Misplaced Pages

Talk:Origins of Asian martial arts: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:22, 4 January 2007 editFreedom skies (talk | contribs)4,714 edits →Sources← Previous edit Revision as of 18:58, 4 January 2007 edit undoFreedom skies (talk | contribs)4,714 edits →This article's SourcesNext edit →
Line 316: Line 316:
'''+''' '''+'''


Tang Hao - Tang Hao -


Stanley Hennig - A pariah among the Western Taijiquan community Stanley Hennig - A pariah among the Western Taijiquan community

'''+'''

The AfD on the ] article, which is full overly malicious language, and misrepresentation of sources, can wait for now. It's not an issue '''yet'''. So calm down.
'''And''' '''And'''

Revision as of 18:58, 4 January 2007

WikiProject iconIndia Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMartial arts Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Archive
List of archived discussions

Request for Comment: NPOV tag for current article

Conversation by editors to date

Conflicting theories deserve to be mentioned as such. NPOV tag or not. Freedom skies| talk  05:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? I was always under the impression that WP:NPOV requires that conflicting theories deserve to be presented with objectivity. Labeling an opposing viewpoing "revisionist" simply b/c you disagree violates the principles of wiki. Either rewrite the opposing viewpoints section or keep the NPOV tag on. Djma12 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. This is not a view and counter view case. This is a case where all of these researchers tried to disprove a traditionally endorsed version and arrived at different conclusions thereby harming their own cause. Conflicts do not arise in the traditional manner here but a manner of different results for the same subject. The attempt has not met with sucsess presumably due to the conflicts in the various researches and is written as such. Freedom skies| talk  19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Come now. If no coherent argumentation exists against this article's claim, why does another well-cited wiki article on the same topic exist to disprove this article? I am reapplying NPOV and applying for arbitration. Djma12 20:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome arbitration.
JFD 21:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've got it backwards. This article exists to disprove the other one as the majority held POV was overshadowed by an overwhelming minority. They also corrupted the Yi Jin Jing article. Freedom skies| talk  20:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, any opinion that has enough support to generate another well-cited article should not be considered "an overhwhelming minority." Djma12 20:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well cited? Kindly compare the individuals involved numerically and the authority they weild in the other article with his one. Freedom skies| talk  20:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
With respect, that is not your sole decision to make. Djma12 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Not Quite. If you're telling me that the Discovery channel, martial arts institutions, martial artists, historians and the Shaolin are disputed by half a dozen people who have yet to come up with coherent theories then common sense dictates that I doubt your argument. Freedom skies| talk  21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I living in a ditch, or were these citations conveniently overlooked in your assertion of "half a dozen people ... (without) coherent theories." Djma12 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, half these the citations on THIS page are to sources of poor authenticity -- since when did a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu dojo become a spokesman for the history of Shaolin?
Check again on the ditch. Check those citations and come up with the names of the authors. Compare their numbers and significant contributions to martial arts history to the ones here. The BJJ dojos are additional (not primary) references meant to demonstrate the extent of the penetration of the point of view. Gracie Barra, International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation, Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu hold more credibility in martial arts then any of those men combined. The extent of this POV is such that it has additionally been accepted in such prestigious institutions. Freedom skies| talk  21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
We're obvious not getting anywhere with this conversation. I'll await 3rd party input. Djma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You should. Maybe they'll take your disrearding of grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit's citation by "since when did a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu dojo become a spokesman for the history of Shaolin?" seriously. Freedom skies| talk  22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Proposed Merger with Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

  • Incidentally, I feel that the second article would make an excellent "Opposing Viewpoints" section for this article. It would streamline both articles while helping with POV. Djma12 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Justifying the NPOV of this article with the NPOV of another article is hardly a sound rationale. As for joining the two articles -- yes that may be difficult, but BOTH articles as they stand are merely soapboxes for various pet theories and and subject to deletion per WP:NOT.Djma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, not quite. The article you're trying to have this one merged with started off as a POV fork. This one was formed later to balance it. This article deals with seperate issues. Batuo, Similarities, Bodhidharma's origins in detail are not covered by the other article. When the content differs then how would you use the other article to present an opposing POV is something you'll have to explain. If two soapboxes exist then both should get deleted. The case here is different though. Freedom skies| talk  23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider:-

  • The article provides an internal links to Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection.
  • The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not mention the conflicts within the theories. The conflict is only mentioned in this article of all the places. Additionally, the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not have the slightest mention of Mesopotamian, Greek and Egyptian influences, the similarities between the arts, Establishment of the Shaolin under Batuo, The views from the martial arts community and media. The article deiregards the views from the Shaolin and established martial artists.
  • The "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" is well cited.
  • The opposing POV is covered in detail in the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. This is in addition of another article the Yi Jin Jing. The two mentioned articles cover only one POV in detail while disregarding the other POV.

Let the reader be privy to both the POVs in all their strength streched across three articles. The " Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article" is full of grossly POV words like "Lay historians" (this is not a decision for anyone to make who's lay and who's not).

The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article is balanced by the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article. Removing both would remove the two prominent POVs since they both suffer from the same flaws and strengths.

The two articles should remain. Both POVs must be represented in all it's strength.

Best wishes for the coming new year, by the way.

Freedom skies| talk  13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I urge any and all prospective arbitrators to

  1. Verify sources - Does the text of the article accurately represent the source cited for that text?
  2. Assess the credibility of the sources cited according to Misplaced Pages's standards for reliable sources - Was the cited material published in a peer-reviewed journal, by a university press or other academic source?

Thank you.
JFD 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also urge prospective arbitrartors to assess

  1. Whether the treatment of differing viewpoints satisfies WP:NPOV.
  2. Whether there is a high content of weasel words within the article.
  3. Whether this article is a candidate for deletion per WP:NOT#SOAPDjma12 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also:-

  1. Check citations.
  2. Compare the content in this article and the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and see if you can come up with enough related topics to merge. The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article does not cover Batuo, Similarities, views of the martial arts community etc.

Freedom skies| talk  23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow the page freedom skies created has 82 citations (I've even cross-checked some of them) which puts it in FA class (at least in # of citations). Arbitrators? Are you guys insane? They will reject this case at the snap of a finger. Its merely a petty 3RR, with muted racial overtones. Its not even religious warfare (all at the table besides me are Buddhist I think) you actually think ArbCom's gonna waste their breath? If arbcom was for petty disputes like this, wiki would have shut down by now.Bakaman 04:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be premature at this point to raise the issue of a merger, but I nonetheless think that the involvement of an arbitrator would be very, very valuable.

Somehow the page freedom skies created has 82 citations (I've even cross-checked some of them) which puts it in FA class (at least in # of citations).

Quantity is in no way a substitute for quality.
JFD 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Quantity is in no way a substitute for quality.

You seem to have this mistaken the article for the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. This is not the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article talk page yet.

Quality of citations in this article:-

I emphatically give my consent on bringing more such citations on request.

Compare the citations with the The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article.

The quality of citations provided in the The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article both overlook the official and the majority held version. Why overlook what Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit (THE official Shaolin authority) has to say ?

If both the articles go then the reader will go to the internet where he'll only find the version which are pro-foreign connection and use "origin" instead of "influence".

Freedom skies| talk  13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources as a refresher of Misplaced Pages's standards of quality for citations, that is, academic publication and peer review.
JFD 14:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to direct me to a single source in your article that has more credibility than the The Discovery Channel, The BBC (docmentary used "Kalari; The Indian way"), and the New York Times.

Freedom skies| talk  14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Third party input

Object I object to the merge. The merge seems to be very POV focused.--D-Boy 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Object - Per my staements above.Bakaman 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's Refocus on the RfC

This conversation is getting a little more heated than it needs to be, so let's refocus on what's being asked.

Basically, the RfC is NOT about whether this article should be merged or not, but about whether the article is NPOV or not. I had suggested merging as a possible solution to NPOV, but that is not a primary issue.

Freedom skies, I commend you on the bulk of citation that you have dug up for this article. However, an article, even well-researched, that only presents one side of scholarship is still NPOV. And yes, you may think the contending side is poorly citated in comparison, but that does not mean it should not be presented objectively. Give people the benefit of the doubt. They can figure out for themselves which citations to believe and which are less reliable without comments on "overwhelming minority of scholarship", "revisionism", etc...

Given the rich history of philosophical and religious trade in Chinese history, it is probably absurd to claim that there is NO foreign influence on Chinese martial arts (though the degree can be debated.) However, academic and encyclopedic presentations should always include the opposing viewpoint, especially if there are citations to the effect. It is not for us to decide which ideas are "fringe" ideas and which ideas are "mainstream." (Even the Apollo Program article contains links to Moon Landing Hoax articles, something we'd all pretty much agree is fairly nutty.)

Present the facts, and the truth will attend to itself. Best regards, and Happy New Year. Djma12 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My friend, The article emphatically does not deal with only one POV. Internal links to an entire article containing the opposing POV in a formidale fashion have been provided thereby making sure that the reader will read the very formidable Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. Freedom skies| talk  17:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Solution?

Why don't we do something like this?

  1. Since it would be impractical to merge the articles, we can insert a "See also" link at the top of the article along with a synopsis of relevant points from the second article within a "Disputes" section.
  2. I know Freedom Skies has some issue with the citations used in the second article, so why doesn't he add criticisms towards its scholarship within a "Criticisms" section he will create in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. If the original authors of that article give you trouble on adding a Criticisms section, let me know on my discussion page and I'll back you up.
  3. We can remove the NPOV warning from both articles aftewards.

Does this sounds reasonable? Djma12 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd really welcome the involvement of an arbitrator.
JFD 19:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution you mentioned has already been implemented.

  • Both the articles, presenting their POV in formidable strength, have internal links to the other article. Since they deal with different aspects of the issue (You'll notice that the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article also overlooks the views from Greece, Egypt, theories of early Mesopotamia etc. and is directly aimed to disprove India only) they cannot be merged.
  • The conflicts in the theories are only mentioned in this article. Mention them in the other one and you would reduce it's strength. They only belong in one article in my opinion.
  • The NPOV tag must be removed from both the articles. They have accomadated the opposing POV adequately by providing very prominent internal links to an entire article dealing with the opposite POV.

Freedom skies| talk  17:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that this situation would benefit from the scrutiny of an arbitrator.
JFD 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept the edits by Djma12. The edits leading to a final solution are appreciated. Freedom skies| talk  16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

problems with the article

Sorry it took so long for me to take a look at this article. yes, this article would benefit from an arbitrator. Freedom skies is against it becuase most likely an arbitrator would suggest changes to make this article more Neutral. The article suffers from a POV issue. At the heart of the problem is the origins or influences on a martial arts. Many people have written on this and there are many opinions - this does not mean that they are true. Historians have already weighed on this issue and most would state that the whole bodhidharma legend and the transmission from India to China flies in the face of the fact that there is martial arts in china going back to 1000-2000BC. It also flies in the face of the fact that martial arts is mainly self defense and all humans since the dawn of time have been engaged in self defense in one way or another. Further, china has multiple legends on the origins of multiple martial arts. Lay authors tend to get this issue mixed up and depending on the lay author will write one way or another. What freedom skies has done is SELECTIVELY cited people who support his view without allowing for citations of any other view. That makes this article POV. He further in the past has misquoted authors or quoted them out of context to support his views. This is similar to someone quoting only books written by lay authors that support the view that there was a conspiracy theory and another group of people who shot John F Kennedy as opposed to the majority view by historians that Kennedy was shot by a crazy lone gunman.

He also keeps on quoting a website that claims to be the "official" shaolin temple that states that their martial arts come from India but the site itself says that their soft qigong was present in China for many "thousands of Years". This claim should be removed.

He also states that martial arts historians claim to support his theory on the India and China connection but that is not true. The authors who write on the INdia to china connection are mainly all lay authors and not historians. No historian of merit believes in his version of the connection and it should be removed. Before the historians actually started studying this, everything was passed down orally as legends hence the discrepancy in many of the oral traditions of the origins of martial arts.

He also keeps on talking about bodhdiharma and the relationship to martial arts. ALL historians believe that this is legend and not a relationship. Further, most historians do not believe in the bodhdiharma theory on the origins of Ch'an (Zen Buddhism) even. Most will tell you that even that is a legend and Ch'an buddhism (Zen) existed before bodhidharma.

He also tries to twist the article to state that historians are in disagreement with each other on the origins of martial arts and the attribution the Yi Jin Jing. This is an untrue argument. It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars, but all are in agreement that the Yi Jin JIng is a document that cannot be trusted for its authenticity. He also tries to state that the historians are in disagreement on bodhdiharma's existence. It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is unfounded.

He also states that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views. That is not true either. if you just google scholar or google search books written by martial artists or lay authors (and not selectively search for bodhdiharma and martial arts) you will find that the lay community and martial arts community has a plethora of views. Most believe in the first legend of the origins of the martial arts with The Yellow Emperor in 2600B.C. as fact, others will talk about Bodhidharma, others will talk about the martial arts being present since prehistoric times. Others will get it right and talk about Bodhidharma and martial arts connection and the Yellow Emperor story as legend... There is a whole plethora of views. Freedom skies has just cited and talked about one view by the lay community and SELECTIVELY quoted people who support his view of the India Connection. None of these people are historians.

From above, We might as well write another article about all of the lay authors and web sites (including third party organizations) who believe in the historical view of the Yellow Emperor as being the progenitor of martial arts (just kidding)

We should get arbirtration because this article is quite POV. Attempts in the past at placing a POV tag has resulted in Freedom skies removing the tag repeatedly. Kennethtennyson 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"there is martial arts in china going back to 1000-2000BC.."

This article explicitely states that "Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma. "

"Lay authors tend to get this issue mixed up and depending on the lay author will write one way or another."

So, suddenly the Discovery channel and grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit of the Shaolin temple are "Lay historians" in your mind ?

"What freedom skies has done is SELECTIVELY cited people who support his view without allowing for citations of any other view. "

This article has a prominent internal link to the very odd Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. The Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article deals with the opposing POV in malicious strength. Also consider the Yi Jin Jing article.

"This is similar to someone quoting only books written by lay authors that support the view that there was a conspiracy theory and another group of people who shot John F Kennedy as opposed to the majority view by historians that Kennedy was shot by a crazy lone gunman."

Kenny has been known to do martians before. And now this.

"No historian of merit believes in his version of the connection and it should be removed."

Very keen on removing the opposing POV, are we, Kenny? I challenge you to compile a list of figures supporting your POV and then I'll bring mine. the one with the exponentially smaller list leaves Misplaced Pages forever.

"ALL historians believe that this is legend and not a relationship. Further, most historians do not believe in the bodhdiharma theory on the origins of Ch'an (Zen Buddhism) even."

More lies. The Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with Kenny's very personal opinions.

"It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars"

What else does the article say ?

"It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is unfounded."

You lie again, Kenny. Do you really want to challenge me that they "all" support your POV when the very small list you compiled comprises of jailed communist criminals like Tang Hao ?

"He also states that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views. That is not true either. if you just google scholar or google search books written by martial artists or lay authors (and not selectively search for bodhdiharma and martial arts) you will find that the lay community and martial arts community has a plethora of views."

You continue, Kenny. First, stop labelling Shaolin authorities as "lay people" (your definition, highlighting your malice and desperation) and second, read this section before you advertise your ignorance here.

"Most believe in the first legend of the origins of the martial arts with The Yellow Emperor in 2600B.C. as fact, others will talk about Bodhidharma, others will talk about the martial arts being present since prehistoric times."

This article is about anything but the origins of Chinese martial arts, Kenny. You attempt to cause confusion to serve your agenda.

"Freedom skies has just cited and talked about one view by the lay community and SELECTIVELY quoted people who support his view of the India Connection. None of these people are historians."

As has been done in the very odd Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article ? To which I provided a link from this article in the begining and went on to provide dual links in other articles so that people get to see both POVs extensively?

What exactly are you suggesting ? That the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article covers only one POV in detail and we leave it alone then we have this article cover both POVs and additionally have a link to the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which again covers the opposing POV in a malicious fashion?

"We should get arbirtration because this article is quite POV."

Actually, we should slap an AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which can't even get people other then communist convicts and international pariahs to support it's POV. But then again, that can wait for now.

"Attempts in the past at placing a POV tag has resulted in Freedom skies removing the tag repeatedly."

The tags belong in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and the Yi Jin Jing. But that too, can wait.

---

On a completely unrelated note, those interested can see in here for detailed chronicles of Kenny.

Freedom skies| talk  14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... you must really not get along with anybody freedom skies... anyways, this sounds like a broken record. This article was changed since the last time that I saw it... the claims that " a majority of historians" support your view should be removed as it is untrue. The vast majority of your citations are from lay authors. You can make the claim "many authors" or "many writers" but you should not make the claim that historians support your view because no historian does. Also, you can state that some in the shaolin community believe your view, but you can't state that the "official" shaolin monks support your view because it is not true. Kennethtennyson 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

we should slap an AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which can't even get people other then communist convicts and international pariahs to support it's POV.
....
Do you really want to challenge me that they "all" support your POV when the very small list you compiled comprises of jailed communist criminals like Tang Hao ?

The following information on my sources is from Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey:

Tang Hao

He is viewed as being the greatest Chinese martial arts historian that ever lived. Second, many of his comments and criticisms regarding martial arts history and martial arts writing are still valid today....He advocated applying modern scientific methods to the study of Chinese martial arts history and to the practice of Chinese martial arts themselves....His writings include Taiji Boxing and Neijia Boxing, A Study of Shaolin and Wudang, Neijia Boxing, The Qi Qi Fist Classic, and A Study of Chinese Martial Arts Illustrations.

Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folk tales corrupted and tainted people's thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.

In 1920 (sic) he wrote a book called Study of Shaolin and Wudang, which was published by the Central Guoshu Academy. He used lots of historical material to prove that Bodhidharma and Zhang San Feng knew nothing about martial arts, and that the theory that Shaolin martial arts started from Bodhidharma and that Taijiquan was invented by Zhang San Feng was incorrect.

Matsuda Ryuchi

Matsuda Ryuchi a Japanese historian who wrote a widely read book titled An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts. The book was originally written in 1979 and revised later when Matsuda Ryuchi lived in Taipei, Taiwan. It has appeared in a number of different editions in Chinese and Japanese and is one of eight books he wrote on the martial arts. According to his biography included in An Illustrated History of Chinese Martial Arts, Matsuda Ryuchi learned karate and other traditional Japanese martial arts when he was young. Later he learned some Chinese martial arts such as Chen style Taijiquan, Baji Boxing, Mantis Boxing, Bagua Palm, and Yen Ching Boxing. At some point he became a Tibetan Buddhist monk, and his research and writing covered both Buddhism and martial arts.

Stanley E. Henning

Stanley E. Henning is an American scholar and martial artist who has published a number of articles concerning the early history of Taijiquan. Some of his articles—in particular, one titled "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan"—raised heated debates in certain martial arts circles. In his own words, his goal was "to extract Chinese martial arts from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research." One of his major theses, he says, is "the fact that the origins of the Chinese martial arts, including boxing, are rooted in military, not religious practice." That idea did not sit too well with some sectors of America's Taiji community and, for a while, Henning was a pariah among the Western Taijiquan community. Be that as it may, Henning went on to write a number of scholarly articles on the history and development of Chinese martial arts that have done much to lift this study out of the realm of pulp fiction and into a more serious, accurate, and scholarly domain.

JFD 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article's Sources

Source 1: Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit, 4th generation successor of the Southern Shaolin Monastery, set up The Shaolin Wahnam Institute.

His lineage traces right back to the Southern Shaolin Monastery through two patriarchs: Lai Chin Wah and Ho Fatt Nam. Ho Fatt Nam's teacher was Yang Fatt Khuen, whose teacher was Venerable Jiang Nan, the monk who escaped from the Southern Shaolin Monastery in Fujian Province. The legacy that Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit holds is over 150 years old.

Today, Wong Kiew Kit has over 2000 students world-wide through various branches of the Shaolin Wahnam Institute. Certain forms of hard qigong are taught, again, differing from the soft, internal qigong that was taught in the former Shaolin Monasteries of the Ming and Qing dynasties. The Shaolin arts, as taught at the Shaolin Wahnam Institute, purport to be of the soft, internal kind. They are comprised of: Shaolin Kungfu, Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung, Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin Zen.

Source 2: Eminent journalists from the New York Times. In this case I have chosen a citation coming from Howard W. French:

Howard W. French (born 1958) is a New York Times reporter as well as an author. French taught at a university in the Ivory Coast in the 1980s before becoming a reporter. He has reported extensively on the political affairs of Western and Central Africa. These reports were the basis for the book A Continent for the Taking.

French has also reported on the political and social affairs in China, where he reported on the government crackdown of dissent in the Dongzhou protests of 2005. Most of his current work for the New York Times is centered on China.

French became Tokyo bureau chief for the New York Times in 1999. He is a senior writer for the Times, and has served as Shanghai bureau chief since 2003.

Sorce 3: Encyclopedia Brittanica

The Encyclopædia Britannica (properly spelled with the æ ligature) is a general encyclopedia published by the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.. Regarded as one of the most important and widely recognized reference works in the English language, the encylopedia was first published progressively from 1768–71 as Encyclopædia Britannica, or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan. It was one of the first printed English encyclopedias and today is the oldest continuously published English-language encyclopedia in the world.

From the late 18th century to the early 20th century, Britannica's articles were often judged as the foremost authority on a topic, and sometimes included new research or theory intended for a scholarly audience. During this era, the Britannica gained its erudite reputation and had a unique position in English-speaking culture.

The Britannica has survived fierce competition from an ever-increasing number of alternative information sources.


Self explainatory. In this case, the concise addition.

+

More will be provided on request.

Compare the sources and judge the quality of each by yourselves.

+

Tang Hao - arrested communist

Stanley Hennig - A pariah among the Western Taijiquan community

+

The AfD on the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article, which is full overly malicious language, and misrepresentation of sources, can wait for now. It's not an issue yet. So calm down.

And

"This article was changed since the last time that I saw it... the claims that " a majority of historians" support your view should be removed as it is untrue."

Get a citation that they don't, Kenny. I got a citation for my claim and you know my policy on getting more on request or provocation, whichever extended first. Better yet you could get people other than jailed communist criminals to support your claim (which is supported by how many ? 9 or so people in the list)

"The vast majority of your citations are from lay authors."

Encyclopedia Britannica is not lay, Kenny. Your malice dose not change things. Tang Hao, on the other hand was just a lay communist criminal.

"Also, you can state that some in the shaolin community believe your view"

I got a citation from grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit himself, did I not ?

Incesscant, repeated lies Kenny. Nothing else.

Freedom skies| talk  15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done

This is done. The changes Djma12 made are accepted by me and a solution reached. Time to live with it. Freedom skies| talk  16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories: