Jump to content

Talk:Shaolin kung fu: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Ooxioo (talk | contribs)
Line 45: Line 45:


:{{EP|n}} Sin The' is not universally recognized for his supposed connection to Shaolin. There is no reason to add any information about him to the page. --[[User:Ghostexorcist|Ghostexorcist]] ([[User talk:Ghostexorcist|talk]]) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
:{{EP|n}} Sin The' is not universally recognized for his supposed connection to Shaolin. There is no reason to add any information about him to the page. --[[User:Ghostexorcist|Ghostexorcist]] ([[User talk:Ghostexorcist|talk]]) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

== Edit request 10 July 2013 ==

About the "See Also" links, there is no documentation proving that Yan Ming is a real shaolin monk, so,there should be no link to his page whatsoever.

Thank You

Revision as of 18:42, 10 July 2013

Edit request on 18 February 2013

The lisitng of the "Well Know" Shaolin styles seems very much self serving expecially considering that the Shaolin Temple was destroyed in 1645 and not fixed/rebuilt until early 1800's. The only well established facts about Shaolin Kung Fu are that there was a Shaolin 5 Animal Style Kung Fu and that from this we have Hung Gar, Wing Chung and indirectly Choy Lee Fut. There is also evidence to suggest that the triad Hing Kong White Crane may have had significant influences stemming from Shaolin resistance in the 17th Century.

Using the Wiki in this way is really killing it a a source and a starting point for serious reserch and information!

Robert Z 124.191.57.154 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are referring to the last sentence of the lead section. That sentence already has a {{fact}} tag on it, which adds the famous "[citation needed]" statement. That tag is an indication that some editor questions the verifiability of that statement. If you would like a specific part of that sentence removed, please indicate which. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs,

I appreciate the time you put into these posts and i see how it can be taxing; i am refering to the listing of 'Well Established' being used with a style listing of Shaolin. Shaolin only has one 'style' and that is Shaolin. Curently it is Shaolin Wushu, 450 years ago it was Shaolin 5 Animal Kung Fu; before that..... less clear. But no style other than Shaolin can really be attributed to the Shaolin Temple. Whatever else may be derrived from Shaolin may be but not Shaolin. It's like calling a Ford a Rolls Royce because Rolls made a few wing nuts for it.

So my request is to remove the listing of any supposed kung fu style that are Shaolin unless they are Shaolin 5 Animal Style or Shaolin Wushu (possibly Shaolin 170 Moves/Systems and Shaolin 72 Fists/Hands).

Thank you for your time.

Robert Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.3.66 (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 June 2013

198.14.240.145 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I would like to point out that Sin Kwang The' is the current 33rd Grandmaster of Shaolin. He is recognized as having been the youngest Grandmaster as in the Northern Temple lineage.[reply]

http://www.shaolingrandmaster.com/

Thank you for allowing me to offer this edit recommendation.

 Not done: Sin The' is not universally recognized for his supposed connection to Shaolin. There is no reason to add any information about him to the page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 10 July 2013

About the "See Also" links, there is no documentation proving that Yan Ming is a real shaolin monk, so,there should be no link to his page whatsoever.

Thank You