Talk:Wing Tsun

Userboxes & List of Wikipedians performing Wing Tsun

For those that are interested in this sort of thing, I created a userbox for those that study WT, you can use it by adding the following to your user page.

{{User:DarkCryst/Userboxes/WingTsun}}

User:Aeontech has created a variant of this for those that also teach WT, you can use it by adding the following:

{{User:Aeontech/Userboxes/WingTsun}}

They add you to the correct categories, and hopefully someone will find them useful :) DarkCryst 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for those that want to share, there is a List of Wikipedians sorted by Martial Art: add yourself!

List of Wikipedians by Martial Art

Name

WingTsun is the correct trademarked spelling of the branch founded by Leung Ting, not Wing Tsun. BlitzDefence is the correct spelling of the condensed form of WingTsun, not Blitz Defence.

• Not quite true: it is used throughout the world as "Wing Tsun" in common form. When referring explicitly to the organization it would be more correct to use WingTsun however. DarkCryst (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

External links should conform to Wikipedia's external links guide.

In general if a link:

• "does not provide a unique resource beyond ... the article"
• contains "objectionable amounts of advertising"
• "require[s] external applications (such as Flash...)"
• is "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article)."

Do not include it! Regarding the last point - "if it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."

Like many martial arts pages too many external, irrelevant, links are a problem. I think we should narrow it down to important ones, as most of the ones getting linked seem to be specific schools (some claim "national association" level, but lack evidence of it being anything but name only). I'd recommend keeping just the International and European Association websites, and cutting everything else, unless there is an obvious reason to keep it. DarkCryst 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Martial Arts Project

Is any practitioner of WT going to be participating in the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project? (a5y 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

heh, "practitioner" is very specific in WT - and I think there are only 4 people in the USA that have reached that rank :) However I'm studying WT (admittedly low level atm) and have already tried to tidy things up and bring it closer to the projects goals. I'll continue that as best I can. DarkCryst 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are there two articles for the same subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Chun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.193.182 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There's not. This article is about Leung Ting's branch and art. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous Practitioners?

Not really sure what to even put there... Emin is certainly one - but I suppose people will argue that he does not belong on this page since leaving IWTA and starting his own organization. And at any rate, there are hundreds of high-level people in Europe (not so many in the USA) - what, should _all_ of them be put here? And assuming "famous" means known outside the WT community, then even Leung Ting barely qualifies - perhaps Bruce Lee would be the only example that's truly famous according to those criteria... Aeontech 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I assumed "famous" being both famous in the real world, and also additionally within the martial arts world. Bruce Lee barely studied WC (a lot of JKD seems to be trying to replicate things in WC that he hadn't learnt) and is only really mentioned by WC people trying to capitalise on the Bruce Lee legend. Considering that there are.. well probably less that 10 'famous' martial artists, and most of those are actually martial art stunt performers (Jackie Chan comes to mind) I think 'famous' should be also famous within Martial Arts. (speaking of that.. Sammo Hung is a friend and student of Leung Ting, so he should probably be listed).

Also - just because they aren't studying now, doesn't mean they aren't a famous practitioner - Emin certainly knowns WT, and is famous, so... he's a famous "person who knows and uses WT" which is pretty much all you need to be listed I would say. Especially as WT seems to have heavily influenced his own school.

Just my thoughts :) DarkCryst 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what is meant by "famous". Are we talking celebrities or fighters/teachers? Kernspecht, Emin Boztepe, Victor Guiterrez are the three teachers that comes to mind first standing out, but there may be more. Celebrities often only learn what is necessary for a film to be made... Pethol (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wing Tsun And Wing Chun merge

There are a few derived subsidiary styles off the traditional Wing Chun, but all of them nonetheless carry the same authentic chinese name and all of them recognize themselves as belonging to the original Wing Chun style.

The style of Wing Tsun was only 'founded' in 1947 and is really not all too different from the original Wing Chun, therefore the two should be merged and WT to come under a sub-section of the Wing Chun page to prevent confusion. I also notice the original page creator attempting to advertise his/her own school and attempting to partition from the association with the original Wing Chun as well as emphasising that Wing Tsun is more prefered than Wing Chun, need some NPOV there! --WiKID Daryl 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea for the vandalism you did or that it would justify what you're proposing. Completely unfounded. --Marty Goldberg 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

U CALL THIS VANDALISM? you call a Proposal vandalism? i have written a whole paragraph of reasonable explanation as to why i proposed a merge, and WHAT reason have have you to justify calling this vandalism? NONE is the answer WgungFu or whatever your name is! Well you better come up with one, otherwise i don't deserved to be accused. And i don't care if you are a patroller or member of the martial arts project, if you do not justify your accusation i think your integrity is pretty much questionable and i will bring it to the admins and mods if i have to. . If i was vandalising i would have actually moved the page if you are smart enough to realise. And considering WingTsun did branch off from WingChun i think it is only fair that it comes under WC. That said, i don't mean i dont recognize WT, but intended it to be under a section on the Wing Chun page, which would be clearer and helpful to those confused by the name variations. I would have actually moved the page if i intended to be selfish and vandal if you are smart enough to realise! You may disagree merging the two, BUT YOU CANNOT ACCUSE ME OF VANDALISING BECAUSE IT'S NOT! --WiKID Daryl 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your edits to the main article were vandalism (which is what I was refering to) and the only one whose integrity (and emotional state) is in question is you. Full of rediculous claims (Leung Ting was born in 1947, so it would be a little hard to "create" wing tsun then. Leung Ting is not dead, hence there is no "late" Leung Ting, which is slandor. Bruce Lee did not study under Leung Ting or his Wing Tsun), POV statments ("little difference in skills and style"), and more. If you had simply put forth a suggestion to merge and not done those edits and claims, that would have been different. It also would most likely have been declined by consensus, since the Wing Tsun page had been moved off the Wing Chun page in the first place. Likewise, it is viewed as a seperate version of the art by its founder and its practitioners, which is why it was also moved off. Other "versions" and "branches" also have their own entries on Wikipedia as well, and would make no sense to merge with the main Wing Chun page - which is about the generic art as a whole, not individual branches and versions. All branches are part of the whole, it makes no sense. Threatening to call in mods and admins because you don't like being told you vandalised an article is funny actually, they have much more important things to deal with and quite frankly, their roles are well defined here already. Lastly, questioning someone's intelligence and then stating "WgungFu or whatever your name is" also adds humor to your claims, when my name is clearly stated here as my signature. --Marty Goldberg 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you did not realise already, saying 'whatever your name is' is a ridicule of sarcasm, meaning either i saw your name and forgot it because if its insignificance, or i could not care less to find out. And that's quite obvious when i point out your online name as Wgungfu, is it not? Going back to the article i already corrected some of the factual mistakes made in my first edit here already. But i do want to apologize for over-reacting, but what i proposed was well-intended, and you called me a vandal without reasoning or informing me why, and that was impolite and offensive.Bold Note i did not know this page was split from WC! If a merge is not appropriate, You have got to admit, the two styles are principally the same, so i think this page should have more inferences to the original art.--WiKID Daryl 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have very little knowledge of WT. They are very different in teaching style, and the application of the principles behind the style. To say "the two styles are principally the same" demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject (not to mention the mistakes you made in your edits). References to the original art are made right at the top where it says "WingTsun Kung Fu (alternatively Wing Tsun, or 咏春) is a branch of the Kung Fu style Wing Chun developed by Leung Ting." what more needs to be said? DarkCryst 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Varketh 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Hi guys, I'd just like to add my thoughts to this section. WT and WC share very little in common, the main reason for this being that Wing Chun is taught differently by every single teacher, having no set-down standard format or structure. What I'm getting at here is that there is very little evidence at all to suggest that WT and WC articles merge, as Wing Chun (as taught by Great Grand Master Yip Man) is a completely different style to WingTsun (as taught by Great Grand Master Leung Ting). WT contains principles, threories and concepts that are missing from Wing Chun. WT relies on sensitivity and logic, WC does not. WT never stops evolving as both Great Grand Master Leung Ting and Grand Master Kernspecht are both still alive and constantly improving and updating their students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97nmajore (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reopening discussion After reading this article about the only thing I can see that notably separates this style from other branches of Wing Chun is Leung Ting's involvement. Pretty much all Wing Chun uses Siu Lim Tao, Biu Jee, Chung Kieu, wood dummy training, butterfly knives, etc. Curricular variability is not substantial enough within WC to justify a whole article for each lineage. I'd certainly say that a section within the Wing Chun article talking about Leung Ting and his contributions to Wing Chun would be appropriate. But this article transcludes massive amounts of information which are relevant to the entirety of Wing Chun. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles

Hi there, I've recently noticed that Grand Master Kernspecht does not have his title when his name is presented in the WingTsun article. I just wandered why, and can it be added? Seeing as Wgungfu will not let me change it. Varketh 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, titles are not included on Wikipedia martial arts articles per WikiProject_Martial_arts#Honorifics_and_academic_titles. --Marty Goldberg 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see revision, as per Honorific and Academic titles article. Hope this suits better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97nmajore (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a start but actually, you also need references stating as such and you also need to describe the process he used to obtain such title as per Honorific and Academic titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgungfu (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He is a 10th Grade Master, what more is there to say? He was awarded the title by Leung Ting (I can't tell you when, until I check his books). What type of citation or reference would be best to include? Does it need to be from an independent source or is citing one of his own books acceptable? Varketh 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wing Tsun characters

• Wing Chun(詠春) is a South kungfu, created in Foshan, should be cantonese speaking.(詠) Wing only means 'Chant',it does not mean 'forever'.

• • Do you speak chinese? What do these dictionary entries refer to:
    • 詠: http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?cdqchi=%E8%A9%A0;
    • 永: http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?cdqchi=%E6%B0%B8

--Aeontech (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since Yong Chun(永春) is bring from Fujian,The full name is Yong Chun White Crane.Here Yong(永) means 'Forever',it does not mean 'chant'.

• • I'm not sure what your point is. There's dozens of families of WC, WT is just one of them.

--Aeontech (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, they are different style of kungfu.Maybe Some guys want to make money by useing the name of 'Wing Chun', they confuse the other with Yong Chun,or 'Shaolin what what', or 'Chisin what what'.Ask thoese guys who is their Sifu and Sijo.--Koonleg50 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Lineage is a notoriously thorny problem, but what does it have to do with the characters used in the name?

• Both sets(two sets-i.e they are different) of characters are pronounced Yong Chun in mandarin.
• The article is about wing chun(詠春), not(永春). Nobody here is confusing the two.

• In wing chun history,no sifu's will used 永to replace 詠,It is not respect to the founder Mr.Leung Jan.

• Wing Tsun (詠春) is nothing related with Yong Chun(永春).
  • he founder of yong chun is Chisin the monk,then Luk Kam(red boat yong chun),then Fung Siu Ching(yong Chun),then Yuen Chi Wan And Yuen Kei San brothers.
  • But the Far Kuen man,Tang Sung,claim that his sifu Chu Chung Man is the grand student of Fung Siu Ching. Actually, Chu Chung Man's Sifu is Far Kuen Wong Jee Shing (黃哲誠).He created 'Shaolin Weng Chun Kuen, ('Sholim Yong Chun' )in 1960 at Hong Kong. His Student Tang jik said it is Far Kuen, not Wing Tsun.

Special:Contributions/218.255.39.233|218.255.39.233]] (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • citation?

Yong Chun is simply the Mandarin pronunciation of the characters. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wing(詠) Chun is South Kungfu, It should be Cantonese pronunciation.--218.255.39.233 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

However this is an encyclopedia, and Mandarin is often included as well (being as its the one of the main dialects for scholarly resources and publications). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

+Wing Chun(詠春) is a South kungfu, created in Foshan, should be cantonese speaking.(詠)Wing only means "Chant',it does not mean 'forever',Ok.

• Since Yong Chun is bring from Fujian,The full name is Yong Chun White Crane.Here Yong(永) means 'Forever',it does not mean 'chant'.
• Actually, they are different style of kungfu.Maybe Some guys want to make money by useing the name of 'Wing Chun', they confuse the other with Yong Chun,or 'Shaolin what what', or 'Chisin what what'.Ask thoese guys who is their Sifu and Sijo.--Koonleg50 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)--Koonleg50 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A) This is an encyclopedia. Terms are used in the more common Mandarin as well as Cantonese. Both sets of characters are pronounced Yong Chun in mandarin.

B) The article is about wing chun, not white crane. Nobody here is confusing the two.

C) In wing chun history, sifu's have used both characters.

D) The section you keep altering is referenced. It is against policy to alter a referenced section like you continue to try and do based on WP:OR. You can certainly provide counter references, but do not continue to alter referenced sections based on personal opinion.

E) It is also against style guidelines to keep trying to create a Wiki link for a page that does not exist, as you keep trying to do for the yong chun wording. More than one editor has stated this to you, yet you continue to ignore it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• It is not personal opinion.Wing Chun is a English name for '詠春', Do anyone disagree that?
  • Than who had used '永春' to replace '詠春'?
  • '詠春'is a complete set of kungfu ,the name had used by Leung Jan?
  • What is (永春)'Yong Chun'? Who is founder, passed to who.And Who is your sifu? Any connection to Leung Jan's family tree? —--Koonleg50 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A) Once again, without verifiable references, it constitutes your personal opinion and is subject to WP:OR.

B) Numerous people historically used '永春', including Chan Yiu-Min, Lui Yiu-Chai, Lai MiuHin, (All students of Chan Wah Shun), as well as Chu Chong-Man, Lai Hip-Chi, DaiFaMin Kam, Pan Nam, etc. etc.

C) Yong Chun is a pronunciation of characters, not a "system". Both '永春' and'詠春' are pronounced "Yong Chun" in Mandarin.

D) Someone's sifu has no bearing on editing on Wikipedia. You don't even have to be a wing chun practitioner to edit here. What you do have to have are valid references, and the ability to follow established editing and content policies. That includes *not* removing references and referenced sections. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am seconding Wgungfu here; especially point C. Both character sets should be listed, as both are valid. Yes, Leung Ting's WT uses 詠春 characters, and nobody's arguing with that. Both sets of characters are valid however. It's the same as arguing whether Wing Chun or Ving Tsun or Weng Tshun is the correct name - all three are just different ways of spelling chinese characters, and none of them are absolutely correct when we pronounce them. --Aeontech (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

White Crane / Jee Shim WC listed as separate martial arts

After a bit of research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wing_Chun had the most information, ironically enough), it seems that while White Crane Wing Chun (永春白鶴拳) is a separate martial art in which the 永春 characters refer to the city it comes from, so it is fair to list it here.

However, the Jee Shim Wing Chun traces their lineage back to Leung Jan ([1]), who is in the main WC lineage, so it should be strictly speaking considered a branch of WC, not a separate martial art. It is even listed as a branch of WC on the Branches of Wing Chun article [2].

As such, it would be fair to either list ALL WC branches as using these characters in the third paragraph of the article, or none of them, and refer the reader to the main WC article for information about other branches.

Ideas?--Aeontech (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case. The Jee Shim Wing Chun link you provided is not Jee Shim Weng chun. That's some people from Yip Man linneage who appropriated the name for their school, they're students of William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung. The actual Jee Shim (Chi Sim) people most certainly do no trace their linneage through Leung Jan. The actual Jee Shim Weng Chun and Wey Yan affiliated linneage is at [www.weng-chun.com]. Likewise, the reason its on the linneage page (and I had something to do with that), is because there's been so much historical mingling between that and wing chun (some sifu's were sifu's in both) that it is considered by many to be related to the wing chun family as a whole, including its current practitioners. As far as the village, that is correct. The characters are also used for a village and a hall. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just going by the link that Koonleg50 provided. The school at the link he provided does indeed trace it back to Leung Jan. What do you suggest? 76.21.23.72 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, its not a valid reference. Its just somebody from Yip Man line who started calling their school "Jee Shim Weng Chun". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so, does Jee Shim originate from the Wing Chun city/village, like the White Crane style mentioned earlier? Ie, can we list them together in the same sentence?--Aeontech (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Jee Shim doesn't tie itself to the village. Mythically, it ties itself to the "southern shaolin temple" and Jee Shim, the monk - hence the name. Stylistically, it resembles general hung village arts. As I had been trying to explain to Koon, the characters for Weng Chun are used in various places - within our art, within the jee shim weng chun art, within young chun/weng chun white crane, and there's a hall in southern china that uses it as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You agree that Weng Chun are used in hung village arts. Actually,Pang Nam ,Cheung Po and Chu Chung Man are the men of Hung village. --Koonleg50 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, that's not what I said, and once again leave your WP:OR and disruptive editing practices out of these articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Content Cleanup

This article needs some cleanup, it's quite easy for people to read this and think this is about Wing Chun in general and mislead Leung Ting to be the creater of Wing Chun!!.

Users who are not familiar with the subject would not know the difference between Wing Chun and Wing Tsun (let alone the spelling) until roughly halfway down the page because the introduction section starts with Wing Tsun Kung Fu, has a whole paragraph on the meaning of the word Wing Chun and other spellings which further confuse the subject. Although it does mention that Wing Tsun is a branch of Wing Chun.

The principles listed on this article are mostly; if not all; principles of some Wing Chun branches particularly the Yip Man branch! This is obvously because Leung Ting learned from Leung Sheung (a student of Yip Man's) and therefore inherited the principles; even though he claimed to have followed Ip Man himself (which he lated admitted to be a lie). Instead of being his Sifu(master, Yip Man turned out to tbe his Sisok (master's master).

All the weapons, forms and training techniques such as Chi Sao already exists on the Wing Chun page and even has their own pages, so there is no need for all of those to be repeated IN DETAIL. I'm not saying they should not be mentioned at all; as afterall they are a part of this branch; but only briefly.
If the techniques and all are slightly different from the original forms, then that difference should be mentioned

Ironically Yip Man Wing Chun; which has all the principles, weapons, forms and training techniques specified here; does not have a page here on wiki. Looks like we need an Yip Man Wing Chun page to claim the so-called principles!

Of course, Wing Tsun can share these prinicples too, but since 'Wing Tsun' is presumably in-some-way different to 'Yip Man Wing Chun' and its branches (otherwise what's the point for a branch?! lol), shouldn't WT's unique features be conveyed here, instead of listing weapons, forms and techniques that are common to all Wing Chun styles; and principles that are common to some?

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)--

It would be easy to read that if fail to read the article at all... yes. Especially the entire first section, and the many times it contrasts things with other WC styles. Sorry.. I just can't agree with this assertion - it's clear, and only a sloppy reader would infer what you suggest.

• The principles are roughly the same as WC yes, but they are the WT variants. As WC contains the same principles, but they aren't emphasized in the same way as WT, they merit inclusion. Clarification could be important.
• The weapons are cleaned up and the main similar forms are also cleaned up and point to the main page articles. This is no longer an issue.
• There is no such thing as Yip Man Wing Chun. Except as practiced by Yip Man. As he is dead, and his students argue on who he taught the best (see the on-going bs between William Chueng and Leung Ting) to claim one style is "his" is plain false.

You sound like you are heavily promoting an agenda for what must be assumed is your style of WC (This mythical Yip Man version). As such your criticism must be taken as a little tainted by bias. However you have some good points about asserting the unique aspects of WT rather than re-hashing the same info that WC has. So thank you - even though I study WT I am trying to help produce an unbiased article about it...

-- DarkCryst (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this in a civilised way, I certainly expected WT fanatics to flame at my remarks; but do understand I was only trying to balance things out too. No I'm not biased; even though I'm in a different clique than WT. I might have not explained myself clearly enough; but anyways the reasons why I tagged this for cleanup is because of the following:

1. The Yip Man branch do exist(obviously lol) but arguably Yip Man WC exists too- in the sense that it is subdivided into all the cliques today; as you know. What I was meant to say in my remarks was that- it is certain that his style has preferred aspects otherwise different to say the Mainland lineages, &

2. Thus, the structure of the WT page should be organised with that of general Wing Chun such that: Wing Chun leads to Yip Man Branch which then leads to Wing Tsun; NOT Wing Chun to Leung Ting Wing Tsun directly. (Only on condition that Leung Ting have not completely partitioned from the system (which I'm unsure of, so fill me in :)). That said, nothing changes the fact that he did his sole WC training as a Yip Man follower.)

-

- Furthermore;

-

3. There is in fact NO Yip Man Branch's stand-alone page aside a simple lineage chart on the Yip Man page (which; as an umbrella category to Leung Ting WT (again up to disretion of the condition I mentioned) it obviously deserves it; of more detailed mention; if there exists a Leung Ting Wing Tsun page~ but someone just needs to make one); &

4. There is no clear indication that Yip Man was the originator and seed of Cantonese-HK cliques in Wikipedia- ; &

5. Leung Ting was a successor of the Yip Man lineage through two generations of Sifus (he claimed a long time ago to have been a direct disciple of Yip Man's but was in fact a dishonest deceit; &

Notice I used pass tense as I'm not sure if Sifu Leung have explicitly "partitioned" or not by adapting the new spelling; if I'm not wrong he did not exactly (sorry for my lack of background :)) But in any case; since he was a disciple of a Yip Man successor; he will always carry that part of the lineage. &

6. Therefore I think there's more detail needed on Yip Man, his preferred WC guidelines, his contributions to the Wing Chun world today, and subtle, clear detail on how his lineage spanned out- including Leung Ting & WT

Thus, I think that the bottom line is that there is a need for clarification to ratify this fact- i.e. a page on the Yip Man branch; not necessary the characteristics of his preferred style; as as you have mentioned, the lineage has branched off that there is such large variation; but history as well as history as to how Yip Man contributed to the present Wing Chun scene in Hong Kong, and elsewhere.

That is to say placing WT (this depends on whether Sifu Leung recognizes, so you need to fill me in on this) under the banner of the to-be Yip Man Branch page; not on the same page, but otherwised linked.

If in the case that this is wrong (i.e. Sifu denies WT's association), well then the page bearing his name should be written under the Yip Man lineage on the Yip Man branch page.

I think these are things which Yip Man, being the Grandmaster of his lineage, is more-than well-deserved.

Lastly, I want to point out that I have no hostility or bias towards your clique; if you can't feel that from the way I write already; as afterall we have both originated from the seeds of Yip Man who brought his Wing Chun to Hong Kong, who thus indirectly popularised it in the western world and beyond. We are roughly speaking one vast, distant family. If you don't see that; then we still technically practice the same Wushu, the same Nanquan.

So please, give me feedback on what you think, and so we can figure something out to make the Wing Chun clans more tidy and presentable here.

One more thing- What happened to my edit? Did you erase it (or is it called revert?). If so why? You seem to agree with me on some grounds.

I'll sign off now, so peasce.

--WiKID Daryl (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fanboys are a pain, no matter the style. ;)

I'll make my point more clearly re: Yip Man WC

All Wing Chun practiced today (which includes Wing Tsun) is descended from Yip Man.

There is no style of Wing Chun that can say with any authority that it is Yip Man's style. Both Leung Ting and William Cheung (not to mention other students of Yip Man) both claim this and their styles of teaching are VERY different, never mind that fundamentally they are the same system and teaching style and focus is mostly all that differentiates them. Yip Man already has his own page, and so does Wing Chun as an umbrella martial art for all the styles. Most of your points would be better off detailed in those pages - as they aren't Wing Tsun specific.

Basically the points you raise are valid, but they aren't detail that needs to be in this page - they are detail that should be elsewhere. I hope I'm clear as to why. I think you hinted at this in your last paragraph too actually - the WC styles (I wouldn't call them clans) are messy atm, though it is a messy and contested relationship that exists between them, so that is to be expected at least a little.

Either way - it doesn't belong in this article so it's a little pointless to talk about it here.

As for your other points:

"Leung Ting was a successor of the Yip Man lineage through two generations of Sifus (he claimed a long time ago to have been a direct disciple of Yip Man's but was in fact a dishonest deceit)"

This is incorrect. There exists a LOT of evidence that Leung Ting was a direct student of Yip Man. A LOT. Really the only controversy is over one photo that was suggested being a forgery (out of 100's) and the original photographer has said it was genuine, so I don't consider it much of a controversy. The main contention is how much Yip Man taught Leung Ting before his death and only Leung Ting and Yip Man know that. One is dead, and one has said his position (and has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up) and really.. it doesn't really matter anyhow. The rest is just petty fanboy bickering between styles. Also - this applies to Leung Ting's page not Wing Tsun, and it is already covered there.

"What happened to my edit? Did you erase it (or is it called revert?). If so why? You seem to agree with me on some grounds."

what edit? I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I did some cleanup to the beginning where I removed a lot of unnecessary talk about the chinese characters for WC/WT if that is what you meant - it didn't belong and just confused the point of the opening paragraph - which is a clear summary.

"Lastly, I want to point out that I have no hostility or bias towards your clique; [...] If you don't see that; then we still technically practice the same Wushu, the same Nanquan."

I personally wouldn't call it a clique, it's just something I have knowledge of and train in - I try to avoid the usual silly pettiness that you see between martial arts styles - but I agree, there's no need for either of us to be disrespectful to each other :)

DarkCryst (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

merger proposal

On the Wing Chun page there is a discussion on merging this content and the content of Wing Chun. I recently became involved and posted a statement on the matter on the NPoV noticeboard. On it I said:

The argument against merging is that either a) Leung Ting's divergence from Wing Chun, marked by his trademarking of the spelling Wing Tsun is notable or b) Wing Chun is a generic category of martial arts; like Karate while Wing Tsun is a notable art within the category (much as Shotokan would be). Neither of these assertions are particularly correct. Leung Ting's divergence is more about the ongoing lineage conflicts that plague TCMA and are, perhaps, notable enough for a sub-header in the Wing Chun page. More to the point, Wing Chun is a single martial style of southern wugong. Leung Ting's divergence is not notable enough for a separate header. Likewise the Hung Gar page contains information both on the Wong Fei Hong / Lam Sai Wing lineage and other lineages within Hung Gar / Hung Kuen.

Please visit Talk:Wing Chun to discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sad to see that so little discussion has occured on this merger proposal. Is there anyone with any objections to the merger? Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NM, my bad, forgot that the discussion was at Wing Chun. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fighting principles

Who wrote the Chinese versions of the fighting principles? Can anyone name the source for them?

The use of 訂 is wrong, it is pronounced deng6, but means "draw up agreement; arrange", whereas 埞 means "place" (same pronounciation deng6).

See http://www.cojak.org/index.php?term=%E8%A8%82&function=character_lookup and http://www.cojak.org/index.php?term=%E5%9F%9E&function=character_lookup.

I suggest to use the correct character.

94.221.221.115 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Commercial

This is just a commercial article, there is nothing encyclopaedic.

Wikipedia should delete this. This branch and all the other branches have websites to explain themselve.

193.238.8.86 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What's commercial about it? There is no promotion of specific schools, no denigration of other schools, no links to goods or services related to the art. Please stop with the deletionism. Aeontech (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)