Talk:Chee Soo

Untitled

I have re-written this page adding reference sources from several books published by Harpercollins, a reputable well known publishing house. Chuangzu (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a link to the movietone news archive site which contains a newsreel documentary about Chee Soo filmed in 1970.--Chuangzu (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting clip. I was a little surprised to see how much of it looked like aikido. I have heard that he studied aikido at some point.--Salix (talk): 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's very interesting and although I have never been to an Aikido class the clip does reference Hay Sut which is part of Chee Soo's Chi Shu or Chinese Aikido training. He also once told me that he had visited an Aikido class at the invitation of the teacher and been graded on the spot to teacher grade after flooring the class members, but he said he only used his Taoist Arts training by which I think he meant Tai Chi and Wu Shu--Chuangzu (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Chee Soo/Clifford Gibbs' daughter says that he studied Judo, Aikido and Kendo in her statement on the origin of Lee-style. Early footage of Gibbs shows him teaching Aikido-style moves as "Chinese Aikido" or "Qu Shou", which was later to become "Feng Shou". Clearly Gibbs did have exposure to Aikido, and later graded his daughter to 1st dan in Judo and Aikido, although his authority to do so is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a very interesting opinion anonymous user 84.246.201.248 but do you have a link or reference to these assertions? As you can see the information published in the article is from reliable sources so any opinions cannot be considered as part of the article unless you can give references to independent sources.Chuangzu (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The article's from your own organisation. It's at http://www.taoistarts.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Factual-History-of-Chee-Soo-.Lavinia-from-Internet-Feb.08.doc

To quote from the article : "Once settled in London (late 1945) Chee Soo started practising the Japanese arts of Judo, Aikido and Kendo. With all these arts he obtained very high grades. His training was with many distinguished names, including Kenshiro Abbe and the Otani brothers. They were frequent visitors to Chee's house in London, not only as Instructors but also as friends. His training started at the Budokai where he excelled in Judo; this was largely due to his previous Chinese martial arts training. His standard was such that he was asked to enter for the selections to become a team member to represent the country but due to an illness was unable to compete". note that Abbe didn't arrive until 1955, when he started teaching at the London Judo Society. The article then goes on to state that Gibbs taught Judo and Aikido before he "changed back to the Chinese arts". There is then talk of teaching a small group in Dunstable in "Ch'i Shu" and later "Feng Shou"- the Nationwide footage shows him demonstrating "Qu Shou" which is very obviously Aikido - so I suspect this was actually his rebranding of an Aikido-based system. The article then says "as the Chi'Shu and Kung Fu systems became more popular, he introduced Taijiquan and the Chang Ming Diet" - so at this point, Gibbs INTRODUCED Tai Chi, something which he had not been teaching or practising until this point. It's likely that Lee Style actually originates from this period, not from the "ancient Taoist arts", and is based on Gibbs' own interpretations of existing Tai Chi, possibly from book sources. The article suggests that Feng Shou and Lee Style Taiji were not already in existence, but were put together at this point. The article tells how Gibbs changes the system "at least three times" - not something a dutiful passer-on of an ancient system does. On the whole, his daughter's account suggests that the system was fabricated during the Kung-Fu boom by a well-meaning man who had at least some exposure to other martial arts and tried to blend Japanese systems into a fake Chinese system. I don't think anyone has a problem with Gibbs being a teacher of martial arts, even made-up ones based on Japanese training, but I think it's untruthful to say that Feng Shou and Lee Style Taiji are ancient Taoist systems from a mysterious Chinese benefactor, when clearly they're fabrications from the 1960's/1970s, based on other martial arts. It seems that you're very much in denial, fanatically defending the indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly doubt some of this. Having practised Lee style and later Aikido I can certainly now see that one section of the art resemble Aikido closely. Other parts draw from very different traditions.

The problem is really one of WP:RS. Can an article found on an upload area of a website, which does not have a link from the home page count as a reliable? As it stands it's a questionable source. I've a slight feeling this may have come from a martial arts magazine or possibly a now defunct website. The article does have its own POV especially in its criticisms of other teachers. --Salix alba (talk): 23:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that this whole article is questionable. Almost all of the sources seem to be from Clifford Gibbs/Chee Soo himself, and his daughter's account really casts a lot of doubt on the whole thing. The problem with self-referential sources are that they play into the hands of Walter Mittys who generate personal myths and self-generate and document their own history. The article could be better - I think without independent sources, the whole "Taoist" business should go. Again, no problem with citing him as a martial arts instructor, just not one of a system going back to "Taoist Arts". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the link you have provided to the Lavinia Warr article - which as Salix points out is to an uploads area of a website - appears unreliable and should be considered as promotional and self published. Furthermore some of the information from that article is inaccurate, for example Rupert Croft-Cooke was not Chee Soo's commanding officer, in fact he was in a completely different regiment and theatre of operations during the war. Also he was not posted to Burma in 1940 because he was awarded the military medal during the Battle of Beda Fomm in Libya in 1941. These are documented facts based on evidence. Due to the fact that there are apparent inaccuracies and that this information is not published by a reliable source it should not be included in a Wikipedia article. However Chee Soo's works cannot be considered to be self published. Reliable sources such as HarperCollins check their facts, they are a respected major international publisher. These books were also translated into French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Indonesian and Polish and distributed in Canada, the United States, Brazil, Eastern and Western Europe and Indonesia by various other major international reputable publishers. Chee Soo also appeared in a radio interview with LBC, two BBC TV documentaries and a Movietone News documentary, these were also made by reliable and independent sources. He also received a Guinness World record for his work on The Avengers. Information from reliable sources can be included in a Wikipedia article, anything else such as personal opinions should be considered to be original research and should be confined to the talk page. By the way anonymous user 84.246.201.248 your opinions might carry more weight if you sign in to Wikipedia and we can see your name rather than dealing with a shadow entity.Chuangzu (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're providing a cultists view, and you're in deep denial. Harper Collins might be a publisher, but they are NOT AN AUTHORITY ON CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS, nor are LBC or the BBC, so stop treating them as one. All of Chee Soo/Cliff Gibbs' articles are self-sourced and there is little reliable evidence to back them up. The Lee style is unknown outside of Cliff Gibbs' classes, as is Feng Shou, and they are entirely unknown in China, which is very unusual for an ancient style that would have been recorded and practised by many verifiable sources over its history if it were real. There is much in Lavinia Warr's testimony that points to inconsistencies in Clifford Gibbs' stories, and it would seem that there is strong suspicion that the whole system is a fabrication based on Japanese Martial Arts, particularly Aikido. It's time to face facts, there is no evidence for Taoist origins for these systems, they're a fabrication. The article needs to be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Undid revision 766706242 by Cultist - items ARE referenced". Have you read this page:WP:AGF? Firstly you are mistaken, I am not in any way affiliated to or a member of the Taoist Arts Organization. Might I humbly suggest that you also read the Wikipedia section WP:RS on what can and cannot be considered reliable sources for an article. Unfortunately the word document you have linked to is not a publication and it does not appear on any of the public pages of the T.A.O. website as Salix has already pointed out. It would appear someone has uploaded it and could quite likely have written it themselves. Technically it is in the public domain, but in that sense so is every single Facebook post ever made and even this talk page, a publication usually means something published by a third party, a publisher. Even if it was published on the T.A.O. website it could not be considered a reliable third party source because Lavinia is Chee Soo's daughter, she is a relative so she does not have a neutral point of view. Please read the Wikipedia section on WP:NPOV. Furthermore the T.A.O. website cannot be considered neutral or third party either because they are actively promoting Chee Soo and the Lee style. HarperCollins is a third party with a neutral viewpoint. They have been in the publishing business for many years and have published millions of books on all kinds of subjects, and it is precisely because they do not have an axe to grind on the subject of martial arts that they can considered to be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. The BBC is also a world recognised publisher of documentaries that have been researched properly and the article mentions two such programs, they are from a neutral point of view and are third party, they were not made by Chee Soo himself. Movietone News are also well known documentary makers, they are a third party, they have a neutral viewpoint and in Wikipedia terms they are a reliable source. The LBC radio interview with Brian Hayes is of particular interest because Brian Hayes had a reputation as a very tough no nonsense interviewer. These kinds of interviewers and program makers including the Guinness World Records have teams of researchers behind them and they have access to experts as part of their research. If you can find an independent third party neutral published source for this story of Lavinia's then it should be included in the main article, otherwise it should be confined to the talk page. As I have already pointed out there are contradictions and falsehoods which can easily be proven against documented evidence in Lavinia's article - for example if he was in Burma as she says how did he manage to personally take out "eight enemy tanks and an ammunition lorry" with the Desert Rats in Libya? Considering the effective firing range of a Cruiser Mk IV was only 1,000 yards it seems unlikely. This casts doubt on the veracity of her story. Have you considered that maybe she was angry when Chee Soo broke off training with her after so many years, maybe she was jealous at her father's considerable popularity and sought to smear his reputation and promote her own version of the Lee style? Is it just a coincidence that this story came out just after Chee Soo divorced Lavinia's mother and married his second wife Marilyn? Don't you think it's a bit strange that this document is in direct contradiction to the history of the Lee style given on the T.A.O. website Why would they publish a history of their style then publish a contradictory story on a back page where no one can find it? Perhaps they did not think it of enough interest to publish alongside their official version of events, or maybe they just thought it was untrue, or maybe as is more likely they don't even know it is there and one of their members has uploaded it for some unknown reason of their own connivance. Either way her 'testimony' - as you put it - cannot be considered to be neutral or a disinterested third party viewpoint. Testimony is usually admitted in court under oath and carries a charge of perjury if it turns out to be untrue. A word document found on an obscure internet page is not testimony, Lavinia was not under oath and Chee Soo is not on trial although the way you refer to him as 'Gibbs' does indeed make him sound like a suspect in a police investigation. By the way it might interest you to know that Lavinia is not the only one to have been to China researching the Lee style, Lishi.org and the International Daoist Society is recognised by the Shandong Martial Arts Committee. Lishi also have a degree course at Leeds University based on Chee Soo's Taoist Arts of the Lee Style, they even have a Doctor Alex Boyd who has a PhD in the subject. This means that the Lee style is recognised not only in China but by academics in the UK and is even taught by them as a subject. Also the International Daoist Society is recognised by the UK charity commission. Furthermore the Lee style as taught by the T.A.O. is recognised by the Martial Arts Commission and the Council for Chinese Martial Arts governed by the Sports Council a UK government body. I am guessing that these foreign and domestic academic and government bodies do carry some weight as independent authorities and some of them are indeed experts on Martial Arts. Are you? - Chuangzu (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I suspect you are telling "untruuths" about your lack of involvement in the organisation. Clearly you are actively involved with Chee Soo's organisation, and are actively editing this article to remove any information which runs contrary to the version of events that you favour, even where the facts of Chee Soo's claimed history are very dubious. There is considerable speculation online that Chee Soo/ Clifford Gibbs basically made up his "Chinese" systems based on Japanese training, and the lack of evidence for the Lishi/Feng Shou etc. systems in China lends weight to this. Chee Soo was a war hero and a martial arts teacher, but not one of ancient Taoist systems. The Lishi system is not recognised in China as it never actually existed there - the "recognition" you claim is merely the membership of an organisation, which doesn't give authenticity and historic verification. Anyone can get recognition from the Martial Arts Commission and the Council for Chinese Martial Arts - there is only a cursory formalisation process, not a thorough investigation of an organisation's history and background. Again, your insistence that publishers are somehow authorities on the genuine nature of martial arts is a bizarre one - publishers publish books for profit, including many fraudulent authors - see Ashida Kim, Frank Dux et al. The BBC again isn't an authenticator of Chinese Martial Arts systems - indeed at the time of their coverage the martial arts were poorly understood and the coverage poorly-researched, largely because there was nobody to research it with - there was little, if any relationship with China during the period surrounding the Cultural Revolution. I dislike the way that you totally disregard Lavinia's testimony as "non-neutral" because "she is a relative" - clearly she is Chee Soo's daughter and as such she has a much more authoritative knowledge of Chee Soo/Clifford Gibbs' history than you do !! Her information on Chee Soo's Japanese martial arts background should not be disregarded, or Wikipedia runs the risk of just being a source of personal fictions - imagine if the Scientology page was only allowed the perspective of fanatical Scientologist believers, rather than "non-neutral" people. I would note that as a cult member, you are also "non-neutral". One of the perspectives that is publicly discussed is that Chee Soo was a fantasist - a lonely Barnardo's orphan who sought refuge in a personal fiction of secret kung-fu training in systems that nobody else has heard of with a mysterious "master" that conveniently can't be traced - very much like the stories of Ashida Kim and Frank Dux. Chee Soo was a martial artist, of that there is no argument, but it is likely that his systems originate in the Japanese martial arts training that he undertook in London after the war, not in mysterious systems that have no history in China. Several sources (including Lavinia) mention training in Japanese systems, yet this is discounted in your fanatical cultist purging of the article. This article badly needs to be edited to review your fanatical cultist coverage of Chee Soo's made-up history, and allowed to incorporate some skeptical coverage to give balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No I am telling the truth. Were you trained by Chee Soo anonymous User:84.246.201.248? I suspect from the ascerbic tone of your comments that you have some sort of personal axe to grind against Chee Soo. What I suggest is that you study Wikipedia policy a little more closely, it does not allow reports such as eye witness testimony or first hand accounts generally speaking but relies on published reports by independent observers. This is where Wikipedia differs to for example a court report. You may wish that an article agrees with your strongly held personal beliefs but the reality is there is a distinct lack of published evidence to back up your claims. So we must rely on published sources and not on the accounts of personal friends or relatives who may wish to promote or in some cases decry the activities of their loved ones. Yes I am actively editing this article to remove any improperly sourced material, the material you have added is not published and is not from a reliable source so I will continue to removed it from the article. You persist in making vague and unsubstantiated references to "several sources", martial arts forums maybe? Facebook posts? but you continue to give no references to real published sources. You would do better finding some actual evidence instead of relying on guesswork, hearsay, gossip and supposition based on your personal opinions. Why not spend some of your time and energy researching photographs of Chee Soo with Kenshiro Abbe, or perhaps asking the Judo council if they have a document proving Chee Soo was picked for the Olympic Judo team or something like that? That would be hard evidence and not just supposition. Even if you did that could you provide some hard evidence that Chee Soo's story is untrue as you suggest? Lack of proof is not the same as proof of lack. I think you will find it very difficult considering that the Lee style was a closed family style and not teaching classes in public, factor in the fact that Weihaiwei in the 1930s was in the most part a fisherman's village with a very low level of literacy, you will find it impossible to find the sort of documented reliable information we expect from a Martial Arts teacher today. If you spend some time looking in to the actual history of China and Shandong in particular at this time you will find that many thousands of martial artists were slaughtered by the eight nations armies, then the Japanese, or maybe they were one of the 100,000 deported to dig trenches in the first world war, it was a time when most records were destroyed and there was enormous social upheaval and regime change. If you try and find a grave, or a village or temple you can most often find that graveyard was destroyed in 1966, the temple in 1948, and no records of the people. By the way, several sources including Lavinia mention Chee Soo's early training in the Taoist Arts by Chan Kam Lee, yet you will only see in the article references to reliable third party sources and there are several of them. Saying that HarperCollins, the various international publishers who have translated Chee Soo's books, the BBC, LBC, Movietone News, and Guinness World Records are all part of some sort of cult conspiracy and agents of Chee Soo is simply ridiculous. Go back over the article's history if you like and you will see that all the references to organizations who actually teach Chee Soo's style, and there are many around the world, all of them have been removed because of WP:NPOV Chuangzu (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of Scientologists all over the world too. That doesn't mean I believe the fiction from their cult either. I have no personal axe to grind with Chee Soo - he is dead, so that would be difficult - but I have a problem with the self-sourced garbage in this article that is not backed up by any other factual sources. Harper Collins publishing a book is not "proof", nor is lightweight media coverage. The history of Tai Chi is relatively well documented and there is no "Lee Style" recognised in China. The lineage of Tai Chi is actually relatively recent and quite well understood, and there are no "closed family styles" that are recognised. The same is true of Feng Shou, it's completely unrecognised and undocumented anywhere in China, so it needs some pretty extraordinary proof to say that it stems from a history of Taoist Arts. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on you to back up your assertions, not on anyone who disagrees with you. The sources you've quoted are ALL from Chee Soo, or based on the personality cult that grew up around him, which you're clearly a member of, despite previously trying to say that you aren't. If there is no verifiable evidence to back up the existence of Chan Kam Lee other than a shaggy-dog story from an imaginative Barnardo's orphan, then it's not unreasonable to ask for that to be removed from the article, or at least some context added to balance it. Equally, all these assertions about "Taoist Arts" are simply not backed up by the evidence. The point of this is that the whole article is very dubious - all of the sources are from Chee Soo himself, or flimsily-connected media coverage which repeats Chee Soo's personal version. There is NO independent sourcing for any of this, so it's feasible that this is just a personal myth from a martial arts cult leader, just like Frank Dux. Again, there is no problem citing Chee Soo as a martial artist, and citing "his version" of his personal history, but it shouldn't be taken as authoritative - the sources are all either self-sourced, or based on Chee Soo's personal testimony, so they are VERY poor quality. It falls apart a bit when you look at the Movietone coverage, which shows Aikido techniques being presented as "Qu Shou" which Chee Soo himself calls "Chinese Aikido", which clearly doesn't fit in with the "Taoist Arts" basis that's taken as authoritative in the article. The putative history from Lavinia also casts some doubt on the whole history, and coupled with the lack of Chinese roots for the Lishi and Feng Shou systems, this article really needs independent sources to back up the extraordinary assertions that are made here. There really are some WILD new-age statements being made about Chinese Martial Arts in this article that are very poorly backed-up by evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a published source from an independent third party written from a neutral point of view drawing comparisons between Scientology and Lee style T'ai Chi Ch'uan then we can write about it in this Wikipedia article, otherwise it is simply your opinion, and in my opinion it is a specious comparison. If you read the Frank Dux article and the Scientology article on Wikipedia you will find that both contain copious references to actual publications, they are not sourced from forums or chat channels. Name calling and personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors are clear evidence that you do not have a neutral point of view and very little experience or interest in Wikipedia policy. This article is primarily about Chee Soo the author and is a biography, there's no disputing the fact that he wrote several books, they are notable because they were bought by many thousands of people and translated into several languages and published all over the world by a world renowned publishing house. The documentaries and television programs about him show that he was popular and notable as a teacher, these are facts, you may not like them but they are facts nevertheless and included here because they are from recognised sources. Wikipedia articles do not usually contain posts from chat rooms or Facebook groups because they are quite often opinions and are not written from a neutral point of view. What you have heard from a keyboard warrior hiding behind their monitor in a forum or chat room might very well be inaccurate, dishonest, or biased and should not be considered to be a reliable source however much they confirm your own personal opinions. Some martial arts teachers are highly competitive and are likely to criticise other styles they may have no actual knowledge about. Lavinia may be critical of the last generation of Lee style practitioners in her magazine story but she was not a member of their group or attended any of Chee Soo's training sessions during this period of 1980-1994 when he was training in Coventry so how would she know? By the way in the interests of openness I may as well tell you that I have managed to track down the source of the article by Lavinia you have found on the T.A.O. website, it is from the Wu Kung Federation website, but now that Lavinia is no longer part of this organisation the information has been unlinked from the index page page of that website. It is a summary of an article originally published in Combat magazine, I will try and find a copy for you. You may think that Lavinia's story is reliable but you have to face the fact that she is not neutral, if the article was written by a researcher or a journalist it would be more reliable. The very fact that it is written in the first person proves that it does not meet even the most basic journalistic standards of neutrality. Even if we did accept that it had some validity you have cherry picked sections of the article out of context that favour your theory and omitted the fact that the article on the whole backs up Chee Soo's own biographical history as documented in his books. You are contradicting yourself, on the one hand you say Lavinia is reliable, then you try to use her story to debunk her own story.

"Chee accidentally bumped into a Chinese gentleman by the name of Chan Kam Lee (from Shandong Province, a province famous for its martial arts). This man took pity on this young orphan boy and befriended him. In time he taught Chee the Feng Shou (Hand of the Wind) system of Kung Fu, Li Style Taijiquan and Shuai Chiao (Chinese Wrestling)

You have repeatedly mentioned public debate on the internet, where is it, can you post some links? All I can see is a number of groups still teaching the Lee style more than twenty years after Chee Soo's death who I am sure would be happy to enlighten you on their reasons why. These are people who unlike you actually met and were trained by Chee Soo for a number of years and by your own argument re Lavinia they are well qualified to comment on Chee Soo's style because they experienced it first hand. However their views and opinions just like your own would not be suitable for inclusion in this article even if published on their own websites which is admittedly one step above an internet forum but is still not considered in Wikipedia terms to meet the standard of neutrality. Opinions garnered from chat rooms and forums are in Wikipedia terms considered original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journal of scientific research. If you want to include information in the article it needs to conform to Wikipedia's standards, before you go on another personal rant I suggest you make yourself familiar with the basic tenets of Wikipedia editing and read these pages: WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS.Chuangzu (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The original article entitled "The Source of Knowledge" was published in Combat magazine in July 1993 by Andy Harris regarding the Wu Kung federation as run by Peter and Lavinia Warr. I have a pdf of the original magazine article but I'm not exactly sure how to upload it, also it's copyright so there may be problems with publishing it to the public domain. I also found another article on Chee Soo from Dragon magazine issue no 9 on Facebook which may be of interest. Chuangzu (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a link to Lavinia's website article on the Wu Kung Federation website Chuangzu (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Lishi youtube channel has a video of the Nationwide BBC interview , it doesn't look much like Aikido to me, then again I have never studied Aikido so I could be wrong. They also have the "Scene: Looking for a fight" video and the LBC radio interview Wouldn't it be great to have these videos on the Wikipedia article? I'm sure the technical side is not an issue but what about copyright which is sure to be owned by the BBC and LBC? Chuangzu (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment in the Nationwide video. The arts do have some widely different styles, roughly a third is tai-chi like, another third is a "hand of wind" kung-foo style and another third is more like an akido system. The nationwide show the kung-foo aspects, there are other videos showing very different styles of exercises. Indeed the lifting exercise at 3.00 in the video is exactly the same exercise that I done in aikido. The exercise in the background at 3:35 also looks a lot like an aikido knife attack. Later the escaping from grappeling is quite aikdo like, its certainly a long way from the traditional tai-chi. All the video show a great diversity of styles shows things which look a lot like judo or jujitsu. Whats clear it that Wushu is an amalgam of different styles the real question is when this was all joined. Was this a combined style back in China or was it Chee Soo who combined the styles into one art.--Salix alba (talk): 14:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point Salix alba, I think it could be explained by the fact that people see what is familiar to them. Lavinia says on her web page about Chee Soo that: "In his prime my father's skill in both the Japanese and Chinese arts was such that he never refused a challenge and he was never beaten. He always gave the challenger the option of which art to use, and frequently took on a number of people at once. The most memorable was to see him take on four high graded Karate Instructors at once and beat them. As a Martial Artist he was second to none." So it would seem that part of his technique was to emulate the style of his attacker. If what Lavinia says is true and he was an outstanding martial artist then it may be the case that his technique was good enough to defeat an opponent of whatever style at his own game which may explain why it looks like so many other things. It may also explain why Karate masters were upset at being beaten and jealous of Chee Soo's popularity at the time. In my understanding of Japanese styles what we see today called Aikido and Judo were actually developed relatively recently and are not traditional arts as such but are sections of what was originally a much more eclectic style we might call Samurai Ju Jitsu. It included punching, kicking, throws and locks, and various masters then specialised in different aspects of it and taught these to Westerners. What we are seeing in Chee Soo's style is much more like the original eclectic version with multiple techniques. We have to be careful not to put the cart before the horse here, remember all the Japanese styles we see today were originally imported from China and contain aspects of various Chinese styles such as Shaolin Chuan (Karate) Shuai Jiao (Judo) and Chi Na (Aikido) amongst others. Shandong is especially significant here because it is the closest part of China to Japan so it's no surprise the Shandong styles may have similarities with Japanese styles. In fact the fortress of Weihaiwei was originally created to protect Shandong against Japanese pirates and was called the "dwarf catching station". Tai Chi is not really a style as such but a collection of eight basic techniques, the various forms we see today are really only certain master's favourite combinations of these eight basic techniques. If you look at Yang Jwing Ming's videos for example you can see a lot more Chi Na and locks which might appear to be Aikido but are in fact Chinese soft style techniques similar to Chee Soo's. Chen style Tai Chi also has aspects of Shuai Jiao and looks a lot like Judo. In other words T'ai Chi includes all the techniques of other styles and depending on the teacher's favourite aspect may look like any other style. The Lee style in particular contains many different animal stances and each one of these contains an essence which could be seen as a technique or style in itself. There are thirteen of them. Chuangzu (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 Please can you add some explanation here on the talk page before you go adding templates to the main article again? Chuangzu (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Weihai Wushu Association's website has a link to Lishi in Leeds and two other groups practising the Lee style Taoist Arts in France and Germany. Apparently Desmond Murray who was one of Chee Soo's senior teachers is the overseas President of the Weihai Wushu Association I can't read Chinese but it looks legit, it looks like an official government sponsored Association and there's information on there about all kinds of Martial Arts going on in Weihai. If these guys aren't an authoritative source on Martial Arts from Weihai I don't know who is. Perhaps someone who can read Chinese could take a look at it and verify it's authentic? Can we include these references in the main article? I think they are of interest and the Weihai Wushu Association website constitutes a reliable source doesn't it? Lishi have also been visited by Abbot Zhao of the White Cloud Monastery in Beijing which is one of the foremost Taoist sites in China.Chuangzu (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the the BCCMA website , they are recognised by the Sports Council (UK), European Wushu Federation & International Wushu Federation, and both the Chairman and Vice Chairman were senior students of Chee Soo and are still teaching the Lee style. In fact Peter Warr is also "Vice Chairman to the International Wushu Federation Technical committee, where he has had the opportunity to work with the Chinese Wushu Research Institute, and all the Chinese Masters who are based there" and "Chairman of the Beijing Wushu tournament which was held during the Olympic Games" in 2008, and he's an International Wushu Federation Judge Chuangzu (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposal for deletion deleted

I have deleted the proposal to delete this article. The block quotations are from books published by HarperCollins a reputable publisher therefore they cannot be considered to be self published or primary sources. Chee Soo wrote five books published by Harpercollins which were translated into several languages so he can be considered a notable author of a well known international publisher. There are various other reports from other reputable and recognised independent sources for example a Movietone News documentary, an LBC radio report, two BBC Television documentaries and the Guinness World Records site which contain important and noteworthy information about the subject so this article should not be deleted.Chuangzu (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the 'biographies of living persons' tag from the header here because if you read the article you can see that Chee Soo died in 1994, he is not a living person.Chuangzu (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

There is adequate proof that Chuangzu has some sort of conflict of interest. I would be happy if they could declare it first. Once it is done, we need to look at the article and verify the content, as it is poorly sourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 I do not have a conflict of interest. Please can you read this WP:AGF and perhaps then we can discuss your proposals in more detail instead of making unfounded accusations.Chuangzu (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 I have moved your section from Lavinia's article to the proper point in the chronology of the article. I have also removed or rewritten any sentences not conforming to WP:NPOV and WP:OR because they were interpretations of views that did not appear in the article and were based on speculation of your own. I have also added some balancing statements pointing out the fact that Lavinia is not a reliable source being Chee Soo's daughter, and that there are various factual inaccuracies in the article. I have also given an updated link to the original web page which I found on the Wu Kung federation website. It is not linked from the front page but I found it on a Google search.Chuangzu (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that you may be misrepresenting your conflict of interest, since you have involvement with the "Taoist" organisations involved with teaching Chee Soo's styles. I note that you have recently deleted the "Chuangzu" Twitter account that focused on Lee-style Tai Chi and Feng Shou tweets, but there are other posts online - eg. http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23642&sid=00bb2b1fd30316af36e59cc367635969&p=433150 - that promote Sea Horse Arts, another Chee Soo-originated organisation, which suggests that there is some continuing involvement with the organisation on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide#Practices_not_regarded_as_COI

Practices not regarded as COI

• Wikipedians-in-Residence (WIRs): Experienced and trusted Wikipedians often align themselves with an institution to facilitate common goals. WIRs can be paid, and that is not inherently a COI, as long as the objectives are aligned with Wikipedia's mission. If you are a Wikipedian in Residence, be careful not to take on the marketing or promotional goals of the organization; be a Wikipedian first, and always keep that in context. Disclosure is recommended when working on the Wikipedia articles about the host institutions themselves.
• Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concern.
• Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest.

If you want to find out who I am and who I work for anonymous user 84.246.201.248 (talk) you only need to look at my user page. Incidentally I am not paid to edit Wikipedia articles, I am a volunteer. Chuangzu (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

None of those practices seem to be relevant here - those are exceptions carved out for people who work at major universities, museums, and the like. - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have never tried to hide the fact that I work for a non-profit educational and cultural organization on Wikipedia or anywhere else. This is in line with the goals of Wikipedia and does not create a conflict. If you review my additions to the article in question you can see they are all properly referenced and in line with the major Wikipedia policies. Chuangzu (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What was the reference for this edit? - MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The article itself and two other references in the main page.Chuangzu (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Let's be specific. What is the source for 'is not written from a neutral standpoint.' in particular? - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Lavinia is Chee Soo's daughter. It comes from her web page. It contains contradictions to other documented references in the Chee Soo page which are easy to verify they come from MOD documents. Salix alba (talk) already raised these concerns if you read further up.Chuangzu (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So your position is that Lavinia wrote that it 'is not written from a neutral standpoint.' on her page? Because I'm having trouble finding it there. - MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No my position is that Lavinia wrote she is Chee Soo's daughter, therefore her viewpoint is not neutral. By the way I found the link to the original Combat article and the Wu Kung web page, why did I do that you think? Chuangzu (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in who found what, there's an important point I feel I should stress. You just wrote that your additions are 'all properly referenced and in line with the major Wikipedia policies.', but in the edit I linked you clearly inserted your own opinion without any reference whatsoever. This means that you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's policies are, or you are too close to this subject to apply them properly - which is strong evidence that you do have a conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So it would have been better to just delete the whole thing again you think? Because every time I do that I get edit warred by mister internet forum user it's very frustrating. I was making a concession. I think there needed to be some balancing statements in there okay I worded it wrong I agree but it's a process isn't it? Chuangzu (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you should not delete it because it is sourced content that apparently has consensus for inclusion. At this point you should stop the edit war and either leave it alone (no one gets their way all the time), or work with 'mister internet forum user' (here on the talk page, not in the article) to find some compromise wording that is agreeable to both of you. That is the Wikipedia way of doing things. Maybe that compromise will include balancing statements, but it is very important that all content that might be challenged be sourced, we are forbidden from just inserting our own ideas or opinions. - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mister forum user just deletes anything I put up without any discussion despite repeated requests. I even asked him for help on his 'user' page he just ignored it. He types in caps and spits venom, he just wants to troll and wreck the article and you are splitting hairs over something very minor, okay you're right I should have said 'wherever humanly possible in 99.9% of cases' instead of 'all' you got me there.Chuangzu (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

So if our 'reliably sourced' article from Lavinia contains several proven factual inaccuracies doesn't that imply that any other facts presented in the article may also be inaccurate? How do we get this across to the reader? Is pointing out an inconsistency in the data really original research? Chuangzu (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia COI Definition "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse". As a member of an organisation that is responsible for teaching and promoting Chee Soo's teachings, you must be aware of the potential for COI in your postings, and most importantly, in the removal of material that does not agree with the "official" version of Chee Soo's history as promoted by your organisation. You are already aware of a level of scepticism relating to Chee Soo's claims, as you have posted on other forums regarding the subject, including responses to people who had met and studied under Chee Soo during their martial arts training and held a sceptical viewpoint about the sources of his training. Your removals and revisions of items such as Lavinia's history - including removals under WP:NPOV, despite the fact that the postings were not made by Lavinia herself - are an example of an area where your conflict of interest is becoming a problem for the article. The sceptical viewpoints may not agree with the organisational viewpoints that you are (overly) keen to promote, but they nonetheless exist, and Lavinia's history, along with the numerous other accounts of people who have known Chee Soo in the past and don't necessarily agree with the "Taoist" source, are still valid. There are also major problems with sourcing here - Chee Soo is cited as the main source for much of the article, which leaves it open to criticism that this is a personal fiction, a made-up history - of course, this could be resolved by better sources, and you are working hard to find them, but in the meantime without them, the quality of the article is very poor. Where there is a lack of other sources, and the sources themselves are based on personal viewpoints, IMHO you should not be stating them as facts - i.e. "Chee Soo said that X was....", not simply "X was...". Again, this isn't a problem with Chee Soo, or yourself, but this article is not a factual one, rather a combination of poorly-sourced, possibly dubious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk • contribs)

84.246.201.248 you cant use some keyboard warrior nonsense you saw on an internet forum as the basis of a Wikipedia article Chuangzu (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What you define as "keyboard warrior nonsense" and others might define as "cultist ranting" is open to your point of view. If an opinion is expressed on the Internet, it doesn't make it "keyboard warrior nonsense" simply because you want to promote an "official" history that disagrees with it - it could be argued by some that this whole article is fictional nonsense in a lot of areas, and it needs to improve. It's good that you have improved the sourcing of Lavinia's commentary, but I also note that you made another attempt to remove the whole section at 15:08, which again gives concerns about possible COI.

It's keyboard warrior nonsense because on a forum anyone can say anything they like it's not vetted and published by an independent publisher.Chuangzu (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Most publishers make poor references as they don't usually vet, they simply publish. There are ample sources of published documents that are verifiable as inaccurate. It is a mistake to use a mass-market publisher as an unimpeachable source on a subject, they are simply publishing the content of the original source, and dependent upon them for verification, not assuming ownership of the content and offering themselves as a guarantee of its veracity.

So Gordon and Cremonesi, Aquarian Press, Thorsons Books, Harpercollins, the half dozen international publishers, the BBC, the Movietone News, LBC radio, Guinness World Records, Leeds Trinity University, The International Wushu Federation, The Weihai Wushu Association, Abbot Zhou of The White Clouds temple in Beijing, The British Council for Chinese Martial Arts, all are unreliable? How do you know this? Is this Wikipedia policy too? And instead we should look to mister anonymous internet forum user on his unpublished forum for references? Chuangzu (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A little hysterical. For illustration, look up "false authority syndrome". In terms of Chinese Martial arts, none of the publishers you've cited is an authority on Chinese Martial arts, they are simply publishers who are publishing the work of an assumed "authority". The BBC, Movietone, LBC are media outlets who are again, not authorities on Chinese Martial Arts, they are simply covering the work of an assumed "authority". The University and various federations and associations again are not able to verify Chee Soo's authority (he is dead) but are relying on his assumed "authority" and the authority of his association in the area. It doesn't mean that this assumed "authority" can't be questioned, and indeed for example the evidence from Lavinia Soo-Warr does cast some doubts on the origins of that authority. If Chee Soo's background was mainly in Japanese martial arts, rather than a supposed ancient "Taoist" system, it would illustrate how important it is to treat sources with scepticism - if a Japanese-based system could be reinterpreted into a "Chinese" system that receives backing from Universities and Chinese Martial Arts associations, this would be a perfect illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A further illustration - look up "Bodhisattva Warriors" by a certain "Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio", an erudite published book on "Ch'uan Fa", or "Kung Fu". In reality, "Nagaboshi Tomio" was plain Terry Dukes, who created the "Mushindo" cult of made-up martial arts, which spawned a number of offshoots. In reality it was all a fantasy, but it didn't stop the books being published, nor a large number of people believing that Dukes was an authority. Dukes' organisation was indeed a member of several early martial arts organisations. In the end, a number of these people ended up badly damaged by the experience, and ended up founding a support group when they found that it was actually all fraudulent - but at the time when Martial arts were poorly-understood and sensationalised as something exotic, people were all too willing to believe this "authority".

Another one - look up "Lobsang Rampa", an assumed authority on Tibetan Buddhism who authored"The Third Eye", published by Secker and Warburg which was seen at the time of its publication in 1956 as an extraordinary insight into Tibetan Religion from an insider - indeed, the Times Educational Supplement descibed it as "almost a work of art". However, it was later found that "Lobsang Rampa" was actually Cyril Hoskin, a plumber from Plympton in Devon.

Yes I have read the Third Eye, have you, as far as I know there is no proven scientific evidence to say that reincarnation is either true or false. You are using inductive logic. However many white swans you see it doesn't actually prove that all swans are white. The white swan theory was only disproved when black swans were found in Australia. Find a black swan. Chuangzu (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Lavina's article clearly states in detail that her father learned Chinese Arts from Chan Kam Lee does it not? It is based on an article from Combat magazine. Chuangzu (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Did Lavinia ever meet Chan Kam Lee and have first-hand experience, or did she simply believe what her father told her?

Lavinia was born in 1946, Chan Kam Lee died in 1954 when Lavinia was eight years old. It's possible she met Chan Kam Lee but she would have been very young. In her article's lineage section she says she trained Tai Chi under Chee Soo not Chan Kam Lee. We don't have documented evidence at this point, the case is still in question. We do have copious references to published sources and experts in martial arts who have actually experienced the Lee style and from the actual content they have learned they think it is authentic, but they could be mistaken. If it does what it says on the tin they aren't that fussed about the small print in my experience. What I suggest is that we try and find some evidence which means doing some research, I have outlined the areas of research on the Chan Kam Lee talk page. You could help. Whether you do or not I will continue to research it regardless because believe it or not I am just as interested in the truth as you are. Chuangzu (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good perspective. In the real world it doesn't matter whether Chee Soo originated his arts, or whether they are China-sourced, if they're effective and people are being treated honestly. There are numerous first-generation martial arts out there that are combinations of other systems that are nonetheless effective, and they don't have to deal with the awkward cultural baggage of origins, they just accept what they are, and get on without having to justify themselves. This article could be based on better sources, and if there are verifiable independent sources that add something, I will try to find some to assist. In the meantime, a little scepticism might be healthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.201.248 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That skepticism has to apply to all the available sources Lavinia included. We have to give more weight to references that are properly published by independent sources. Skepticism can border on cynicism and we have to be careful to avoid opinions creeping in from sources like internet forums which are not reliable. Nowhere in Lavinia's article for example does she suggest that Chee Soo derived his style from Japanese arts, that is something from elsewhere and if it can be properly sourced all well and good, if not it should remain on the talk page. Independent sources like Gordon and Cremonesi, Aquarian Press, Thorsons Books, Harpercollins, the half dozen international publishers, the BBC, the Movietone News, LBC radio, Guinness World Records, Leeds Trinity University, The International Wushu Federation, The Weihai Wushu Association, Abbot Zhou of The White Clouds temple in Beijing, The British Council for Chinese Martial Arts, etc all have just as much opportunity to check their facts and rely on researchers and experts as anyone else and it's just an assumption and original research to think they don't, and that something you read on an internet forum by anonymous Karateman or whomever are somehow more accurate than professionals operating in their field. I'm not sure exactly what criteria would satisfy you, who are these 'martial arts experts' who have published reliable resources that might shed some light on the matter, do they even exist? Martial Arts was really only a small part of what Chee Soo wrote about, one book out of six, and trying to compare Lee style to say Chen style Tai Chi may be a spurious exercise. In the meantime lets focus on finding some verifiable facts and resist the temptation to delete anything that doesn't fit with our personal theories.Chuangzu (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Every single source you have listed is either primary or unreliable or affiliated. We require reliable, secondary and independent sources. Interviews are not secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Interviews are primary sources? "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What about documentaries? Aren't they "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."?? Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Chuangzu (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Tag bombing

Please do not WP:TAGBOMB this article, if you have an issue or specific suggestion please discuss it here on the talk page.Chuangzu (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tags without forming a consensus at this talk page, first. There are clear POV and COI issues on this article that need work. - MrOllie (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The tags are here for a reason. It makes sure that an unsuspecting reader is aware of the problems with the content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your idea of tagging Lemongirl942, tags are meant to draw editors' attention to articles so they can be improved, they are not part of the content of the article and should be considered temporary. They should certainly not be used by Wikipedia:WikiImp lazy editors who can't be bothered to discuss content of an article on the talk page. Chuangzu (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And there is a clear problem here. You have a conflict of interest, you should not be editing the article. The claims in the article are not well sourced and there seems to be a lot of WP:OR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that important information Lemongirl942 but if you look on your talk page can you see several complaints about this same issues from various other editors? Perhaps it would be better for you if you concentrated on adding some content to Wikipedia instead of stirring up trouble and annoying other people? Chuangzu (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chuangzu: I am not editing this article because it is clearly poorly sourced right now. There is not even one good reliable secondary source. COI is not a problem in itself. But it becomes a problem when editors assume bad faith and try to WP:OWN articles. Anyway, since you feel that I am "stirring up trouble and annoying other people", I will raise this issue at WP:COIN sometime and let other interested editors decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Lemongrab If you think the article is unacceptable have you thought about finding some better sources? I am guessing you are probably quite young and for you the internet and Google is the only source of information but in actual fact have you heard of books, newspapers, magazines, television and radio programmes? Before the internet was invented these were paramount sources of information for most people and companies like the BBC were internationally recognised as reliable sources on a world of subjects. Isn't this the strength of an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia that it is not just paraphrasing Google searches? It is quite clear from the long list of complaints on your talk page that you are stirring up trouble and annoying people, wouldn't it be more productive for you to try adding some content instead of spending your valuable time commenting on other people's work? Chuangzu (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not exactly very young and yes, I do know books exist. The thing is, there are absolutely no reliable independent secondary sources available about Chee Soo. For all I know, this could be one huge hoax or worse a scam using Wikipedia to give the appearance of being authentic. Anyway, if you feel that I am here to stir up trouble, I will notify other editors at a noticeboard and look at what they say. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Qigong transmission methods

I was just reading the Wikipedia page on Qigong and it says "Traditionally, knowledge about qigong was passed from adept master to student in elite unbroken lineages, typically with secretive and esoteric traditions of training and oral transmission, and with an emphasis on meditative practice by scholars and gymnastic or dynamic practice by the working masses." which suggests that it was not unusual, in fact typical, for oral transmission in secrecy. This would fit in with Chee Soo's account of being taught in a private class techniques which had been passed down for generations and only kept within that family. This might seem strange to us when Tai Chi and qigong are taught openly in yoga and adult education classes, but that was the kind of tradition that was common in the history of China and we need to accept that if we are going to get a clear and accurate picture of the past history of the Lee style. Chee Soo taught primarily qi cultivation and taoist philosophy, if you read his books it is evident this is the core of his method and the martial arts emphasis is really something people projected onto him during the kung fu boom in the seventies because he was such an outstanding practitioner of it. We need to add something to the article that reflects this.

References

Chuangzu (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"and not a verbatim passing-on of historic kung-fu systems sourced from Chan Kam Lee"

I think this phrase in the main article shows some amount of interpretation of Lavinia's article which is not present and should be removed or changed. It also shows very little understanding of Art, and that is what Chee Soo was teaching an Art. This is the problem when we start to draw parallels between the Lee style and other martial arts which may be more based on slavishly copying set forms and pieces based on scientific rules like Karate for example. An artist be they painter or sculptor or whatever learns as an apprentice of a master and learns to copy the master's style. It's the same with primary school, or secondary school, the student copies the teacher and when the exams come they repeat what they have learned parrot fashion. However in order for the apprentice to become a master themselves they have to show some originality, the Mona Lisa for example is an original, a photo copy of it would be worth very little. At University students have to interpret what they have learned, and as we go higher up in education to post graduate then it's not enough to just repeat what has been learned, the student must work on their own thesis and show originality. The Lee style is a Taoist Art, and even other styles of T'ai Chi like Chen style for example are based on eight basic techniques just the same as the Lee style. The forms we see today, and there are many variations even amongst the Chen village derived styles, are just combinations of these eight basic techniques with the addition of five directions. This article is about Chee Soo the author who wrote several books about Taoism, only one was about Kung Fu and although some editors may be interested in this aspect of the arts it should not be over-emphasized. Chuangzu (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chee Soo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928101121/http://www.movietone.com/N_search.cfm?ActionFlag=back2ResultsView&start=1&pageStart=1&totalRecords=1&V_DateType=1&V_DECADE=1929&V_FromYear=1928&V_QualifySubject=&V_storyNumber=95962&V_TermsToOmit=&V_ToYear=1980&V_searchType=1&V_MainSubject=&V_Year=1928&V_resultsPerPage=10 to http://www.movietone.com/N_search.cfm?ActionFlag=back2ResultsView&start=1&pageStart=1&totalRecords=1&V_DateType=1&V_DECADE=1929&V_FromYear=1928&V_QualifySubject=&V_storyNumber=95962&V_TermsToOmit=&V_ToYear=1980&V_searchType=1&V_MainSubject=&V_Year=1928&V_resultsPerPage=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Chee Soo

I have trained with several of instructors and have found the art affective, but then I am no martial artist. Students are winning competitions using what Chee Soo taught. I believe that there are variations of some of the moves, but it makes a difference in people lives. The whole system seems fractured!! This I do not understand. I have read Chee Soo's daughters article and I had trained in the arts for 5 years. Inner depth in Devon is another example of diluting the art and adding and removing things. I believe this occurs in most martial arts...Bruce Lee is a fine example. My point is who cares if it makes a difference in peoples lives 2A02:C7F:2CB9:FF00:2DEE:D993:6CF2:3EB5 (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

My actual point is that the ancient daoists created their own form which is evolving and nothing can be taken away from any teacher or master of their own art whichever path they choose. Chee Soo started as an uneducated man apparently and being caught in the war would possibly have had trauma. I have heard many stories from those that loved him and those who found him nothing more than a tyrant and a dirty street fighter. I have heard he was abusive to his students who still talk about how much they love him and helped them. As for the BBC being a reliable source!! This is the ones that covered Jimmy Saville. Maybe Chee was a misunderstood man and yet a master at what he learnt. I mean who cares. All martial arts these days no matter how ancient will be diluted or changed with many secrets lost. Whatever the truth is peoples lives are being transformed...A reputation is all it is...just what people say it is.

There are many things Chee Soo did in people's lives that were wonderful and have never been spoken about. There are many things I am sure he got wrong and people will take it to their graves. None of us are perfect and no matter how honest someone says they are...Everybody lies!! 2A02:C7F:2CB9:FF00:2DEE:D993:6CF2:3EB5 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)