Talk:Moy Lin-shin

Moy

Greetings. The changes I made at the Moy article were in aid of the policy of citing sources and the rules of reporting provenance, not POV. It isn't saying he didn't study them, but it is saying that he is the only source for the claim we have now. Unless there is a citation that you can provide from outside of Moy's school that says he studied those arts, and one that can be independently checked, we have to put in the qualifier that Moy himself was the source for the statement. So you see, we have a pretty rigorous threshold when it comes to publishing information. You can say things, but it has to be clear where they come from. The same for other things like that. We can say that Moy's school is growing in popularity, but to impute that it was founded because of Moy's altruism and compassion is stuff for an advertisement, not an encyclopaedia article. If you look at the bio articles for the other T'ai Chi teachers, you'll see that they are pretty dry when it comes to stuff like that. Remember, it says at the bottom of the Editing screen: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. I hope this helps. Regards, Fire Star 23:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Misleading information

This article is misleading and has the wrong tone. For more correct information, please go to the official Taoist Tai Chi site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.48.49.146 (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Tag

I have added a citations needed tag, as this article has no citations whatsoever to support its comic book story. (RookZERO 19:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Tagged for Deletion

This article was tagged for deletion today by an administrator User:Bradeos Graphon. The tag indicated that the lack of third party refs meant the article's notability was in doubt. I have since added one third party reference, a reflist and replaced the tags on it with a ref improve tag. The article could certainly use more references added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple news refs that talk about the guy. The truth is, there are a lot of articles written about Taoist Tai Chi and it's accompanying organization, but not really any exclusively about the founder. I would not be opposed to merging and redirecting to either Taoist Tai Chi or Taoist Tai Chi Society. VanTucky 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this ref Ahunt came up with especially: [1]. I think merging Moy's article with Taoist Tai Chi, and probably the Fung Loy Kok article too, would help us fill out the article when most of the primary sourced stuff is eventually challenged. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was important to include some critical material to give the article better balance, although it could be well argued that that reference does not meet the requirements of WP:Sources in that it is self-published. If we follow the strict requirements for sources laid out in policy then probably 90% of the articles in Wikipedia would have no acceptable sources, so I think some judicious use of other sources is defensible. There has been great debate about this on some WikiProjects that I am involved with. Some articles rely on self-published sources that are very accurate, while some of the published books on the same subjects are riddled with errors and poor research. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it isn't something direct from the Taoist Society (TTCCS) like practically every other ref that is listed. That you guys dug up some secondary things is a help. Everything listed before, and the article's entire content, came from TTCCS which is why I listed these articles as prods in the first place. I think these articles (and others in the tai chi chuan cycle) will probably be better off reduced to stubs if better sources can't be found. Traditional tai chi chuan is a relatively well documented martial art, we shouldn't have to rely on people advertising their own schools for article content. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be an advertising tool for anyone. I think that the subject of this article and the related ones are notable enough (in the Wikipedia sense of notable) that they should remain in the encyclopedia, and probably as separate articles. They just need some work and more third party sources, of which there are lots available. I don't think that "first party" sources are a problem, you just don't want solely first party sources. Just about any corporation or association article uses first party sources, they just need to be balanced to make a good encyclopedia article, instead of an ad. A good example is the article on the Association of British Drivers. It was like an ad at one point, while it is no where near "finished" at this point it has a balance of first and third party sources which results in a more balanced picture of that subject. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bradeos, you know I'm usually with you on tai chi chuan issues...but not this one. Taoist Tai Chi is not just a school, it's a completely unique style. I know, I've done it and taught it. It's not for me (I don't like throwing away tradition to accommodate Western students), but it is a patently unique type of tai chi chuan and a unique approach to teaching. Not only is the tai chi unique, but the organization is too. No tai chi organization even comes close to the size and distribution of the Society. This isn't just the local tai chi school with one or two branches. It may be reviled by traditionalists, but it does deserve coverage. That said, again I wouldn't be opposed to merging this. The heart of Wikipedia is sources, and since all but self-published sources only mention Moy in the context of his organization (nowhere near significant or exclusive coverage), I think merging this with Taoist Tai Chi Society is preferable. VanTucky 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you both, I don't want you guys to think I'm out to get these articles. I've been tagging a lot of the tai chi articles this way lately, and referencing others (when I can find refs). I have recently located my periodical file from the 1990s, with important articles by and about the big three families, and Doug Wile has recently published an interesting and important (if flawed, IMO) critique of the various tai chi origin theories in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts that I want to work into some other articles. I agree that primary sources have a place, but conditioned in the context of independent sources. They shouldn't be the primary source for an article, in other words. I agree that Taoist tai chi is a real thing, and probably should have an article. My question was, these articles? The prod was the first step in a process to discover what other ediors thought, to find out if people thought it notable enough. I asked the question but recused myself from that opinion because Taoist tai chi started up around the block from the Wu family school I studied with in the 1980s & 90s. I was able to see Moy and his students first hand, and compare them to many other traditional kung fu teachers in Toronto. I'll quote VanTucky "It's not for me", but for me as well, that has no bearing on the article. I do support a merger. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we three seem to the be only ones working on these article right now, I will also support your proposal to merge them - let's see what can be done about that.

Incidentally I do Taoist Tai Chi and I met Moy on about half a dozen occasions during workshops and visits, but due to the politics of it I am not with the Society and haven't been since 1998. My only interest in these articles is to present the balanced facts on what I consider a noteworthy subject- Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The criticism of Moy Lin Shin - seems to be from a source which by his own description seems to not have had any direct contact with Mr Moy. How is that a reference to someone's life? It includes FOX News-like "Some people say...." which is by any serious account worthless. And if you look at the PDF of his site -the cited material- has many flat-out wrong statements about Mr. Moy's style (Twisting? Knee Bends?) as well as incorrect statements about something as basic as the number of chapters or sections of the Tao (he lists 88 - ther are by all accounts including wikipedia 81 chapters or sections) He may or may not be a legitimate source for Tai-Chi, but not for Mr. Moy's life. Placing one person's second-hand opinion against a man who created the world's largest Tai Chi organization with 10's of thousands of students and locations all around the world just does not seem fair. I am sorry if i have not followed protocol here - my first time.ZaphodSegovia (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - your criticism of that source is totally valid. I was working on the belief that anyone who removes a large section of an article with no explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page is vandalizing the article.

If you look at the history here on the talk page you will find that it was listed for deletion due mostly to being unbalanced and lacking any third party references - in other words it read like an ad for the society. I was a student of Moy's, but I found the criticism here to try to lend some balance to the article. There are many sources that criticize Taoist Tai Chi and Moy's teaching, but this one was the best explanation of some of those complaints. In using it I was careful to avoid some of the innuendo there and stick to a summary of the criticism. I noted above that that it isn't the best source, but it is better than nothing. As you can see above, an administrator thought the addition of this ref and the section was positive for the article.

If we delete all the balance and third party sources then it is likely that this article will be again listed for deletion as being nothing more than an ad. If you can find better sources to add balance to the article, that would be great! - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The man though, criticizes Mr Moy's lineage, but if you look at Mr Sinclair's site, offers no lineage of his own. In reading his PDF, he really presents a distorted view, especially since he had no first hand experience of Mr Moy. If you had first hand knowledge, what are you a source - certainly may be better than the one you used? What is your political problem, was this after Mr. Moy's death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaphodSegovia (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I met Moy on about half a dozen occasions at workshops. He was a great teacher.

Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia see WP:OR, you have to quote from published sources, so personal knowledge isn't much good, except as a point of departure to go and find the sources to back up what you know!

The political reasons I mentioned were just that many branches of the society became overtaken with serious "ego" problems in their management, especially after Moy's death. It was sad. I haven't been to any branches in a while, perhaps it has been overcome? - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What Ahunt says about our personal experiences and WP:OR is quite true. I saw Moy demonstrate, and met probably a dozen or so of the other "famous" teachers with articles on Wikipedia, and if I could write from my experiences most (but not all) of their articles would be much longer. We have to stick to secondary and even tertiary sources, with primary sources mostly for compare and contrast reference, not as sources from which to build an article. The critical link provided is just one ref that doesn't come from the TTCS. If we were to stub the article, I don't think it would be deleted (the TTCS has a respectable amount of Google hits, it can't be prodded again, it would have to go to AfD next time) but we'd have to find independent articles published on the style to fill it out.

It is unfortunate about the political problems Ahunt mentions, and they are by no means unique to the TTCS. That is one thing Moy missed by leaving out the martial art; in traditional schools when egotists and self-graduators make provocative or otherwise questionable statements they are expected to be physically challenged by senior instructors to demonstrate their opinions. "You are saying this form is right or wrong? Show me why!" It is a regular part of teaching, students don't really know that they don't know, so they have to be shown. There is no animosity, that they don't know is exactly why they are students. If a student becomes angry, they need to go somewhere else. The martial art proves an instructor's ability in the art, and that they picked up the transmission from their teachers. It isn't a competitive thing, it is quality control. If teachers have no kung fu, how do you (or they) know they know what they are doing? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re references

The recently added references surely could use some scrutiny. This one: "Scrivener, Leslie. "Marshalling praise for art of Tai Chi", The Toronto Star, Sep 09, 2007" mentions in the article one David Draper. This person mentions the number of TTCS-locations in The Netherlands. He is quoted saying that when he left The Netherlands there were 40 locations. A simple verification (with www.archive.org), using the website of the Netherlands branch over the past years, gives the following numbers: in the fall (around September) 2001:25, 2002:29, 2003:25, 2004:24, 2005:26, 2006:27, and February 2008:31. Clearly nowhere near 40. Through another source I found the other number where this man was quoted was not correct either (i.e. more than one). This person may be trying to boast his own efforts, however, it puts the article in doubt. --VanBurenen (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be listed as just a "general" ref and not a paragraph citation, so if it is of doubtful accuracy or value it can be removed! - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with your method in genreal, the counts just depends on what is being counted. Your count just looks at the first level of towns. To be accurate in saying how many locations you would have to go to the next level and count each location within the town.ZaphodSegovia (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In doing a quick count i see 41, pretty accurateZaphodSegovia (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give the URL, http://??, I would like to count myself. --VanBurenen (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure - But i thought you already counted? As a caveat i do not read the language - so.... http://www.taoisttaichi.nl/leslocaties/beginners.htm#m1

I just counted again and came up with 38. I belive though these are just beginner class locations, there may be more for continuing classes and if it is like other places many other places are not listed on line. My guess is that 40 is an understatement. Either case it is certainly not much of an exaggeration if that is you issue.ZaphodSegovia (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones you counted are classes that are about to start up early 2008. This person David Draper has nothing to do with these. Existing classes from 2007 and earlier are on http://www.taoisttaichi.nl/leslocaties.htm. The newspaper talks about "groups in 40 cities". In order to make it look good on a resume it is of course most advantageous to include all possible variations, whatever they may be. Also by making it sound that he has something to do with all the classes started by others of course looks good on his resume. Moy Lin Shin reputedly did not like egos. Alas, he passed away. --VanBurenen (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, when Moy saw that an instructor was becoming too self-important he would invite them to become a beginner student once again. Many quit because they didn't understand the lesson. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you know Draper personally - it sounds to me like he has been ther 20 years and over that time spawned the 38-40 places, not directly perhaps but thru students moving on. THey just seem to be facts. Maybe i am missing something else. I understand the ego comment - it is very intersting - were both of you teachers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaphodSegovia (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I taught out in western Canada for seven years. Don't know Draper, though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the eight virtues are hyperlinks which lead to articles not concerned with the 8 virtues but european concepts of shame etc... This could be quite misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaphodSegovia (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moy Lin-shin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050424004932/http://www.daoistcenter.org/Articles/Articles_pdf/Organizations.pdf to http://www.daoistcenter.org/Articles/Articles_pdf/Organizations.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moy Lin-shin. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130115150432/http://www.taichicochrane.ca/mastermoy.html to http://www.taichicochrane.ca/mastermoy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326192145/http://www.canada.com/chilliwacktimes/news/sports/story.html?id=b4fca161-3e73-4507-b7ae-52e279dbbbf0 to http://www.canada.com/chilliwacktimes/news/sports/story.html?id=b4fca161-3e73-4507-b7ae-52e279dbbbf0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)