Talk:Branches of Wing Chun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Should the masters who learn from the same master be sorted alphabetically by last name? Frogular 06:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've done this with 1st generation students of Yip Man. Ideally, it would be by start date but that would be quite an undertaking -- Rpf 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Major Cleanup

I've just spent a long time formatting the Yip Man side of things. Please if intending to change the formatting ensure the following:

1. Major lineages have sections and subsections depending on generation
2. You don't need to scroll all over the place to work out somebody's lineage.

I deserve a knighthood for the hour and a half I just lost of my life -- Rpf 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• -gives Rpf a cookie- Trust me, its appreciated. I know we've all lost a lot more than that on Wiki in debates alone. --Marty Goldberg 20:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct spelling of name Way Yan?

Is 'Way Yan' correct or should it be 'Wai Yan'? (for reference; http://www.wengchun.de/) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.115.6.97 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Both are correct phonetic wise. They're just english approximations of Chinese characters. --Marty Goldberg 21:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fujian Yong Chun - San bu dian zhuey - 永春 三步點槌

Traditional Lineage with 540 Year of family tree. Origins in Yong Chun Village, branches moved to Foshan around 250 years ago. 永春 三步點槌 Branches still existing in Yong Chun (China) and roots of the style surrived by a Master in Taiwan. Masterstudents in Switzerland and USA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.197.160.5 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Oldest Living Student

Just saw the change on oldest living student - was the oldest supposed to have meant age or seniority? If seniority, the change would be incorrect. If age, what are Tsui's and Wang's currently documented ages? --Marty Goldberg 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the old wording had "oldest living student". The wording is a little ambiguous, so I changed it to "longest". Chu is 74 years old, and since someone was making the claim that Wang was 84 years old, I thought it best to make it (hopefully) a little clearer. (In any case, "oldest" living student is a bit pointless, who cares how old you are?). Chu started in 1951 and I don't know of anyone who started earlier that is still alive. Lol, I'm not even sure *this* paragraph is intelligable. Rpf 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No Longer Affiliated Students

I am removing the no longer affiliated students. Since this is a list of Branches of Wing Chun, these students are no longer part of this branch so therefore should not be listed here. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia, not a particular school's website. A person no longer affiliated with a branch does not erase them from that branch's history. Likewise, the page clearly states to visit an organization's or branch's or sifu's website for a full branch listing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing not affiliated is the right move. This is an encyclopedia article listing the current Branches of Wing Chun. A person that is not affiliated is merely a part of a branch's history, not part of the branch. Additionally, we do not want to make ourselves a link farm advertising websites for the purpose of finding full branch listings. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is an encyclopedia, not an organization's personal web site. History is exactly what a branch listing is about, there is no "merely" about it. The tree shows people past and present, living and non-living. Likewise, nobody is "advertising" a web site. In lieu of an entry here on Wikipedia (which is preferred if they are notable), people are being pointed to a linneage/branch/school/etc.'s web site to contact them for more info on said linneage/branch/school and a full listing. Which is also why tree depth is limited to 3 positions, because the listing would get unruly and violate policy on lists very quickly. A "link farm" would be a haphazard list of links in the links area, and that is not the case here. Finally, *everyone* is being held to the same standard, its not just being applied to the William Cheung section you want to chop up. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We could go round and round on this. This page is called Branches of Wing Chun, not the family tree history of Wing Chun. As I stated before, this page is meant to show the current Branches of Wing Chun. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said "family tree history of wing chun". This is about the Branches of Wing Chun, a branch is a family tree. As stated "This family tree starts with....". This is not "68.5.147.32's family tree" and not "A family tree according to 68.5.147.32". If you want to start a tree by your own personal standards and guidelines, feel free to do so on your own website. You do not, however, currently have consensus for the changes you want to make. As someone who has been working with others on this tree for several years now, I certainly know what this listing was intended for and what people intended when they wrote those statements were added by consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, we could go round and round. Let's let others comment on this thread so we understand their points of view as well in order to come to a consensus on how to move forward. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you're not stating anything new - that's exactly how it was done before (the previous thread has been here for 2 years). And how it works on Wikipedia, is that unless you can gain consensus for your proposed changes, the current version stands. If consensus goes in a different direction, I stand by that as well as I always have. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please leave this thread for others to comment at this point. 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me anonymous IP, but don't make accusations that I'm going to remove some thread. It violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Altering a talk page would violate a host of other rules. Older threads can be archived, but that's about the most of it. I'm not assuming you have anything but the best intentions in mind, don't assume the opposite of others. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please leave this thread for others to comment at this point... 68.5.147.32 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that, all other things being equal, the "no longer affiliated" should be left in - but marked as such with the date they disaffiliated if possible. Otherwise there could be gaps - someone who's teacher is no longer affiliated. Moreover the tree will gradually be pared to nothing as people leave or die. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43 5 January 2008 (GMT).

I think keeping them is more accurate as from what I can tell this is a list/description of who people trained with, not who they pay subscription fees to. Current affiliations would be a different thing and possibly not an appropriate article here, though if you want to create it and get views on this go ahead --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. This is not the family tree of the The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black... --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "no longer affiliated students" of note should be kept in and there should be an indicator to that effect. According to custom, if you are a student of a teacher, you cannot "undo" that fact - you can train in other systems and / or teach other systems but you still have knowledge and experience from those previous training. More detail of why someone is "no longer affiliated" should be included in the subject's main article. This "Branch" article should be a summary and pointer to other articles within Wikipedia and not as a detail explanation of the complication within the "Branch" history. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

General article issues

1. The article has quite a bit of self-ref.
2. The article has a number of uncited POV assertions.
3. Some criteria for inclusion should be laid down.
4. Sourcing of data is not clear.
5. Some style issues:
6. * Avoid links in headers.
7. * Don't use postal abbreviations of U.S. states.
8. * Avoid telegraphese in notes by names.

I've fiddled a bit with some of the style issues. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43 5 January 2008 (GMT).

Linked names without sources, right now this could just be a collection of spam links as there is not standard for inclusion. My view would be anything more than second gen (i.e. direct students of a lineage) should be SECONDARILY sourced (i.e. not their clubs website) or independently notable. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Majority of training, first Sifu, or most senior Sifu?

Simple question: What is the procedure for assigning lineage? I vote where they did the majority of training.. Rpf 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, its up to the individual if still living. If not, then you have to list them in their multiple linneages (unless they themselves didn't want to acknowledge it). Having multiple sifu's and linneages is a pretty common occurance in modern days, not so much historically though. --Marty Goldberg 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't consider this option, but I don't like it for a simple reason that you can probably guess. It's common to learn under 1 sifu for the majority, then briefly under your Sigung. If I study under Sammy Kwok for 6 years ,then visit Ip Chun for a year, surely it is inflating my credentials. In fact, sometimes its the diffrence between being pruned for depth and not being pruned for depth...Even if you don't mind, it's still unencyclopedic. I vote a short blurb at the beginning explaining that lineage will be assigned by where the majority of training was undertaken, but in modern times it is common for cross pollenation.Rpf 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a different situation you're describing - you're talking about learning under multiple people within the same branch/linneage. I can understand and somewhat agree what you're saying for that specific circumstance. However, applying your idea across the board would not be correct for people who've had multiple sifu's across different branches/linneages/systems of Wing Chun. I've I've learned within Tsui Shun Tin's linneage lets say, and Moy Yat's, I have sifu's in both and neither one supercedes the other. If I've learned under multiple sifu's in just Tsui Shun Tni's or just Moy Yat's, I could see your idea. But I'd also say that if anything, that approach is unencyclopedic and not the other way around. In an encyclopedic biography, if I lived in multiple cities or went to multiple places for school, those individual places are listed. Even if its just "so and so attended St. John's University in such and such year, but went on to St. Eugenes to graduate in blah blah blah". Not just ignore that part of them because they actually only graduated from one. In Wing Chun, a good (and contrvercial) example is Leung Ting. Regardless of the whole student of Yip Man controversy, he still had two other sifu's that are listed in his biography and who he's routinely listed under in family trees. --Marty Goldberg 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if somebody has had a number of different Sifu's, regardless of branch, it's still the most objective to choose the Sifu with the longest exposure. If it's a tie between a couple, fine list them under both. If they have had a dozen, then it is misleading to associate them with a branch anyway and common sense must prevail! Perhaps a section for the "mixed branches", where some guy teaches William Cheung, Gu Lo and Yip man versions (for random example ;P ) The Leung Ting case I believe is pretty clear cut: longest a student of Yip Man's school taught primarily by Leung Sheung, and private lessons for a much shorter time under Yip Man (if this isn't the case, then perhaps list under both). -- Rpf 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Trees aren't done on "length of study", they're done to represent "study" and "affiliation". Leung Ting is traditionally, in any publicized tree, listed under all three. Bruce Lee, for example, is listed under Yip, Wong, and William. There's other examples as well. The function of a family tree listing is not to promote the sort of stuff you're calling for, and never has been. Duration and other specifics are covered within an entry/biography of the person themselves.--Marty Goldberg 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be diplomatic for its own sake, at least not on here. An encyclopedia couldn't care less what the individual believes is their own affiliation. You seem to be implying that there are no standards whatsoever when drawing up a tree. If that is the case, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia because it is never verifiable. NPOV is in direct contradiction with any idea of "it is up to the individual" (or, for that matter, any student of that individual agreeing).

Whatever the consensus may be, a clear introduction to this article must be written explaining the meaning, context and relevance of this sort of information. If the consensus becomes "I once had a seminar with William Cheung, so I am Cheung lineage", then that must be made crystal clear. I'm putting it back. Rpf 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your own position is what's not NPOV, stating "Don't be diplomatic" is a prime example. An encyclopedia cares about the relationsip period, not on an individual's personal agenda to push someone's importance down. NPOV dictates if there's a recognized student/teacher relationship, they are of that linneage, regardless of length. And the very resources you posted verified that. Nobody is stating X went to a seminar and is claiming to be a student, these are all well established people we're talking about. You're twisting words around as usual, the "up to the individual" was in reference to if they want to still be listed under a linneage or teacher they left. Family trees, in any book, reference, or source, are *always* about study and affiliation. --Marty Goldberg 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dictates nothing of the sort, YOU dictate that. If it is your personal opinion that branch should be decided by a personal teacher/student relationship, you are entitled to it, but you need to give a good justification for that belief. If you can point to a good reference in the "literature" that that is the best definition, then fine. Given your standing as a Sifu organising those love-in seminars, I was going to take your word for it. Problem is that your attitude has been one of ownership of articles, which begins to grate if you do it without adequate justification.

You can assume I have an agenda until steam comes out your ears, but that has no bearing on facts. The simple facts are

• I believe that this article should be based on majority of training time. This is arbitrary but I feel this is common sense for the reasons I have outlined (you, btw, have not given an alternative that makes much sense, or at least is quoted somewhere reputable)
• If you are going to rv something, it's unreasonable to expect people to accept it just because you say so.
• Leung Ting was primarily a student of Leung Sheung. This is not a bad thing and to say that is putting importance down is silly. You were the one happily culling students > 3rd generation.
• The vast majority of readers will need to be alerted to just what decides assigning lineage. An article in an encyclopedia should be authoritative and justified, backed up by facts.

-- Rpf 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, NPOV dictates you take a neutral stance. I.E. the word NEUTRAL. Your stance and attitude ("Don't be diplomatic", "love-in seminars") is not. Period, no matter what spin you want to try and put on it. A family tree is based on affiliation, not years. That's how a family tree listing is structured. Period. My attitude has been one of trying to promote a neutral stance instead of the political bickering. Your stance on Leung Ting is a political one, period. If you are missrepresenting that he studied with 3 different sifus for your own personal whim, that is political. (Just as you are trying to missrepresent the "culling" of depth from the branch for presentation purposes and the "non self-promotion" wiki policy). I have not needed to give an alternative, because I have been presenting the standard, which you asked for in your first question. All martial family trees, whether in books (of which there are plenty), periodicals, etc. (here's several random websites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,)to this date, have been based on affiliation. They're meant to denote a relationship, i.e. a claim to that linneage. Not how long. If you are going to change something because you feel it makes sense to your opinion even though it goes against the standard, its unreasonable to expect people to accept it because it meets your whim. Leung Ting had three Sifu's. Even the article you posted as a reference has Wang Kiu stating that. There is no need to assume an agenda, when your entire outlook in every thread has always been confrontation of standards, accusations, and rv'ing until you're blue in the face (or very likely red). And when you can't get your way you do things like sign in from multiple anonymous ip's (that all trace back to your location) to delete the wingchunkuen.com link for example. Very bluntly, this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of *fact*. Family trees *are* done to chart out affiliations. Always have been. You're the one that seems to need the special explination, nobody else has needed this. If it makes you feel better to add the dates he was with each person, such as (19xx - 19xx) after his name in the branch entry, that by all means is acceptable. Though, as is shown in the wiki definition, is normally done in literal "family" tree charts (such as to show the years a family member was born and died). Just make sure you have actual references to state the years and that there's no conflicting evidence, otherwise both will have to be stated to avoid NPOV issues. --Marty Goldberg 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're seeing some sense by conceding at least training time in that "affiliation" should be specified at least somehow. Now, in less than 6000 words, can you give me one credible source outlining the convention in assigning lineage in a kung fu family tree? The links you gave me were examples of trees and, without detailed investigation, demonstrate very little on how the convention should work. This is not a wacko anti-Ting agenda (it's not like I'm trying to push that stupid photo thing is it?), I just find it all a bit misleading ((for the record, those other IP's were REAL PEOPLE disagreeing with you, not me. Ask a mod if you like)). In any case, more should be outlined at the beginning of the article (more than what you just added). The convention you describe would be more relevant to the mentoring, one-on-one, "Kill Bill"/"Karate Kid", type affiliation, but as you said this is a thing of the past. -- Rpf 13:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing, I said if it makes you happy I'm willing to compromise by having you put dates of study by their names, even though its not commonly done. Please show a large swatch of examples of martial arts linneage trees where dates are used for anything other than birth and death. The convention for using family trees is very clear and well established, whether it was the exact definition here on Wiki I provided, or the several random examples that clearly illustrate it in use, all very credible and well established (of which I can provide many, many more from periodicals, books, and websites). The fact is that its you that has to establish credibility for your opinion and desire to change standards, rather than just continuing to spit out sarcasm and point the finger at others. And one to one mentoring relationships *is* whats being described in a linneage tree, you're listing a mentor/teacher relationship. In the case of teacher/student relationship trees (unlike a literal family tree), you can have more than one teacher. And that's not the case with the ip's, or you're saying that all of them (124.168.6.140, 203.217.81.242, 203.217.71.84, 203.217.69.27, 203.10.77.190) are not originating through the same location, Sydney, Australia? --Marty Goldberg 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to pay for 2 different ISP's (or login repeatedly from a friends house) just for a few wiki revert wars. iinet.com.au isn't my ISP. As I said, a mod can verify that I don't login from that ISP. Looks like at least one other Australian agrees with me. Save your reverse DNS awesomeness.

I don't think any convention is clear OR well established. Most of this stuff isn't. The "Sifu" system is a total shambles. It's gotten so ridiculous that people are calling themselves "Sijo" left right and centre (I can think of at least 2 explicit, 1 implicit) and the stupidity of whether someone should be called "Great Grandmaster" v.s "Grandmaster" is even worse. There are no sanctioning bodies to control any of this. And one-on-one mentoring relationships can't be what is being talked about. Using the Yip Man example, the school had dozens of students at any one time, so it was more like one-to-30. To make matters worse, his longest students would teach most of the classes, while Yip Man was out the back. The point remains that "what is a branch of Wing Chun" needs a seperate section at the beinning of the article. -- Rpf 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is perfectly relevant but my understanding is that there is a tradition by which one becomes a "disciple." In pre-modern times more or less everyone who was allowed to study Wing Chun was a disciple of a given Sifu. In modern times though what happens is that there might be a Sifu who has many students over time but not everyone becomes a proper disciple, entrusted with passing on the full system, etc. A Sifu will identify which student or students have shown themselves dedicated and become a disciple authorized to pass down the lineage. This is considered a great honor and there is some kind of personal ceremony to sanctify it. So I am offering "disciple-ship" as a possible guideline for this page. For example, Bruce Lee studied with Yip Man but did not finish the system or become a disciple of Yip Man. Ho Kam Ming is a disciple of Yip Man and Augustine Fong is a disciple of Ho Kam Ming. The point being that pretty much anyone can be a student but not everyone ends up being a disciple. This is taken with some seriousness as I have been told anecdotally of "reprisals" being made against certain unethical persons who claim to be disciples under false pretenses, etc. BlauNacht 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, a teacher is one you called teacher at one point. A teacher-student relationship is definable. A person is sometimes taught by many people. I would list all the sifus of an individual. If you chose to elaborate on the relationship that is fine but I would suggest consistency. It is an unfortunate fact that affiliations are not always well elaborated in Wing Chun but these are also definable (no longer affiliated, disputed, disciple etc.). I do not know about discipleship as a criterion for lineage. My understanding of discipleship is that it is a deeper relationship with your sifu: i.e. father/son. As to Grand Master labels etc. There are many sanctioning bodies (e.g. The International Wushu Federation (IWUF) but I don't know of one that is globally accepted. You can illustrate credentials like this : Grand Master (IWUF sanctioned).

Hope this helps. GeoWingChun (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I am fourth generation Yip Man. If you chose to list all of us you will be giving yourself a task. Even three generations is plenty of people.

I see a lot of discussion about this list of people, but no-one asking the most pertinent question - why is this list of practitioners here at all. Who cares who studied under whom. This seems to be mostly a private club list and belongs on a personal webspace, not in an encyclopedia. I can respect the mention of notable people in the list but it appear there are no standards being applied here. Is everyone who ever studied wing chun eligible? As it stands, I would say that anyone on the list without a legitimate wikipedia entry of their own should be cut. Comments? Livingelectrically (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pruning Lineage listings

The listings under Yip Man are getting way way to crowded. Its getting border line personal advertisement, and there's simply no need for it. It would be simply beyond the scope of this entry to list every single generation of student everyone has on down the line. I'm proposing limiting it to three generations (meaning the student of yip, their student, and grandstudent if applicable). --Marty Goldberg 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought about that, and I can see arguments for and against. Probably the most dramatic precedent for this sort of thing is the List_of_gay_people. If this becomes an unmanagable size, we should do what you suggest and keep generations 1-3 for this article, but we can somehow link elsewhere to "practitioners of Wing Chun (Yip Man 4th generation and below)". It isn't really that heavy promotion (it isn't like they all have biographies or links) but the benefit can be quite tangible when people discover Grand Sijo Nick Riviera is really a 5th generation student. I say don't remove information, but stub it off somewhere else if it is bothering you. It's a shame that I can't find any sort of TREE structure in wiki, a family tree template would solve this. Unless you want to lose hours trying to work out how to format it, maybe just let it be for now. Rpf 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rpf. Valid information on lineage listings shouldn't be lost simply for the sake of "pruning". An example of a clean lineage can be found at http://www.wcarchive.com/html/sifus/wing-chun-sifus-by-lineage.htm.

Not sure why you're digging up this old thread that was already solved through consensus two years ago, which resulted in the opening paragraphs and the pruning. Once again, a limit depth of 3 is there so the listing does not violate list policies, i.e. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you point me to the place where this subject of discussion was resolved by consensus? I don't see it as being resolved here. Is there something that I'm missing? 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here and several other talk pages, that's up to you to look up. It resulted in RPF (adding by consensus) the sections on this tree structure and reliability here. That includes the statement on visiting a school's web page for a full and current listing. So you're basically saying you agree with him above without realizing you're actually disagreeing. I for one stand by the section he added, and so have the other editors for the past year its remain uncontested. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for removing generations. In fact Rpf wrote, "I say don't remove information". Do you, in fact, not have any evidence of consensus? 68.5.147.32 (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try and twist things. As stated, after the above dialog (and further dialog across other pages), he added the entire sections given in the link. That includes stating that this is an *abridged listing*. The depth of three has been used before, during and after he posted that statement. Now again, the onus is on you to get consensus to change the current structure, which has been in practice for 2 years. I suggest you follow your own advice and wait to let others comments. I've put through requests for commenting already. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My view are as follows - the current depth of 3 generation is reasonable but I think over time, this depth will have to increase. My view is partly based on the notable standard of Wikipedia. In general, if we take Yip Man as first generation, then his students are second generation. In my view, those second generation students should train with Yip Man for a length of time before they themselves can be considered to be knowledgable enough to train their own students in Yip Man's system. This is why we are just acknowledging the teachers of this generation. So given the current time frame, the third generation of teachers are just coming into their own as sifus so it makes no sense to talk about fourth and later generations until they have time to prove themselves as teachers and practitioners of note in this style. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this out there? 68.5.153.240 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam WingChun 越南永春

Also known as 蛇形永春內家拳 ( SNAKE STYLE-VINH XUAN NOI GIA QUYEN)。Please refer to the item of the web page(Some Reflections on the Kungfu System of Vietnam Wing Chun) By Si-fu Nguyễn Ngọc Nội。)[1]

• Fok Bo-Chuen was a Snake-style Hung Kuen Sifu.
• While Fung Siu-Ching was a Crane-style Sifu.--61.18.170.89 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, as you have been told time and time again, do not try and force your WP:POV edits here. The reference you gave clearly states their branch as a part of the wing chun family. It does not state or back up the edits you're trying to make. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

William Cheung

Where are all of his students? Don't they belong in this article? -- Rpf 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

William Cheung Branch

Bruce Lee, currently listed in the William Cheung Branch, was never a student of William Cheung. Lee was a student of Yip Man, and practiced for a time with Cheung. I've corrected this error. -- nxt2007 23:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Bruce did say that in reality he learned (much of) his Kung Fu from Wong Shun-leung rather than from his official teacher Yip Man. But don't know if he ever referred to William Cheung as one of his teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.188 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

William Cheung and Bruce Lee were students of Yip, they are KUNGFU brother, both were up tp CHUM KIU level. William Cheung had change all the three forms. The sets of pole and knive are self-made. He said the founder is CHI-SIN the monk.--61.18.170.84 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave your WP:OR out of here. William Cheung has never claimed the founder as Chi-Sin, and your statements on what he supposedly did or did not learn are unsourced personal opinion and have no place in an encyclopedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From Cheung's web page, He said: 'To develop a new form, one which would have shorter training time, five of China's grandmasters met to discuss the merits of each of the various forms of Kung Fu. By choosing the most efficient techniques from each style, they developed training programs that would develop an efficient martial artist in 5 to 7 years, one third the original time. However before this new form could be put into practice, the Shil Lim Temple was raided and burned by the Manchus.

Ng Mui, a nun, was the only survivor of the original five grandmasters. She passed her knowledge onto a young orphan girl whom she named Wing Chun. '

that means, the founder of Cheungs Kungfu are coming from Shil Lim five Olders (five of China's grandmasters )--61.18.170.96 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is simply repeating the often cited Yim Wing Chun tale. Nowhere does he state "the founder is CHI-SIN the monk." Likewise, nowhere does it state anything about your claims on him and what he supposedlydid, which again have no place in an encyclopedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Improvements

Nate, just saw the tag you put in, what would you like to see references wise in the article then? I'll see what I can dig up. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if it could be more written as a history of each branch, mentioning the significant figures in each and how things were passed on. If it is written as prose it will be harder for Joe Blogs "I've just opened a WC school after a 6 hour video course by X so am under their liniage", to add them self in. The easiest place to start is the ones with bio's here as we can stich bits those together, but other than that I wouldn't really know where to start on the subject. --Nate1481 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, per discussion with Nate, we're going to move this article in to a prose format about specific branches. The original idea, while good intentioned, has basically turned in to a long list of links for self-promotion - hence the fansite tag, and a few other violations. In the rewrite, in the case of large branches (like Yip Man's) I'll be avoiding mentioning of specific students to avoid it turning in to a long list again and "me to" edits, and problems with notability requirements. Small branches with a handfull of students, this won't be as much of a problem. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope I didn't miss the point of that, but culling students from the Yip Man lineage simply because there are more of them seems a little unfair. Keeping students from more obscure lineages is the opposite of notability. It would be like having a page called "the population of Glendambo" where you can name all 30 residents. I suppose that they are the ONLY 30 residents of that town, but that isn't notable in of itself.

I guess any Wing Chun page is going to be ultimately unencyclopedic by virtue of the few real sources. Nobody in academia outside of the martial arts has written anything about the art, which means there ends up being a burden of proof on the editor to demonstrate credibility. You can call it self promotion, but they could legitimately believe that they are the center of the Wing Chun world. If one of those self promoting types bound a cheap book and sold a handful, they would be an authority....

You're not going to like a "majority rules" approach to the topic (because that would mean the article would read "Wing Chun is a martial art that comes from Yip Man"). I personally think that the majority rules approach is the closest thing to consensus in the wing chun world. But going to another extreme is definitely wrong. I saw how you policed the page after you proclaimed "no more than x numbers deep", but honestly there was no basis to do that. This page has accumulated a lot of information over the years and I see it as a bad thing that it be destroyed. It shouldn't be a phonebook, but there should be more detail about what is and isn't to be included, and why. Rpf (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion was more to cull all the lower levels, rather than remove branches or just cull the Yip Man branch. Even then the intention was to mention anyone notable but to remove the 100+ people that are listed here unsourced and non-notable, and prevent the re-adding by writing it to mention the high level people who can be sourced and the individual linage of anyone else notable and/or with sources. As a list putting in an entry with a dubious source or none at all is easy, in prose this will be easier to spot and challange. --Nate1481 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, culling the lower levels and just reporting immediate students in a prose format as part of a regular entry on the branch - notability can be proven for these a bit easier in the case of Yip for intance, because it becomes a member of more historical record than contemporary popularity. In the case of Yip you can use the published vtaa listing of his students as a notable reference for instance. As far as the "no more than x numbers deep", there was a very concrete basis to do that (besides the consenus achieved for it) and its the same basis for what Nate proposed in the first place - prose is always prefered over lists, and there are guidelines against long rambling lists (besides the host of issues Nate tagged). I've assisted in bringing several articles to featured article status now and have had a chance to see what's involved in the review process. And this article as it stands would not hold up to any sort of serious peer review. If you like, I can propose this article for a good article candidacy so you can see for your self. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)