Jump to content

Talk:Xingyiquan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"internal" or Wudang?

[edit]

The first sentence in the article is ambiguous. It seems to imply that all Wudang styles are internal or all internal styles belong to Wudang which is not correct as both Shaplin and Wudang have internal and external styles. 194.225.239.176 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wudang Chuan has no external styles TommyKirchhoff (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this page

[edit]

Hi there. My name is Jonathan Bluestein. As you may notice, over the last 2 years I've been doing a lot of work on this page. Gradually, I am expanding the text, improving it, and adding references. Please do not delete any material. Everything that's on the page can be referenced, and will be in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


That's not how Wikipedia works. Aspergers riddled freaks (Wikipedia editors) will delete at will whenever they get a notion. You need to get used to that toute de suite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.166.157 (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Contributor doesn't get to claim sovereignty over a topic. Jonathan, you don't have priority over this or any topic and a statement like yours simply invites people to re-write your inclusions.

Name

[edit]

As far as I'm aware, there was no discussion before this article was renamed "Xing Yi Quan" and I'm wondering why such a change was necessary. The reason given was that "it is made up of three distinct words". That may be true but that can be said of other terms like Shaolin as well. Furthermore, compound words exist in every language, including Chinese. Just because a term consists of several words does not necessarily mean they're supposed to be written separately. Monosyllabization of the Chinese language is particularly common outside China but is not favoured by those who are very familiar with pinyin. I seriously doubt the xingyiquan spelling caused any confusion. And unless we resort to the lazy method of simply googling the words, I wouldn't say that "Xing Yi Quan" is more common either. If anything, the most common literary spelling in English is probably the Wade-Giles form (hsing-i). Would anyone object to the previous Xingyiquan spelling? Morinae (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I would object is because the T'ai chi ch'uan page is more developed than this one, and some standardization should exist among these related arts, including Wudang chuan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.119.236 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history and origins on this page are a mess. I suggest someone with good sources goes in and revamps the whole thing. If not, I will take on this task. To say "XingYi is Taoist" as an absolute, then source a blog containing an obscure article is just not the way it's done. Even the junk about Yang Jwing-Ming's opinion is not at all impressive. Do any strong Wiki editors want to get behind me on this revamp ? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Another disputed history of Xing Yi

[edit]

Hi, this is Allheart8012, you recently deleted my sub section 'Another disputed history of Xing Yi', and I have added it back. Next time please inform people before deleting other's work, I don't know which masters you consulted with, but Li Bo is a well-known Xing Yi master in China and he is the descendant of Li Luoneng's family for sure. You can consult with master Yang Hai in Montreal to verify what I said, he is one of the masters in US who knows master Li Bo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allheart8012 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear new to this page on Wikipedia, so allow me to point out several things:

- Over the past few years, I have been the major, usually sole contributor to the XYQ page on Wikipedia. I have asked many others to aid in this on countless forums and facebook groups, but no one wanted the 'job'. I have been editing this page on my own mostly, therefore, though I always take care to consult with others before making serious edits.

- There is a main Xing Yi Quan discussion group on facebook, in which belong and write many serious Western and Chinese teachers of the art: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xingyi/?fref=ts . In this group are thousands of members, of which hundreds are active. Once every few months I create a discussion about the wikipedia page on that group, and we all talk about possible changes and discuss what needs to be done. When relative consensus is reached, I make the edit.

- In this manner, I have also created the famous lineage chart - the most comprehensive chart for the art ever made available publicly, and placed it for everyone to share on Wikipedia: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Xing_Yi_Quan#Lineage_chart . This chart has been continuously refined and updated based on feedback from the Xing Yi Quan community, most often by discussing the teachers and lineages which appear on it in the facebook group linked to above. My lineage appears on that chart as well. I am a student of master Zhou Jingxuan of Tianjin, and his top disciple, shifu Nitzan Oren.

- Your own edit was also thoroughly and seriously discussed on that Xing Yi Quan faceook group before I took action. You may read the full discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xingyi/permalink/10153851909341248/ . I only made an edit of my own after I received the support of many other Xing Yi teachers there. It seems people were also pleased with it after I made it.

- I respect and appreciate your contribution. You should have looked into the page thoroughly after I edited it, and ought to have examined the reasoning I took care to write for the edit I made. I have not deleted all of the information your contributed. Rather, as explained in the edit I made, I integrated much of what you have written into other relevant parts of the article. I have indeed deleted the rest given that it was meant to promote a certain teacher and lineage. Moreover, in my own edit (after yours) I added several references to support the text.

- All that being said - I have undone your last edit. You mistakenly thought that I deleted all you have added, and I have just explained this was not the case. I have even kept the picture you uploaded, alongside lots of other text (the Chinese names and characters, too). Content which was relevant to the page was integrated into different parts of it that were more relevant than being placed as a whole under 'another disputed history'. What seemed like promotional stuff for this or that lineage was deleted. Before making another edit, READ the actual page, check the text itself, and let me know if something is missing. We can surely work it out  :-)

- I have copied this discussion to the talk page for Xing Yi Quan article (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Xing_Yi_Quan). Please reply there instead of here.

- By the way - it was you who originally made a huge edit to the page without first discussing it on either the talk page or on a major Xing Yi discussion group, and I merely replied by accommodating your contributions into the existing text. Had I wanted to delete your contribution, I would have simply undone the original edit, and I did not do that.

- You are also welcome to add me on facebook, and we can discuss it there: www.facebook.com/Bluestein

- I am happy you mentioned master Yang Hai from Montreal as someone who can make these matters clear. He happens to be my friend, and I speak with him often via facebook, email and skype. He also took part in the discussion I created concerning your edit (https://www.facebook.com/groups/xingyi/permalink/10153851909341248/). I am quite certain he supports the views I presented there.

Cheers,

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Jonathan, I've added the facebook group but couldn't find the discussion you talked about, could you please send me the link to that discussion? Also, since I am new to wiki page edit, I have a silly question: does your group own this page? Update: I've looked every post under Discussion of that Facebook group you gave me, couldn't find anything. Thanks.

Allheart8012 (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again  :-)

This is the direct link to the relevant discussion, which I also posted above: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xingyi/permalink/10153851909341248/

Wikipedia is free for all - no one can own it or one of its pages. Everyone is free to make edits. It is a strange mix between Democracy and Anarchy. Everyone pretty much do whatever they like, and if there is disagreement, people randomly gather about and discuss it, often voting on "what's best".

This particular page is maintained by myself mostly, but a lot of the input was donated by request from many members of the Xing Yi Quan community worldwide. Over the last 2 years, the page has been primarily discussed on the main Xing Yi group on facebook, where I take care to ask publicly for other people's opinions on issues relating to the page, concerning various edits. So even though I tend to be the sole major editor, this is in a way a 'community project' - which I think serve the interests of all of us to preserve and spread information about the art in a serious and dignified manner.

The 'problem' with your edit was that alongside useful information and content, it also made casual biographical anecdotes of a specific teacher and his lineage, which were, in wikipedia lingo, 'unencyclopedic'. We have so many teachers and lineages in the art, and we cannot afford to start promoting one over the others in that manner. Long-dead teachers who were famous can gain more attention in the text to a degree, but current and recent teachers tend to lean the page in the direction of a specific school. This is why I eliminated the more biased parts of the edit you made. The rest I have simply allocated to different parts of the article, which were more relevant. For instance - it doesn't matter to the general reader that Li Bo is the keeper of a specific version of the Quan Pu as a biographical note. However, the information about that Quan Pu and its picture you have generously uploaded are a welcome edition under the section discussion the Xing Yi classics. Other times, historical claims you have made which were presented as 'fact, though disputed', I simply added as 'another point of view' next to the relevant parts in the article where such histories were detailed.

Also, as you must know, the notion of Li Luoneng creating Xing Yi in its modern form to "compete with the Dai clan out of resentment" is not a commonly accepted 'truth' about the history of the art. It MAY be true indeed, but most practitioners and teachers have not even heard that version, and you brought it up without backing it with any references. This is why the elaborate story behind it had to be reduced, and the whole thing presented as 'another take' next to other 'histories', rather than including it as a whole independent section.

I am sorry this caused a mess in your fine and well-intended efforts, and that some of the text had to go. I wish I could keep more of it. But this page is intended neither as a debate forum about the history of the art down to every single tiny detail, nor as a complete history book. We have to be more concise, and with regard to stuff that we cannot back up by any evidence, be careful and not expand too much about it.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xing Yi Quan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed proposal, moving per WP:RMNOMIN. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xing Yi Quan → Xingyi quan – Two reasons for this move. First, as a martial arts style, there's no reason for the name to be capitalized. Secondly, accepted convention is to space pinyin according to words, not syllables. It can sometimes be a bit tricky to determine where the word boundaries are since Chinese is an isolating language, but here's some examples of the correct spacing: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Notably, many of the incorrectly spaced sources depart from conventions in other ways, too: [5] and [6] both hyphenate pinyin names, which is unconventional. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional page move discussion: "Xingyi Quan" → "Xingyiquan"

[edit]

Sorry I missed the above discussion. I agree "Xing Yi Quan" was not correct, but I disagree with "Xingyi Quan" and can support only "Xingyiquan".

"Xingyiquan" is correct pinyin, and it is in more English-language book titles than "Xingyi Quan". Yes, the accepted convention is to space pinyin according to words not syllables, and that is why "Xing Yi Quan" was not correct, but we must go further because the rules of pinyin join together noun phrases that express a single concept. "Xingyiquan" is a noun phrase that becomes a "word" in pinyin. "Ziranmen" and "taijiquan" are other examples. Furthermore, all of these fully joined phrases are the most common versions in English-language publications as well. For more information on noun phrases in Hanyu Pinyin, please see: Yin, Binyong & Felly, Mary (1990), Chinese Romanization: Pronunciation & Orthography, Sinolingua, ISBN 7-80052-148-6, pp. 134-138, Section 1.11.

Before making a formal request to change this again, I will give others more time to respond here, because officially requesting a move starts a ten-day timer. Jōkepedia (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely correct. You're welcome to wait before proposing the move, but I don't think you need to. It was a simple error on my part and no other editors seem to have been interested in this topic. SilverStar54 (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved, thank you. I had to request an admin do that because a redirect page of the same name existed. In the request I linked to our agreement here and in the closely related discussion at Talk:Yiquan#Requested move 17 July 2023, in addition to summarizing that "Xingyiquan" is the correct name under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and Wikipedia:Article titles#Consistent titling, and is more common in publications. Jōkepedia (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xingyiquan&oldid=1210469766"