china.com/en/109Scenery119.html http://www.worldisround.com/articles/319014/photo15.html http://jason.aminus3.com/image/2008-11-19.html http://www.silkroadcn.com/urumqi-tour-kazak-guide.htm
I feel that if we are to include the interaction of Willy Lin with his teacher in regards to the founding legend and his search for the style's origin, we should also, as a matter of public record, include unaffiliated sources that clearly point to the presence of a temple or several temples around Tianchi. Junzi (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There are many temples and/or temple ruins (both Buddhist and Taoist) in the Tien Shan Mountain range. But until you can come up with verifyable data that specifically connects one of these temples to the Martial Art system of Tien Shan Pai, they remain just that: ancient temples and ruins. Great pictures, though. Always fun to see nice views of far away places.
Junzi, you seem to have set yourself up as the unofficial moderator for this article and for its discussion. I say this because of the 50 "edits" on the articles page, more than half of them are attributed to you. It's only fair to ask about your connection, if any, to Tien Shan Pai. How did you come to have such interest in this system, (and in this article?) Why is it so important to you to convince Misplaced Pages readers that what's been agreed to as "legend" is "history?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.203.185 (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth.
I am not and have not ever claimed to be the "unofficial moderator for this article". Misplaced Pages is an open source encyclopedia that anyone can edit, thus who I am is largely irrelevant.
I am not trying to claim that the founding legend is historical. If you remember from a previous edit to this discussion page I specifically stated "we discuss a "founding legend" as simply a story. However, Willy Lin has repeatedly claimed to have visited the area and not found any temples." I am simply pointing out that Willy Lin is not entirely correct in his assertion that there are no temples in the area as he claims on his own website "Their conclusion, after doing research, was that there was no Temple on Sky Mountain..." This raises some questions as the local shepherds, to whom Willy Lin refers, had apparently never seen the old Taoist monastery on the shores of the Heavenly Lake that I have linked to above.
Speaking of the website. I find it troubling. You claim that you "did not come to this article as "biased," but out of a sense of nostalgia, as someone who had enjoyed training in this system back in the day." And that you are only here because I am somehow trying to prove the legend is historical (please see above point for that topic of discussion). Yet you posted the entire content of one of Willy Lin's webpages into the wikipedia discussion of this article. I will grant that you have probably not closely examined Misplaced Pages's policies on the use of primary sources, but this certain appears to be a blatant act of promotion. Links to outside references (in both cases) aside, I have not seen any direct posting of Huang's verbiage to this site. And what little was here when I took interest in the article has been editted so thoroughly as to no longer have the same meaning.
Loyalties and allegiances aside, let me be absolutely clear. I am attempting to make this article as clear and unbiased as possible. My early edits may have been somewhat lacking in specific information, but I have attempted as time has gone on to gain a more complete perspective on the topic. I believe that my most recent edits reflect this more complete viewpoint, and is thus consistent with wikipedia's overall goals in regards to neutral point of view and the like. Junzi (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is evidence that confirms what Mr. Lin wrote about the origins of the TSP. First we need to look at what has been said in some of Mr. Huang websites.
1. "Tien Shan Pai has long been popular in Xinjiang (新疆), Gansu (甘蜀) and other western provinces; however, it was not well known in eastern China and Taiwan until Wang Chueh-Jen taught there." I personaly interviewed professor Ma Mingda who is one if not the most influencial scholar on the history of Chinese martial arts, he had never heard of such style. His family is responsible for the organization and expansion of the Central Guoshu Academy in the 1930. They opened brances of the academy in the western provinces. Moreover, other martial arts scholar, Mr. Stanley Henning who also went to the western provinces on research trips, interviewed a martial arts scholar who has written a book about the martial traditions of the region and TSP is not mentioned anywhere.
2. "The Zhong Yang Kuo Shu Guan was established in 1928. My teacher, Wang Chueh Jen, was in the professor-research class, the 1st annual class. He trained to be a teacher, but since this was the first class, they also helped design the programs later used for all successive classes. He brought Tien Shan Pai to the East Coast . Later, he brought Tien Shan Pai to Taiwan". In the book Zhongyang Guoshu Guan published in China, there is a lot of information about the teachers of the Academy in Nanjing as well as many of the famous graduates and the name of Mr. Wang Chueh Jen is no where to be found. If he was the so called Double Sword King of China or a member of those who created the curriculum of the academy his name is never mentioned. He was a 17 year old which makes him a junior at the Academy, so to say that he was part of the creators of the curriculum is a bit far fetched. If this was the case he should have been mentioned somewhere in the above mentioned book as well as some mentioned of TSP, but it is not.
3. The existance or not of a temple means nothing in this discussion, legends in many cases are nothing but bluff. Fabrications for those who have some to gain by presenting a system as something ancient, with a long tradition. Lets stop using this argument that serves no one, we are in XXI century and no in the stone age. (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.19.64.5 (talk)
You raise some interesting points.
1) The quoted text from Mr. Huang's site is, I believe from context, supposed to be a paraphrasing of Wang Chueh-Jen's own statements on recent history of the style. While one might claim that Wang is engaging in promotion regarding his style (though one wonders why he wouldn't want to be known as the founder of a successful fighting style), it is unlikely that Ma Mingda would know more about Wang's own style than Wang did. This point carries to other scholars who are attempting to research Chinese martial arts in China, particularly post-Cultural Revolution.
2) There may well be a lot of information about the teachers of the academy in Nanjing, but as you have previously pointed out, there were many branch schools all over China. Indeed on Huang's site "The members of this first class - the so-called Professor-Research class - would then take this curriculum and teach it in the other provinces at regional Kuoshu academies in China." So, while there may be no mention of him in the one book about one school, that is hardly conclusive evidence of Wang's lack of attendance in the first class.
3) The only reason that I keep going back to the legend is that this was a part of the article that has seen repeated edits, and is apparently quite disputed. Obviously it's a legend, and as such to prove or disprove is beyond the realm of likelihood. However, on Willy Lin's site, he talks about trying to substantiate the legend, and finding a dearth of evidence. Specifically that he found not temples in the region. I only bring up these assertions as I have not visited the region, but still found mention of prominent temples that he should not have missed while visiting there. This raises a variety of questions, but if you'd prefer to drop the subject, then I would only ask that the Founding Legend section of the wiki article be left alone for the present.
Certainly, the allegations raised by your points are worth discussing in detail, but I am worried this discussion is losing focus on how this relates to the overall wiki article, which is what this page is for. There is, unfortunately, more disagreement than agreement about Tien Shan Pai, so perhaps we can focus a bit on what to do about the article rather than hashing out the same tired arguments from forum sites? Junzi (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Junzi, I can see that you are bend on defending claims that appear in Mr. Huang web site, which makes wonder about your real motivations for it. Ma Mingda's father and uncle were responsible in the creation of not only the structure but also the curriculum of the Academy, they were friends of the Academy's director Zhang Zhijiang, Tang Hao and many others. Wang's name is no where to be found, if he was indeed responsible in any meaningful way in the creation of the curriculum as stated in Mr. Huang's web site then where is his name? If Wang was in the first class at the Nanjing Academy which was the first one in China, why there is no mentioned of him? Also don’t forget that the Academy researched many of the styles of the time in order to include them as part of the curriculum.
Also you avoided to comment that there is no mention of Tien Shan Pai by other scholars who have been researching the martial traditions of the western provinces. How come Tien Shan Pai a "very popular" style in western China is no where to be found? I see now that you want to perpetuate what has been written in Mr. Huang website, maybe if you acknowledge that any of my points are valid that will means that the whole thing will start to crumble.
“This result is somewhat puzzling, as the Taoist monastery on located on the shores of Tianchi is well known. Of course, Tianchi is a large lake, and it is possible that Willy Lin did not visit the correct side of the lake. Further it should be noted, as above, that this story is a legend, and any historical connection would be tenuous at best” The above mentioned paragraph is an excuse to generate doubts and to support somewhat that the legend has some true in it. Weather there was a temple or not is not important, especially since the style being discussed has never been heard of in China.
Scholarly research is more reliable for the simple reason that is has to pass scrutiny by peers, include reliable sources and the like; legends and personal claims do not. This article is just paraphrasing Mr. Huang claims; wikipedia clearly states that only reliable sources like scholarly works and the like can be used. Hence I will include what I have been found out in a section at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.8 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet the legends of the origin of other martial arts are included on the webpages of other martial arts. Wiki editors for those pages seem to think that simply stating that a thing is a founding legend, and then leaving it at that remains sufficient. Perhaps we could remove everything in the founding legend section after "For this reason, Wang would imply that Hong Yun Zu Shi, (as the first to teach the monks martial artistry to the outside world,) was to be regarded as the founder of that system upon which Wang’s own curriculum was based." And leave the readers of wiki to decide for themselves.
My comment on your statements regarding the apparent lack of evidence (perhaps you could cite a source? I would love to see it) regarding Wang's presence in the first class is only that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And my comment regarding the lack of scholarly findings of martial arts practice of Tien Shan Pai in Western China was actually fairly clear. Many martial artists may have stopped practicing and the art may have died during the cultural revolution in that part of China. The practice of traditional martial arts was strongly discouraged during that period in China's history and much may have been lost. Again. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Considering that this article originally drew on verbiage from Huang's website, it is no surprise that the wiki article retains a lot of that verbiage. Perhaps we can now discuss what you would like to do about this? Junzi (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This talk page is quickly turning into a discussion forum. That is not the intent of a wiki talk page. Could we all please re-read the Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines before contributing? Thanks. Junzi (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Some comments
Hi, to start with, I know essentially nothing about Chinese martial arts. I'm looking over this article, and it's clear that there's been some contention over lineage issues - which in any martial art, as in my own discipline of Reiki, which is often seen as a Japanese art, are often contentious at best. It does occur to me that the evidence produced by Willy Lin for his claim to be a disciple is essentially dependent on our trusting his word on his own lineage (which he, of course, has a vested interest in proving. If this is in fact the case, the article should possibly observe that fact (or, perhaps better, simply note that there is no independent corroboration from fellow disciples or others).
I also worry about this section of the article, which appears to contradict itself within a few sentences:
During the his second visit to Urumqi, Willy Lin spoke with the local Wushu Association and they never heard of a style named Tien Shan Pai. They affirmed they could find no trace of the Temple, or the style, either in recorded documents or in local lore. The Association presented Lin with elderly shepherds from the region who vouched that their families had tended flocks on, not only Heavenly Mountain, but on its neighboring mountains for generations. They had never heard of or seen the remains of any temple on Heavenly Mountain, or of Tien Shan Pai.
This result is somewhat puzzling, as the Taoist monastery on located on the shores of Tianchi is well known. Of course, Tianchi is a large lake, and it is possible that Willy Lin did not visit the correct side of the lake. Further it should be noted, as above, that this story is a legend, and any historical connection would be tenuous at best.
The NPOV policy has a section about attributing biased statements which editors may want to look over.
This certainly isn't what I'd call major contention at this point, but I think it's important for all involved to be careful about preventing that pattern from occurring. -- Pakaran 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"This result is somewhat puzzling, as the Taoist monastery on located on the shores of Tianchi is well known. Of course, Tianchi is a large lake, and it is possible that Willy Lin did not visit the correct side of the lake." The above paragraph is clearly included to defend the possibility of the existance of such martial monastery. Hence the contradiction. There is no mentioned of TSP in the area, See Stanley Hennnig's "Visiting Tianshui city: A look into martial culture on China's northern silk route" JAMA vol. 17 n.4 2008. Also during an interview to professor Ma Mingda he had never heard of such Tian Shan Pai style, eventhough he is the most recognized CMA scholar with a direct transmission of the workings of the Guoshu academy from his father and uncle who not only helped in its creation but also were teachers of the Guoshu academy, A Lifetime Dedicated to Martial Traditions: An Interview with Professor Ma Mingda by William Acevedo, M.Eng., Mei Cheung, B.A., and Brenda Hood, Ph.D. Mind that the search and discover movement in China has found several un heard of martial system an example is the Keizi staff in the western provinces. Also QU, W.; HUANG, S. & SHU, S. (1996). Zhongyang Guoshuguan Shi [The history of the central guoshu academy). Anhui: Huang Shan Publishing House, which includes biograpies of not only the teachers but also famous graduates of the Academy. In this source there is no mention of TSP and/or Mr. Wang the so called "Double Swords King of China". Finally the same book describes the routines and curriculum taught to the students and many of TSP routines are from the Guoshu guan, which makes one to wonder, why if TSP is so complete Mr. Wang would included Chu Ji Quan, Zhong Ji Quan, Ma JIan Hong, Xingyi Taichi Chuan, Baguazhang, Shuai Jiao, Chin Na, San Cai Jiang, Lian Bu Chuan (aka Long Quan), Bajiquan, weapons such as: spear, staff, saber, staright sword, Miao Dao and others were also taught at Nanjin. One has to be totally blind to not see what has been already discuss in other posts, TSP never existed before Mr. Wang. User:TianshanwarriorUser talk:PTianshanwarrior 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.19.64.5 (talk)
I feel I should point out that the current verbiage
This result is somewhat puzzling, as the Taoist monastery on located on the shores of Tianchi is well known. Of course, Tianchi is a large lake, and it is possible that Willy Lin did not visit the correct side of the lake. Further it should be noted, as above, that this story is a legend, and any historical connection would be tenuous at best.
replaced prior verbiage that said the following:
It is always possible that the original temple may have been located in another part of the Tien Shan Mountain range. It is also possible that there is more than one lake bearing the same name as the one outside of Urumqi. Without an archaeological team assembled for the express purpose of finding the purported ancient Temple, however, this question of the location of a temple may never be answered definitively. Part of the reason for this is that the Tien Shan Mountain range is about the size of the state of Nevada. The mountain range also extends into Kazakhstan, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan . It is also possible that there was never such a Temple and that the Tien Shan Pai system did not originated in the area. However, many of Wang's students who were senior to Lin have repeatedly affirmed that Wang always spoke of the temple as being located in Xiangjiang province, and of the style originating in that region.
However since the new verbiage is mine allow me to explain my reasons for putting it up.
I had taken on faith the statements made by Willy Lin regarding his trips to XinJiang, that there were no temples at Sky Lake, and that there was no living recollection of Tien Shan Pai in that region. But, upon determining the name of the lake in Chinese (Tianchi) and performing a google search, I was able to locate photographic evidence of just such a temple.
I am not asserting that this is the monastery that Tien Shan Pai originated from, nor am I asserting that the founding legend is historical. I am, however, concerned at this refutation of Willy Lin's account of his trips to the region. I would have expected him to report that the temples that were there had no martial tradition (or the like), but instead he stated that there are no temples when we now know that there are.
I asked the other editors of this page what to do about this, and if they would be willing to suggest verbiage. Unfortunately, no helpful suggestions were forthcoming, so I put up the verbiage as it is now in an attempt to allow all sides to have a hearing. If someone has a helpful suggestion, or thinks they can improve on that verbiage in a way that is stable and agreeable to all parties, I would be happy to see it. Junzi (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does Junzi keep editing out comments from contributors who cite unbiased avaiable published data to make their points, and then leave in data from his preferred "J. Miller source" which does not appear to be available through any normal book buying outlet? I searched "Miller J, Huang Chien-Liang: Builder of Character & Champions, © 1955" on Google, and then on Amazon, both as a book title and through an author search. I turned up nothing. Is it possible this book is self-published? If so, who is J. Miller and what, if any, is his relationship to Huang whose cause he so clearly champions? ----
When have I edited out comments from contributors who cited data to make their points?
The citations that I have provided to Mr. Miller's book have to do with the fact that the verbiage cited originates with his writing. It has been essentially duplicated in several sources, not the least of which was Inside Kungfu, but the verbiage originates with that publication. You may further note that the only sections that contain information from Mr. Miller's book have to do with Tien Shan Pai's characteristics and the providing of some historical context. I have provided no citations, and no verbiage for that matter, from that book under the section Modern Practitioners.
Amazon is not (though it might like to think it is) the only distribution center for books, particularly books aimed at a niche market. And at the time this verbiage was inserted into the wiki article it was quite popular on the websites of practitioners of Tien Shan Pai no matter their lineage. As such, it seems reasonable that a citation to the original source is provided.
As I have avoided using Mr Miller's book to talk about Huang (the title of the book being a clear tribute to Huang and his teachings), I am unclear how their relationship is relevant to this discussion. Junzi (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
J Millers Identity
After a search, I discovered J Miller is Jonathon Pett Miller one of Huangs disciples. He is also the writer of the "Inside Kung-Fu" magazine article responsible for the start of the "Rotten Tomatoes" war regarding Huang. I think everyone needs to be transparent. Kayedubbe (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Current status of GM Huang
I heard that G.M. Huang plans to retire to Taiwan to head up TSP on a global level and Joe Dunphy will head up and run TSP from the U.S.-I just want to know "HOW SOON?" Quailhollow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
While I understand how this comment might obliquely relate to the content of this article. It does not seem to further the discussion on how to improve the article in a noticeable way. Please elaborate or this Wikichatter will be removed. Junzi (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
-
I am sorry if I leaked this news early. My son has told me this twice now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quailhollow (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Junkie when can we meet for a thorough discussion about gungfu? Oh, you can also invite your boyfriend Miller to cum along. You will not need your knee pads either.
Huanglow (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Huanglow (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Categories: