Talk:Kung fu (term)

Initial Comments

Hello everyone. I have some ideas how to improve the sections that regard Chinese martial arts (Kung Fu, Wushu etc), all to make it more accurate and easier to understand. Here are the first of my proposals, which regard the term Gongfu (Kung Fu):

• In Kung Fu, explain that it's an obsolete, though widely used, spelling of Gongfu, and that it uses Wade-Giles Romanization instead of Pinyin. Link to Gongfu for further information regarding the meaning of the term, and to Chinese martial arts for more details about Chinese martial arts in general. Move all the current information about Chinese martial arts and the term Wushu into their proper articles (more on this later).

• In Gungfu, explain that it's the term made popular by Bruce Lee, and that it uses the older Yale Romanization. Use same links as above.

• Make Gongfu the chief section for this term, and describe the meaning of the Chinese characters, and the differences between how this term is used in China and how it’s used in the West. Include links to Wushu and Chinese martial arts.

The main change would be that Kung Fu, Gungfu etc. redirects to Gongfu, and that the Gongfu article only includes information about this specific term (and how it’s also being used in the West), and not about Chinese martial arts or Wushu.
I think this change would make the meaning of this term and these different spellings more clear. Also, by using the Pinyin terms for all Chinese words (Gongfu, Wushu, Qigong, Taijiquan etc), instead of mixing the various spellings together, we avoid much confusion. Some might argue that because “Kung Fu” is a more popular spelling in the West, this should be the name of the main article used to describe the term, but my opinion (though it has varied much over time) is that it’s better to use the official spelling (Pinyin) as it’s both more accurate and is commonly used for other terms (like Qigong and Taijiquan), especially as this is an encyclopedia.
Another way of solving this is to simply redirect Kung Fu and Gungfu to Gongfu, and explain the various spellings there. I do, however, still think “Gongfu” should be the spelling favored in the description of the term, and that the other spellings link to this and not the other way around.

Here are my other ideas, on how to sort the rest of the Chinese martial arts sections:

• Make the Wushu section describe the meaning of wu3 shu4 and the Chinese characters, and that it’s in the West often associated with the newer modern Chinese martial arts, aimed at exhibition and competition. Link to Chinese martial arts.

• In Chinese martial arts, include history of Chinese martial arts, and describe common features seen in many Chinese martial arts styles (differences between external and internal styles, etc). As there are so many styles of Chinese martial arts, my idea is that we should link to “Chinese martial arts styles” for detailed lists of styles.

• Chinese martial arts styles should in that case be a detailed list of styles (linking to each style's individual article), perhaps divided into external and internal styles, or northern and southern styles.

What I want to do here is to make the Wushu article only contain information about the term itself (much like Gongfu above), and instead direct readers to Chinese martial arts for history and information about Chinese martial arts.
First I was thinking of using the Wushu article for explaining Chinese martial arts, but the reason I decided I did not want that is because “wushu” is the term in China for “martial arts”, which, from what I’ve understood, in China can refer to any martial art, and not just those originated in China. If anyone has another impression of this, please tell me.

That’s all my thoughts for now. I’d love to hear comments or ideas from all of you reading this, so we can discuss how to make the Chinese martial arts sections as accurate and easy to understand as possible. My hope is that this will keep expanding (I will myself start writing about the styles I train in as soon as these sections are sorted out), and I therefore wish these main sections to be as clear as possible, avoiding the confusion that seems to pester so many other sites of information out there.
Also, if there are any Chinese readers/writers here, I’d love to hear from you, as my simple Chinese studies cannot compare to someone who’ve actually lived there and used these terms in everyday life. --Wintran 15:47 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Syllabification and capitalization of "gongfu"

Anon,

1. Why did you separate the syllables of the word gongfu? They are used as a word in Chinese and never a pause in between. The official pinyin documents state that syllables of one single word should be connected.
2. Why did you capitalize gong and fu? It's used as a common noun in Chinese, not a proper noun. Also, both Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary use lowercase for kung fu. I know that there are a lot of popular use of capitals out there on the net, but that doesn't make it right.

Explain. --Menchi 06:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

First, I have to say that I agree with Menchi about using "gongfu" and "kung fu". A question I have to Menchi though: Is wushu used as a proper or a common noun in China, i.e. should it be capitalized or not?

Secondly, I wish everyone could discuss and explain things more. The latest days I have witnessed much change back and forth, leading nowhere.

So to hopefully start at least a minor discussion, I have two things I need to hear your opinions on:

• I have written an article from scratch that includes all current information about the term gongfu and some new material. I was thinking of replacing the current with this, and move the general information about Chinese martial arts into Chinese martial arts and all information on the term wushu into wushu.
• Should we move the kung fu article into gongfu (adding a redirect of course), but keep a clear explanation of the different spellings used? This is a complex subject, and I have noticed that opinions vary a lot depending on which articles people have in mind. There's already a general discussion about this held at m:Use pinyin not Wade-Giles. My opinion in the case of this article is that we at least put the explanation and translation of the Chinese term in gongfu, and also explain how the term is commonly used in the West, either in gongfu or in kung fu. --Wintran 00:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Just try to respect Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines & Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Follwing these we should not move the content of kung fu to gongfu because in english it's kung fu that is used and not gongfu, it is certainly the case that the word kung fu is now part of the english language. A short explaination about the origin of the term at the begining of the article and a redirect are welcome of course. --Looxix 00:53 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

You are right, though I personally think the case of romanization is a bit more complicated. I will use kung fu as the main article for this term.

I will soon add my updated version of this article. No major objections against moving most of the current information about Chinese martial arts in general into Chinese martial arts? --Wintran 00:46 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Question on additional schools

I was reading the article on Adrian Paul and the following martial arts (Kung Fu forms) are mentioned and I can't find any reference to them on the Wikipedia: Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar. If anyone knows about them, a mention either in the Kung Fu or the Martial art article would be good. --Dori 05:38 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unanswered critiques

The kung fu article mixes systems of romanization indiscriminantly. The "Hung Gar" article given a link above uses some other system of romanization without, I think, making it clear that it is not Wade-Giles, is not pinyin, and is not a standard way of recording Mandarin (guo-yu, pu-tong-hua) pronunciations either. The unfortunate general reader is going to be lost, and probably will pass on the misinterpretations that s/he is being set up for. Sometimes less is more and more is less. There may be enough old fossils my age around that we need to keep Wade-Giles around to tide them over. But we shouldn't be messing up the younger generations by using a moribund system to the exclusion of what has become the de-facto standard for representing Chinese in romanized form. --Patrick0Moran 05:59, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Have the contributors to this article understood the Wikipedia policy on "NPOV" (neutral point of view)? The point of this policy is that someone who likes something or dislikes something or approves of one thing and disapproves of another thing should not on that account write an article that is slanted to their own view. Imagine if a Bush Republican wrote the Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton!

In the Kung Fu article, and in the discussion about it, I see some obvious problems caused because somebody thinks his/her way of defining something is the only way that people use the word. I ask that people reflect on what should be clearly visible place in this article where enthusiasm has overcome accuracy.

A highly moral person would not get what he/she needs to know about Cao Cao if an encyclopedia article only called him an evil person and failed to let people know what things he did that were good strategy, good leadership, good administration. You don't have to approve of the Red Baron to know that he was a good pilot whose flying techniques could be studied to advantage by anyone who wanted to be a good fighter pilot. --Patrick0Moran 04:35, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just visited the wu3 shu4 page and was rather dismayed to see the dogmatic (wu3 duan4) tone of much that is written there. --Patrick0Moran 05:02, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Specific things that need to be fixed

The "wu shu" article begins with information on how many schools of martial arts there currently are. [Wǔshù (武術 in Chinese) means any type of Chinese martial arts, ] It needs to make clear that the term "wu shu" includes many kinds of armed combat.--P0M 01:08, November 6, 2003 (UTC)

Work needed

this article needs a lot work. please see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/martial-arts/faq/ as a starting point for good referenc. Xah P0lyglut 07:09, 2003 Nov 30 (UTC)

Major updates and rewrites

I've done some major updates of totally rewritten articles. Please see Chinese martial arts and its talk page for further details.

Also, I would like to move this article either to gongfu or back to kung fu. We should use gongfu if we would like to use the same romanization for all articles (Pinyin), as this is the correct Pinyin form as far as I know (and is the term I've used in the new article). This is the method I prefer. Or we should use kung fu if we want to use the term most common in Western contexts. --Wintran 00:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moving to gongfu was what I wanted to do, but I made the mistake of creating a gongfu article and putting content into it -- so the server wouldn't let me put another article there. Do you know how to fix it? (We're supposed not to lose the page edit stuff...) --P0M 04:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I suspected that was the case. I'm not really sure how to fix it either. Maybe some administrator (one with priviliges to delete articles) could help us? --Wintran 07:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've put the gongfu article on the Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion (under February 24). If it gets deleted we can then move this article to gongfu. Please add your vote there. --Wintran 22:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've voted. --P0M 00:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nothing in our naming conventions says we have to use pinyin. Instead, we are to use the most common name. "kung fu" has 1,310,000 more google hits than "gongfu". I will move accordingly. --Jiang 01:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a quite a complex subject, and I have spent much thought on this particular case. Many of the problems of romanization are discussed at m:Use pinyin not Wade-Giles, though the discussion has been quite inactive as of late, not least from my side. I still believe in using one romanization system for all articles, either Wade-Giles or Pinyin, though I see Pinyin as the most flexible one. I also see the point of the current naming conventions and agree with the idea of using the most common spelling. This is what makes it hard, and I'm still not certain where I stand. Feel free to move to kung fu while the discussion continues. --Wintran 10:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should we keep kung fu as a disambiguation page or make it redirect to the article about kung fu in martial arts (currently at gong fu), and put: "This article is about kung fu, and Chinese martial arts. There is another article on Kung Fu the television program" on top of the article? The reason why I'm asking is because the majority of people will be looking for kung fu in martial arts, and as I don't believe there are that many other uses of the term. --Wintran 10:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion on which romanization to use can go at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Yes, I agree most people would be looking for the martial arts and the disambiguation header should go at the top instead of having a separate DA page. --Jiang 10:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is also a discussion of this at the Daoism-Taoism romanization issue article. --Fire Star 04:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Animal styles: removed text

I removed the piece of text below from the article because of the following reasons:

• As there are widely different opinions and uses of the terms kung fu and wushu, the idea I had was to separate these from the actual text about martial arts in China, which was instead placed at Chinese martial arts. Much of the text below would be better suited in that article.
• I feel that most of the text has already been mentioned in kung fu, wushu, Chinese martial arts or Shaolin, and is a bit too general.

If you don't agree with me or have ideas how to improve these articles please feel free to post your opinions. I just want the articles to be as clear as possible.

The text, posted by 172.198.94.48:

"There are 5 original animal styles that derived from shaolin temple. Monkey is not one of them, although it is a valid style of kung fu. The five animal styles are Snake, Crane, Tiger, Dragon, and Leopard (sometimes known as Panther). There are many other animal styles, such as Monkey, Eagle Claw, Iron Ox, Praying Mantis... Some other styles of kung fu (non-animal) would be, Hung Gar, Si Lum, Wing Chun, White Eyebrow, Bagua, Hsing Yi, Tai Chi, Shaolin, San Shou, Choy Li Fut, etc... Most of the translations of Kung Fu mentioned so far are accurate. Work x Time = Kung Fu. Kung Fu should not be confused with Wu Shu. Wu Shu is based on the arts of Kung Fu, but is basically just for display. Large wide flowing moves, acrobatics, and big poses. The translation for Wu Shu is "Martial Techniques" (i believe) and is not trained for practicality in self-defense."

--Wintran 15:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming

I don't agree with the most recent edit by 24.17.149.200, who has replaced:

"Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is the most common term, along with wushu, used for Chinese martial arts."

with:

"Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is the most common term (the more correct, though obscure, term is wushu, translated as "military skill") used for Chinese martial arts."

Reasons:

• Neutral point of view issue. I don't find it a good idea to state which opinion is "correct", in this way. We can inform about why it's considered correct by some; for example, because its translation is more directly related to martial arts. In general we should explain the various meanings of the terms and how they are being used by people around the world, and let the readers themselves decide which term they find the most correct to use. When a term clearly has more reasons for being used, which is not true in this case, this will be obvious for the readers, while if two terms are about equal, we are presenting them both and the readers can make their own judgement.
• I think the translation and explanation of wushu should be kept in its own article. Too many articles in Wikipedia have excessive information about other terms, information that is already available - or should be found - on their specific pages.

I will wait for further opinions before I revert. --Wintran 00:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the new version isn't as clear. Perhaps we should say something like:

"Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is a well known term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts. In Chinese, the most common term for martial art is wushu."

Just a thought. --Fire Star 01:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I like your idea much better.

Here's another version, with the rest of the introduction included:

"Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is a well known Chinese term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts. Its original meaning is somewhat different, referring to one's ability in any skill, not necessarily martial.

Many consider wushu a better term for Chinese martial arts, as it translates directly into "martial art".

--Wintran 09:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

There we have it, nicely done. If you haven't put the above in the article yet, I will now. --Fire Star 19:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with a substantial portion of this discussion. The most common term used by most Chinese people is actually, "quanfa", meaning "fist techniques". "Wushu" and "wuyi" mean "martial arts", indeed, but they also have connotations of entirely military arts - vis, archery, swordsmanship, charioteering, the study of the Sun Zi, etc. "Quanfa" may not be a commonly accepted or easily pronounced word in the word, but it conveys the meaning most accurately. The purpose here should be to inform others, not simply follow convention; "quanfa" is a more complete term for barehand fighting, and "quan" is found in the name of most Chinese martial arts.Blackjamm 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Look up Martial arts. On Wikipedia it's not defined as just barehand fighting. The use of weapons also falls under martial arts, especially in chinese martial arts.KevinKung (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Kung Fu

This article contradicts and then recontradicts the original meaning of Kung Fu. Knew I enough, I'd clean this up myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.214.1 (talk • contribs) 21:30, July 12, 2004‎ (UTC)

Tell me about kung fu

The article seems to tell us a lot about the origin of the term 'Kung Fu' and very little about the martial arts that today fall under that banner!

Nothing is mentioned of the 300 soft and 300 hard kung fu animal styles. The fact that the first animal style was modelled after the monkey. When the martial art was first created and by whom.

In fact it looks more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. If noone beats me to it I might have a go this weekend. It's not like there isn't any information on the subject!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.168.102 (talk • contribs) 12:38, June 13, 2005‎ (UTC)

Problems with historical accuracy.

The history section of this article is not based on fact. See Zhou_kings for a list of the real rulers of that dynasty. The Yellow Emperor is not among them, and in fact according to legend he lived around a thousand years earlier than the Zhou kings. There are other assertions about books supposedly written by the Yellow Emperor, and by others who lived at a very early time. Where are the citations to these books? If I at least had names for the books I could track them down in genuine historical sources and secondary sources. --P0M 22:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many more inaccuracies and confusions.

Furthermore, Taoist monks are claimed to have been practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi (or a soft form of Kung fu) at least as early as the 500 B.C. era. In 39-92 A.D. , the "Six Chapters of Hand Fighting", in the Han Book of Arms were written by Pan Kuo. Also, the Hua To, "Five Animals Play" - tiger, deer, monkey, bear, and bird, was developed around 220 A.D.

Neither the Lao Zi nor the Zhuang Zi had been written at this time. There is no history of a "Yellow Turban" kind of religious Daoism, either. So who are these "Taoist monks" who were around before the founders of Daoism?

What is the "Han Book of Arms"? Is this the Han dynastic history (Han Shu)? and a chapter in that history that pertains to military weapons? That would jibe with the author if "Pan Kuo" is a misspelling for "Pan Ku" (pinyin Ban Gu).

The reference to the "Hua To" is unclear. It is incorrect in romanization. What is it supposed to be talking about when it mentions that the "five animals play." Probably it is supposed to have something to do with the "animal styles" of martial arts quan tao (forms), but the average reader will be totally clueless. --P0M 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If nobody produces citations or clarifications for the legendary stuff that would allow it to be contextualized in such a way that it still would fit in an encyclopedia, I'm going to start cutting. --P0M 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

Taoism predates Lao Tse Tung. He merely codified existing practices in China. Most Taoist monks will tell you that they were practicing a "soft" form of martial arts or chi kung prior to the advent of the "hard" forms of wushu. I'm not sure if Pan Kuo and Pan Ku are the same but the Han book of arms mentions unarmed combat. Hua To was a physician who developed the traditional animal forms of martial arts. --Kenneth Tennyson

Who is "Lao Tse Tung"? You say s/he "codified existing practices in China." What sources are you basing this assertion on? There are all sorts of names in a country that was fairly populous even in Han dynasty times, but Pan Ku is the name of the history writer. The "Han book of arms" does not correspond to the title of a book. I can look at the list of extant books from that time, but it is really your job to come up with the correct title if you are the one who is making the assertions. I know who Huo To is. What is your basis for asserting that he created the animal forms? How is anyone to know that this isn't just a pious legend unless you can give citations? --P0M 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you are misinformed. Misspellings depend on the translation you are using for Chinese names. You can look up Pan Kuo on line or look him up on amazon.com for books on his life. --Kenneth Tennyson

I did look on Google for "Pan Kuo" and "Han History" -- there are lots of people named Pan Kuo, but the name of the person who wrote the history of the Han dynasty is not one of them. I got two hits for "Han history" and "Ban Gu" or "Pan Ku", zero for the other spelling. Please check your facts. The characters that form the name of the history book author are romanized as Pan Ku in the Wade-Giles system and as Ban Gu in the pinyin system of romanization.

Lao Tse Tung is credited with starting Taoism but Taoism was existant before Lao Tse Tung.

Are you thinking of the author of the Dao De Jing (the Way and its Power)? The identity of this person (or these people) has been discussed for hundreds of years. You can get a better idea about this question by checking Fung Yu-lan's History of Chinese Philosophy, which is scholarly and reliable. You can check the Introductions to good translations of the Tao Te Ching such as those by D. C. Lau, Wing-tsit Chan, et al. You can assert that "Taoism was existant..." but that is your opinion. You need to come up with some proof.

In many Taoist practices there are Chi Kung (qigong )(later Tai Chi) exercises that have made its way into kung fu (which actually is a misnomer - most chinese do not call their general arts Kung Fu). For example, the book by Hua To is generally called Dao Yin Tu. It includes a chart representing 44 human figures which perform movements emulating wild animals, including the wolf, monkey, bear, crane, hawk and vulture.

O.K., that counts as a citation. At least somebody can look at the charts and read any accompanying text to see whether the written part suggests these were more than just stances designed for stretching, and also whether in addition to emulating movements of animals they thought they were doing something that would be useful in fighting.

Hua Tuo is credited with developing the "Five Animal Frolics" style, which is still popular today.

Again you make an assertion without citing any authoritative source. Are you trying to repeat what you have already said, or are you saying that authorities in the field have made these assertions?

If you wrote the second paragraph in the History section, then you are taking the history of Kung Fu into a different avenue than it should be taken. Sun Tzu, though he did write a history on the Martial arts, it only pertains to Military warfare and strategy. I am not sure if he had any comments on actual "martial" arts or the self defense practices like Kung Fu or Karate. --Kenneth Tennyson

We can disagree on what the right avenue is. Sun Tzu did not "write a history on the Martial arts," however. --P0M 21:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Passage added by anonymous editor moved here

Somebody added the following directly to the article:

Different opinion： The word kungfu from Cantonese, means martial art. Many people say that kungfu means skill/ability, and not martial arts skill. Implying that people commonly misunderstand kungfu to mean martial arts (discouraging the use of the word kungfu, and use the word wushu instead). Kungfu (gongfu) does means skill/ability in mandarin, without any martial arts implication. The word came to English through Cantonese, and still retains it's original meaning.

It's rather misleading to argue that Cantonese usage meaning determines what a word means in English. It's also rather misleading to indicate that the dictionary meaning of a word in Chinese necessarily determines what people actually say in everyday conversation. "Gongfu" in Chinese is a little like "affair" in English. What the word means is strongly influenced by the context. If you say, "She is an expert in affairs of state," you are probably talking about somebody named Albright. If you say, "He has more affairs than a tomcat," you're probably talking about some Don Juan dela Alley. In Chinese, if you say, "Ta1 zai4 xue2 gong1fu" (He is studying gongfu), everybody will understand that he is taking martial arts lessons of some kind.

The word "wushu" is, properly speaking, a term for all kinds of one-on-one combat, including knives, swords, halberds, spears, etc., etc. When people don't know the details of things like xing-yi and tang-lang quan, they may just say, "She's learning gongfu," but if they're capable of being more specific they'll probably use the more specific term. And my guess is that if somebody says, "He's learning wushu," they probably mean the guy is learning to do the "performance art" kind of thing that's more like choreography. --P0M 16:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Merging of wushu, kung fu and Chinese martial arts articles

Please see Talk:Wushu for some new thoughts on this matter. --Wintran 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Gongfu is an important term applied historically and philosophically in many areas beyond martial arts. As such it should not be merged with a martial arts article. Vitalforce (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy on commercial links

Some people have added links to their own (?) schools. The function of an article is not to support commerical enterprises but to supply objective information. Is there any reason not to delete all of the commercial links? I have deleted one a couple of times, and it keeps coming back, but I can see how whoever keep re-adding it could argue that it is being singled out. P0M 05:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless the site in question has articles or nice illustrative photos beyond what is presented in the article, they should go, IMO. The different styles' articles have some links to notable schools of their genre (Yang style T'ai Chi Ch'uan for example has links to the Yang family's website), but this general article just seems to be a spam magnet. I don't have time to go through them all now, but will put the article on my watchlist and look through them later. --Fire Star 05:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Marial arts category for Wikipedians

A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:

[[Category:Wikipedians interested in martial arts|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Shawnc 11:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Kung Fu" vs "Wushu"

See Talk:Shaolin (martial arts) for an example of the use of the term "Kung Fu" in Chinese to connote the same meaning as in the west, ie. martial art -- "Shaolin Kung Fu" is actually used more often than "Shaolin Wushu" in both Chinese and English. Shawnc 13:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wushu styles categorization

Please post some comments about the categorization of wushu styles at Category talk:Chinese martial arts. Shawnc 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"gong fu" as a phrase

There are typically two phrases for "gong fu". One is for the martial art, one is for effort expended. If you're talking about effort expended you don't include the "li" on the right side of the "gong." Thought I'd clear that up. --69.109.114.106

That is a good point. I've just been told that for martial art you include the "li", and for effort you can use either. Shawnc 10:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem here, and I think it may take a "project" to straighten it all out. Despite what is being done with gymnastic-style "wu-shu" in mainland China, the term "wu shu" actually is an umbrella term for armed and unarmed kinds of conflict. Quan-fa (ch'üan-fa) or, in Japanese, kempo, is subordinate, i.e., it is one thing that falls under that umbrella. Sport wu-shu or theatrical wu-shu also falls under the general umbrella. Shuai-jiao falls under the general umbrella, as do qin-na, tai-ji, weapons use, etc., etc. I've been speaking Chinese since my first stint of four years in Taiwan in the 60s, and I've never sensed any attempt to be precise about the use of the term "gongfu", but if somebody uses it as a term to explain what somebody is doing in the park everyday at 5 a.m., then they will be assumed to refer to a martial arts practice that has empty-handed attacks and defenses at its center. P0M 15:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There's also the phrase "lien gong" or "[to] practice gong [fu]", which almost certainly refers to the practicing of Chinese martial arts. So, it actually seems incorrect or at least misleading to imply that "kung fu should not be used to refer to martial arts". I'm thinking of merging kung fu and wushu. Shawnc 14:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it works quite that way. If somebody says, "Zhang San lian gongfu," the person probably does not practice the theatrical stuff, and he probably doesn't practice swordsmanship stuff. He probably does Tanglang quan (preying mantiss style) or something that would be immediately useable in the event that somebody tried to strongarm the guy on the street.

It's a bad move when people degrade a language by carelessly using terms, which is what has happened with the fancy competitive stuff used in competitions gets named "wu shu." It's bad because it tends to eliminate the umbrella term that puts shuai jiao, qin na, all of the quan, sword techniques, spear techniques, ge techniques, theatrical wushu, etc., etc. all under the same larger category.

We need that kind of an umbrella wu shu (in the classical sense) article with branches out to all of the subsidiary endeavors to give all of them their proper context. P0M 05:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A problem is that the semantics of "kung fu" is not precisely defined to begin with, both in and out of China, and it is also used as an umbrella term in common practice. A user from Hong Kong also suggested to me, regarding wushu vs kung fu, "As far as Hong Kong is concerned, it's called kung fu there, both in English and in Cantonese." Also, "Shaolin kung fu" is used more often than "Shaolin wushu" in Chinese. We shouldn't say "kung fu should not be used as an umbrella term" when many Chinese people already use it as such. Shawnc 04:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Shaolin wushu" would sound really odd. The reason is that Shaolin quan centers on unarmed fighting techniques, just as karate does. I'm more familiar with karate, and in that case there is some attention paid to armed techniques and especially to weapons that were associated with karate in Okinawa, e.g., the sai. When I said "wushu" is an umbrella term what I really meant is that it is like our term "martial arts" that subsumes karate, aikido, taiji quan, tanglang quan, Shaolin quan, qin na, Chinese double-edged sword (jian), Chinese single-edged sword (dao), knife fighting, stick fighting, shuai jiao, qing gong, qi gong, resuscitation techniques, etc., etc.

Yes wushu is the umbrella term, ie. wushu = "martial arts". I agree that the modern, narrow usage of "wushu" is confusing. My concern here was that this article until recently stated that "Kung fu is a well-known Chinese term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts", when it should simply read "kung fu can be used to designate Chinese martial arts", since Chinese people do use this term. I think the practical difference in usage between wushu and kung fu is not necessarily related to armed vs. unarmed fighting, as the words don't literally refer to them, and "Shaolin wushu" is apparently a common usage in traditional Chinese (Talk:Shaolin (martial arts)). Shawnc 08:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing external links

Inspired by Talk:Chinese martial arts#External links out of hand I find that the same applies to this article, so I'm removing the current external links section. If you don't agree, please object. Wintran 19:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A little pruning

I just went through and removed large chunks of info that belonged on the Chinese martial arts article. This page is about the term and not the martial art. I think this page could be expanded to include mentions of kungfu in playing instruments or whatever else requires time and skill. The pages' overall downfall is its complete lack of references. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing material about 'hacker culture'

This material was in breach of the purpose of an encyclopaedia, in that it was trying to define rather than document. Slang terms from cliques should not be presented in an encyclopaedia and therefore this nonsense about how participants in 'hacker culture' use the term will be removed. It should've been removed earlier anyway, since it didn't have any sources to back it up. If anyone does try to reintroduce it, someone should check that the sources cited are actually reputable. Owen214 (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think it was inappropriate to remove the information. Addition of the syllable "fu" to various English terms has been part of the popular culture at least since the 1990s, and possibly earlier. The first time I heard of it was in an episode of "The X-Files", where one of the Lone Gunmen characters says to the other, "My kung fu is better than your kung fu", in relation to his computer skills. They were clearly not discussing martial arts. A cursory search of the Internet will find other uses, such as ScriptFu and commandlinefu.com. I ended up spending more than half an hour searching for the meaning of "fu" before being able to grasp the concept, something that could easily have been shorted to a matter of two minutes if the "hacker culture" usage, as you put it, had been left in the article under the heading "In popular culture". — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxford definition

Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Oxford implies that karate came before kung fu, or that more people know about karate. --2.245.102.108 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Add more information

One cannot know even about basic things about Kung Fu in this page.. Nothing about origin , history Some other websites provides more information.. Somebody please add more informations

Thangs Thangasamy (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not showing this page when searched

When I search Kung Fu in internet Chinese Martial Arts Wikipedia page is shown instead of this page.. Thangs Thangasamy (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Per the recent Whiskey Tribe pop culture additions and removals. At what point does it qualify for a spot on the page? There is a reference link and it is used in the whiskey community on a daily basis. Drogo Boffin (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I found it hilarious that the "pop culture" section completely ignores the 1970s television show by the same name. It's not awful - it seems to a do a half-decent job of tracing the highlights, from Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan, and the hip hop influence is fascinating. The article on Kung Fu (1972 TV series) almost has more about Bruce Lee than this one. Interesting oversight. Huw Powell (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Meaning

What does kung mean, what does fu mean, what does kung fu mean? Thank you. Maikel (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)