Talk:Wudangquan/Archive 1

Archive 1

First comment

Wikipedia's NPOV policy prohibits claims such as the one I edited out of this article. Fire Star 05:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternate Authors and Material (request)

Would like to find out if any of those who have previously had an interest in correcting this topic would have an interest in real collaboration? As several others have pointed out, there are many, many problems with the article's presentation and it's content. Wudang108 (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Naming Wudang

I have put the contents of Wudangquan here simply because the more developed Tai Chi chuan uses the Wade-Giles spelling. I believe it's easier for westerners to associate the "chuan" in Tai Chi with Wudang Chuan. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Developing This Page

A couple years ago, I found a very comprehensive article on the internet discussing how Wudang Sword is linked directly to BaGuaZhang. Now I can't find it, but there are certainly a number of references to indicate such. I don't believe Wudang Chuan comes from the Wudang Mountains; but there are many references to the Wudang Sword Grandmaster Sung Wei-Yi calling his art Wudang, introducing the sword to Yang Tai Chi and Chen Tai Chi, and to his tutelage of General Li Jing Lin and Fu Chen Sung. Any research of Sung Wei-Yi leads to Li and Fu. Fu Chen Sung befriended Li Jing Lin, Yang Cheng Fu, & Sun Lu Tang, and exchanged a great deal of information with them. The Fu Family continues to call their arts "Fu Style Wudang Fist" and includes Wudang elements that cannot be found almost anywhere else. Articles on the world-famous Bow Sim Mark often discuss her Wudang Sword, which she learned from Fu Chen Sung's son, Fu Wing Fay. I aim to rebuild this page with these elements, but I need help with references. References are extremely difficult here, as what I know to be true comes from my teacher, Victor Sheng Long Fu (the grandson of Fu Chen Sung); most of the strong texts from the early 20th century are written in Chinese. I see "Wudang Chuan" as having current-day lineage of two major branches: The Fu Family and the lineage of Qian Timing. I don't believe any real Wudang martial arts came from the Taoist temple at the so-called "Wudang Mountain;" my teacher said in the 1970's, the Taoists of that temple invited his father, Fu Wing Fay, to come and teach them Wudang Martial Arts (other teachers were also invited there at that time). I find it especially interesting that Wudang Grandmaster Fu Chen Sung created the Liang-Yi Chuan form around 1930; it was specific to only Fu Style-- and yet, the Taoists at "Wudang Mountain" now teach a "Liang-Yi" form also. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

More Research Needed

This is the first time I've used the talk page, so let's hope I do it right! This particular entry on Wudangquan has very little to do with Wudangquan and should, instead, be retitled "neijia" or "internal martial arts" or should be linked to similar pages already in existence. I see no history of Wudang Kung Fu, its sects, its current status, techniques, characteristics, curricula, prominent masters, or association with Daoism. If this information cannot be included, then the page should remain much shorter until it can be.

There are currently about 30-33 sects or lineages of Wudang Kung Fu. Most of them came from the Wudang mountain range or surrounding area. There are many temples in Wudangshan, so I don't know which temple you are speaking of. And the 70s were a scary time in Wudang because of the Cultural Revolution, and no one was practicing martial arts there until Mao's death in 1976, when the Revolution officially ended. I don't know when your Master said he traveled to Wudang, but it would have had to been post-Cultural Revolution. In addition to that, because of the Revolution, many Masters fled to other parts of China. That may be why your Master was invited: the goal was to bring all Wudang martial arts back to the mountains.

I recognize that many people are finding it difficult to find accurate information on the history of Wudang kung fu. I am in the process of trying to rectify this problem but it will take some time. Once I have put together the relevant information and website, I will help expand this entry. -16th Generation student, Wudang Sanfeng Sect. Jendownunder (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read Stanly Henning's, "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan" which is referenced on this page. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Mr. Henning's work, however, his book has to do with the origin of taijiquan (which his research can be debated, but that's another issue) and has nothing to do with Wudang gongfu, its sects, history and curricula. This page is supposed to be dedicated to Wudangquan- not taijiquan or neijia in general. Please refrain from writing things that are not well-researched and do not directly refer to the Wudang martial arts. In addition to that, the first paragraph is extremely inaccurate: 1. While in the 1930s there was an attempt to split Chinese martial arts into two categories, that is not the case today. 2. Wudangquan also encompasses external power and is not solely pigeon-holed into neijia. 3. The name "Wudang" comes from the Wudang mountain range in Hubei Province, one of the holy mountain ranges of Daoism in China. There is no "Wudang Mountain." "Wudangshan" refers to the mountain range, not the mountain itself. The name of the main mountain is called "Taihe" and earlier it was referred to as "Xuanyue." 4. Also, Wudangquan curricula DOES include Qigong (though qigong is not actually a martial art) and is included in its curricula as a part of the complete taiji theory of Taiji, Liang Yi, and Wuji. I will be changing this page completely once I have all of my research gathered. Until then, I highly recommend changing this extremely inaccurate page. Jendownunder (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Extremely inaccurate ? It's cited strongly, so unless you can provide equally strong citations, I'll be reverting as soon as you change it. In response to your 1. The Alibaba link makes it very clear that the split is the case today. Certainly you should read the "Shaolin/Wudang Dichotomy" below :) 2. Give me a good citation, and I'll help you with this :) 3. The website the Taoist of "Wudang Mountain" call it "Wudang Mountain." Yes, I understand what you're saying, but clearly you side with the Taoists of the so-called "Wudang Mountain." 4. Ok, let's change that sentence so it fits this description. I think it's important to note, once again, that you're probably referring as you call it "Wudang Gongfu" of Taihe, and not Wudang Quan which desends from Li Jing Lin.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I reread what you've written here, I can see that you have an ax to grind. Unfortunately, martial arts did not exist at the so-called Wudang Mountain until the late 1970's, at which time they were an amalgamation of arts from people like my Grandmaster, Fu Wing Fay (who went there in the 1970's to teach the priests Wudang Quan). I have lots of references for this (one in my hand); but I challenge you to provide any credible references to dispute what I'm saying here. The Fu Zhen Song invented the LiangYi form around 1930; there are no records of the Taiyi (LiangYi) form of "Wudang Mountain" until 1980, after Fu Wing Fay taught LiangYi to the priests there. You have a mighty big load to prove what you're saying. Best of luck to you.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) 4th Generation Fu Style Wudang Quan

Yes, extremely inaccurate. I have no ax to grind; however, if you're going to write a Wiki page about an ancient art form, you should do a great deal more research. I have studied Wudang-style gongfu for a number of years, was trained in Wudangshan, and am currently finishing up 3 months of research here in the Wudang mountain range. There are books available in Chinese that are not available in English. I have looked. (This is classic!TommyKirchhoff (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC))There are books that you can only find here in Wudang and are not widely published. There are artifacts that exist here that don't exist anywhere else. My research will be based on first-hand interviews(wow!TommyKirchhoff (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)), ancient Chinese history, archaeology, and historical Chinese books.(sounds great, wow! sign me up, Mr. New-To-Wikipedia! How much does your religion cost each month, 'cause I don't have muchTommyKirchhoff (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) I'm sorry, but it's very clear that you simply have not done the research- though likely because the sources have not been freely available outside China rather than a desire to misinform(triple wow, wow, wow ! And there is absolutely no chance that all you intend to cite is puritanical religious horseshit. Unfortunately, your "super-secret-squirrel, inside-the-vestige-of-Wudang-Mountain, ancient-writing-made-to-look-old-even-though-it's-less-than 30-years-old CRAPOLA does not fly here in Academia-Land.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)). Like I said, when I have all of my research gathered, I will change the page. And it will be very well-researched. I promise.

As for Wudang vs. Taihe- in your intro you stated that the "name Wudang comes from a popular Chinese legend...." I was stating that no, the name "Wudangquan" comes from the martial arts of Wudangshan- a mountain range, not a singular mountain. The main mountain is Taihe Mountain. The martial arts were practiced, and are currently practiced, all over the mountain range- not in a singular mountain.

As for martial arts not existing in Wudang until the late 70s, sorry- but that's simply not true. There were several Daoist masters who grew up in Wudang, practiced martial arts in Wudang prior to the Revolution, left, and then returned when its temples were no longer occupied by the Red Army. I have names, Daoist lineages, and even some photos to prove it. To say that martial arts never existed in Wudangshan prior to the 20th century is to ignore history. Are you trying to say that when Emperor Chengzu (1412 AD) of the early Ming Dynasty sent 200,000 soldiers and workers to Wudangshan to build the temples, then ordered soldiers to protect those temples after they were completed, that those same soldiers never practiced the martial arts while there? A little strange, don't you think? And that's only one example.

Like I said, more research is needed. I will happily provide all the reputable sources required, once I have most of my research completed. I am only interested in providing accurate information about Wudangquan, so that others can find the answers they may be looking for- not arguing. So I think this will be the end of my side of the discussion for now. Jendownunder (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Uuummm, yeaaaah... Like I told Subverdor below, the article is so well-researched and referenced, it is nearly impenetrable. It is a fortress of research. The WP pages linked there, and the references all support each other; meanwhile, the references I site for what you're talking about are so mixed up. You will not be able to "change" the page as you say. You will have to work your references into what's there and on the other pages. So again, you have a mighty big load. Best of luck to you, Wudang Wushu Person !TommyKirchhoff (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wudang Sword

I just pre-ordered the forthcoming book, "The Major Methods of Wudang Sword" from Amazon.com. It it released on April 13th; scheduled to arrive April 20th; and should shed good light on the early 1900's Wudang Group not associated with the so-called "Wudang Mountain" group. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Limiting Styles Categories

The first paragraph of this article represents all chinese martial arts as being either "Wudang Chuan" or "Shaolin" - which is fine when those terms are used to indicate "internal" and "external". Unfortunately the Shaolin link redirects to "Shaolin Kung Fu", which defines that term as "arts claiming affiliation with the Shaolin temple". This divergence of definitions is confusing and leads the reader to assume that all Shaolin arts are external.

There are already pairs of categorisations of arts to confuse readers (Northern vs Southern styles, Internal/External and Northern Shaolin/Southern Shaolin) - and arts that are meant to be a blend of techniques between categorisations ( eg. Cai Li Fo ).

I think the best approach would be to remove the Shaolin links and associated text entirely - removing that potential for confusion, and instead link to the External_and_internal_(Chinese_martial_arts) article. Also some of the material used here might be better in External_and_internal_(Chinese_martial_arts) (since I think that article would get more readers than this one). -- Medains (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "Shaolin Kung Fu" page describes the same dichotomy of Wudang / Shaolin right toward the top. As I discussed vehemently in the "tai chi chuan" talk page, it is most important to dichotomize the internal / external arts as it is done in China, not the way we surmise we should as outsiders. Of course it could be a little confusing to non-Chinese-speaking people, but that doesn't mean we should simply use the terms we think are best for clarity-- after all, many terms in Chinese and in the Chinese martial arts have no literal translation. Wudang / Shaolin is the very best way to dichotomize the Chinese martial arts, because it is the way it's done in China. The use of Internal / External dichotomy is the slippery slope that generates the confusion, i.e. Wing Chun is clearly on the Shaolin side, but many will argue that it's an "internal Chinese martial art." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wudang Quan (Wudang Chuan) is not correct.

Corrected passage.

Chinese martial arts include several major schools and systems. Wudang and Shaolin are among the most well-known, especially in western countries. Wǔdāngquán (or Wudang fist/Wudang boxing) has special characteristics which include arts applied with internal power. While many people may associate the use of internal power with Tai chi chuan, Xing-Yi chuan and Bagua zhang, and other arts, Bagua and Xingyi did not originate at Wudangshan. It is important to distinguish the broad references to internal arts (or neijiaquan) from the more specialized arts which take their name and origin from the area in and around the Wudang mountains.

The remainder of this article does not pertain to Wudangquan in particular and is miscategorized under this topic.

98.70.91.8 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Terri Morgan

I agree that the old article wasn't a correct description of Wudang Quan, but the new article is "used by permission" from another source. Do you really have an email from that source releasing that text under a creative commons license? What did they tell you that you say it is used with permission?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fellas, the problem here is that you're not Chinese. The references I CITE are of Chinese origin: the dichotomy of Shaolin/Wudang by Sun Lu Tang. Also, that crappy "new" revision was complete propaganda, and lacked citations. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TommyKirchhoff, please do not criticize other editors' comments by discussing their nationalities, or your assumptions thereof. Only argue about the ideas expressed; not the maker thereof. LadyofShalott 23:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I talked to Tommy a bit about this -- my understanding of the situation is pretty much the same as Terri's. Of course there are two big lineages of martial arts in China called Shaolin and Wudang, but saying that Shaolin more or less means "external" and Wudang more or less means "internal" doesn't match with my (woefully-uneducated, from an academic standpoint) understanding.

I'm going to change the intro (ha! ha!) to match my understanding. Among other things, I've tried to tone down the axe-grindiness of the intro, and change it to simply indicate the two separate uses of "Wudang" that we've seen discussed. I should mention that I'm still not really convinced that the use of "Wudang" to mean most internal arts is in at-all-common use, but I'm including that viewpoint in the intro (along with the other "viewpoint" concerning lineages which was already there on somewhat-less-than-equal footing). Subverdor (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Before You Change This Page

For the people who believe Zhang San Feng was the guy who created tai chi, please read Stanley Henning's, "Ignorance, legend and taijiquan" which is cited here. Also, if you believe WudangQuan should redirect to the Neijia page, please pick up (I mean physically pick up and read)" XingYi Quan Xue" as cited on this page. In fact, before you think about making any major changes to this page, you should go read (actually read) all of the references cited here, because they are concrete. The "critics" think the intro should be re-written; but they have no ideas on how to do so. Also, when I said that translating Chinese to English is extremely difficult, one such critic referenced the Aikido page; this is absolutely ridiculous, as translating Japanese is very easy compared to the complexity of language, culture and ideas from China. Just goes to show the kind of "help" we're getting from WikiCritics... In other words, if you think you need to change this page, let's all discuss it here first. And know that what you're probably suggesting has already been scrutinized over and over between this page, and the Wiki pages of three sisters of internal martial arts. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• That "critic" would be me. I have plenty of ideas on how to rewrite that intro, thank you very much, but I will leave this barely legible mess to you, though I can't resist making the first sentence accord with our style manual. If Aikido is not to your liking, you are welcome to check the list of Featured Articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Featured and good content. Language is not the problem, obviously, and given that you have English-language sources, it is odd that they aren't able to help you produce something that makes sense. And no, this matter has not been scrutinized--there's a few random remarks, that's it. To each his own, I imagine; you are free to think of "Wudang chuan" as an impossible topic to write about in English, and you are free to think of me as a Somali who doesn't know English. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the best wishes. I corrected that horrible revision splattered onto the top of the page. I hope that's not what you were referring to as accordance with your style manual. If so, Wikipedia's style manual needs a major overhaul to assimilate stoic, tried-and-true style manuals such as the Associated Press and The Chicago Manual of Style. The style I have chosen for the sentences I created (about 50 percent) is news style in a formal tone, cited and crystal clear. I've had several educated people read it, and they agree with my appraisal.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

additionally http://www(.)expo2010china(.)hu/index.phtml?module=hir&ID=767 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh -- I'd like to edit this article, but it seems that there's already a very high edit-to-discussion ratio, and a lot of the discussion is general arguing.

I think the first thing is to settle on what sources we're going to be using. What is the "Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii", and is its journal a reliable source? I ask because Henning's paper reads a lot like an impassioned rant ("Now, 13 years later, I notice that ignorance still appears to be the rule rather than the exception. Why is this?! After reading Paul Crompton's The Art of T'ai Chi ... I realized that at least part of the reason for this state of affairs is because the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' is not merely a saying but a fact for some people."). That's not the kind of language and tone I expect to see in an academic paper. The only thing I find in google searches for "Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii" is citations to a few of its journal's papers (pretty much all by Henning).

Also, Tommy, if Chinese sources are the best sources to use for this article, can you provide the appropriate translations as described in WP:NONENG? If we round-eyes are not competent to understand Wudang martial arts due to not being familiar with the source material, this is a golden opportunity for you to help with our education (as well as complying with WP policy) by distributing your correct understanding more widely. Subverdor (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Henning's paper is not written in a tone typical to academia; however, his erudite puffery certainly gets the point across in a logical way, and Henning cites a vast number of credible sources himself. Henning's papers (plural) are germain to the argument of the non-existence of Zhang SanFeng, and back up several other points made in the introduction here. I also see on your talk page that someone told you the Chen Journal cited here is quite credible. As far as "distributing my correct understanding more widely," I have put a great deal of effort into creating relative pages, editing existing ones (the Tai Chi Chuan page was a huge ordeal), and working the bugs out of Wudang on Wikipedia by researching and adhering to WP policy, and by using the BEST references and citations I can find. I can't dedicate my life to this thing, but my philanthropic efforts seem extremely unappreciated.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like folks want to use this page as a springboard to propagate the belief that Zhang SanFeng was a real guy who created Tai Chi Chuan. While I believe I've done a great job citing credible references that debunk this myth, no one who argues the counter-point can or will product a credible reference to support the myth. Certainly "Bob's House of Wudang" in Atlanta http://www.atlantamartialarts.com/styles/wudang.htm does not qualify as a credible reference.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who Subverdor contacted about the Chen Journal. I just wanted to point out Prof. Meir Shahar has a brief section in his book that describes how practitioners of the internal school copied Shaolin's veneration of Bodhidharma as the originator of their arts by creating a mythos of their own. They combined Zhang Sanfeng, who was actually a historical person active around 1380 CE, with the Chinese god known as the Dark Warrior to create a fictional persona who was adept in martial arts. Chinese records show that Zhang had no connection to martial arts whatsoever. If you are interested, the material appears in his book The Shaolin Monastery (pp. 175-180). He provides several references for Zhang's historicity. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I obviously need to get my own copy of Shahar's book. Getting the Xing Yi Quan Xue would be good as well, but those seem pricey. Tommy, if it's just that paragraph from the intro that you're using as support for the "Wudang means internal, Shaolin means external" assertion, would you mind quoting the whole thing?

I can see where you could have read my intro as arguing for the historicity of Zhang Sanfeng - that wasn't my intent; I meant "legendary" as in "not necessarily historical, i.e. a legend", but I can see that's unclear. Is there anything else you're unhappy about in my intro (besides the fact that it's not yours :-) )? Subverdor (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I conveyed all of the points with which I was "unhappy" on your talk page. As an overview, you propagated the ZSF myth with the references that debunk it; your intro daftly ignored the credibility of Henning's references for who knows what reason (and openly declared you don't believe the publication is credible); your writing was unclear, misleading and full of "weasel-words;" and the single reference you cited was complete balderdash. These glaring mistakes along with your recent reversion of the facts I placed on the page about Wudang Wushu (not to mention your "WTF") discredit your efforts as uninterested in portraying an academic, encyclopedic definition. Please feel free to add whatever you like to the Wudang Wushu section, as this is clearly your emphasis of understanding. I'm not making fun of Wudang Wushu, but merely stating the facts. After all, the priests at Wudang believe BaGuazhang was also created at Wudang Mountain, which is patently incorrect.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, at least five or six of the references given here support the Chinese dichotomy of Wudang and Shaolin. Even if you buy all the same books sitting on my shelf, and read them, I'm not sure you will believe this fact. The Alibaba link is simple, easily-accessed, and pretty much says it all. You said you think I "am looking for a fight." Conversely, I am tired of fighting guys like you who refuse to believe the multiple references that are rock-solid and crystal clear.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wudang / Shaolin Dichotomy

Quoting entire sections of a book is plagarism, so I won't do it in the article. However, because many people have battled over the simple dichotomy, I quote entire sections to clarify:

"Ever since, boxing styles have been arbitrarily labeled as being either of the Shaolin or 'external' school, or the Wudang or 'internal' school..."

"Ignorance" Henning

"...the arts of Ba Gua Zhang, Xing Yi Quan and Tai Cji Quan have also been grouped under the name 'Wu Dang Boxing.' This name falsely led people to believe that these arts could trace their origins to the Daoists of Wu Dang Mountain. The truth is that the origination of each of these arts can be clearly traced to places other than Wu Dang and, of the three, Ba Gua Zhang is the only one which evolved directly from specific Daoist practices. So, one might ask, where did the name 'Wu Dang" come in?"

"Xing Yi Quan Xue" Sun Lu Tang (intro by Dan Miller)

"The two major schools of Chinese martial arts, Shaolin and Wudang, have agreed to perform during the Shanghai World Expo in 2010, offering a kungfu gala for fans from around the globe."

Alibaba link

"In reciprocation for Feng's support and cooperation, not to mention at least one hundred thousand tough, battle-hardened troops in the Northern Expedition, Chaing Kai Shek allocated funding for Zhang Zhi Jiang's conception of a national martial organization, the 'Central National Arts Academy...' Although Li Jing Lin was dismissed from his army position after 1925 (not surprisingly, due to political infighting), he was still strongly interested in the martial arts and devoted his energy to creating this martial academy... They divided the academy into two groups, one based on the Shaolin arts and the other based on the so-called Wudang arts."

"Fu Zhen Song's Dragon BaGuaZhang" Lin Chao Zhen

"Before the martial arts were systematized, generals of the Warring States Period (480-221 BC) gained much personal combat experience in the field. When they grew old, they retired to Shaolin Temples to learn new skills from the masters there. These were longevity skills based on the principles of Taoism. These men then founded their own new schools, blending their fighting experience with the principles of Taoism learned in the Temple. The Shaolin school was more closely associated with Buddhism, while the Wu-Dan was more strictly Taoist."

"The Fighting Arts" Reid and Croucher (Published by Simon and Schuster !)

"Wudang kung fu is one of two main streams of Chinese martial arts. Shaolin kung fu is famous for its strength and explosive power, its external power. Wudang kung fu is exactly the opposite. Softness or yin power is used to overcome hardness... Wudang forms appear soft on the outside, but internally it is really hard."

http://www.wudangdao.com/MASTER/kungfu_magazine1.htm

"The Chief Priest of Wudang Mountain" (Wudang Kung Fu Defined, page 35) Kung Fu Tai Chi (Magazine), Ching

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You would do better to be calm. My understanding is also that there are two major groups of Chinese martial arts called Shaolin and Wudang. My understanding is that those represent lineages and not categories of separately-derived martial arts. The equation of Wudang with "internal" and Shaolin with "external" sounds totally wrong to me; there may be some tendencies in that direction, but it's not nearly that simple (and neither distinction is "arbitrary"). Reading Henning say that kind of thing is a big part of why I don't put much faith in his conclusions.

So, you have several sources for the demonstrable fact that Wudang and Shaolin are two groups of martial arts. Do you know of any other source that claims that they are synonymous with "internal" and "external", or that either one of those distinctions is arbitrary? Or is that part just in Henning?

Also, the section on "Wudang Wushu" is clearly unacceptable - it's nowhere sourced except to the web page itself. It's as if I wrote a section in the Aikido article about a particular school, what their web site said, and how I felt about it. How in the world are you defending this? WP isn't a site for web site summaries or critiques (unless they're reliably-sourced and NPOV). Subverdor (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting my time. Your understanding is wrong; my understanding is academically demonstrable. Go read the Shaolin page, and some other books. Yes, I have lots more sources, but what I've cited is more than adequate. If you don't believe those books, that's your problem.

"Wu-Dan was the mountain especially associated with the development of the Taoist internal schools of martial arts." The Fighting Arts, page 81TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shahar mentions how the words internal and external might have had political connotations before they became associated with hard and soft styles. Either way, regarding the usage, he comments:

…the Zhang Sanfeng genealogy matched the Bodhidharma ancestry in a perfectly harmonious structure. On the one hand was the “External” school associated with Buddhism and attributed to an Indian patriarch who supposedly meditated on the sacred Mt. Song; on the other hand was an “internal” school affiliated with Daoism and ascribed to an immortal who reputedly secluded himself on the holy Mt. Wudang. This flawless symmetry of directions (external and internal), religions (Buddhism and Daoism), and sacred peaks (Song and Wudang) was joined, on the geographical axis, by a correlation of north and south. Because Mt. Song was the more northern of the two peaks, the “External" school was named the “Northern,” whereas its “Internal” rival came to be known as the “Southern.” Like Chan Buddhism a thousand years earlier, the martial arts were gradually imagined in terms of a “Northern School” and a “Southern School.” (p. 179)

I'm neutral in this debate, but I figured this material had some bearing on the subject.

In addition, I would like to make a suggestion based on page structure. Most of the articles I have ever seen on Wikipedia start the lead off with a sentence mentioning the subject in bold letters (see WP:Lead section#First sentence for instance). As it stands now, the first sentence about the division in martial arts just seems out of place. I'm sure that can somehow be worked into the lead elsewhere. Also, the Chinese characters for Wudang quan (武当拳) need to be mentioned following the name. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff, Ghost. I totally feel you on the first line, as it's not typical; but in thinking about it critically, I believe the moniker Wudang should be immediately localized to its origin of China. This way, there's no arguing about what Westerners "think" Wudang means. Critically, Wudang means A,B,C in China; and everywhere else other than China can say whatever they want. Funny that I found the Kung Fu Tai Chi article this morning, as the Taoist priest in the article defines Wudang almost exactly the same way. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I like how you edited your comment after I replied (adding the Kung Fu magazine reference) -- I asked for an example of a source other than Henning that claimed that "Wudang" was synonymous with "internal" and "Shaolin" with "external," and poof! One was included in the comment I'd been replying to. Amazing. Anyway, that isn't much of an example -- it actually explains in a bit more detail exactly what I was attempting to explain to you (that there are tendencies towards internal in Wudang and external in Shaolin, but that it's not as simple as "Wudang is internal training"). That part is within your ellipsis: "Of course, it also has a hard part. There is external power." The other side of that coin (that Shaolinquan includes internal training) you mentioned earlier on this very talk page (talking about Wing Chun). Maybe you know all that already, and were so caught up in explaining what an idiot I am that you didn't notice that what I was saying was equal to your existing beliefs. Maybe not.

The Kung Fu magazine article is quite good in general -- it's the first reference I've seen here by someone who seems to know what he's talking about as far as martial arts. Another thing he explains that I've been trying to explain to you (and trying to put into the article) is the fact that Wudang is (according to legend) a lineage and not simply an arbitrary grouping of unrelated schools:

It's very hard to say how many lineages there are at Wudang today. Through the centuries so many masters have created their own styles. ... When they become their own style, they create another branch of the lineage. ... the Wudang Zhang San Feng branch is the main stream. Now we still call it Wudang San Feng Pai. All of the others came out of the San Feng Pai - they were created and branched out. Under Wudang San Feng Pai are eight men: Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, Baiji, Baxian, Xuangong, Liuhe, and Jiugong.

(signature copied here for clarity): Subverdor (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"All of the others came out of the SanFeng Pai" ?? Yeah. Right. And ZSF was a real martial artist who invented Bagua and rode unicorns to the Phillips 66 station to buy cigarettes. The T'ai Chi article has way more substance than the Kung Fu article when it comes to "history;" and there are no connections between Jin Zitao and Zhong Yun Long. That's a real problem for both parties. You see ? I'm trying to show that the Wudang SanFeng sect is almost 30 years old. That's just silly ! The propaganda you include as to the "lineage" of Wudand SanFeng is crapola. Yes, Wudang SanFeng has a lineage; but historical records show that "Wudang Mountain" was empty during the years 1900-1980. The Wudang Dan Pai guys have FAR more skill than the SanFeng Sect. Sorry, Charlie. But the martial arts of Wudang Mountain came in the late 1970's from everywhere but Wudang Mountain. So yes, the name Wudang is an arbitrary grouping; and frankly, most of the other "Wudang Quan" are much, much better than the squishy stuff you can find "originating" at Wudang Mountain. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of your historical sources disagree with Zhong Yun Long (for example, saying that Bagua and Xingyi were "grafted on" to the Wudang line for political reasons a couple of hundred years ago) -- which is fine, honestly; he tells the legends as they're known in the martial arts community, and the historians try to figure out what documentable truth there is behind the legends, and everyone gets to learn something. A lot of these academics, though, seem really not to know anything about martial arts (it's hard for me to conceive, for example, of someone who knows about internal martial arts saying that "internal" was originally a political designation and only gradually evolved to mean a tendency towards internal development). That's why I "resist" their conclusions, and I can't imagine that that's an unusual reaction, which is probably why they get so frustrated about people "resisting" their conclusions.

In any case, I'm going to rewrite the intro to go a bit more by the Kung Fu magazine article. I fully expect that you'll revert my edits and yell at me on the talk page a while longer, but I feel that we're beginning to make some forward progress. Maybe after we work on the intro for a while we can start collaborating on the rest of the article :-). Subverdor (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you like the KungFu Tai Chi article, as I do, then why do you have a problem with the way Zhong Yun Long DEFINES WUDANG MARTIAL ARTS ? The intro I wrote is very close to his, although it has far more substance and citations :) I don't have to apologize for editing my comment; I gave you what you were looking for :) How about a sandbox, where we can work on this as a group ? That way, I wouldn't feel the need to blast a revert because the newly-edited WP article doesn't meet academic standards ? You had some good stuff there; but you're still ignoring the essence of what I wrote and how it is so structurally and powerfully cited. I live this stuff, day after day after day; I know what it is, where it comes from and how it's used in China-- which is all that matters.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am now totally confused. Which articles are you talking about when you contrast "The T'ai Chi article" with "the Kung Fu article"? Did you really just describe a section I quoted from Zhong Yun Long as "propaganda" and "crapola" and then say you like his article and claim that your preferred version of the intro is "very close" to his? Subverdor (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. Zhong's definition of Wudang Martial Arts is great (not reading anything into it...); but his beliefs about ZSF, and stating his martial lineage comes from Wudang Mountain as fact is complete balderdash. The T'ai Chi article called "The Revival of a Wudang Form" contradicts the historical aspects of the Zhong's Wudang SanFeng sect-- and the T'ai Chi article is more reputable. The references I've chosen do in fact support my definition, even though some parts of them contradict each other (Wudang Dan Pai is highlyl credible Wudang Quan, even though they believe the ZSF myth). Why don't you tell me what your problem is with the intro, instead of making me guess.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Er... what? You're not allowed to cherry-pick parts of sources that you like, and say that those parts support your argument while other parts (that you don't agree with) are "balderdash" and therefore don't count. You're actually not allowed to do that with sources (and you do cherry-pick sources you like and describe other sources that contradict yours as "propaganda"), but you're certainly not allowed to play this game of selective belief within a single source. That's the definition of bias -- accepting evidence that corroborates your beliefs, and rejecting evidence that contradicts your beliefs, without regard for the source of the information. Correct inquiry is the exact opposite: You accept or reject information depending on the reliability of its source, regardless of how well it matches your present understanding of things. If you're not willing to do that, you're never going to be able to learn anything that's not already in your head. It's actually a pretty dangerous trap to fall into (you see this kind of blindness a lot in religion and politics; people are unwilling to even examine anything outside their present frame of reference, and in fact will get very angry at anything that contradicts their existing worldview, so their views can never change regardless of the reality of the situation). It -- ahem -- makes communication with them difficult, time-consuming, and frustrating. Certainly you can imagine how irritating it would be if I kept insisting that the parts of the Kung Fu magazine interview that you agree with were "crapola" while simultaneously using the parts you don't like as support for my arguments.

Anyway, simply put, I don't like your introduction because it presents the historical consensus with Wikipedia's voice. I understand that the historical consensus gets a very serious weight, but there are other reliable sources (Zhong Yun Long being one recent example) who disagree. It's not up to you to decide that certain historians are right and certain martial arts teachers are wrong regardless of how you feel about the matter. WP:NPOV puts it best:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, it is normally necessary to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and avoid presenting them as direct statements.

It's therefore required that we present this dispute in accurate terms, rather than deciding that the historians are obviously right and the other reliable sources are "balderdash" (or that, because they express certain disagreeable ideas, they suddenly become unreliable sources). My intro explained that within martial arts culture the lineages are described a certain way (and I can't imagine you'd dispute that, since your historical sources spend so much energy getting angry that those beliefs are so common), and also explained that modern historical research has discredited those ideas (I've giving you the benefit of the doubt and describing several cherry-picked sources which slightly contradict each other as a "consensus" :-). Your intro presented the historical inquiry as the truth -- and, more to the point, it explained the historical inquiry to the exclusion of any discussion of the traditional account or comparison between the two (for example, omitting the explanation of why certain internal martial arts are placed in the "Wudang group" and others aren't, or the explanation of what is unsatifactory about historical records of Zhang Sanfeng). That may make the article for an efficient vehicle for presenting a certain argument, but it doesn't make the article informative to a reader who doesn't already know anything about Wudang. Subverdor (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As written, the intro accurately describes the modern usage of WUDANG in China, and the history of its usage in clear, philological terms. That ZSF had nothing to do with the martial arts is NOT a seriously contested assertion; it is a material fact that was originally proven to be myth by a highly-credible martial arts historian in the 1930s (as referenced in Henning's second paper), and repeatedly echoed by many other Chinese historians. You want to push the WUDANG moniker to generally mean something about lineages, which are only germane after the philogical usage has been established. In reference to martial arts, the name WUDANG is a new term, coined around the turn of the 20th century. Fu Style Wudang Quan uses the name only because of the family's association with Li Jing Lin & the newly emerging internal martial arts in the early 20th century. Wudang SanFeng sect did not exist at that time, and would not be born until the real Wudang masters were invited to Wudang Mountain in the late 1970's "to bring martial arts back to Wudang" (that's why the T'ai Chi article is named, "REVIVAL..." Wudang SanFeng sect did not show up to the 1928, all-China martial arts competitions in Nanjing and Beijing, where Fu Chen Sung was unparalleled; if China had the same competition these days, Wudang SanFeng sect would be the first ones at the door.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I... what? Huh? You said earlier that some of your cited sources contain the "myths" you're trying to debunk, now you're asserting that there's no serious disagreement about them? I want to explain that you can't deem part of a source reliable and part not based on how well each part matches what you think is true... but I've already tried that and you asserted that yes, you could.

So... you've introduced so many fascinating assertions above that I really would like to hear more about them, but let's keep this focused. Do you have any sources besides Stanley Henning for the assertion that the Wudang group of martial arts is an arbitrary collection (randomly including some internal martial arts but not others) and not the group of arts claiming (possibly incorrectly) to be descended from Taoist arts practiced in the Wudang mountains? Subverdor (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud ! It's too bad you look for facts that support your opinion instead of basing your opinion on the facts; academia is so much more profound in the latter method. The article now contains a fortress of credible references, most of which reinforce each other, and most of which are easily-accessed over the Internet. Just read all the references with weblinks. Then read them again. Then read them again. Perhaps some sort of osmosis of information transmission will transpire if you print the weblinks and actually eat the pieces of paper. Because an eighth-grade level of reading and comprehension of the references cited would allow most any reader to separate the sheaf from the wheat, the corn from the cob, the truth from the myth. Your opinions tire and bore me. As it stands the article is nearly impenetrable, and I'm just going to keep adding references.TommyKirchhoff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

And please, please, I beg you to please read the WP pages linked to this article. Mostly, they support everything here with the exception that some of them propagate the Zhang Sanfeng MYTH.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fu Wing Fay

Not that this is particularly related to anything we're discussing -- Tommy, did you really include an entire unsourced section describing the history and accomplishments of your teacher and his school (saying that he "grew up among many of the greatest martial artists in the Golden Era of Martial Arts in China" and that he "learned well from his father and the other great masters")? I don't think that's appropriate... deep down everyone (including me) feels like their martial arts school is the best in the world, and almost everyone has genuine respect and admiration for their teacher's skills and accomplishments, and feels deep gratitude for the time their teacher's spent with them. But there are thousands of Wudang schools and thousands of skilled practitioners. There's a big difference between being personally proud of your school and wanting one of the four sections in the Wikipedia article about Wudang to be devoted to your school. I've added a "fact" tag to the end of that section -- do you have citations to indicate notability of Fu Wing Fay and Victor Fu? Subverdor (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Like in the song by Yello, "Oh yeaaaah." You can call it cherry-picking; I call it preponderance of the evidence, the same method the justice system uses. Just because there is no evidence of God doesn't mean that everything a Christian says is wrong. The references show that ZSF did not create Wudang; that BaGua and T'ai Chi are a couple-hundred years old; that there were no martial arts at Wudang Mountain before 1980; and that Fu Style has produced some of the most highly acclaimed martial artists in the world, namely Fu Chen Sung, Fu Wing Fay, and Bow Sim Mark. Meanwhile, Wudang Mountain can't get its facts straight as to where their martial arts came from in only 30 years. Again, you waste my time.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Source on Zhang Sanfeng

I have been asked to provide citations for Shahar's assertion that the historical Zhang Sanfeng had no connection to martial arts. As I mentioned above, I am neutral in this debate, so I don't want to be drawn into an edit war by adding anything to the article. I have, therefore, decided to transcribe here on the talk page applicable info from Shahar's book and from a paper I recently read that dealt specifically on Zhang in Chinese records. I will let the involved parties evaluate the material to see if it merits being added to the page (that is if an agreement can be met). Please check back later as I don't have the time to do it today. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If an agreement can be made :-). Sounds good to me - FWIW I have Shahar's book on order at the bookstore now. Subverdor (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess my usage of "met" is a local colloquialism. It's sort of like saying "meet halfway." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please post here as much as you comfortably can. I ordered "Jingwu -- The School that Transformed Kung Fu" by Brian Kennedy. I once found a reference to a book that defined Wudang as 'the combination of jian (sword) and BaGuaZhang.' Man ! I wish I could find that again !TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, I finally found some time to transcribe the information as promised. Please forgive any mistakes as I typed this out quickly for the sake of time. This is information from Shahar's book:

"The tendency to define novel fighting reference to Shaolin's established reputation is best exemplified by the seventeenth-century Internal School Fist (Neijia Quan), was taught by Wang Zhengnan (1617-1669) in Zhejiang. Huang Zongxi (1610-1695) and his son Huang Baijia (1643-?)--who left us the earliest accounts of the school--contrasted it with the Shaolin method, which they designated 'external.' In his 1669 epitaph for Wang Zhengnan, Huang Zongxi wrote that 'Shaolin is famous for its hand combat. However, its techniques are chiefly offensive, which creates opportunities for an opponent to exploit. Now there is another school that is called 'internal,' which overcomes movement with stillness. Attackers are effortlessly repulsed. Thus we distinguish Shaolin as 'external.'

The Huangs attributed Wang Zhengnang's seventeenth-century Internal School to a mysterious Daoist immortal named Zhang Sanfeng (fl. 1380), who had lived two and a half centuries earlier. According to Huang fils, Zhang had studied the Shaolin style before creating his own more sophisticated method. 'The External School flourished at Shaolin,' wrote Huang Baijia. 'Zhang Sanfeng, having mastered Shaolin, reversed its principles, and this called the Internal School. Very little is known of the historical Zhang Sanfeng (whose name was originally written with a different character for feng), except that he had been active during the early Ming in the Daoist monastic complex on Mt. Wudang in Hubei. However it is clear from the early records that he had nothing to do with the martial arts. Why then did the Huangs, or Wang Zhengnan, attribute the Internal School to the obscure Daoist?

Zhang Sanfeng's association with a military god was likely one reason for his choice as creator of the Internal School. The saint had resided at the Wudang temple complex, which had been dedicated to the cult of a valiant deity, the Perfect Warrior (Zhenwu) (also known as the Dark Warrior (Xuanwu)). Beginning in the eleventh century, some Chinese emperors attributed their success in battle to the martial god, who was extolled for warding off nomadic invasions. Moreover, the third Ming emperor Chengzu (r. 1403-1424) credited the martial deity with his successful usurpation of the throne, for which reason he embarked upon a massive temple construction on Mt. Wudang. Huang Zongxi, at any rate, explicityly linked the Perfect Warrior's fighting techniques with the Daoist saint's Internal School. 'That night,' he wrote, 'Zhang Sanfeng dreamt that the Primordial Emperor (The Perfect Warrior) transmitted the techniques of hand combat to him, and the following morning he single-handedly killed over a hundred bandits.'" (pp. 175-177)

Shahar goes on to say another reason the Huang's attributed Zhang as the founder is because it might have been a political statement. Mt. Wudang was the family shrine of the Ming royal family. After the Manchu invasions and founding of the Qing Dynasty (when these men wrote their works on the Internal School), the Huang's chose the saint as a symbol of loyalty to the former native Chinese dynasty. He notes: 'Douglas Wile is likely right in his assertion that by combining the mythic figures of the Perfect Warrior and Zhang Sanfeng with the righteous martial artist Wang Zhengnan, 'the Huangs attempted in an environment of strict censorship to issue a spiritual rallying cry against alien aggression.' (p. 177) He follows this information with the paragraph I transcribed above about how they may have also wanted to copy Shaolin's veneration of Bodhidharma.

Anna Seidel, the author of the next source, "A Taoist Immortal of the Ming Dynasty: Chang San-feng," spends a good portion of the paper describing mentions of Zhang in Chinese records. There is by far more mythical information available on him than there is historical. Despite this, there have been enough scholars and emperors to write about either knowing him personally or knowing of him during the pertinent time to verify his historicity (just barely). There is no reason for me to transcribe any of this. Concerning his connection to boxing, Seidel states:

"Some readers may be surprised that this hagiography contains not even the faintest allusions to the Taoist techniques of boxing, whereas Chang San-feng is known today, if at all, as the founder of the boxing school of T'ai chi ch'uan.

The earliest data on a boxing master Chang San-feng is found in the biography of a famous boxing master Chang Sung-chi who lived in the sixteenth century in Ningpo. He called himself a disciple of an alchemist Chang San-feng, a recluse in the Wu-tang Mountains who refused the invitation to court of Hui-tsung of the Sung (1101-1126). In a dream the Dark Emperor (Hsuan-ti) taught him the boxing techniques which enabled him alone to overcome a hundred robbers. The name of Chang Sung-chi's technique is not T'ai chi ch'uan but 'esoteric school' nei-chia in opposition to the older Buddhist boxing tradition of the Shao-lin Monastery which he called 'exoteric school' wai-chia. The nei-chia technique was inspired by Taoist conceptions of yielding and defending the enemy less by force than by knowledge of his weak spots. Rivaled by Buddhist boxers of the Shao-lin branch who traced their tradition back to Bodhidharma, Sung-chi chose a famous Taoist as the patron saint of his 'esoteric school.'" (pp. 504-505)

Seidel goes on to talk about Wang and the Huangs and gives similar reasons for why they may have connected Zhang Sanfeng with the Dark Warrior. In his paper on ignorance, Henning says this paper is not always correct. I imagine he is referring to the outdated research on the origins of Taiji by another scholar that is presented in Seidel's paper.

Prof. Douglas Wiles mentions a lot of this in this book Tai Chi's Ancestors. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Seidel's paper is available online. If you have access to a library or university who has an account with ACLS Humanities E-Book, you can read it (and the entire book it appears in) on their website. However, if you don't, I can simply cut-and-paste the text version of it into a lengthy email. I already have Tommy's email. Subverdor, if you would like it and don't want to leave your email on my talk page for privacy reasons, you can email me and I will send it to you in a reply. You can email me by clicking on the small mailbox picture in the upper right hand corner of my talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Neijia

I find it remarkable that the article based on some url claims that the identification of the Wudang group with the Neijia group is a "common Western mistake", and then have the interwiki for this article point to zh:内家拳. The article makes clear that the "Wudang" grouping is artificial and intended to include all "internal" styles. It has nothing to do with the Wudang mountains geographically. The term "Wudangquan" is motivated by the popular idea that Chinese culture is divided between a Taoist and a Buddhist sphere, and that all martial arts necessarily need to qualify as either. Perhaps some people will not subscribe to this idea, but this will not mean that they will exclude some styles from the "Wudang" group; it will rather mean that they will avoid the Wudang vs. Shaolin terminology altogether. We get it, it is disputed which styles may or may not qualify for inclusion. This can be just as easily documented in the merged article. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Chinese, and I certainly didn't add the interwiki link to the Chinese article. What does it say there, Dab ? Some folks incessantly desire to merge Wudangquan with Neijia. This is grossly incorrect; they are not synonymous. I am no tourist in this realm, ahem. And it seems that other martial arts historians agree with the information and references I provide here. Please see Dab's comments here WP:FTN (especially his disregard for an entire BOOK based on his inability to find a technique on the INTERNET. Peace. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I ran that link through Google translate. While the Chinese article discusses Wudang and offers links to other Wudang pages, it must be noted that the term "Neijia" is conspicuously missing from the Chinese pages on Wudang and internal martial arts. Based on these facts, I wonder how Dab sees the Wudangquan article here, its references, etc. as "fringe." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason the interwiki links for neijia were placed here is because the earliest version of this article did not have a clear focus. Even though it was about Wudang, the term only appeared about 9 times, including the title. It mostly talked of neijia, which was mentioned about 12 times, including the sub-headers "Neijia training" and "Neijia in fiction." Therefore, I can see where the confusion came from. You guys can debate the merge as long as you want, but the fact is we have two different articles right now. The interwiki section needs to direct people to the appropriate foreign language articles. It is failing in this respect. Until the merger happens, all the incorrect interwiki links need to be removed. Duplicate links already appear on Neijia. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding previous merges, and another possible merge, I would like to point out that this page has multiple references with the word "Wudang" in the title. The Neijia page does not. I do not believe the two should be merged, but believe both pages should remain. The Neijia page just needs organization, editing and better references.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to remove bias and start to create a more neutral article

It would be nice to include less bias, more than one perspective, more substantial facts, allow more than one person to include relevant information, and avoid digressions. The common standard for presenting "facts," is to include more than one source. In this case, sources in Chinese (or translated from Chinese) would be useful.

I await the "deletion" of my corrections, again. Surprise me ... take the hints and collaborate. No one person "owns" or should believe he owns this topic.

- Terri Morgan (and yes, I realize signing this opens me up to all sorts of ugly-mail and bashing on these talk pages)

Chinese martial arts are varied and many. There are many different systems, styles, and practices. Each has unique qualities, characteristics and methods. Among these, the systems known in Chinese as Wudangpai (Wudang styles) 武当牌 or Wudangquanfa 武当拳法 (Wudang boxing methods) and Shaolinpai (Shaolin styles) 少林牌 or Shaolinquanfa (Shaolin boxing methods) 少林拳法 are among the more famous.

Wǔdāngquán can be translated as Wudang fist or Wudang boxing, and includes many arts. Wudang arts often place great emphasis on the development of internal workmanship, also called nei gong (内功). The Wudang styles (or Wudangpai) include various weapons forms as well as empty hand forms. Among these, various methods of Wudang Sword[1]. are famous.

As the name reflects, the Wudang martial arts arts originated in the Wudang Mountains. These mountains strech for 800 li (800 km) along the border of Henan, Hubei, and Shanxi in what is today central China. The area is home to many daoist temples, villages, towns and cities. The temple priests, hermits, and teachers at Wudangshan have practiced and cultivated their unique styles of martial arts for centuries. And, while there are many different lineages and practices which can properly be called Wudangquan, they all share similar emphasis on the development of internal workmanship. Contents [hide]

   * 1 The Legend of Zhangsanfeng
   * 2 Wudang and the Internal School
   * 3 Use of the term Neijia
   * 4 Unrelated but interesting history
         o 4.1 Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua
         o 4.2 Famous students of Wudang Sword
         o 4.3 One of many Lineages of Wudangpai
         o 4.4 Wudang Taiyi Boxing Lineage and Legend
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links

[edit] The Legend of Zhangsanfeng

According to one legend, Tai chi chuan (taijiquan 太极拳) was developed by Zhang Sanfeng 张三封 who, after leaving the Shaolin temple with the Neijing 内经 (internal book) went to the Wudang Mountains and lived there as a hermit. He was said to have spent all his time studying and practicing martial arts. After some time, he developed the combination of five elements and eight directions into the thirteen postures which are the foundation of all taiji systems known today.

The difficulty with legends is that they are legends. We only have anecdotal evidence and folklore. Many researchers have investigated the legend of Zhangsanfeng but there is little (if any) definitive proof.

By contrast, there is documentation of taiji development tracing back to the Chen village (Chenjiaguo 陈家国). [2][3][4][5] [edit] Wudang and the Internal School

Due to their emphais on internal workmanship, many Wudang arts may be said to belong to the internal school or Neijiaquan 内家拳. Neijia is a very broad classification which includes methods from many different schools, including the arts which orginated at Ermeishan, Huangshan, Songshan, and other places. Traditional Shaolin practices also include many internal methods. Qigong 气功 is a well-known internal practice which has both healing and martial applications.

The internal arts include Tai chi chuan, Xing-Yi chuan and Bagua zhang, [6] as well as Baji chuan, Liu He Ba Fa, and numerous others. [edit] Use of the term Neijia

The term "nèijiā" and the distinction between internal and external martial arts first appears in Huang Zongxi's 1669 Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan.[7]

In 1676 Huang Zongxi's son, Huang Baijia, who learned martial arts from Wang Zhengnan, compiled the earliest extant manual of internal martial arts, the Nèijiā quánfǎ.[8]

[edit] Unrelated but interesting history

There are many hundreds of martial arts stories about practitioners of various arts. The stories below are interesting anecdotes. They are related to Wudang arts only in their mention of one person who practiced Wudang sword. [edit] Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua

In the late 1800s, Dong Hai Chuan began teaching Bagua Zhang to a very select group of individuals. The highly-notable Xing-Yi stylist Liu De Kuan was among those who learned this special art from Dong. Liu was a very friendly martial artist who had also learned Tai Chi Chuan from Yang Lu-ch'an. Liu's friendly nature and experience with these three "internal" martial arts created an easy forum for discussion and knowledge-sharing between practitioners of the these arts.

In 1894, an alliance was created with Cheng Tinghua taking the lead and representing Bagua Zhang; Li Cun Yi and Liu Wei Xiang represented Xingyiquan; and although Liu De Kuan practiced all three arts, he represented Tai Chi Chuan. The alliance grouped the three arts under the umbrella of "Neijia," and swore brotherhood among its associates and practitioners. [9] Cheng Ting Hua was shot and killed by German soldiers during the Boxer Rebellion (1900), which likely strengthened the alliance. [edit] Famous students of Wudang Sword

Around 1912, the third-generation BaGua master Fu Chen Sung was traveling throughout Northern China to meet and learn from the best martial artists when he met Wudang Sword grandmaster Sung Wei-I in Lia Ning Province [10]; Fu learned Sung's Wudang Sword and fighting forms: Lightning Palm and Rocket Fist. Fu joined General Li Jinglin's army in 1920. General Li Jinglin had also met Sung Wei-Yi in the early 1900s while garrisoned in Lia Ning Province, and had also learned Sung's Wudang Sword techniques[11].

In 1925, General Zhang Zhi Jiang began to propagate his belief that martial arts should be used to improve the health of the Chinese people. He suggested the creation of a Central Martial Arts Academy (Central Guoshu Institute), and was named Director. General Li Jinglin, retired from his military career, was named Vice-Chairman to the Academy. General Li's kung fu advisor was the famous Bajiquan master Li Shuwen.

In 1928, Kuomintang generals Zhang Zi Jiang, Fung Zu Ziang and Li Jinglin organized two national martial arts tournaments in Beijing & Nanjing respectively; they did so to screen the best martial artists in order to begin populating the Central Martial Arts Academy. The generals separated the participants of the tournament into Shaolin and Wudang. Wudang participants were recognized as having "internal" skills. These participants were generally practitioners of T'ai Chi Ch'uan, Xíngyìquán and Bāguàzhǎng. Other participants competed under the classification of Shaolin.[2] [6] [9] Fu Chen Sung won the fighting competition in Beijing, and was named head Bāguàzhǎng instructor for all of China.

[edit] One of many Lineages of Wudangpai

There are many practioners and several famous lineage holders from the Wudang school who can trace their history back for several generations. Unfortunately, there has not been the same diligent recordkeeping of teachers and disciples as exists with the Shaolin arts. This makes it challenging for researchers to discover and document the various lineage lines.

According to an article in T'ai Chi Magazine, volume 29, no. 1, the Yang Kui-Shan lineage of Wudang Dan Pai claims to be a direct descent of Zhang SanFeng. Its 9th generation lineage holder was Sung Wei-I, who was the first non-Taoist to hold the lineage. Sung passed the lineage to Li Jinglin (for the 10th). Li passed the lineage to Yang Kui-Shang (for the 11th), who passed it on to Qian Timing (for the 12th). [12] The current headmaster of this lineage, Wudang Dan Pai, in China is Ma Jie, who learned his techniques from Daoist master Xuan Dan and from Meng Xiao-Feng. Ma Jie's closed door disciples, Chang Wu-Na and Lu Mei-hui (who are also disciples of Qian Timing) are the current masters of the 13th generation under him. [1] At the time Li Jinglin held this lineage line, Li and his contingent were learning BaGuaZhang from Fu Zhen Song; XingYi Quan from Sun Lu Tang; Tai Chi Chuan from Yang ChengFu; Baji Quan from Li Shuwen; and the Wudang Sword techniques had come from Sung Wei-I.[1][11][6][9][10][13][14][12] [edit] Wudang Taiyi Boxing Lineage and Legend

In an article in T'ai Chi Magazine, volume 30, no. 1, Yang Qunli claims Jin Zitao started learning Wudang Taiyi Wuxing Boxing from Li Heling at Wudang Mountain in 1929. The article connotes that from the time of Li's death until the early 1980's, Jin Zitao was the only person alive who had knowledge of the secret martial arts of Wudang Mountain. In 1980, Jin Zitao demonstrated Wudang Taiyi Wuxing Boxing to the National Wushu Viewing and Emulating and Communicating Congress in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Provice. Before that, it had "never been shown before." The article cites Jin's association with "The Institute of Wudang Boxing" and the "Journal of Wudang." [15]

According to KungFu Tai Chi Magazine, Zhong Yun Long went to Wudang Mountain in 1984, and studied under the 13th generation masters, Guo Gaoyi and Wang Kuangde. Zhong became the 14th generation lineage holder of the Wudang SanFeng Sect. The article cites their association with the 'Wudang Taoist Association."[16]

Currently, a group martial art masters who claim lineage to Zhong Yun Long practice and teach Wudang martial arts at schools near the main entrances to the Wudang Mountain Cultural area. They refer to their practices using standard references to martial arts practice, such as Wudang Wushu (武当武术 Wudang Martial Arts) or Wudang GongFu (武当功夫 Wudang Workmanship). [edit] See also

   * Qi
   * Dantian
   * Neidan
   * Tao Te Ching
   * Jian

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c Huang Yuan-Xiou (2010). The Major Methods of Wudang Sword. Blue Snake Books. p. xii, 2. ISBN 978-1-58394-239-0. http://books.google.com/books?id=uP1ZnSTsVCEC&pg=PR14&dq=wudang+sword&hl=en&ei=RnIbTamZA4u6sAOL3qSlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
  2. ^ a b Henning, Stanley (Autumn/Winter 1994). "Ignorance, Legend and Taijiquan" (PDF). Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii 2 (3): 1–7. http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/il&t.pdf. 
  3. ^ Henning, Stanley (Summer 1995). "On Politically Correct Treatment of Myths in the Chinese Martial Arts". Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii 3 (2). http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/politicallycorrect.pdf. 
  4. ^ Kennedy and Guo (2010). Jingwu. Blue Snake Books. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-58394-242-0. 
  5. ^ Shahar, Meir (2008). The Shaolin Monastery. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0824833497. 
  6. ^ a b c Sun Lu Tang (2000). Xing Yi Quan Xue. Unique Publications. p. 3. ISBN 0-86568-185-6. 
  7. ^ Shahar, Meir (December 2001). "Ming-Period Evidence of Shaolin Martial Practice". Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 61 (2): 359–413. doi:10.2307/3558572. ISSN 00730548. 
  8. ^ Shahar 2001
  9. ^ a b c Lin, Chao Zhen (2010). Fu Zhen Song's Dragon Bagua Zhang. Blue Snake Books. ISBN 978-1-58394-238-3. 
 10. ^ a b Miller, Dan (1992). "The Pa Kua Chang of Fu Chen-Sung". Pa Kua Chang Journal 2 (6). 
 11. ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Hallander; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
 12. ^ a b Qian, Timing (February 2005). "The Essence of True Wudang Sword". T'ai Chi 29 (1): 14–24. 
 13. ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Kirchhoff; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
 14. ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Allen; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
 15. ^ Zhou, Lishang (February 2006). "The Revival of Wudang Taiyi Wuxing Boxing". T'ai Chi 30 (1): 24–30. 
 16. ^ Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named Ching; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

   * "The Wu Dang Sword" Black Belt Magazine (March 1990)"
   * Pa Kwa Chang Journal (volume 1, #3; volume 2, #6; volume 5, #2; and volume 6, #6)
   * Fu Style Dragon Form Eight Trigrams Palms by Fu Wing Fay and Lai Zonghong (translated by Joseph Crandall); Copyright, 1998, Smiling Tiger Martial Arts

[edit] External links

   * Informative video that propagates ZSF legend with no credibility
   * Neigong.net is a site devoted to original texts of Neigong, Qigong and Neijia
   * Defining the Internal Martial Arts
   * Internal vs. External, What Sets Them Apart?
   * Neijia FAQ
   * Glossary of Neijia Terms with Chinese characters

Sorry, Teri. You discredit yourself by ignoring and erasing such varied and concrete references; by presenting as fact that the Wudang martial arts originated at Wudang Mountain with ZERO reference; and with all Weasel Word junk you chose for the introduction. Some of what you did makes sense to me, but you were way out of line to do what you did. I'm happy to revert garbage like that all day long. Also, please sign your posts using four tilds; that's just how it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Terri Morgan, aka 98.85.111.17 can be seen on the history of this page DELETING my comment. Pretty sneaky, Terri-- but not that smart. A third-grader could write better and more academically than this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references

Sorry, Teri. You discredit yourself completely by ignoring and erasing such concrete and varied references; by presenting as fact that the Wudang martial arts originated at Wudang Mountain with ZERO reference; and with all Weasel Word junk you chose for the introduction. Some of what you did makes sense to me, but you were way out of line to make the changes you did. I'm happy to revert garbage like that all day long. Also, please sign your posts using four tilds; that's just how it's done. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Terri Morgan, aka 98.85.111.17 can be seen on the history of this page DELETING my comment. Pretty sneaky, Terri-- but not that smart. A third-grader could write better and more academically than this drivel. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Terri Morgan very much desires an Edit War, I would like to open up the discussion. First, I do not understand why it is believed the article needs rewriting. The tags regarding style, bias, etc. might invite such action; however, the introduction is well-researched and grounded to strong references (please regard Simon & Schuster, Sun Lu-ta'ng); it is immediately localized to its origin of China, expresses the comparative philology of the page's title to English, WP links to the five major martial arts included in the group, and it briskly sweeps away the myth (with citations). I believe the sentence and link regarding Neijia is very important as folks continue to try to merge the two (discussion can be found on the Talk page). Second, the history section expresses the etymology and usage of the term Wudangquan, which did in fact originate at the turn of the 20th century and became popular after the all-China competition in 1928. Someone please point out the bias in any of this. Third, the remaining sections point out the most notable lineages of Wudangquan; while anyone could point out that I am biased because I study under Victor Fu, Fu Style Wudang Fist is in fact the most notable lineage as Fu Chen Sung was appointed the top BaGuazhang instructor for all of China by the Central Government. The most famous Wudang / Tai Chi personality in the world is Bow Sim Mark of Boston. Terri Morgan should readily agree that Master Mark's accolades extend far-beyond those of her own.

Next, since Terri Morgan sees no problem with her rewrite of the page, I would like to openly criticize it. Terri's first three sentences say absolutely nothing. It's garbage. When she finally gets to the name Wudang, the writing smothers the reader with Chinese characters and rattles off a diluted list of styles and synonyms with what I see as bias. Terri's rewrite is conspicuously devoid of any references, other than the (questionable) copyrighted Chinese manuscripts she has uploaded. Her rewrite removes no less than twelve (12) solid references I cited, including and especially the Simon & Schuster book titled "The Fighting Arts" and "XingYi Quan Xue" by the historical king of these arts, Sun Lu-t'ang. Terri's rewrite includes many laughable statements, but her "Wudang martial arts originated in the Wudang Mountains" soars beyond ridicule as it is stated as fact, provides no reference, and has been proven to be monumentally incorrect. The three introductory sentences are absurdly puffy, but my favorite sentence in the entire array has to be, "The problem with legends is that they are legends." Wow. The problem with Wikipedia is anyone can attempt to write it. Moving on, Terri's rewrite desperately tries to define a myriad of other terms which all have their own pages on Wikipedia: Wudang Mountains (even describing the length of them), Zhang SanFeng, Neijia, Taiji (Tai Chi Chuan), Shaolin & QiGong. Next, Terri's rewrite proves her penetrating bias with her section called "Unrelated But Interesting History." With so many references having weblinks and WP links, anyone could spend a day reading and find that BaGuaZhang, XingYiQuan and Tai Chi Chuan all originated from places other than the Wudang Mountains; so the "Unrelated But Interesting History" is in fact THE HISTORY of the Wudang martial arts-- not the biased stories Terri's rewrite means to convey. To say only one of the people mentioned there "practiced Wudang Sword" shows an unacademic bias bordering on jealousy: the article cited from the Boston Globe called "Grande Dame of Wu Dang" is sheerly about Bow Sim Mark who is a third-generation Wudang Swordswoman under Fu Chen Sung, who learned the Wudang Sword techniques from the "one person" Terri's rewrite accepts as a Wudang practitioner. Terri's rewrite removes this reference also, and it omits then entire section on Fu Style which has proven to be the stronghold of Wudang martial arts for almost a century. http://www.taichi-arts.com/article/master-bow-sim-mark/ And what, pray tell, are the images uploaded to Terri's rewrite ? Copyrighted, no doubt, but certainly BIASED to a high degree, and highly-questionable as to their notability. What is that montage of people, symbols, etc. she uploaded to the box ?

In short, the long-standing article needs no rewriting; perhaps it could use some massaging here or there.

Terri's rewrite needs to catch the tail of comet to arrive anywhere near the land of academia.

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not only does Terri Morgan aka Wudang108 continue edit-warring and vandalizing this article with illegitimate blanking, she refuses to respond to discussions and goes so far as to delete my comments from the Talk page. I have warned Terri Morgan on her talk page and this is my final warning. Terri Morgan-- stop this vandalism or I will have you blocked. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

new link

I would like to propose a new link: http://www.wudang.eu Wudang Global Federation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.215.34.198 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I checked out the website your propose. While I'm no expert in Wikipedia guidelines, I believe this link falls under the category of Linkspam. Very sorry, Friend. WP is not a place to promote a business. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)