 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Sources
editGoogle Books provides sources. However, it seems most of the better ones are in Chinese. Regardless, "天山派" does provide various results: [1]
Little cauction is required, as some of these are actually fictional novels. But if you know Chinese, it should not pose a big problem. TrickShotFinn (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- The issue with that quote is that it is from a not a primary source. Was this from the history of the Song Dynasty or similar? If so what scroll? 64.141.41.66 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is this directed at me? I'm just saying you can find sources - I.E other books etc - on Google Books if you search from it. Problem is that most sources from my findings are either from Black Belt Magazine or in Chinese. If not, then what quote are you reffering to? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Restarting mediation
editHi, I'm PhilKnight from the Mediation Cabal, and hopefully I can assist you with this dispute. Regarding the issue over sources, I'd suggest that you could obtain an outside opinion from reliable sources noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I welcome your help, and posted my response on the "cabal link." TeamResearch (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Modern Practitioners Continued Again
editMy objection to citing the contents of Wang’s letters as proof of much of anything is disingenuous. And by the way, nothing you have posted before to refute me has been "subtle." Why now?
It has been testified to how often that what Wang “states” toward the end of his lifetime was often very different from what he endorsed (and stated) prior to the last eight years of his life.
As for the “harsh words” in the letter...what is Wang talking about? It's clear that Wang is supporting Huang... who seems to be the one upset. But who is Huang upset with? Surely not Lin (which is what is implied.) The date on the letter is 1989. Lin had closed his school at least four years prior to that. By 1989 Lin was doing non-Martial Art business. His continuing involvement with (and practice of TSP) was private and personal. He was not taking on new students. He was not involved in any way with Huang Chien Liang. As far as the Martial Arts community was concerned, Lin was retired. He was not a business threat to Huang or Huang's organization.
In 1989, Wang had no reason to be upset with Lin, either. Even though it's true that Lin questioned Wang (back in ’85) about the “missing” Red Cloud temple, when he got the response he did, Lin never questioned Wang about it further. He never challenged Wang publicly about the missing temple. He never told anyone except his wife, about his and Wang’s '85 conversation. He never publicly challenged the number of TSP generations that Wang was suddenly claiming after 1982. To do so would have been disrespectful, and Lin was always respectful of his teacher.
Lin only went public about questioning his teacher and his teacher’s stories in 2009 (some nineteen years after Wang Jyue Jen had passed on) and then only in the wake of claims of “exclusivity” made (via Wiki) through Huang, his followers, and/or his Tien Shan Pai Organization. So once again I ask: Since, in 1989 Lin hadn't talked, and wasn’t talking, to whom was Wang referring in this letter?
As to “names.” (Taoist or whatever) I’m sure I don’t need to tell you how commonplace it is, especially in the Far East, for people to change their given names, usually because they think the new name will be more “auspicious.” Often the elements in the new “name-word” will sound the same, but will be written with a different character to change the meaning.
Wang himself changed his name. He was “Wang Shan Chih” for the first several years he was in Taiwan. By the mid 1950s he had become “Wang Jyue Jen.”
“Shan" means “good, virtuous.” "Chih "means “plan to set up something”. To come up with the name “Jyue Jen” (the way Wang wrote it,) the word “Jyue”… actually a created word not found in a dictionary… means “double jade.” The “Jen” part… also a created character not found in a dictionary… means “gold + double jade (the bottom part uses the same pictograph as in the Jyue part above).” Sounds like this name was intended to grant the user “riches and prosperity.”
As for "Taoist" names, sounds like this may have been something Wang chose to come up with later on in his lifetime. All we can say from the evidence is that "Jyue Jen" doesn't sound particularly "Taoist." What does "Chiang Liang" mean? TeamResearch (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I recently had a conversation with Kenneth Ware regarding several of these issues and here's his take: 1) Huang told his students that since he (Huang) was going to purchase a sword from his teacher, than they should also support his (Huang's) teacher by buying a sword too. 2) Ware and a classmate were visiting Huang at his apartment in '78 or '79 when they noticed a picture of an asian gentleman. What caught their attention were the red dots which were marked on the skull of the man. Being curious kungfu students they began looking more closely until Huang noticed and removed the picture. When questioned about the photo he told them. "This is my Taoist teacher and I am his Taoist Disciple." The photo WAS NOT Supreme Master Wang. So Mr Ware seriously has doubts whether Wang gave Huang the Chien-Liang name. Mr Ware feels its important that the truth comes out. Bengalsfan09 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Some comments to the above:
Ok, some of the questions you raise have an explanation that is somewhat subtle so I'm not surprised by them. But it is clear from the letters that Wang had stated again in these writings that there were more than sixty generations. He additionally has harsh words for those who have invented a "new founder name" and says that it was done with enmity and a disregard for sacred traditions. [22]
Comment: Assuming that the correspondance is legitimate, it does nothing to prove the existence of TSP prior to the 1940's. This is a claim made by one person without any historical proof. There is no mention of such style in China, which makes the whole story highly suspect, specially since it has been said many times in Mr. Huang's websites that TSP is/was a VERY popular style in the western provinces, which is not. Moreover, it is very common in China to fabricate legends for marketing purposes of a given style. So far the defenders of all this nonsense have not come out with any historical evidence of the existence of a system with over 2000 years of an unbroken lineage! Something unheard of in martial arts!!
So it is clear by those statements that he endorses in written evidence that there are multiple generations (more than sixty) so this would be seen as corroborating evidence and included in the article as a citation.
Comment: see comment above
As to the more complex question of it being evidence of Huang as a full and formal disciple, you will note that Wang refers to Huang by the name he goes by now "Huang Chien Liang", which was the disciple name given to Huang by Wang. That Wang does so endorses the fact that this was a name that Huang received from Wang. That no other student has a disciple name, even though they have argued that they are all equal, corroborates the statement that Huang was Wang's only formal disciple, and thus the lineage holder for his generation. Junzi (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: See comment by Bengalsfan09, who is to say that someone else gave Mr. Huang’s disciple name? It is highly suspect that one of the junior student's of Mr. Wang was chosen to be the ONLY disciple bypassing someone like say Willy Lin, who was his senior instructor in Taiwan and one of the people he chose to be part of the Guoshu demo team for the Tokyo Olympics in 1964? Another point raised is why Mr. Huang being THE only disciple did not attend his teacher's wife funeral in Taiwan? Mr. Huang has had other teachers and many of the new forms, which have been marketed as TSP, come from other teachers, by not giving credit to them, one would think that Mr. Huang has things to hide.(talk) 18:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.44 (talk)
To the insinuation that the letters might be fake, I will point out that a scan of the letters has been provided, with Wang's handwriting, and scans of the postmarked envelopes as well. This evidence seems to be provided with the idea that those familiar with Wang's handwriting would recognize it.
To the comment that it does not provided documentable proof of an ancient style. This is a non sequitor. The letters are not provided as proof that the style is ancient. They are provided as proof that Wang stated that the style is ancient, and if you are calling him a liar, then life gets a bit complicated. Further, if the point of this was all promotion, then the arguments provided do not hang together well, as it makes little sense for Wang to have invented and maintained that the style was ancient, yet make no mention of it, other than a founding legend, to his students (as stated by Willy Lin on his own website).
I will further note that a lot of historical documentation was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, and was also destroyed by various dynasties during their attempts to assert their right to rule by expunging others from the historical record. So, to depend on the presence of a given name the known documentation is silly considering that the article only really states that Wang and Huang have said that the style is old, not that the style is documentably old. However, Wang maintained that there were more than 60 generations.
As to the rest. Why is it highly suspect that a later student of Wang's would be chosen as the sole disciple? Your statement raises a claim, yet makes no actual attempt to prove it other than to say that it is known that Willy Lin was an accomplished martial artist (as were several of Wang's students). We have from one of the letters that "there are bad horses in the herd" amongst Wang's students in the US. Wang specifically says that Huang is not one of them. But, who else was in the US and had been affecting the growth of Tien Shan Pai in the US leading up to that letter? What forms does Huang teach that are being marketed as Tien Shan Pai come from other teachers? You assert that Huang was not present at Wang's wife's funeral. How do you come by this assertion?
This page is headed in the direction of descending into pointless wikichatter again, and I would like to remind people that discussion here is intended specifically for improving the article. Other discussion points that are not explicitly about the content of the article belong on a forum, and not here.Junzi (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
_____
Junzi- Your implication is that Huang was present at Wang’s wife’s funeral. He wasn’t there. There are at least ten senior classmates (including Willy Lin and Justin Chen) who were in attendance, and who will swear that he wasn’t present. If you don’t want to believe them, ask Wang Jyue Jen’s son or daughter. I am assuming you were misinformed about this matter. Either that, or whoever is informing you was misinformed. Either way, check your facts before you post what casts aspersions on legitimate commentary and on the questions of others. TeamResearch (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not implying that Huang was present at Wang's wife's funeral. I was simply asking where the previous poster had heard that as a way of understanding exactly where that poster was getting their point of view. Additionally, I wonder as to how this relates to the article. Will this little factoid end up in the article? If not, discussion of it does not belong on this talk page. Junzi (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"Huang has asserted that Tien Shan Pai is its own style in Chinese martial arts, distinct from other styles included in Wang’s curriculum. In support of Huang’s assertions, he has made available private correspondence from Master Wang where Wang reiterated that Tien Shan Pai is an ancient style. In these letters, Wang also recognized Huang’s tremendous contributions to Tien Shan Pai but expressed regrets about the lack of cooperation and personal attacks perpetuated by Huang’s classmates in the U.S"
Comment: Junzi, if we want to center the discussion on the important things about the "history" of the style, then why did you include the above paragraph? It is obvious that the last sentence is being used to support Mr. Huang's claims.
I will further note that a lot of historical documentation was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, and was also destroyed by various dynasties during their attempts to assert their right to rule by expunging others from the historical record. So, to depend on the presence of a given name the known documentation is silly considering that the article only really states that Wang and Huang have said that the style is old, not that the style is documentably old. However, Wang maintained that there were more than 60 generations.
Comment. This argument is weak and it is a poor attempt to hide your lack of scholarship. Despite the fact that the Cultural Revolution destroyed many documents, it is also true that many more survived. However after Deng Xiaoping's Open Policy in the 80's, things have changed in China one of them is the interest to research about martial art, starting with the Unearth and Organize Movement that started in the 70's to revert as much as possible the evils of the Cultural Revolution. The movement has discovered martial practices in the western provinces such as Keizi staff (kezi gun, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Zt553T8fE&feature=player_embedded#). However this is not the case for TSP (again lets remember that TSP as has been said in Mr. Huang's web site, that it was a very popular system), so it is very convenient to use the same argument over and over, ignoring what we know. The way TSP has been presented in this article, only helps to those who have interest in it as a comercial venue. It has been said in the wesites used to reference the article that Mr. Wang was present in the research class and he was part of those who created the curriculum of the Central National Arts Academy, also that he was nicknamed the Twin Swords King of China etc. There is no mention of such feats in the documents about the Academy that survived, which are quiet extense and that Juzi should read instead of just using a letter from a person who wanted to make a name for himself in his adopted home. Lets not forget that Wikipedia requires academic references, serious scholarship (see Reliable Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources), to be used, which so far has not been the case. Neither Mr. Huang nor any of the other original students of the Pai are historians, the only attempt to find the origins of the system in China were the efforts of Mr. Lin. We need to move away from using the same unverifiable sources (see Questionable Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources). An article about the Central Guoshu Academy has just being published in Classical Fighting Arts Magazine, which includes a list of the Academy's faculty, you should start from there.
Last but not least, the curriculum of TSP as was taught by Mr. Wang has routines from other systems, but he presented them as TSP. Why include other routines as part of TSP? If we strip those routines from the curriculum, there will almost nothing left, unlsess you count the few routines that Mr. Haung learnt before startign his training with Mr. Wang as TSP. If Mr. Wang was the inheritor of such a tradition, wouldn't it be an insult in traditional circles?
His statments about the "bad apples" could also be taken as resentment against those who started to see that he was not totally honest about the real origins of TSP. The comment has nothing to do with the purpose of the article, if we use it them why not use the arguments against the so call origns of TSP? If the comments were directed towards Willy Lin, it wouldn't be a surprise after Mr. Lin travelled twice to China in search of the so called temple and found nothing. Legend making is something many people have/will use to make money or gain prestige, true martial arts are not just being good at kicking or punching, but also researching about the origins of our systems. Do you recall what Junzi means? This term coined by Confucius, includes not only martial but also scholarship and so far we are failing miserably.
To get to the article now, I suggest changing the following:
"Wang’s early students competed in tournaments in Taiwan. Most notable among the successes of these early students, "
Comment: Accoding to Willy Lin there was only one fighting tournament that Mr. Wang's students participated, and that he attended as espectator. The students gave demostrations in many ocasions but not competed. Junzi you are welcome to talk to Mr. Lin about this.
"Together with noted Chinese martial arts Master Chen Pan-Lin and others, Wang co-founded the Chung Hua Kuoshu Federation"
Comment: We need this reference to be complete, who is the author of the article and what other sources exist to verify this claim?
"Huang Chien-Liang has displayed images of a sword crafted by Wang and given to Huang by Wang, where an inscription by Wang on the scabbard states that Huang is a 64th Generation disciple[13]. Additionally, these inscriptions affirm Wang's position as 63rd Generation Grandmaster[14]. Although there are classmates who started training under Wang prior to Huang, Huang claims that he is the only full heir to Wang’s Tien Shan Pai style. As evidence of his full, formal discipleship, Huang has said that none of his classmates learned as much of the actual Tien Shan Pai curriculum as he did, that only Huang received the initiatory Taoist disciple name from Wang Chueh-Jen, and that Huang has produced written materials from Wang documenting that the lineage was being passed on through him[15].
Huang has asserted that Tien Shan Pai is its own style in Chinese martial arts, distinct from other styles included in Wang’s curriculum. In support of Huang’s assertions, he has made available private correspondence from Master Wang where Wang reiterated that Tien Shan Pai is an ancient style. In these letters, Wang also recognized Huang’s tremendous contributions to Tien Shan Pai but expressed regrets about the lack of cooperation and personal attacks perpetuated by Huang’s classmates in the U.S"
Comment: I propose to eliminate this, which makes the article biased, unless of course you include the arguments against this claim. 16:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.44 (talk)
To the broader issue.
You are saying that Tien Shan Pai was created by Wang. Yet, you also are saying that he stated that there were many generations prior to him, that this was all lies, and that he knew it. First let me say that it seems odd that he would not use that as a promotional tool in establishig his name, but leaving that aside. If it were the case why did he not simply list 62 names? We can clearly infer from one of Wang's letters that Huang asked about prior generations. It would have been easy to just lie a bit more, and then this question would have never arisen. Instead in his letters, Wang says that he cannot provide those names. He asks if it is a reasonable request, that few could trace their family trees back more than a few generations, and that he cannot in good conscience simply create false statements. So, while you may want to call the man who you claim invented the style from which you derive your username a liar, he has already answered your attack in a letter he wrote to Huang decades ago.
If you wish to take issue with claims made on Huang's website, feel free to do so. But note that the article here tries to avoid such controversial statements. For example, you note the claim that the style was popular in the west. This statement is no longer present on the wiki article. So, you should not be arguing about it here, unless you would like to see it added to the article (which it is clear you do not).
I have commented extensively on Lin's trips to China, and the evidence provided to show that he had no idea what he was talking about in regards to there being no temples near Heavenly Lake. If you would like me to provide you with links to images of temples on the shores of the lake (which Lin said the locals had informed him did not exist) I will gladly do so. Lin's whole claim in this regard rests on his supposed two exhaustive visits to the lake. He brought no historians with him, no archeologists, no one to provide him with any scientific verifiability for his search. Instead he recounts speaking to locals and states as fact that no temple exists in the area. This is a demonstrably false statement, and it causes me to question many of his other "facts".
Focusing only on what you want to do to the article:
A discussion of the History section occurred above. I suggest that TeamResearch explain why they chose the verbiage about early students of Wang's when speaking of the style, as this was their verbiage. They claim to be in touch with Lin, perhaps as this was their verbiage they could clarify the point and provide a re-write if that turns out to be necessary.
The citation to Tai Chi Magazine was provided by WuWeiRen, and I would suggest that we need them to provide the citation, or lay hands on a copy of the magazine in question ourselves. Further, I will note that if we accept Tai Chi Magazine as a reliable secondary source, then there is no need for further verifying sources.
The images of the sword and the sign (as well as the letters) constitute some of the few pieces of physical evidence we have regarding Wang's point of view on the matter. There is much talk about what he intended, but this amounts to speculation because even those speculating say that Wang never said specifically. So, I think the paragraph needs to remain. However, if we are to question these sources, then I believe that Willy Lin's bio, which essentially all rests on a single citation (that falls foul of wiki's no original research policy) should be either questioned or removed.
You have twice cited the verbiage that refers to the letter. It actually would be a piece of the history of the style, some physical evidence for us to use on the article. I note that not much is said about the letter in this article, only that it is being used by Huang's website to amplify his own assertions about the style by showing that his teacher had made similar statements back in the 1980's. Junzi (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
____
Endless nit picking! Huang and Lin have their respective claims posted on their websites (where they belong.) Anyone who wants to can read them and make up his own mind as to what is truth and what’s self-serving “spin.” I agree with the sentiment expressed in Wang’s undated letter: An ancient “history” for TSP can’t ever be substantiated… either because no one can come up with anything verifiable that pre-dates Wang, or because there was no ancient “history” to begin with.
I suggest we end the “Modern Practitioners” section after the first three sentences of what is currently the Huang paragraph. TienShanWarrior is right: the rest of the paragraph is self-serving. I would leave the first three sentences of the paragraph "as is." Let it read, “Huang Chien-Liang has displayed images of a sword crafted by Wang and given to Huang by Wang, where an inscription by Wang on the scabbard states that Huang is a 64th Generation disciple[13]. Additionally, these inscriptions affirm Wang's position as 63rd Generation Grandmaster[14]. Although there are classmates who started training under Wang prior to Huang, Huang claims that he is the only full heir to Wang’s Tien Shan Pai style.” Now let's move on?
I want to bring something new to people's attention: There's a curious addition to the article page that has recently been added. This new “section” just above the “references” is called SEE ALSO. It lists two supposed reference links. No commentary. One goes to a National Geographic style site that describes the Tien Shan mountain range in its entirety. Has nothing to do with TSP or martial art. The other link goes to “Mount Heaven Sect” which talks about popular fictions found in Chinese comic books. “Mount Heaven” should have its own Wiki page under comics, not martial art.
I suggest the entire SEE ALSO section be removed in its entirety. Do others have a problem with this? TeamResearch (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I assume you do not wish to remove the sentence on CC Liu.
Second, the portion of the Modern Practitioners section that you would like to remove contain citations that Huang has stated on his website are evidence of his claim. The sentences there seem necessary to me to provide context for those citations. If you would like to attempt to provide alternative verbiage other than simply cropping out those references, perhaps this is a discussion worth continuing.
As to the see also section. This was added a while back when a user came on asking about the relation between this style and some wuxia novels. It seemed harmless to leave, though I did consider adding some verbiage to it about how the wuxia novels are unrelated to this style. If you'd like to remove it, feel free. Junzi (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
____
Of course, leave in the reference to C.C. Liu.
I would suggest adding the words “on his website” to the paragraph in question so that it reads as follows, “Huang Chien-Liang has displayed images on his website of a sword crafted by Wang and given to Huang by Wang, where an inscription by Wang on the scabbard states that Huang is a 64th Generation disciple[13]. Additionally, these inscriptions affirm Wang's position as 63rd Generation Grandmaster[14]. Although there are classmates who started training under Wang prior to Huang, Huang claims that he is the only full heir to Wang’s Tien Shan Pai style.”
This way Huang gets to direct anyone interested to his website where they can examine his “proofs”… the sword, the calligraphy, Wang’s letters, all his claims about TSP lineage, his Taoist name, Wang’s confidence in him etc. As the article now stands, Huang has eight out of the eleven reference note “links” going directly to his website. That should be enough.
I would also suggest that the Online Sources section be eliminated as unnecessary, and that the External links sections cut back to eliminate redundancy. All we really need is one external link to “The Tien Shan Pai Association,” another to “Willy Lin’s website,” and a third to “Tien Shan Pai Now.” TeamResearch (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the words "on his website" make much sense in this context. Other than at his school, where else would Huang have presented his evidence? As no one is arguing that the words "on his website" be added to Lin's paragraph, where people could also be linked to his proof, I think the double standard is clear.
I agree with you that the Online Sources and External Links sections are redundant, and will remove the Online Sources section. I'm less clear on removing some of the extra links. But would be happy to hear justification for why certain links should be kept, and why others should be removed. Junzi (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Of the six external links in the External Links section, only three (TSP Assoc., Linkungfu.com, and TSP Now) are primary. The “TSP Association Official School List” takes us to Huang’s “TSP Association” page (Huang’s website.). The “Chinese Kuoshu Institute” is just another branch of Huang’s TSP Association, and repeats the same info presented on his TSP Association” page. The “Willy Lin , First Teacher…” link should actually be titled as "Lin Kung Fu Website" The “Willy Lin links to schools” is a dead link. And the “TSP Now” link offers verifiable photos, testimonials etc. not found on either Huang’s or Lin’s websites.
More later on paragraph 1 of your last post. TeamResearch (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
___
Continuing to Junzi: I re-read the article as it is now stands, and realized that, despite all our efforts, what’s there is still pretty biased. Consensus wants it to be “neutral.” Let’s strive to make it that. In the interests of moving this along, here is how I suggest the “Modern Practitioners” section read in its entirety. I have stated my reasons for suggesting these changes immediately after.
%%%%%%%%
MODERN PRACTITIONERS: Tien Shan Pai is practiced by many in the United States and around the world. Current Masters in the U.S., all taught by Wang, include (in order of arrival in the U.S.) Willy Lin, Tony Lin, Chien-Liang Huang, and Chao Chi Liu. Willy Lin was the first of Wang Jyue Jen's disciples to arrive in the US. He is credited as being the first person to introduce, and to teach Wang’s system of Tien Shan Pai in the United States.
In Taiwan (between 1960-1968,) Lin was Head Instructor and Assistant to Wang, at Wang’s “Lei Sheng Wu Yuan”, or “Thunder Sound Martial Arts Garden” school. After a three year stay in São Paulo, Brazil, Lin came to the US in 1970. In 1971, he opened his first Lin Kung Fu school in the Washington, DC area. During the next four years, Lin brought his brother, (Tony Lin,) his brother's friend, (Chien-Liang Huang,) and one of Lin's own Taiwanese Tien Shan Pai classmates (Chao Chi Liu) from Taiwan to the US to become instructors at his Lin Kung Fu Schools.
Willy Lin (www.linkungfu.com) lives in New York City where he still teaches privately. He gives workshops and seminars regularly, around the country, on the traditional forms and practices of Tien Shan Pai (as taught to him by Wang, Jyue Jen.) Lin has produced a series of instructional DVDs in order to record Tien Shan Pai's traditional legacy in both the Kung Fu, as well as the Tai Chi aspects. Lin maintains that he is responsible for the naming of the style as "Tien Shan Pai" in the US, that this name encompasses all of Wang's curriculum. He further states that Wang, Jyue Jen is the creator (the Founding Generation) of this style, and that this system, now known as Tien Shan Pai, dates from the 1940s.[4]
Tony Lin spends his time between Maryland and mainland China. He still teaches privately.
Huang Chien-Liang (www.tienshanpai.org) has been teaching and promoting Tien Shan Pai consistently for the past thirty five years. He currently resides in Maryland, and still teaches at his school, the US Kuoshu Academy, in Owings Mills, Maryland.[9]. Additionally, Huang teaches seminars around the world on Tien Shan Pai and other martial arts styles. He has also produced instructional videos on martial arts subjects.
Huang Chien-Liang maintains that Tien Shan Pai is an ancient martial art system. As proof of this claim he has displayed, in his school, a sword crafted by Wang and given to Huang by Wang, where an inscription by Wang on the scabbard states that Huang is a 64th Generation disciple, and that Wang was the 63rd Generation Grandmaster[12].
Huang claims that he is the only full heir to Wang’s Tien Shan Pai style. Wang Jyue Jen’s other Disciples, all of whom were trained and initiated prior to Huang Chien-Liang, strongly contest Huang’s claim.
C.C. Liu lives in Washington, DC, where he also still has a school.
%%%%%%%
My reasons for these suggested edits: There’s a catch-22 problem with the “footnotes.” The minute you link anything to either Huang or Lin’s website, you give that individual a “platform”…in effect free advertising. Yet we can’t ignore either because they are the sources people want to cite for most TSP information out there.
My easy solution is to have both Huang’s and Lin’s websites listed (in parenthesis) after their names the first time they are mentioned in the Modern Practitioners Section. This way each gets to direct any interested reader to a place where they can (appropriately) expound on their differing points of view.
To elaborate further on the footnote dilemma: There are way too many and unnecessary footnotes. In the History Section alone, footnote 5 and 6 are repeated almost at the end of each phrase… sometimes in duplicate referring to the same phrase. In the Founding Legend section, why do we need a footnote at all? It’s a legend!
In the paragraph that begins “Huang Chien-Liang has been teaching and promoting Tien Shan Pai consistently for the past thirty five years. He currently resides in Maryland, and still teaches at his school in Owings Mills, Maryland: The US Kuoshu Academy[9]” , footnote #9 is fine and appropriate. The rest of the paragraph, however, (which reads, “Additionally, Huang teaches seminars around the world on Tien Shan Pai and other martial arts styles, and has produced instructional videos on martial arts subjects[10].”) is an ad for Huang Chien-Liang.
If you want to keep footnote #9 in, then you need to give Lin a footnote, too (after the sentence in the Lin paragraph that reads, “Lin has produced a series of instructional DVDs in order to record Tien Shan Pai's traditional legacy in both the Kung Fu, as well as the Tai Chi aspects.) Either both men get a footnote referring the reader directly to that person's website’s sales page, or neither gets it. Otherwise you have a double standard in play. I say lose the Huang footnote, and make life easy.
The following paragraph which reads, “Huang is the founder and current President of the Tien Shan Pai Association. The Tien Shan Pai Association" and goes on to say how the Association “sponsors seminars, produces instructional materials, and publishes a newsletter containing articles and information about the Tien Shan Pai style…” continuing through “with the intention of making “information about the Tien Shan Pai style more accessible to the public…” and ends with the sentence “The Association organizes demonstrations benefiting various charities, and supports and organizes martial arts tournaments. Individual and school memberships are offered in the Tien Shan Pai Association.[11]” is basically an advertisement for Huang’s Tien Shan Pai Organization.
Unless you make it clear that the “Tien Shan Pai Organization” is Huang’s organization, and does not speak for Tien Shan Pai or its practitioners world-wide, it’s simply another example of self-serving self-promotion.
I suggest removing the last paragraph relating to Huang in its entirety because it's full of either assertions (frowned on by Wiki editors) or attributions which are unsustainable… especially since no one is really sure “who” or “what” Wang was talking about in his 1989 letter. TeamResearch (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The usage of several repeated footnotes in sections refers to the fact that you reference: That most of the sources for these pieces of information come only from two people. As such, they are cited continuously throughout the article.
In line citations (such as the ones TeamResearch complains about) are considered ideal on Wikipedia, as a way of precisely attributing specific statements back to original sources. The implication in the comment was that there should be fewer of them, when in fact there should be more of them.
The history section should be heavily cited. All statements made there are the result of concensus discussion based on sources available online, and readers of the article should be able to return to those sources if they are so inclined.
The founding legend section requires at least one citation, though if editors would like to add more, then more can readily be added. It's clearly just a legend, the article says so, let's not dredge up the silly argument that I am somehow implying that it's more than that. Instead, the legend might benefit from additional citations.
As to TeamResearch's proposed re-write of the Modern Practitioners section, the letters from Wang (there are two of them, not one) are seen by Huang as further proof of his statements regarding his status as lineage holder. We might consolidate them into the previous paragraph, but I believe that Huang's statements should remain. That Willy Lin's section contains minimal citations is something that has been require significant improvement for some time now, but I do not feel that it is my place to provide those citations. I would request that TeamResearch provide them, as they seem to be in closer contact with Lin.
I would break TeamResearch's proposed re-write of the Modern Practitioners section into two pieces. The Huang piece and the Lin piece.
Speaking of Lin first, I agree with TeamResearch that there is a lack of citations on the Lin bio section. I think this is a problem that should be remedied, but do not feel that I am the correct person to apply appropriate citations. I would request that TeamResearch add in line citations to the section, as they seem to be in closer contact with Lin, and would be happy to consolidate any links after the fact to maintain a clean references section. More footnotes are always better.
Speaking of Huang, the letters from Wang (there are two of them, not one) are seen by Huang as further proof of his statements regarding his status as lineage holder. We might consolidate them into the previous paragraph, but I believe that Huang's statements should remain.
Further, the Tien Shan Pai Association is already attributed to Huang. He's the president and founder of the organization, it says so in the article. How does the article fail to attribute the organization to him? Stating that an organization does not speak for all practitioners does not seem common. Looking only at articles on wiki for other martial arts organizations, I have never seen the kind of verbiage being demanded, even when lineage disputes are an issue. Further the rest of that verbiage is basically the mission statement of the Tien Shan Pai Association. If Lin or any other Tien Shan Pai practitioner had their own group, I would feel that inclusion of that group in the article was a necessity, and I would feel that their mission statement (or a summary of it) should be included. The fact that Huang is the only one to have such a formal organization is unfortunate, but not a sign of bias.
In regards to the online sources, I see TeamResearch's point on all but one of the links. The Tien Shan Pai Now link looks like a secondary website that is used by Lin and his mouthpieces to attack Huang in a way that allows Lin to avoid attribution. Lin's point of view regarding the style and the lineage (including his point of view regarding others from the style) are adequately summarized on his own webpage. And I do not see the Tien Shan Pai Now link adding anything constructive to the discussion. If we are removing links, I would move that we remove that one also. Junzi (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
____
TIEN SHAN PAI NOW is not associated with or affiliated with Willy Lin's website. It is its own source of valid TSP information. In fact, most of the information found there, (in terms of historical photos, interviews, etc.) has been contributed by Huang's own disciples. TeamResearch (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Really? You expect me to believe that the Tien Shan Pai Now website is not affiliated with Lin's website, when the only link provided on the main page to an external page is directly to Lin's webpage? You expect me to believe that it is not affiliated with Lin, when the primary thrust of its content is directly an attack on Huang using many of the same points, and even some of the same verbiage, that you have brought up here?
It's an attack site, plain and simple. And one of dubious quality and validity at that.
This article should be about promoting what is good about the style of Tien Shan Pai, not reminding everyone of the argument that's going on. We agreed to avoid that in the main body of the article, so why would we want to link to one of the most egregious offenders in this discussion? Junzi (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
____
I say what I do because it's true. "Tien Shan Pai Now" is not affiliated with Lin's website. Just because a link appears on someone else's blog/website doesn't mean the linked person is "behind it." I'm sure Huang has many people he is not affiliated with link to his website. As for any similarity in text, photos, etc.: how many times does a website cut and paste material from another site? Can't tell you how often I've seen this done with material from this very TSP Wiki article. Come to think of it, most of the photo evidence on TSP NOW is NOT from Lin's site at all. Must be from the private collections of others who were there and who have firsthand knowledge TeamResearch (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the long break there.
Even if "Tien Shan Pai Now" is not affiliated with Lin's website, it is a very one sided attack on Huang. I had understood that we were going to take a positive point of view on this article, and I think that should extend to the sites that we link to. If people are interested, then they will use google and other search engines to find other points of view.
It seems to me that it damages everyone when we engage in, or promote, this manner of vindictive personal attack within the Tien Shan Pai community. Junzi (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
_____
"Tien Shan Pai Now" is an external link to the article, not a footnote within it. Its sources of information are verifiable and credible. A Wiki article is supposed to report what's factual... warts and all.
Back to the ARTICLE discussion: Why would you want to footnote the HISTORY section even more heavily, when (according to GM Wang’s undated letter,) any ancient history of TSP is unknowable and un-provable? Also, in what way would the LEGEND section benefit from additional citations?
I agree with your suggestion to move the reference to Huang’s Association into the main paragraph about him. If you put your footnote #13 at the end of this paragraph, you have all you need. Interested parties will follow link #13 to learn of his Association’s mission statement, and all of the things Huang’s organization does and promotes. TeamResearch (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem so insistent that we include the link, I won't argue with you much more on the subject.
You are referring to the citation needed request regarding the claim that Wang is the first to bring Tien Shan Pai instruction to the public when you speak of the history section. I originally threw that in there as it was the only sentence not backed by some kind of citation. I can certainly seen an argument for the rest of the paragraph (and accompanying citations) providing sufficient backing for the claims.
We can incorporate the paragraph about The Tien Shan Pai Association into the prior paragraph; however, much of the content should remain. It is poor journalism to refer to something without explaining what it is. In this case, if a mention is to be made of the Tien Shan Pai Association (and it should as it is part of what Huang has done to promote the system) then there should be a clear definition of what that association is and does.
This would result in basically shoe horning two paragraphs together, as I feel that the content is necessary in both, and while that makes sense from the perspective of Huang's contributions, it does not make sense from the perspective of topic related to Tien Shan Pai, as the association is a topic in and of itself. Additionally, from an organizational perspective, I prefer the two paragraphs as separate because then it is clear what the single citation on the one paragraph refers to. Junzi (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
__
By all means, shoe-horn the info about Huang's Association into the Huang paragraph. His contribution should be acknowleged. However, I believe the last 2 sentences in the paragraph, "The Association organizes demonstrations benefiting various charities, and supports and organizes martial arts tournaments. Individual and school memberships are offered in the Tien Shan Pai Association" should be eliminated becauase they are self-promotional. You are already providing the link to Huang's Association. Interested parties can get promotional information about his Association by following this link. TeamResearch (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the assessment that the two sentences should be removed. Those two sentences explain why one should care about the Tien Shan Pai Association. Without the sentences referred to, mention of the Tien Shan Pai Association is not sufficiently complete. Junzi (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
___
Because Huang's Association does not speak for all of TSP, it's "completeness" belongs on Huang's website. Not here. This is an article about TSP, not Huang's personal Association, however benevolent. Any elaborated discription of his Tien Shan Pai Association is self-promotional and misleading. Makes it sound like this is some kind of official organization for all of TSP, when it isn't. Huang's Association ONLY speaks for Huang and the schools under his US Kuo Shu umbrella. TeamResearch (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am unclear as to how a description of the activities of the Tien Shan Pai Association in this article is misleading. From the article, it is stated that the Association was created by Huang and that he is its current leader. As there are other practitioners mentioned in this article, and the topic of the association is only mentioned in the midst of Huang's portion of the article (rather than, say, at the top of the section), it seems reasonable that an intelligent reader would understand that the organization is Huang's and not necessarily affiliated with other modern practitioners.
Similarly, I fail to see how a description of the TSP Association and its activities is self promoting. To mention it in passing and give no explanation of what the association is at all is inherently incomplete. Besides, the language used to describe the association is hardly grandiose. If those sentences were an attempt at self promotion, I would expect a lot more colorful verbal embroidery. Junzi (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
___
This is endless. Maybe the solution is to agree that each of the "modern practitioners" gets one paragraph only. Then spokespeople for that practitioner can load that one paragraph with whatever posturing and/or politics their Sifu endorses. TeamResearch (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Though, I think a caveat that goes with that agreement is that no paragraph about a modern practitioner should mention other modern practitioners. Junzi (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
___
Agreed. TeamResearch (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have gathered the existing text of the modern practitioners into individual paragraphs for each practitioner, per this discussion. I will note that Willy Lin's paragraph would benefit from inline citations, and that Tony Lin and CC Liu require citations regarding their current activities. Junzi (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)