Talk:Chan Tai San/Archive 1

References

It would be helpful to have the long list of magazine articles listed in the references footnoted to indicate which claim(s) they support, and also to have the title of the article being referenced given. A bald reference like "Inside Kungfu Feb 1995" doesn't tell me much. Also, it's not clear why he was notable--is it having been the the coach of a demo. team? JJL (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance of Chinese and of the origin of the clip is no excuse for reckless editing. The clip is from "China's Living National Treasures" produced by China's government and featuring many "living national treasures" including CTS. While a complete copy of the movie isn't on line, the clip is ample evidence of the facts. Being coach of the third largest competition team in China, being a member of the NATIONAL demo team which toured the world, being a decorated war veteran, being a former military sparring champion and having well over 5000 students in North America alone would seem to make him "notable" even if an English langauge bio hasn't been published on him (but Wang Lang, Chang Dung Sheng, Chan Hak Fu, young Shul Choi etc all are very notable martial artists who do not have published English biographies while Mas Oyama didn't have one until a few years ago, etc). Most martial arts figures and sources would not stand up to strict academic review, that is simply a fact. The only published works on Helio Graice are by his family and self published. If you want to apply those sort of standards, you'd have to do it across to board to EVERY martial arts article here. Clearly, that is not what the community wants. Take for example Marvin Perry whose article someone wanted deleted. Attempts were made to dismiss the three largest Kickboxing bodies in the US because WIKI editors had simply not heard of them, others attempted to dismiss Inside Kung Fu magazine and Kung Fu Wushu magazine simply because they are "industry texts". However, the final concensus was that you can not apply those sorts of standards in that sort of case and the article was kept. Similarly here, rattling on about "academic" sources in a field that doesn't have that sort of literature is also meaningless. And even worse, dismissing the clip because you can't understand the language? Deplorable! Nysanda (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

People are trying to help improve the article. Since everyone has a common goal, it seems that the level of hear could be turned down all around. The footnotes are much improved and that's great! JJL (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussions from user talk pages

you are being completely unreasonable (and silly!)

The fact that Chan Tai San has appeared in over 50 articles around teh world, in a movie called "china's national treasures" and named "a living national treasure" should be enough "evidence" he is respected and well known. A simple internet search would lead you to HUNDREDS of references on him

THere is no online link to the movie, yet it exists! There are CLIPS of it but I suspect based upon your behavior you'd want a citation on that citation

There are no ISSN numbers for Inside Kung Fu magazine articles, despite the fact they are widely considered the #1 source for info on Chinese Martial Arts

How do you document "orphaned at 5" or "trained with Chan Sai Mo"? hmmmmm????

There is plenty of citation in the article and like I said, plenty of internet info on him. LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE. Do you really have nothing better to do? I note that you've been accused of this sort of behavior before? Nysanda (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Asking for ONE source per paragraph, especially where there is a claim that the individual if well known for something, is entirely reasonable.
2. The tag at the top asks if someone could associate the list of sources with specific claims, the citation requests are pointers to areas that need sourcing.
3. According to the wikipedia policy on Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." so currently the page could be deleted, as none of the claims are sourced.
4. Did you actually read the edits? I asked for more information on the sources, as right now it is a list that tell people nothing. An ISSN is a unique reference number for periodical publications (as the ISBN is for books), if if is a number one magazine it is very unlikely that it hasn't got one, as most publications that are on general sale,even for niche markets, have one.
5. Did you look at the resolution of that discussion? What happened was sources were added for various bit & I helped tidy it up including formatting the sources.
6. No-one said sources had to be on-line, they are the most common but if you read WP:SOURCES they are not even prefferd.
7. If you don't want something edited wikipedia is not the place for it.

--Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi! A lot of this article seems to be copied from http://www.nykungfu.com/GMCTS.html. The presence of this copied web material put this article in some danger of deletion ( see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/Blatant_copyvio_material ). I would suggest that you re-write the text so that it is not a direct copy and include references back to the web site to satisfy Nate's suggestions above. jmcw (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did NOT write the article in question. He just happens to be my (deceased) teacher and I feel the need to protect his article from what appears to be unwarranted "edits". IN FACT, the article in question was written by the OWNER of http://www.nykungfu.com Not sure what the WIKI policy is, but one would assume the person who wrote the original article (and owns the rights to the work) has the ability to post it, no? Nysanda (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually he's trying to help you, he was advising that that article as it exists is at risk. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

very unprofessional and smacking of personal vendetta - very unbecoming of Wiki

I point out that you are unreasonable in asking for citations on article, so you then go and "edit" an article about me (which I did not write and thus is not "conflict of interest" by the way). Wow, childish and unprofessional! Nysanda (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you want to cite to me being "civil" yet I can clearly read the Wiki definition of "vandalism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND). My disagreeing with you and questioning your motives is clearly not, by definition provided by Wiki "vandalism". It's a two way street, isn't it? Nysanda (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read WP:Civil too.

I found the article while looking for the magazines you were using a references, I had no idea it was about you (exactly how could I have know?) but that article is suffering from exactly the same problems as this one. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nysanda... you did write the article about yourself in that you are one of the contributors. And it is not vandalism nor a vendetta nor unprofessional of Nate to remove honorifics like "sifu" and "master" from the article. It is Wikipedia policy (WP:MOS). --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)--David Broadfoot (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More observations on your style

I quote you from your last response to me "It was probably not the appropriate action"

It seems, upon review, this isn't the first time others have suggested that your style of editing appears to have ulterior motives? Perhaps, rather than blaming me, you examine why others, not just me, all seem to be coming to the same conclusions?

To me, it appears you were initially being unreasonable. Once I pointed that out, you then appeared petty and vindictive.

You have the advantage, I am new here. But it sure does seem like you are abusing the system here. I consider my comments relative to the issue at hand, WHY you are constantly re-editing entries which have already provided citations and which can be verified by simple internet searches. Questioning you isn't "uncivil" unless you consider yourself beyond criticism? Nysanda (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You repeatedly removed reasonable tags, that could be considered vandalism. It was probably not the appropriate action but I am getting frustrated here, as you keep refusing to read or heed. wp:V --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My reference to the policy on civility was to draw your attention to the line "Comment on the actions and not the editor" After you decided to refer to me a childish.

You keep insisting I am be in unreasonable and biased. As I tried to point out, the whole article could have been put up for deletion, what you do not seem to understand is I am trying to improve the article, sourcing is the norm here, not an insult. I marked places that should be sourced in-line, using the links/sources at the bottom as I assumed someone more familiar with the topic would do a better job. If I was being vindictive as you clam I could have easily gone through your contributions list, putting all of them up for deletion, but that would be petty and would not help improve the encyclopedia. I have been trying to help you improve one article and then found another while doing so.

You say I have acted in a vindictive way before, please look more closely, what proportion of my edits have included disputes like this? Not that many, and of those, the majority ended amicably. For example look at the articles on Rhee Taekwon-Do where I and some others helped an editor who wanted to write about there style an linage write articles that have been recognised as up to the good Article standard. Where there have been disputes it often stems from the fact I regularly look at short or newish Martial arts related articles for improvement, often their are one or two editors who wrote the bulk of the article and are surprised when it is edited, on other occasions it has been written and abandoned. Nate1481(^t/_c)

If we read through your responses, we see a definite pattern here. I noted that you INCORRECTLY tried to label my disagreement with you as "vandalism" and then cited the actual WIKI policy. you then were forced to admit it was not the correct thing to do. Now, you are saying "not that many" of your edits have been questioned, etc. Again, you originally inserted edits almost every three words. You inserted them in very questionable places (eg. "Chan Tai San studied several years" inseted citation? "Chan Tai San studied with Chan Sai Mo" inserted citation? "Chan Tai San was well respected" inserted citation? on and on). Honestly, this is a WASTE OF TIME, in my opinion, and you can condemn me all you want for saying it, you have a lot of spare time on your hands and are looking for things to edit. Why else attack an article that is already well cited and on a subject that results in HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search? I can understand asking for citations on "controversial" subjects and I can certainly understand editing vandalism, etc. "Nit picking" a completely valid article for the sake of "nit picking" to me seems utterly pointless. Maybe that's just me? Nysanda (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not may no. look here as a portion of my total less than 0.1% is what you are disputing. So yes not many.

Have there been no biographies you could site just a title & ISBN number! The article is NOT well cited, it has some general sources but if you want to check a particular statement you would have to search all of them. Google is not a source, I have not once questioned the notability of the individual which is all google (may) show, "Chan Tai San" gives 505 results "Hélio Gracie" gives 8,470, so not that good a measure. As there were potenial sources I asked that they be attached to claims. Do you get the point? I am not "nit picking" I making a reasonable request.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work Nate

I really like the way you have rearranged these diatribes! --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still have the audacity to question your edits

I guess you'll have to "re group" this latest "diatribe" as well. However, if we read through your responses, we see a definite pattern here. I noted that you INCORRECTLY tried to label my disagreement with you as "vandalism" and then cited the actual WIKI policy. you then were forced to admit it was not the correct thing to do. Now, you are saying "not that many" of your edits have been questioned, etc. Again, you originally inserted edits almost every three words. You inserted them in very questionable places (eg. "Chan Tai San studied several years" inseted citation? "Chan Tai San studied with Chan Sai Mo" inserted citation? "Chan Tai San was well respected" inserted citation? on and on). Honestly, this is a WASTE OF TIME, in my opinion, and you can condemn me all you want for saying it, you have a lot of spare time on your hands and are looking for things to edit. Why else attack an article that is already well cited and on a subject that results in HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search? I can understand asking for citations on "controversial" subjects and I can certainly understand editing vandalism, etc. "Nit picking" a completely valid article for the sake of "nit picking" to me seems utterly pointless. Maybe that's just me? Nysanda (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Grouping make it easier to follow, is this a problem? I have also move the section from my review page here to make it easier to follow. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I thought that when I said "this will be my final words" and when I didn't respond to you this morning after your posts then, that you would have understood. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you. I'm sorry, I disagree with you. That doesn't make my comments diatribes, it doesn't make me unreasonable, it doesn't make my posts "vandalism". I have professional academic training in the importance of citations (I have a MA degree in East Asian Studies and ABD in American History) and I simply don't agree with you, your methods or your "world view". So please feel free to do whatever it is you want to do now. No need to send me new messages, you won't change my mind. Bye Nysanda (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, I have a MSc, this is not about qualifications. I had to write a dissertation where any factual claims had to be linked to a numbered source, that is all I'm asking for. Now will you stop carting out the same strawmen of persecution, it's getting tedious--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

From review

1. I am simiarly concerned that your personal biases seem to be affecting your editing! On the entry on Chan Tai San you seem to want "citations" every few words and on things that in many cases seem absurd (Chan Tai San was orphaned and raised in southern China, how exactly do we "cite" that? I've put up citations to over 30 articles about him, isn't that enough or do you perhaps think an encyclopedia has a reference to a single individual's entire life? No, I am beign serious!). Nysanda (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   They were paired with that {{nofootnotes}} asking that the sources be attached to statements. Also 1 (or maybe 2 on one paragraph) is not 'every few words'. As to referencing an individuals entire life it is possible (see Isaac Newton) or the statements should not be presented as facts but as reports. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your edits and comments increasingly smack of personal vendetta, or is a coincidence that now that I've disagreed with you you've chosen to try and edit more entries associated with us? Lame attempts to excuse what are clearly unreasonable demands to document pretty much every statement. Very childish, very unprofessional Nysanda (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

   How? What vendetta where? I found the article as i said on your talk page while looking for sources, how on earth could I have know this was you? Different names, no info on you user page how!Nate1481(^t/_c)

   I disagree with you and you try and cite me for "vandalism". As I have stated rather clearly, by the WIKI definition, my disagreement with you is not "vandalism" which you have now admitted. I quote you "It was probably not the appropriate action" Apparently, I am not the only person who has questioned your motivations? Perhaps rather than blaming the messanger(s) you re-evaluate and ask why more than a few people have all said the same thing about your editing style? Nysanda (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

   My final words on the subject. If we read through your responses, we see a definite pattern here. I noted that you INCORRECTLY tried to label my disagreement with you as "vandalism" and then cited the actual WIKI policy. You then were forced to admit it was not the correct thing to do. Then, you are saying "not that many" of your edits have been questioned, etc? Again, you originally inserted edits almost every three words. You inserted them in very questionable places (eg. "Chan Tai San studied several years" inseted citation? "Chan Tai San studied with Chan Sai Mo" inserted citation? "Chan Tai San was well respected" inserted citation? on and on). You attempt to denigrate my responses by calling them "diatribes" (nothing "civil" about that is there?). Do you not see a pattern here? In conclusion, the question remains, why else "edit" an article that is already well cited and on a subject that results in HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search? I can understand asking for citations on "controversial" subjects and I can certainly understand editing out vandalism, etc. "Nit picking" a completely valid article for the sake of "nit picking" to me seems utterly pointless. Maybe that's just me? Nysanda (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

   Some people are capable of admitting they were wrong, you seem unable to do so. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am now frustrated and annoyed that you keep lying about me and questioning my motivations. Where did I refer to you comments as diatribes? Diff please. Oh look it wasn't me! One request per paragraph is not every few words unless your definition of few is more than 10. every 3 words WHERE? Diff please.

p.s. Did you know this review was voluntary and that I requested it? I am moving it to may talk page as this is not a review but a discussion, you are commenting on 1 or 2 sets of edit not on my over all contributions. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't being clear. I thought that when I said "this will be my final words" and when I didn't respond to you this morning after your posts then, that you would have understood. I am no longer interested in discussing this with you. I'm sorry, I disagree with you. That doesn't make my comments diatribes, it doesn't make me unreasonable, it doesn't make my posts "vandalism". I have professional academic training in the importance of citations (I have a MA degree in East Asian Studies and ABD in American History) and I simply don't agree with you, your methods or your "world view". So please feel free to do whatever it is you want to do now. No need to send me new messages, you won't change my mind. Bye Nysanda (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nysandra, you claim that you "have professional academic training in the importance of citations", then can you please explain how it is that you only managed to provide one direct citation by way of footnote (purporting to support the claim that Chan was "recognized by the People's Republic of China as one of its 'Living Treasures'") yet that footnote did not appear to have anything at all to do with that claim. Also, it is a big stretch to claim as professional citing what you have done which is to simply list magazine issues with no page number references, no ISBN, and no reference to the body of the article. As you added those magazine references into the article, you must have the magazines at hand (do you?). If you have the magazine articles, then you should add that information. Your performance in the one in-line citation markedly detracts form any presumed credibility you may have had for the rest of your claims and sources. With respect to your claim that notability is supported by "HUNDREDS of hits with a simple GOOGLE search", on the contrary, the small number of hits in itself indicates non-notability, especially when one looks into the pages resulting in those hits. I urge you to gather some of those pages and post them as in-line citations where appropriate. If you can't make a credible start to support the article with the Google citations that you have referred to, nor provide the ISBN and page number references in-line within the next 24 hours, or I will list the article for deletion due to lack of credible, properly cited evidence and non-notability. I note that there is an issue with comprehension in general, as evidences by numerous false claims made above, for example that Nate called your responses "diatribes", that he wants "citations every few words", that he is engaged in a vendetta against you, etc - all incorrect. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord, yet another example of why it is impossible to take this at all the least bit seriously? Let's quote you now - "you please explain how it is that you only managed to provide one direct citation by way of footnote (purporting to support the claim that Chan was "recognized by the People's Republic of China as one of its 'Living Treasures'") yet that footnote did not appear to have anything at all to do with that claim" - OH REALLY NOW? Let's see, the clip is from a movie called "China's Living National Treasures", produced by the government of China and with Chan Tai San appearing in it. If you can't understand teh significance of the clip that certainly says a lot about you (and this process) doesn't it? Nate asked for a published biography? Let's play a "game", please cite a published biography on Wang Lang, Chang Dung Sheng, Chan Hak Fu, Hwang Kee, Chung Duk Son, or Young Shul Choi (HINT: all are very important figures in the martial arts world yet none have a published biography). I could go further, there wasn't a published bio of Mas Oyama until a few years ago (2006 I believe). The only published work on Helio Gracie is produced by his own family and wouldn't stand up to pure academic scrutiny. You want to list the article for deletion? FINE! Go ahead an suggest it! I noticed this was attempted with several martial arts entries, because most martial arts figures can not stand up to pure academic scrutiny. However, most (Marvin Perry being but one example, do NOT get deleted because if you really want to apply these standards you'd have to delete 95% of the martial arts entries on here. In conclusion, as I said, very hard to take you seriously when you post stuff of this sort Nysanda (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"The only published work on Helio Gracie is produced by his own family" Err no. He is mentioned in most of the hundred of so books on BJJ so that is simply wrong. I asked for a biography as an example. You keep saying he's really important, well most important people have had at least a bio-piece in a magazine, if not a full blown book. I did initially ask that you just link the references at the bottom of the article to statements in the text as citations , I didn't ask for a new one, but you just said that it was really hard, so I suggested possible sources, I had never heard of the guy before this article so wouldn't know where to start looking. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As to deletion, not really. The article unlike many has POTENTIAL, if it can be sourced, but that needs in-line citations. Also you may not that my point on the Marvin perry AfD was that it needed sources, oh look it got them and was kept! --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Helio Graice is indeed mentioned in many BJJ books, written by Rorion Gracie, Renzo Gracie, Rodrigo Gracie, etc, note they all seem to have the same last name GRACIE. I also note that you didn't address my point about others like Chan Hak Fu and Young Shul Choi. For the record I did not call Chan Tai San "really important", just noted that he is "notable" enough to merit the wiki article. He is notable enough that one of the Inside Kung Fu articles was a COVER STORY about him, and as I've said (and the list suggests) he's been covered in a lot of publications over the years. Just because you have never heard of him doesn't mean much, that is not an insult, just a statemetn of fact. Do you know who Hwang Kee, Young Shul Choi or Wang Lang are? - FINAL NOTE - I am glad to see that at least you understood the significance of posting the clip from "China's Living National Treasures" movie. Nysanda (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for cry out loud, yes there are lots of books written by the family, there are also lots that are not you can't find either! There are also other things, I could have picked any of a dozen artists Helio just came to mind, Eddie Bravo, Chuck Liddell , Kano Jigoro, Ken Shamrock, Masutatsu Oyama, Dan Inosanto I could go on, it was an example not the whole point! If there was a cover story would it not be simple to add the details of the magazine, such as the publisher (ideally the ISSN if present) and the date?--Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nysanda, you didn't answer my simple question as to whether you have copies of those magazines you are using as sources. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nysanda, you are totally wrong: for the third time, not all the citable books about Helio were written by Gracies. His biography was written by Kid Peligro for example. Many other sources of information about Helio exist and have been cited, including Kimura's biography for example. The large number of erroneous statements you make to support your arguments greatly undermines your arguments, yet you never waver - you even repeat the same false claims. We're trying to help you, but you are just being rude and wasting our time. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

<-Thankyou. These edits added a source, (I tidied it as you can use one set of text twice if you name it) this kind of thing is all I wanted. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance & Pure Vandalism

Ignorance of the Chinese language should be no excuse for pure vandalism. The movie clip in the Chan Tai San article is from "China's Living National Treasures" produced by the government of China and featuring Chan Tai San (as well as others). It is a completely valid citation in support of the statement! Just because you don't understand the commentary on the clip doesn't change that fact! Nysanda (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of ignorance and vandalism. Do you assume that I do not speak Mandarin simply because I don't have a Chinese name? (Neither do you!) Please read this and cut out all the aggression. The video clip does not include and title text that supports your claim that 'it is from "China's Living National Treasures" produced by the government of China'. The sound quality is very poor, so please provide the exact position (in minutes and seconds) where that commentary is that you referred to, along with a quote of exactly what that commentary was. --David Broadfoot (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Reference

The scanned photo at http://www.angelfire.com/ny/sanshou/ikf891.jpg looks like an index of Inside Kung Fu Oct 1989. There is no mention of Chan Tai San. My bullshit detector had rumbled at using a private website as a reference. jmcw (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page 70 "tibet's mysterious martial arts" by "institute for martial research" or http://www.angelfire.com/ny/sanshou/ikf892.jpg Thus, not only have I cited teh article(s) I've provided you with actual copies. Would you like to apologize now or later? Nysanda (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 17:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Later, when the article improves. A better reference would mention lama pai. I will apologize about the bullshit remark: bullshido.net has very positive remarks about Chan Tai San http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/search.php?searchid=755081 . jmcw (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I AM CONFUSED? Article begins "the Tibetan style of Lama Pai kung fu" (blah blah) and the article on Chan Tai San DOES mention Lama Pai. No need IMO to give detailed Lama Pai history in CTS article, lama pai is well covered already in separate WIKI article Nysanda (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is a sister project dedicated to hosting this kind of material, you may want to move them there as they could be useful in other articles. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to a minor medical procedure, I am stuck home today and have tons of spare time on my hands, thus the ability to do this, otherwise, this is not a "life long committment". As Chan Tai San was my teacher and I spent a good 16 years of my life with him, would like to see his article remain but that's really on you WIKI guys. If he does stay, maybe track down the idiot who keeps vandalizing the article with Ninjitsu references? That would be good... Oh, and I edited one of your edits only because what you did seemed to "kill" the link... WIKI is not my thing, have no idea how to "cite" it correctly, but would like the citation to remain (especially in light of recent events) Nysanda (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article remaining - all I asked is that you start referencing it properly otherwise I would recommend it for deletion. Now that you have started to do that, it is not longer an issue. However, you still need to reply to my query about the "living national treasure" claim and its video link. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no logical reason to try and dismiss the clip. It is from the movie "Living National Treasures" and features Chan Tai San, ie the clip is evidence that CTS was in the movie along with the other "Living treasures". It would be like doing an article on Ronald Reagon, mentioning his was elected president and then linking to a clip of the innauguation. What part of that are you honeslty having trouble understanding. FURTHERMORE I have put up the cover from the IKF article http://www.angelfire.com/ny/sanshou/ctscover.jpg where they repeat the claim. That you deleted with no explanation! Deleting a perfectly valid source is akin to vandalism. Nysanda (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, there are so many errors in the claims you've just made (and you repeated them on Nate's talk page too):

1. There are many logical reasons. e.g. where is it referred to that that clip is from that movie? We only have your word for it. Where is the proof that this involves official Chinese government status? etc. You can't be bothered answering any of my questions to help e.g for a start, referring to the points in that video where such claims are made.
2. You claim that I deleted the link to the ctscover.jpg - I didn't.
3. The cover does *not* support the that Chan has official Chinese government status that he was a "national living treasure". In fact, I can;t find any evidence that the Chinese government even runs such a program (Australia & Japan do.)
4. You claim that I deleted with no explanation. That is also totally untrue: I provided the explanation both in the edit summary and also on the talk page.
5. I am not having any trouble understanding the issue - you are (as clearly evidenced my outline above of the errors in your argument, as well as the sheer number of blatantly false claims.)

And please stop your incessant accusations against others of "ignorance" and "repeated vandalism". It is extremely tedious, very rude, and totally unhelpful and unproductive. You have the dubious distinction of creating a Wikipdia entry whose talk page far exceeds the size of its main page - it's a big waste of time. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a CLIP from a movie, is it logical to expect that a CLIP would always contain a reference "this next 5 minutes is still from this movie and in case you forgot, the name of this movie is..."? IE if I posted 5 random minutes of the "Godfather" would you know it was that movie if you had never seen it before? Short of somehow uplaoding a copy of the WHOLE MOVIE what would you suggest to prove that the clip is from that movie?

(EDIT) I could direct you to students of other teachers that were in that movie. The teachers themselves are mostly deceased

You didn't delete to cover, I made a mistake. If you had, I would have had a logical complaint, no? But I made a mistake...

I'd like to note that Nate didn't seem to have any issue with the link.

As a mater of FACT, I didn't create this entry! Go back and look! I just happen to be a student of Chan Tai San who is defending his entry. Nysanda (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, you still refuse to point to the part of the film that contains the proof you asserted. I remind you that you wrote "It is a completely valid citation in support of the statement! Just because you don't understand the commentary on the clip doesn't change that fact!" and you referred to my actions in questioning that source as "Deplorable!". What is deplorable is the fact that you steadfastly refuse to even quote the point in the film clip that you say supports your claim. I can't hear anything in it that matches what you claim. So, your assertion stays out of the article until it can be properly sourced. This is Wikipedia, not NYSANDA. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re your edit... You *still* do not understand how Wikipedia works: convincing me of anything is immaterial - the article must stand on its own merits with verifiable sources. Moreover, how would redirecting me to those students prove that the Chinese government awarded "National Living Treasure" status to Chan, and how would their responses to me be citable? Please learn Wikipedia (both from a policy point of view and a technical point of view) to prevent more chaos. Thanks. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

From the commentary it should be obvious 1) that it is not a "home movie" (and related to something else I posted, since the film dates to the early 80's and China even today remains a "socialist market economy" ALL films were/are done with government involvement) and 2) that the clip in question is one of MANY little "sub sections" featuring different instructors who were designated "living treasures". The commentary OBVIOUSLY doesn't explicitly say "this is part of Living national treasures". It is a CLIP. Since the entire film isn't available at this moment (though I wonder how you'd respond if we were able to produce the movie from openning to closing credits?) nor is the "box" with title, etc I was suggesting we compile a list of those who were in the film and see if "statements" for lack of a better word can be made to the effect that 1) that is a clip of said film and 2) that said film was in fact about people who had been designated that title. I was going to offer a COMPROMISE and leave it an open issue until I could assemble such a list, but you appear hostile to that suggestion as well.... PS: I suggested to you that if you doubt I am who I say I am that you either call or email me Nysanda (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would reponse in the same way if you provided the entire movie, and it; clea that you woudl continue to rpsons in the same way by ignoring numerous requests to provide the MM:SS point in the movie where you say that your claim is stated in Mandarin. You are wasting our time.

I already repsonded on my talk page to your suggestion that I contact you. That you categorise my response as "hostile" to "COMPROMISE" is a gross mischaracteriaiton. I repeat my response here:

David... (1) you really need to get a grip on how Wikipedia works. Of what use is *my* assertion that you are you? Please understand that Wikipedia needs credible verifiable sources. I am not such a source. (2) I never asked you cite such a reference. (3) You can ask, but you have no right to demand that an article about you be deleted. However, I'd welcome it because as far as I am concerned, you are not notable. (4) You are being rude again - I do not have "whims"... I am merely following Wikipedia guidelines and helping you improve those articles. I do so consistently not whimsically. Cheers.

I add that I am sick of having to repeat my self. Provide the timepoint in the movie and a short translation of what you clainm it says. If that translation supports your edit, then and only then will I look at the video again to verify it. Proving who you are is of no relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room debate. The fact that you consistently refuse to point to where in the video your claims are substantiated leads me to assume that there is no such evidence and you were banking on none of us understanding Mandarin. "Deplorable!" --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"I am sick of having to repeat my self", ah, my sentiments exacly. I haven't seen the movie in it's entirety in something like 12 years but it begins with a sort of (paraphrased of course) "here we are in China, about to meet the famous living masters of martial arts" and then it begins each little segment about each master. Obviously, if we had the entire movie, I guess we could upload that section, cite to you the MM:SS (had to look up what that was for a minute) and then we'd be done. Unfortunately, seeing that the video was thrown out and I haven't found a copy of it since (the youtube clip is all that remains amongst the student body) I suggested the above (compile a list of those who were in the film and see if "statements" for lack of a better word can be made to the effect that 1) that is a clip of said film and 2) that said film was in fact about people who had been designated that title). That is realistically possible (as opposed to finding a complete copy which I doubt would happen based upon my looking for a long time even before this). Since this doesn't seem in your estimation to fufil the criteria (again I note that Nate didn't to my knowledge ever question the clip in the first place?) then this back and forth isn't going to achieve anything. Nysanda (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake - we are referring to the MM:SS into the clip you posted, not into the entire movie that you didn't post. The *clip* that you posted as evidence. Yes, the same clip that you derided me for allegedly not being able to understand. --David Broadfoot (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(the sound of me crashing my head into a brick wall). As I have said several times, there is not in the posted clip an explicit statement that the movie is about "living treasures". The clip is just (only) CTS's segment. It actually starts off rather corny with a kind of "oh, look who's at this temple" (like a kid's show or something). If you can understand the dialogue, then yes, I'd expect that you'd understand it was part of a larger movie. If I had the openning few minutes of the film, you'd hear the intro RE the "living legends" part (but then I suppose we'd have to prove the openning and the CTS segment are from the same film?). REGARDLESS, since we don't currently have the openning footage, it's moot, and the best I could offer would be the compiled list, etc. THUS, again, and finally, I don't see this going anywhere. Nysanda (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So, now you are finally admitting that the clip that you cited as proof of Chan's status as national Living Treasure in fact proves no such thing. And it was just a smokescreen all along all those remonstrations that if I understood Mandarin then I would have understood the proof. So in fact, my stated reason for rejecting that clip as evidence was quite correct all along, and all the criticisms you made here and ON THE KUNG-FU FORUM are in fact bunch of libellous nonsense. --David Broadfoot (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

NO, not at all. The clip is clearly from a larger work, and that larger work is "China's living national treasures". The dialogue clearly indicates it is a PART, not a whole (but since you speak Mandarin you know that, right?). Nate didn't take issue with the clip (that I am aware of? if not, just point me to where?). In fact, I didn't see anyone else take issue with the clip (or even the claim). "Libellous" LMFAO, you like words like that don't you? "Diatribe", etc.... Nysanda (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They obviously didn't take issue with the clip because they don't speak Mandarin. The clip is proof of nothing no matter how many times you use the words "part" and "whole" - the words "Living National Treasure" do not apear in the clip either in text or verbally. STOP TROLLING. --David Broadfoot (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "the Godfather" don't flash across the screen every few seconds of that fine motion picture either, yet a clip of Mo Green taking it in the eye is still part of the film (and anyone who had seen the whole film would probably identify it as such). "TEXT"? There is no "text" in the clip, the person who posted the clip threw in some "text" at the beginning of the clip, but it's irrelevant. Your posts are starting to edge into being "uncivil". Nysanda (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

<= I don't speak Chinese and have no audio @ work anyway, so couldn't say one way or other. Having a link that can be checked is a good start, I was going to ask round for someone to listen to it later. A big claim needs an good source, I'd suggest commenting it out for now <!-- like this -->. However, I am surprised there are no other sources if this is an official thing and they are not on the English Language version of the Chinese government site, which I would have expected. (see below) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Late in life Chan Tai San had complications with diabetis (sp?) and was moved by his family to a full time care facility. His family subsequently cleaned out his apartment (his wife was deceased already) and many items were simply thrown out. Unfortunate, but not uncommon. They had no significance to his family and his students were notified after the fact. Both the original copy of the video (VHS) and the certificate Chan had (one of MANY) probably found their way to the local landfill. Nysanda (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Break

(outdent) A scan of the article that says who thinks he is China's National treasure would be more convincing. jmcw (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried several searches for an alternative source, but was unable to find one (it may be in Chinese hence me missing it) but I would have thought a government list of living treasures would be online. If you could give a time on the video it would help as then we jut need a Chinese speaker to listen to a little bit not the whole thing, it needs verifying or it doesn't work as a source. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to get in touch with the Guangdong Martial Arts Associaiton or the regional (provincial) division of the Chinese Wushu Association, neither of which have web sites that I am aware of (in either English or Chinese). At the time the film was produced, Xia BaHua would have been the president of the Chinese Wushu Association. To state what should be obvious (as China is still a "socialist market economy") a film produced in China in the early 80's would have been produced by the state, so you might want to explore that angle though honestly I don't even know the official name of the state division responsible for state films Nysanda (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Tried here still nothing

Nate, as stated already, I've already listened to the video and cannot hear any such reference to support Nysandra'a claims. And as for asking him for the time mark on the video, I've already asked him for it he chooses not to respond. You know from experience with trolls that you will just wear yourself out trying to repeatedly ask for reasonable responses. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No diff 'diff'

Nate, what happened here? [1] - There is no difference between your 'fixed' version and the earlier one, and the link on the earlier one works. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)#

No idea. both seem to work for me. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we've gone off the deep end?

- "all the citations in this article are in doubt due to User:Nysanda's demonstrated capacity for misrepresentation". Are you saying that the Inside Kung Fu articles don't exist? I've linked scans to them. Or perhaps you are saying that the magazine isn't a valid source? It's pretty much the major English language publication for Chinese martial arts. The other major publication is "Kung Fu Wushu" edited by Gene Ching. I have similar articles about CTS from that magazine that I can either replace or just be added to the already existing citations. Nysanda (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IKF from 1989 IKF from 1989 IKF from 1989 A tradition whose time has come tradition article CTS cover story cover story

Nysanda (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)