Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wujifa

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wujifa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On notability grounds - it seems this is a very small local cluster of groups that teach internal Chinese movements/meditation. Nothing to indicate notability - I read advertisement thinly disguised as an article. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage of this "practice". It might be possible to merge or redirect this article into another of the Chinese internal arts articles (Neijia). Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not seeing coverage to meet WP:GNG, so I don't think this deserves a standalone article. However, I'm now more inclined to go with a ~~Redirect~~ since this does appear to fit in with other Chinese internal martial arts. Given the chance, I prefer to redirect rather than delete. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons mentioned in my latest post below, I am removing my redirect vote and reinstalling my delete vote--at least until someone comes up with good independent significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In my opinion that this seems notable, there are independent citations. According to the guidelines an article can be a work in progress and still be valid. I am a wujifa practitioner of 7 plus years and work with a small group in Melbourne Australia, one of many groups I am aware of from around the world. User: JackRyan3095

— JackRyan3095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP I started practicing Tai-chi Chuan before the internet was born. I’ve been on the internet and monitoring martial arts and qigong groups from the beginning. I first heard about this “Wujifa” in relation to Yichuan about 10 years ago. With the rise of blogs and forums, I’ve seen wujifa mentioned more than several times across the martial arts spectrum as an art that provides insights into internal martial arts training.

In terms of notability, this entry meets the “Significant Coverage” criteria: what has been written so far does address the topic directly and in detail. The entry is “Reliable” in that independently published secondary “Sources” are cited that are also “independent of the subject”. This entry does not include “advertising, press releases, or autobiographies”.

This entry is "fair and balanced" and no more serves as a promotion or advertisement than do the entries for Tai-chi Chuan, Yi-chuan and Qi-gong. And so, this entry complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I’ve read and re-read the Wikipedia entries for Tai-chi Chuan, Yi-chuan, and QiGong and this Wujifa entry is consistent with those entries albeit, a little on the “lite” side. If you really understand Tai-chi and QiGong history and practice, then you would realize that the Tai-chi and QiGong entries collectively represent a populist misunderstanding even though these entries meet Wikipedia’s criteria and persist as notable entries.

I find no such populist misunderstanding in anything that has been written so far in this entry. My only concern is that the authors have not sufficiently elucidated the details of this internal art. My suggestion would be to review this entry again in a year after they have time to further develop this entry.

And so for these reasons, I vote to KEEP this entry because it DOES MEET the standards established by Wikipedia. User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — TooTallMike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you please specify the significant coverage that is independent, i.e. from people in no way connected to wujifa or its teachings? Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The older references that I remember seeing from the old GeoCities and other Bulletin Boards are lost to history. However, I was able to find some more recent entries that I think fit the criteria of not being "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."

As you know, many martial arts originated in and were handed down through the oral tradition. Of course this always creates a problem for us academic types who base authority on written documentation, on independent coverage.

Speaking of “independent coverage”, I would bet that many contributors to Wikipedia's Tai-chi, Ba-gua, Yi-chuan entries ARE practitioners of those arts who are citing other practitioner authors! And I would bet that many of these contributors have skin in the game too! So I think that the martial arts, yoga, qigong, these kinds of entries are a little different animal than say, the entries on Ford’s Model T, Daniel Tosh, Miley Cyrus or even current boxers or MMA fighters.

And if I understand the guidelines correctly, Wiki pages are not the beginning and end all. Lacking citations is not a reason alone to delete a page. These authors have citations. Any page is a work in progress. People will continue to find citations and further citations will be created over time.

http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Dictionary-Buddhism-Robert-Buswell/dp/0691157863/ The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism Princeton University Press, Nov 4, 2013 By Robert E. Buswell Jr., Donald S. Lopez Jr. page 1126, Chinese Cross-References "Wujifa 無記法. See AVYAKRTADHARMA"

http://www.goldenlotus.org/Images/homePage/Prog.GuideNov12-April13sm.pdf Song of the Morning: A Yoga Retreat of Excellence November 2012 - April 2013 Program Guide Yoga for Facial Glow, Inner Beauty and More with Ramesh Narula GSME, MBA Jan. 18-20 Enjoy an integrated practice based upon Yoga Asanas, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, Marma Points of Ayurveda, A Course in Miracles, Creativity Techniques, and Wujifa. Learn about creating your own daily practice, uniquely tailored to your body type, age, flexibility and inclination. Fee: $100

http://www.eawfest.com/products.html Change your Posture, Change your Life. Qi Gong Dan Hoffman is a student of Somatic Psychology, which is the way in which our minds and bodies interface to create our experience in the world. He has been studying Qigong for nearly 7 years in the Wujifa system, and teaching for 4. He is a firm believer in embodied practices as a gateway to a more free and authentic life - as the body becomes more free through awareness and diligent practice, so too do other aspects of the individual. He is working on his Masters and Ph. D. degrees at Santa Barbara Graduate Institute, and continues to travel a path of embodied self-discovery at the School of Cultivation and Practice in Plymouth, MI.

http://eric-taichi.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-i-read-tai-chi-and-qigong.html Blogs Here are the blogs I regularly read, a brief description, and what I get from it. Internal Gong Fu, by Mike Buhr In this blog, you can read about Mike's journey as he learns about the whole-body techniques of wujifa. He is very open about his successes and failures in applying the techniques he is learning. He writes a lot, typically about 5 or 6 new articles each month.

http://jianghu.burningpearl.com/?cat=44&paged=3 Friday, December 11th, 2009 Tabbycat says taiji is pure energy, get the body out of the way. Rick at Wujifa speaks of fascia, and connection. Scott talks about the big muscles of the back.

http://www.ttem.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=5lemuhcja2llues8885k143ls5&topic=2822.0 Wujifa youtube exercise on relaxing the shoulder May 1, 2013 Nice example of using new ideas to get the *feel* for internal aspects. Balancing innovation with being true to the arts is always a challenge .. but the opposite way of "photocopying a photocopy" out of fear kills arts fast. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAMPyA5FGEQ

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/how-to-learn-zhan-zhuang-from-a-book/ How to Learn Zhan Zhuang From a Book Comment by wujimon // Jan 20, 2010 For people interested in more material, I would HIGHLY recommend checking out: Zhan Zhuang Alignment | Wujifa. Great article discussing structure and alignment! User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please just vote once. You might want to check the Wikipedia essays on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). I'm seeing blogs, online reviews, ads for seminars, etc. What I'm not seeing are independent reliable sources giving significant coverage of wujifa. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage, the sources listed above are all clearly interested parties, other than possibly a definition, sounds like a little OR too. Nothing notable about subject of article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Nothing shows this should have its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there's not a ton of academic-like references but there are a few books that mention Wujifa.

The Phoenix Tastes a Lot Like Chicken. ASIN: B00DSOJWDG (A book about Taoism and Meditation)

Secrets of the Pelvis for Martial Arts: A Practical Guide for Improving Your Wujifa, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua and Everyday Life. ASIN: B00C14WO5W (A book about physiology)

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ISBN 10: 0691157863 ("the most comprehensive and authoritative dictionary of Buddhism ever produced in English")

By the way when you look at the original Yi-Chuan entry, there was only a story with no references! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yiquan&oldid=11302713

Contributors built on this story over the years and when you look at the current Yi-Chuan entry, there is still only one book referenced which isn't even a book about the Yi-Chuan of the founder, Wang Xiang-zai! The "About the Author" section of this reference states, "Master Lam's life-long study has brought together many strands of China's martial arts heritage. These influences are reflected in his own style of Da Cheng Chuan, presented in this book." And on page 158, Master Lam states how he changed everything, "using the forms I already knew but with a new power".

So it seems to me that this reference is not a reliable reference for Yi-Chuan since it sounds like Master Lam adapted his understanding of Yi-Chuan into his own system. And so the current Yichuan page is actually an unreferenced advertisement for the Yi-Chuan schools listed! And yet, I see no one calling to delete this page.

Therefore, I really don't understand what the difficulty is with citations concerning this wujifa page. The wujifa page has much better documentation than the original or current Yi-Chuan page. Is there a particular reason why what has been provided is less notable than what was and is provided at the Yi-chuan page?

Also, from what I'm learning, Wujifa is much broader in scope and much different than Neijia and so would not be a good fit on the Neijia page. Wujifa has a philosophic and meditative element that can directly link to Yogacara Buddhism. Wujifa references cutting edge science and talks about developing fascial connections and developing mind-body connectedness. It looks like Wujifa can be practiced for a variety of purposes. It can be practiced as an internal martial art but it does not claim to be a martial art. The way I understand it is that Neijia could be explored as one of the many paths of Wujifa but Wujifa is not Neijia. User: TooTallMike

Discussion of other article is irrelevant to this discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Wujifa is notable. It meets WP:GNG, i.e., it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As noted in WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Articles and book(s) cited in the article and in a post above meet the criterion of significant coverage. At least one book cited discusses the topic in depth. Depth is important. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." WP:ORGDEPTH. As stated in WP:WHYN, "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There is more than ample material available in the cited sources alone for an in-depth, whole article. There is significantly more material available online. Wujifa is a topic of discussion among independent martial artists. See, e.g., discussion starting 10-10-13 in respected "6H" group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/349208698527821/. The sources cited in the article are "reliable", "third-party", "secondary sources" within the meaning of WP:RS and guidelines cited therein, with the single exception of the reference to Taracks' website, which may be reasonably classed as a primary source. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As noted therein, a primary source may be "even the best possible source" when used in appropriate circumstances, such as when a company website is used for "information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Ibid. The use of the Tarack's site falls squarely within example. Further, there is the matter of common sense. When using a guideline (such as that on notability in WP:GNG), it is important that the guideline not be applied blindly, but that, as the guideline itself says, "it is best treated with common sense." WP:NN. The intent behind the given guideline is important to bear in mind. The explicit intent behind the "reliable source" guideline is "so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information." WP:WHYN. No source cited in the article comes remotely close to creating such a risk. Wikipedia guidelines make clear that our knowledge and experience bear directly on commenting, especially with respect to AFD nominations and discussions. We are advised to "consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." WP:AFDFORMAT. In this light, please permit me a personal note to provide context for my comments. I am American. I live in Taiwan. I have practiced various martial arts, including Yiquan, for 50 years, some on, some off. I have taught Asian philosophy at university and international law in law school. I have taught taijiquan in the parks. This is only to say that I am somewhat broadly familiar with Asia and specifically familiar with some martial arts that seem not terribly distant from Wujifa. My exposure to Wujifa came from reading a book and from various online sources. On inquiry, I heard of people practicing Wujifa in Taiwan, although I do not know them. Further, I have had discussions of Wujifa practices and principles with my colleagues and teachers in Taiwan, in Hong Kong, and in the US. This is to say, I find this topic "notable" in both senses of the word as used in WP:ORIGIN, it is both "worthy of note" and it is "attracting notice." From the materials I have read and seen, Wujifa, in its internal and martial aspects, seems to be a development from, and a legitimate successor to Yiquan. However, it seems to incorporate and build on a broader, more comprehensive foundation in contemporary physiology and science. As such, an article on it would more properly stand alone than be merged into other articles on internal martial arts. This is not to say that I think this article, as it stands, is just fine. It is not. It needs more depth, more explanation of principles and practice, more explanation of the historical context. I assume that, like Wikipedia itself, it is a work in progress. WP:WIP. For the reasons above, we should keep the article, and allow its author(s) to expand it, which I would hope they do. mkriegel (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Mkriegel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Besides a number a single purpose accounts with long involved posts Wujifa appears to be the creation of Richard Taracks and not a term permeating chinese martial arts. There does not seem to be a large number of groups practicing his creation and there is no coverage by reliable secondary sources. Forum and blog posts have the same reliability as Youtube videos which is essentially none.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These points are well taken. I believe I was undoubtedly mistaken to categorize this as a 'Chinese Martial Art'. I propose a re-categorization to 'North American Martial Arts' seeing that the founder is from the USA and it was developed in the USA. I also propose a re-wording of the section:

"Wujifa (Chinese: 無極法) is a practice which often takes the form of a martial art, qigong and/or meditation. Wujifa encompasses the principles of internal (nèijiā) movement and connection." to: "Wujifa (Chinese: 無極法) is a movement modality which utilizes various methods, both physical and psychological, to encourage the use of the whole body in movement. The art of Wujifa encompasses principles which are found in many (nèijia) arts."

I believe it was poor editing on my part and should be deemed rectified by making those changes to the article and include more depth, explanation of principles/practice, and historical context. It is a work in progress and I am confident of its notability as described in the notability section of the WP:GNG. Trevor Caruso (talk) 8:57, 15 November 2013 (PST)

I left a message on your talk page and also changed the category as you suggest. It really is a question of references which should be added to the article in addition to any other changes you need to make.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source that mentions wujifa links it to a Chinese internal art, plus the article describes wujifa in terms of Neijia, so linking it to other Chinese interal arts was a natural, albeit erroneous, thing to do. However, this article now has nothing to link to and still lacks the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG. I have no problem with someone keeping a copy in their sandbox until they can improve it with independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "Significant coverage" Wujifa is a legitimate martial art. I have followed some of its practices via online tutorials on youtube. I have also worked directly with its practitioners. In being a practitioner of brazilian jiujitsu, jeet kune do, kickboxing, and many other combat martial arts I would say that the fact I can practice this martial art, and it has a structure and philosophy it is a legitimate martial art. Wikipedia should not determine authenticity of a martial art due to an internet search, but it actually existing. This is how information is given, not by popularity but existing. In fact denying information due to lack of information on the internet is more the reason to show legitimate martial arts that don't get attention.

— SteveMayeda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The comment above does not provide any example of significant coverage. Those stating the subject is notable have not provided sources and the material from those sources that establish notability. I think it goes without saying but facebook groups... Taracks site might be a source for an article on Tarack but in the context of this article it is promotional verging on advert. The other references mentioned earlier are better but seem to contain only passing mentions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's summarize where we are. The Deleters say the article doesn't meet criteria. The Keepers offer evidence. The Deleters say "No". The Keepers try again. The Deleters say "No". The Keepers try again. The Deleters say "No". This kind of exchange doesn't strike me as being very instructive or productive. Therefore, could Peter Rehse, Papaursa, MrBill3, Mdtemp, please provide explicit examples and links which you are upholding as examples of the criteria which you would like to see met here and please also provide a brief explanation of why your example meets criteria? I think this might contribute to a much more functional discussion. User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. In particular, I think it would be a very good idea for the various parties here to give explicit answers to the questions raised in TooTallMike's summary. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I previously stated why TooTallMike's list of blogs, online reviews, and seminar ads didn't make for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. User Mkriegel supplied a Facebook link, definitely not a reliable source. User SteveMayeda maintained that it exists so it must be notable and that a WP listing is necessary so that "legitimate martial arts" can get attention. However, WP is not a web hosting site or for promoting one's favorite whatever. Papaursa (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The walls of text posted above as Keep arguments by fans of the subject are certainly ringing endorsements that they like it or they practice it, but the references provided do not appear to satisfy the requirements of the notability guideline for multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Merger to an appropriate article on martial arts, if one can be identified, is a possibility. This would seem to be one instance of the widespread principle that internal focus is needed for success in skilled performance, as opposed to just skill exercises, which is common to advanced levels of sports, athletics, and music. Edison (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep this Wujifa article because it meets notability. There are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. See the three books:

The Phoenix Tastes a Lot Like Chicken. ASIN: B00DSOJWDG

Secrets of the Pelvis for Martial Arts: A Practical Guide for Improving Your Wujifa, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua and Everyday Life. ASIN: B00C14WO5W

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ISBN 10: 0691157863

Would Peter Rehse, Papaursa, MrBill3, Mdtemp, and Edison please explain why your personal interpretation of the notability guidelines would consider three books which cover Wujifa, as not meeting notability guidelines? Do you consider books to not be notable?

Since we are discussing notability, it would be helpful to see specific examples of WP articles which you interpret as examples that meet the WP:N notability criteria. Simply repeating the mantra of "does not meet notability" is not contributing to "a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached."User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, or tried to, at the sources you mentioned. I can't find a copy of "The Phoenix tastes like Chicken". However, the Princeton dictionary's comments on wujifa are "See AVYAKRTADHARMA". One line definitions do not make for significant coverage. In "Secrets of the Pelvis ..." there is a one page section on wujifa which consists mainly of a three paragraph quote lifted directly from wujifa.com and that isn't what I call an independent source. I've tried to engage in dialogue, but I haven't seen any responses showing how the coverage is independent and significant. Instead I see these long missives that add nothing. Supporters may want to read WP:TLDR. Not arguing that it exists, merely that nothing so far has shown it's notable. The subject also seems to fail the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. If you want to see a martial arts article that meets WP:N then look at karate. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Papursa's comment. Quote from promotional website pasted into book is not independent. See... is clearly just passing mention. The Pheonix Tastes Like Chicken is a self published ebook (available on Amazon, free loan with Prime btw) and does not meet criteria for establishing notability.

Examples of sources that might support notability: a chapter in a notable book on martial arts, a series of articles in significant martial arts magazines or journals, a journal article about the subject, newspaper or magazine articles in significant publications. I would even go so far as to include discussion of the subject by notable persons in published interviews. WP policies and guidelines are clear, they have been referenced in this discussion. It would be helpful if "supporters" would provide sources and material from sources that support notability in brief if pleading for acceptance of questionable sources, again a brief reason supporting the sources. Personal interest and experience is not relevant. The discussion is notability per WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Edison's comment above. I, for one, appreciate the understanding shown in the first part of the post. However, I disagree with the last part ("one instance..."). In my experience, what is stated is not a correct view re sports in general or martial arts or music. It is exactly the distinctive content of what goes on inside that matters. Under such an interpretation as seems to be proposed, the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris would be but "one instance" of "a building with stuff inside"... and its article would be merged, along with a thousand other articles, into one article on "buildings". However, to me, at least, the content of what is inside the building matters a lot, and is precisely what gives it interest to those of us interested in religion, much as the walls give it interest to those of us interested in architecture, etc. Likewise, what is goes on inside Wujifa is precisely what makes it of interest. To say that its "internal focus" is but what "is common to advanced levels of sports, athletics, and music" is simply not accurate, either with respect to Wujifa or to the other disciplines as well. First, under such an interpretation, I would worry that the "internal focus" expounded in the world's major religions, for example, would then require us to merge into one very large article the current articles on religion. (And perhaps those on mathematics as well!) Second, as someone who has both participated in and taught different sports in his life, what is taught in the "internal focus" of each really is different, both in manner and content. I will spare us all a description of "inside American football" and "inside Taijiquan", but perhaps you can imagine. Likewise, zazen and contemplative prayer both have "internal focus". As someone who has done both, they are, however, not the same, and they merit separate articles, despite "internal focus". Third, although I only recently came across Wujifa, what is inside Wujifa is different from what is inside, say, Tae Kwan Do, or Taijiquan, or even Yiquan, all of which I have practiced at different times in my long life. I, and my MA colleagues in Taiwan and the US have found that inside to have significant and distinctive value, a value that informs my own practice of Yiquan and Taijiquan, as well as my teaching of them. And, fwiw, I came across Wijifa independently in the articles, book, and, yes, discussion forums (which may indeed have value; "guidelines" are just that, guides, not rigid rules), as cited above. Thank you for your comments, and also for reading mine. mkriegel (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, thank you to Papaursa and MrBill3! I appreciate you explaining your understanding of notability. Now I understand where you're coming from! I apologize if my this comment is a little long. I don't know how to make it shorter and get the point across.

I am a Tai-chi guy who is trying to figure out this whole "internal strength" thing. I actually read the entire "Secrets of the Pelvis" book. Let me share with you what I found.

Wujifa is mentioned repeatedly throughout the book as is Tai-chi Chuan, Xing-yi Chuan, and Bagua Chuan as well as other western therapeutic modalities.

The book includes original Chinese excerpts AND translations as well as many excerpts from American authors. This book reads like an in-depth investigation into how the pelvis (aka dan-tian, hara) should function as it is described by both American and Chinese martial artists. Please consider the following:

In the Preface section, "In Taijiquan, one of the higher level kinesthetic skillsets is called "peng". In Wujifa, this quality is called "connection"; whole-body connection."

In the Introduction, "The orientation of this book is primarily based on my training in Wujifa."

Chapter 3 (pg 9) does include copied text from the wujifa home page since this is a brief chapter referencing the primary source of wujifa information online. (Papaursa referred to this section.)

Chapter 5 (pg 13) mentions wujifa in reference to abdominal breathing.

Chapter 8 (pg 22) says, "In Wujifa, training focuses on developing fascial connectedness."

And you'll find more references on pages: 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 67, 83, 83, 99.

From what I've read, the fundamental practice of Wujifa is zhan zhuang. The author says on page 67 "when I began...practicing Wujifa zhan zhuang." and on page 84, "When I practice my Wujifa zhan zhuang".

If this book is not notable, then maybe a search on Wujifa should get a redirect to the zhan zhuang article?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhan_zhuang

Given the scope and content of this book, would you consider this book to be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooTallMike (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I originally read the article as an organization not a term - as a term a redirect to Zhan zhuang makes sense. Does this term predate the organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Peter, maybe this example will add some clarity.

Look at Hunyuan. The term Hunyuan is a central concept in Daoist philosophy. Hunyuan Tai-chi is the name of a practice based on Hunyuan philosophy. It is also the name of a Chen Style form: Xinyi Hun Yuan broadsword. It looks like Wujifa is a similar beast. The term Wujifa is a central concept in Buddhist/Chinese philosophy. Wujifa is the name of a practice based on Wujifa philosophy.

There are other examples, the term Zen (and philosophy) is different from the practice of Zen whose main practice is sitting meditation. The term Tai-chi (and philosophy) is different from the practice of Tai-chi whose main practice is forms. You get the idea. I don't mean to muddy the waters but it seems that the answer depends on how you look at it.

One thing that is clear is that the primary practice of wujifa is their form of zhan zhuang. I think this is similar to how Xing-yi has their form of stance practice, and Yi-chuan has their form of zhan zhuang, etc... Wujifa has a form of zhan zhuang practice as well.TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Oops, and by the way, there is a precedence to listing martial art styles on the Zhan zhuang page. You can see mentioned: Tai-chi Chuan, Qigong, Neijia (internal kungfu), Yichuan, and Xingyiquan.TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.