|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wudang quan article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Neijia is a more broad term used mistakenly in the West as a synonym for the more specific Wǔdāngquán; while neijia encompasses Aikido and Qigong, Wǔdāngquán does not.
categorization of Chinese kungfu/martial arts
The page says 'In current-day China, the martial arts are generally classified into two major groups: Wudang (武當拳) and Shaolin.'. This is not the least bit true. Even though nowadays martial arts are named and categorized, unlike before probably one/a few centuries ago, Wudang and Shaolin kungfu styles are just two categories out of many.
To name a few that are unrelated to both, think of styles such as: wing chun, Mongolian crane, fukien white crane, bagua zhang, piqua quan, baji quan, some tai chi styles, and so on.
I am not going to alter this page because the last time I did that, I was accused of 'vandalism'. But please, review my comment above and improve for everyones benefit! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- You say that it's not true that Chinese martial arts are split into the two groups; but I have given five literary references to this fact. Where are your facts ?
- As to the styles you name: Wing Chun falls under the Shaolin catagory; Mongolian Crane is not Chinese; White Crane is Shaolin; BaGuaZhang is Wudang (yes, it is); piqua is Shaolin, even though some will argue it is "internal" or Wudang; there are actually two branches of Baji Chuan, one is Shaolin and one is truly Wudang; all styles of Tai Chi are Wudang.
- And yes, this article is solidly written and referenced, so many vandals have been thwarted here. One such vandal even tried to take out 13 references in one edit. Your comment was posted here on June 13th. Today is June 17th. I will continue to watch out for vandals here forever. Also, notice how a real wikipedia editor signs his posts here: TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It might be apparent to those that know, but it certainly won't be to those that don't. If you're going to use the term, define it (rather than using "quotes" and including a link at the end of the article). Bromley86 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are new to this realm of martial arts, but there was a page called "Internal Martial Arts" that now redirects to neijia. Many English speaking people call Neijia the internal martial arts. When you learn more about Neijia, you might still call them internal martial arts.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
i think the topic wudang quan or wudang chuan is misleading. i don t think there is such a style or fighting art, that is called that. in the article there isn t mentioned anything about such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strange how you read the article but fail to read any of the references, some of which are online. Please go read them, and then you will think there is such a fighting art and that this is the appropriate name.TommyKirchhoff (talk)
Wrong article name
- In years past, I would have argued that Wudang is the most common English usage for this type of boxing, and that chuan was argued ad nauseam on the Tai Chi page. But it seems you are correct, and the Tai Chi page no longer uses chuan. Also, the XingYi page is now using quan. I would support an article name change to Wudang quan.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)