Talk:Zhong Gong

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled[edit]

Zhong Gong is the origional school Falun Gong is based upon. At this time more research is needon on Zhong Gong, what it taught, how many schools there where and what impact it had on Falun Gong.

--Otomo 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting. Do you know when the Zhong Gong school was founded? --Fire Star 火星 03:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page does not give enough information to stand alone, it should be merged with the article qigong. What is your opinion?

--swissk9 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out why that reference was not working properly. I just deleted the chapter title, since the book itself is usually what should be referred to.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think this article could do with a lot more work. Zhong Gong's centralised and highly bureaucratic structure is probably the most notable feature, taking the commodification of qigong to an extreme and franchising it. Palmer provides a capable analysis. Later, I could try to summarise and fill in those details. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be most welcome. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Some feedback on the edits would also be welcome. I will do some research. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"According to He, Zhong Gong had an elaborate organisational structure, and<ref name=kylinwenhua/>"; this is rather mysterious. The sentence cuts off right there, without even a period. I clicked through to the Google book, and unfortunately that page was unavailable. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. That page is missing, but the one after it is available. Also, I think Google books is sometimes capricious in what it allows users to see. If anyone can access p. 225 of the above, quickly type out some relevant notes and add them to the article. I'm blocked from seeing that page, but I can see p. 226 just fine. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding that there is a dearth of in-depth literature on Zhong Gong. Every entry I checked on JSTOR (predictably, in hindsight) was talking about 中共, not 中功. Perhaps the best sources are just David Palmer and David Ownby's texts. Presumably the policies on how much can be written from a limited range of source material are not too strict. I will add one interesting non-sequitor for now though.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zhong Gong. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]