From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself![edit]


deletions by ROOKzero[edit]

The deletion of the Gei Pang Lok Hup Academy and the vid link in the EL section are unwarranted per WP guidelines and are vandalism. I have requested either a block or protection of the article until the dispute is resolved. VanTucky 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ads for individual schools[edit]

No other martial art article lists individual schools teaching or claiming to teach the martial art. Look at the karate article for instance. (RookZERO 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

This is because there are no karate schools with articles, not because of the rules for see also linking. Let's decide whether to link the article in question after it's deletion debate is over shall we? VanTucky 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the other article is not deleted as an ad, it still should not be linked to this article. No other martial art article has links to individual schools teaching or claiming to teach the style in question and this article should not be an exception. (RookZERO 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
There is no policy or guideline against a simple see also link to an article that is clearly about the same topic. There is a prohibition against WP:Spam, but it has yet to be decided if the article is spam. I ask to wait until the status is decided bc if the article is deemed a notable encyclopedic resource, then it deserves to be linked in the See Also section as a related topic not mentioned in the article. VanTucky 05:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if the article is not deleted as spam, it should not be linked just as no other individual schools are linked. (RookZERO 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
Once again, the link is not only not prohibited by guidelines and policy, but it is encouraged. Simply saying no other links exist is not an argument against inclusion. From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) subsection, What should be linked:

"Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully. This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.

VanTucky 18:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No other article includes a link to an individual place like that. Should pizza link to every pizzeria on earth? (There aren't links to even ONE pizza company, let alone individual pizzerias in the "see also" section of the article.) Should karate link to every karate dojo on earth? Should Plumbing link to every company that does plumbing? etc? No wikipedia article is formatted to link to individual providers of goods or services, whether claiming to teach liuhe bafa or certified to install water heaters. (RookZERO 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
Yes, because that would be Spam, as I just said. But when a particular karate dojo or even a company that installs water heaters meets the criteria for notability and NPOV it is linked. Providing internal links to related articles in the topic is part of Wikipedia's goals. It is only not common because very few companies or schools meet the notability guidelines. Your personal dislike for the school has no bearing on whether it should be linked. VanTucky 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Spam is deleted. Providers of service are not linked, even if their own article is notable. For instance, Pizza does not link to Pizza Hut even though the Pizza Hut article (rightly) was not deleted as spam. (RookZERO 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC))
Your comparison of Pizza Hut (one of thousands of pizza companies) to the only international certified non-profit organisation teaching a rare internal martial art boggles the mind. VanTucky 22:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? 1. In no instance does any general article link to providers of a good or service, whether that good or service is provided (or claimed to be provided) by one, one hundred or one million providers. 2. Certified by who? And why should that matter? 3. "teaching" should read "claiming to teach." (RookZERO 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

That "international certification" is a lot of nonsense. There is no international organisation that sets certification criteria and carries out certification. They certify only themselves and each other. Can prove otherwise? That you call it non-profit is a very questionable statement. According to definitions for profit they make an economic as well as an accounting profit. It is only for tax purposes that this profit is not called such as to not pay tax on the gained wealth. That the gained wealth is spent on salaries and buying property does not change that. VanBurenen 09:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean that it had official non-profit status in every country in which it is present, that's absurd. But it does have 501-C3 status in the United States. VanTucky 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the See Also link, as the article was merged with Taoist Tai Chi Society. I could find to no independent resources solely on the academy, so it did not meet the guidelines for notability. VanTucky 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the link should not be included. Is this dispute resolved? If so, this article listing needs to be removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex.--Daveswagon 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Various ways of spelling[edit]

Note: The art may be spelled in different ways, for example:
Lok Hup Ba Fa,
Liu He Ba Fa,
Liu Ho Pa Fa,
Lok Hop Pat Fat, etc.,
and abbreviated as: LHBF or LHPF

These various ways of spelling are useful when looking for information with e.g. google. JohJak2 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, for an art with so much variation in naming this list is important. VanTucky (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

proposed rename[edit]

Not once, other than from the single time here of course, have I ever heard the chuan moniker added to liuhebafa. No reliable, independent published sources describing the art as such were or are presented, so I see no verification of the fact that the name is the correct one other than one user's opinion. There are hundreds of Google hits for the other versions of the art's name, but only a measly four hits when liuhebafa chuan is Googled. VanTucky (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Necessary rename of this page. Liuhe and Bafa refer to a theory and a method, not necessairly a martial art system. All chinese kung fu systems add Chuan, Quan, Keun to the name to show they are refering to a martial system and not something else. For example, Hung Ga is the "Hung Family" and Hung Ga Keun is the "Kung Fu of the Hung Family Style". Taking away Chuan is removing the meaning of martial art or system from the style, this is how it has always been.

Why Chuan over Quan? Because though both are accepted chinese pinyin, one of them can be pronounced improperly. Quan can be misspoken as Kwan, which is misleading and incorrect. But this is a mere technicality.

Why unite Liuhe and Bafa? Both are seperate concepts and seperate systems (liuhe chuan, bafa chuan), but 6 Harmonies and 8 Methods Boxing is unseperable into 2 seperate parts. Liuhebafa Chuan is the proper name, any seperation is misleading and without "chuan" (or quan) is not the martial system, just the theory of the style and not the style itself! Mildsevenlights

First off, there is no proof that all Chinese systems add chuan. Just for example, Chuojiao doesn't. Second, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability in reliable sources, not truth. Adding chuan to the name is a vastly minority practice, out of all the variant romanizations of the art. Renaming the entire article for a name with only four Google hits would be giving undue weight to a fringe opinion on the subject, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. VanTucky (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is wikipedia about getting hits from google or about presenting accurate information? The other pages concerning the other internal arts are listed as: Tai Chi Chuan, Baguazhang, Xingyiquan respectively. Does consistancy mean nothing?Mildsevenlights

Accuracy is achieved by adhering to what reliable, published sources say, rather than hearsay and opinion. Wikipedia is not going to make up the notability of a romanization style of a martial art just to make it consistent with other articles. The plain and simple truth is that, despite your personal experience and opinion, the name liuhebafa chuan is practically unheard of in comparison to other, more popular names for the art. VanTucky (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Published sources? I can list at least a dozen published books labeled 六合八法拳 (liuhebafa chuan), and post the images of them! Most all the books published in history on Liuhebafa Chuan have Chuan included, do you want links to see them for yourself?

How about another page from this very site? This is chinese, it says 5 charecters (liu he ba fa chuan), not liuhe bafa. I think you must change this one too then.

Sure the name is practically unheard of in english, but in chinese this is the only way its refered to. Why do you want the english to be different from the chinese? This is where I see the problem.

You are in Vancouver? ( I just assume ) If so I can give you the name and phone number of at least 7 teachers of this style who will tell you the exact same thing. Can I list them as sources? If not then what would be a acceptable source? Because I can provide names of teachers for references, images of books stating the same as I say, what else is there?Mildsevenlights 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That type of anecdotal evidence is not considered a reliable source under WP:RS. As to the idea that using chuan is the major usage in Chinese, neither do those links prove it is not a fringe opinion. VanTucky (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! You may say that in English it is just a fringe option, one that I prefer, but you are right. How would you feel about a compromise? I propose "liuhebafa" all one word. That is well known and well searched, and from my standpoint is quite acceptable. How would that be?Mildsevenlights 20:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its also fair to mention that the full name of the style since its systemization is "huayue xinyi liuhebafa chuan". Obviously too long a name, but that is what it was labeled as, and should be mentioned even if just for trivia sake!Mildsevenlights 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Making it all one word is fine. But I have also never heard of the longer version, and all it is apt to do is get it confused with the other neijia. And trivia is something to be avoided. VanTucky (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ride Backwards On Dragon[edit]

I would very much appreciate it if VanBurenen would please quit deleting the external link I am adding to my book, Ride Backwards On Dragon. This book contains 28 pages of endnotes decoding the Taoist symbolism (anatomical, metaphysical, and alchemical) of the names of the 66 movements of the main form of Liuhebafa. This information has never before been published - at least not in any systematic way. As such, it is a unique and relevant resource that will certainly be of interest to many practitioners of Liuhebafa and other Taoist internal arts (Tai Chi, Hsing-I, Bagua). Thanks. :) Kim Goldberg, Nanaimo, BC ( Gaiarising (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

The link is being deleted because adding links to promote your own books and websites is a clear-cut violation of Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest editing. Please desist from adding the link, as it violates Wikipedia's rules on external links. Further adding of the link may result in a block for spamming. VanTucky talk 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to "break any rules..." But shouldn't the rules serve the people and not vice versa? ;> If this link contains useful and relevant information for readers of this entry, whose interests are being served by deleting it? Do you really mean to suggest that if someone other than me adds this link, it will stay, but if I add it, it will be deleted? That just isn't logical, is it? I mean, aren't we trying to convey relevant information to people who are interested in this topic? Isn't that the real mission? Are you comfortable denying all Liuhebafa practioners the knowledge that there is now a resource decoding this arcane symbolism? I don't really get the logic here. Kim Goldberg Gaiarising (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

If you want to speak theoretically about the matter, I would say that I would still remove the link even if it wasn't the author adding it. It's a point of sale for a book. Amazon might contain reviews of books, and Ebay might have pictures of rare products, but that doesn't mean we link to them. Commercial links are prevented as spam regardless of adds them. For a comprehensive discussion of what is allowed in external links sections and what isn't, please read WP:EL. VanTucky talk 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)