Talk:Zui quan/Archive 3

Why did you list Zui Quan as a style of Wushu? I already explained this to you. Unless you can give me a good reason not to revert it, I will next time I make changes. Right now I'll leave it in but bring back my definition as well.NJMauthor (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine with me, I meant to just restore the Ma Qing Lung reference and you marked one sentence as "citation needed" but it had one at the end of the paragraph so I moved it to the end of the sentence.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For the style section: When was the style created, and by whom? It is recent enough to easily find out with some research. NJMauthor (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Loa Wu Chang claims to have practiced the style in the 1960’s.

From my research it seems that different people may have combined the Zui Quan Forms and techniques with their own philosophy independently of each other.

I would like to get your opinion on each of these two possibilities.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Each is possible. It should be researched by the group. NJMauthor (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

legend

08:51, 7 April 2008 Xavexgoem (Talk | contribs) (10,414 bytes) (→The Modern Style: rmv last sentence; given (unless they're REALLY good)) (undo)

Yes it should be given, but it's still a misconception due to some of the legends around the origins of Zui Quan.--MahaPanta (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it me mentioned again? Because there is a big misconception due to the Jackie Chan movies that you have to be drunk to do any drunken moves. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about source # 9

Sifu Neil Ripski teaches drunken techniques within a CMA style, not as a style. It says so on his website. NJMauthor (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was basing it on the box for the DVD that I referenced. I also looked at other sites including this one: http://www.kamikaze.com/links/index.php?funct=show&id=332 --MahaPanta (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't the website itself be a more reputable source, not some seller? NJMauthor (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the source be removed while remaining neutral? (I agree that the guy saying such-and-such is better than a DVD box saycing such-and-such, but that's just me; at any rate, "style" and "form" are easily confused, I suppose?) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also can you specify which site?--MahaPanta (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm having difficulty figuring which site is official; there seem to be many official organizations (or semi-official, at any rate) that cite him, but it's kinda vague to tell which is his, so to speak. I fear this will turn into a contest over a singular source; is there a better source available? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ripski's homepage is the eight shadows fist website. This is where it talks about the lineage of his style, which is called Ba Ying Kuen: http://www.eightshadowsfist.com/lineage.htm

And on this page we find Drunken Fist listed under the external method subsection of "skills taught in Ba Ying Kuen":

External Methods

   * Tiger Taming Fist
   * Monkey Fist
   * Drunken Fist
   * Mountain Snake Fist
   * Chang Quan (Long Fist)
   * Mo Tui (Devil Leg)
   * Mook Jhong (Wooden Man Training)
   * Northern Praying Mantis

NJMauthor (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Naruto reference

So, NJMauthor apparently feels himself entitled to tell me to take this issue to the talk page.

So, I'd like to note some points. First, there's the interesting point that the fellow who opposes the status quo is revert warring with me. Second, he's the one who has singularly failed to cite any policy or guideline for his removal; I note that he actually hasn't given any reason at all for the removal (but he's the one who is telling me to 'Please head to the talk page').

Now, one might claim that a brief edit summary like "Trivia doesn't need sources" is in fact a feeble effort at justification, but I respect NJMauthor much too much to believe that; if I did, I'd have to also accept that NJMauthor has discovered some entirely new section to WP:V, one which adds a special loophole for trivia, one which renders moot the summary: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." (A smaller-minded editor might note that NJMauthor himself has in the past challenged precisely that item of trivia; but I know he was really just doing his best to instruct us lesser editors.)

And surely a superlative editor like NJMauthor with his years of experience would never make such a silly claim.

So. I await your explanation with interest. --Gwern (contribs) 23:20 20 May 2008 (GMT)

First of all: Check the attitude, son.

You first, thanks.

Second, having trivia material sources in the same reference section as the article sources is not only confusing, but undermines the relevance of the main article itself. I eagerly await your colorful attempts at journalistic wit, because raw communication is obviously not your forté. Peace out! --NJMauthor (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't even follow this objection. You're drawing some sort of weird distinction (how is one section of the article not part of the article?), then arguing that somehow multiple sources is confusing, and immediately undercut your own request for civility.

I find that explanation very unsatisfying. I held off reverting for a bogus rationale like that? No thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 17:36 23 May 2008 (GMT)

One more thing: I question the objectivity of your motivations based on the fervor you seem to be defending a minor edit to a minor article with. Please explain. --NJMauthor (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. You've found me out - I'm actually a POV-pusher hired by the International Federation of Drunken Martial Artists.

Now I will have to abandon this account and start over! All those years, for naught. --Gwern (contribs) 17:33 23 May 2008 (GMT)

I actually thought you were a fanboy pushing his fix on an innocent, non-consenting wikipedia article. NJMauthor (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; truly I've demonstrated my fanboyism by adding the reference in the first place, and by opposing its removal. Supporting keeping references? A classic symptom of fanboyism. --Gwern (contribs) 22:35 25 May 2008 (GMT)

If you can find a way to divide the reference box between trivia and the main article, go right ahead. I've no problem with that. Shouldn't an article itself be larger than its trivia? NJMauthor (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Er, what? Why on earth should the article have a split reference section? That makes no sense to me.
2. Yes, in some useless theoretical sense. --Gwern (contribs) 02:56 5 June 2008 (GMT)

Advertisement/Inappropriate edits

Advertising one's personal school, signing notes within articles themselves, and link farming are all against wikipedia policy. NJMauthor (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you take it up with the user on his talk page? He's probably just new to Wikipedia. --MahaPanta (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

Zui Quan Within Chinese Martial Arts

1. Saying "Many Traditional Chinese Martial Arts utilize drunken techniques and fighting philosophy within forms and technique", and only providing two is insignificant. We need more examples.
2. What lineages of Choi Lei Fut contain "drunken" forms?
3. How popular is Monkey Kung Fu and how many schools teach the style called "Drunken Monkey"?
4. What "Drunken" forms are found in performance Wushu?

--MahaPanta (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Zui Quan in Mixed and non-Chinese Styles

1. What Drunken forms does Shaolin-Do teach?
2. Which Drunken forms are taught at the first degree blackbelt level?
3. Are other Drunken forms taught at higher levels?
4. What other "Mixed and non-Chinese Styles" teach Zui Quan?

--MahaPanta (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Zui Quan Practiced as a Style in Modern Times

1. We need a list of schools.
2. We need more verified practitioners.
3. A list of techniques.
4. Lineage data would be helpful in tracking progression of the Zui Quan Style.

--MahaPanta (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ZQ

It is my opinion, from what I have learned, read, and observed, that Zui Quan is not an independent style of martial arts, and all those practicing it as a style are doing so under incorrect pretenses. Many claim to practice the style; some have schools bearing the name "Zui Quan". It is my opinion that these people were misled, have made a misunderstanding or are deliberately misleading.

MahaPanta, I practice Northern Shaolin, which is a style of Chinese Martial Arts. I've also learned bits of other styles. I have practiced for several years and researched the Chinese Martial Arts during these years. I have no agenda against Zui Quan being a style; my style incorporates several "drunken" techniques. There is, however, simply no evidence of ZQ being an independent style. There are no links between those claiming Zui Quan is a style and any actual style. It simply doesn't exist.

It would be conducive to the discussion if you would please tell me if you practice a style of martial art, and which one. I ask this because I want to understand the frame of reference you're using and why you believe what you believe. I'd also like to ask you formally why you believe Zui Quan is an independent style.

I think we can do this cooperatively. Let's investigate these claims so that, now that the page is more organized, it can be used to convey solid information. NJMauthor (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. Maybe our opposite views come from the fact that you trained in Northern Shaolin while I trained in Hung Ga Kuen, a southern Chinese martial art. I have also learned bits of other styles like Choi Lei Fut and Jeet Kun Do.

It is my beief that people learned Zui Quan forms in styles such as Hung Gar, Shaolin-Do, and Choi Lei Fut. I believe that Zui Quan Style was formed when these students came together in search of new drunken forms. I, myself, came here after looking to improve my drunken form after being unable to find more advanced drunken forms in my style. Like Jeet Kun Do, the Zui Quan style was developed by taking the best of drunken martial arts forms and merging them into an independent style.

I don't know if this explaination will satisfy you, but you should atleast find it interesting. --MahaPanta (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually know a bit of Hung Ga. I don't think our differing CMA styles is where the dissonance lies.

Anyway,

It is that very "coming together" of which you speak of that I can't find evidence for. I can't even find evidence of their being a coming together of practitioners of contemporary drunken form wushu-- not a martial art, but an acrobatic sport-- forming a group. The easiest way to find out is to find a lineage chart; from there, lineage claims can be looked into. NJMauthor (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mahapanta? NJMauthor (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)