Talk:Wing Chun/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wing Tsun as an Alternate Romanization


Wing Tsun may be considered a form of wing chun, but the terms are certainly not interchangeable. Wing Tsun is a copyrighted, individual line of wing chun owned by Prof. Leung Ting.

An 'alternate romanization' is a different rendering of the same thing. They are not the same thing. Wing Tsun is not wing chun. They are different animals.

Please stop calling a specific line an alternate romanization. Graphik 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Correction - the transliteration (romanization) of the Chinese characters for Wing chun can be Wing tsun, ving tsun, ving chun, and many others. WingTsun™ is different from Wing tsun the tm explains the trademark. Just because something is trademarked does not justify claiming it is not a transliteration, as anything can be trademarked or copyrighted. WingTsun™ specifically refers to the linage owned by Prof. Leung Ting. The term Wing tsun does not specifically refers to WingTsun™ except as a slang term. photodude 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In a court case your logic might hold up. In common usage, no. Ask anyone what Wing Tsun is, and they'll tell you it's Leung Ting's line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

"Ask anyone what Wing Tsun is..." If you ask a Cantonese speaker, guess what will happen? There is no standard transliteration for Cantonese, and all the names are viable and help to understand the pronunciation. It should be pointed out in the article that "wing tsun" and "wing chun" are only different in English. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger with WingTsun

  • Strongly Oppose WingTsun is a trademarked name that refers specifically to the Leung Ting lineage and only the Leung Ting lineage. "WingTsun" is not interchangeable with "Wing Chun".JFD 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Agreed completely. Wing Chun is the most popular and recognized romanization. Different romanizations to Wing Chun are usually lineage specific. WingTsun is a Leung Tin line specific term AND brand. It is simply incorrect to make them interchangeable. Having said that, the WingTsun article could have a lot *removed* because of redundancy with this article. A section explaining romanizations and lineages would help a lot. Rpf 17:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Totally incompatible. I object to Wing Tsun being listed as an alternate romanization on the home page as well. It is not a romanization, it is a line.
  • Actually it is a line *and* a romanization. Leung Ting took this romanization and copyrighted/trademarked it for his own purposes (i.e. to designate his line). Wing Chun, Wing Tsun, and Ving Tsun (which is the romanization for the Toishanese pronunciation - a sub-dialect of Cantonese) are all just romanizations for the same characters.--Marty Goldberg 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Wing Tsun is fundamentally different from Wing Chun. Takunr3 10:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose WingTsun™ refers to a specific branch of Wing chun. WingTsun™ is often mistaken for wing chun, as wing tsun (no trademark symbol) is a transliteration. It would be incorrect to say WingTsun™ is fundamentally different from Wing Chun; as it is a branch of Wing chun not a different system. the WingTsun article Should have a lot *removed* because of redundancy with the wing chun article. The WingTsun article should focus on what is specifcally different in that branch from the other wing chun branches. photodude 18:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by martial art - add yourself!

List of Wikipedians by martial art

General Talk

I can't find where to edit the bit that says: "Wing Chun[1] is a Chinese martial art that emphasizes short-range combat.".

It should say: "Wing Chun is a chinese martial art of short-range combat."; because Wing Chun is an art of short range combat, not just something that 'emphasizes' short range combat; and 'Chinese' should be 'chinese' with a lower-case 'c' because it's a semantic description rather than a meaningless name.

You wiki's need to sort that out aii. 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I.m not an expert in Wing Chun, but surely the wooden dummy should be mentioned. Habj 22:41 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. I just noticed your comment after I impulsively stuck in some material dealing with the dummy. Quite serendipitous. (Not sure how to do the time stamp thingy you did there.)

With four tilde. Write "~~~~" Habj 18:58 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, the dutch wing chun federation page has a lot more content in dutch than in english. I guess that means someones going to have to translate at some point :-/ 20:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the best article on a particular style of martial art that I've seen. I'd like to see more facts about the characteristics of various styles on other pages, not just longwinded explanations of their geneologies. That said, this article is very obviously written by someone who's very enthusiastic about wing chun, and it's dripping with praise. Perhaps it could be subtley revised, so that it's from a less personal viewpoint and is more encyclopedic in tone? --J.S. Nelson 09:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, and guilty! I agree that I am very enthusiastic. Any attempts to make the article more objective would be appreciated, but I would be the wrong person for this job :) I've spent a lot of time on this page because I had been looking for a comprehensive summary of Wing Chun to introduce it to friends, but couldn't find one. So I added a bunch of material to the existing Wikipedia article, with of course help from lots of other Wikipedia contributors. Yuenkitmun 10:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For those wikipedians that can read Chinese, [1] gives a very detail history of the Wing Chun lineage. Interesting reading, a lot of details on the earlier masters. It would be nice if someone can translate it into English. Kowloonese 00:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The more effective Wing Chun strikes (eyes, throat, knee) are too dangerous even for freestyle competitions."

Just wondering what kind of technique is being used against an opponents knee? Would an Muay Thai lowkick be more effective? Or do you guys use the same?--NoNo 22:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, one would use a low Wing Chun kick, a medium Wing Chun kick or a hook kick. The kick used depends on the size of your opponent relative to you, how far and close you are to your opponent. Wing Chun kicks are very effective, they are probably equal to or more effective than a Muay Thai lowkick, howeverI'm not familiar with that kick so I cannot give you a definite answer.
How do you perform a Wing Chun lowkick then? "Wing Chun techniques are uncommitted. This means that if the technique fails to connect, the practitioner's position or balance is not compromised. If the attack fails, the practitioner should be able to "flow" easily into a follow-up attack. All Wing Chun techniques permit this. Any punch or kick can be strung together to form a "chain" or combination attack." You know, thai lowkicks are generally very committing. When you strike, you try to strike though the opponent. You don't aim at the persons leg, you aim on the other side. I don't think that it's possible for a Wing Chun kick to be more powerful than a Thai kick if you don't sacrifice some of your "uncommittingness".-- 22:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to sacrifice structure for power. The Wing Chun kicks work very differently than those of modern Muay Thai. The kicks are generally straight and impact with the sole of the foot, usually with a stomping effect to the knee or groin area. Because of the use of straight kicks, the structure doesn't change when kicking. The back is held straight and the kick is completely non-telegraphed in the upper body. Furthermore, by utilizing a straight kick you will absorb a lot less power from the impact yourself (practically none) thus putting more force into your opponent. All force absorbed by yourself during the kick will be directed directly downwards into your standing foot, further rooting you into your stance. This, along with the different, more powerful muscles involved and the sequence in which they are activated in a straight kick, makes the Wing Chun kick fundamentally stronger and faster than the modern Muay Thai round-kick. This may sound biased, but you can try this out for yourself: Walk up to a thick, sturdy tree, then try both kicks (one roundhouse and one Wing Chun kick). First do it slowly, pushing the kicks into the tree. Notice that you will quickly lose balance using a lot of force in a MT kick, whereas in a Wing Chun kick your will be further rooted into your stance. Then to it quickly. Notice that the MT kick hurts like hell, and that the WC kick is more painful to the tree more than to yourself. Also note that since the traditional footwear in most chinese styles are shoes, splinters won't affect the kick either. If this empiric study is too complex and time consuming, contemplate instead upon how you would kick down a door. That kick is the Wing Chun kick, sinking down to maintain balance while kicking hard without being sent backwards or falling forwards. These are all irrefutable facts and the reason why Wing Chun's kicks are so strong while still remaining fluid and uncommited like a cloud in the heavens. 01:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Irrefutable fact" is something that cannot be argued against in any way, whereas the Thai roundhouse is evidently a powerful and effective kick, being used in competition to hit the body, head, legs and anywhere else. Obviously a front kick is a powerful weapon too, and they are used often themselves in muay thai, but it is ridiculous to compare two kicks with completely different power generation and paths to the target. It would make sense, however, to compare differing methods of front kick delivery, from taekwondo, karate, wing chun, muay thai, &c, as this would be a viable comparison that would help the reader. There might not be much to write, though, except that wing chun decides not to rotate the hips into the kick, which is the typical power generation concept in the vast majority of other martial arts, even Chinese ones. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

James W. DeMile and Wing Chun Do James DeMile was in the group of Bruce Lee's original Seattle students, and has his own system of Wing Chun which he says he and Bruce Lee worked on together prior to Jeet Kune Do. His picture was in Bruce Lee's first book on Chinese Gung Fu. Wing Chun Do Gung Fu is a link to one of James DeMile's Schools. You might want to make reference to Wing chun Do since it is a part of American Wing Chun history. jbutera 18:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate in Branches of Wing Chun and not Wing Chun. -Frogular 08:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Just added the fact that Wing Chun is sometimes known as Wing Tsun or Wing Tzun. Certainly "Wing Tsun" has to be there since it has its own article and it appears in the links. But this is not a complete list. The German Wing Chun article has a long list of spellings -- should we include something similar? WT guy 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, there are a lot of romanizations, created depending of the nationality and language of the founder of the branch, so that "Tsun","Ving" or "Tjun" sound closer to the original Cantonese pronunciation. Including just one is incomplete and useless. Harcalion 19:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) The person who has undone my editing about the number of distinct romanizations, be used as trade marks or to more accurately transcribe the original pronunciation, is wrong till the point that a simple Google Fight returns about 560.000 results for "Wing Tsun" and only 166.000 for Ving Tsun, so his point is actually wrong, not mine. So I'm changing it again.Harcalion 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


We give several origin stories in this page. They all need to stay, but a discussion, with scholarly references, of the historical basis for each would be a very valuable addition. Any takers? Andrew 19:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I believe most of these stories were passed down verbally. In some case, it was written down, but by then the stories had already deviated into contradicting versions. Since Yip Man's branch of Wing Chun is most widespread internationally and on the Internet. His version of the history is the most widely known though not necessarily correct. The Yuan Kay-shan branch of Wing Chun told quite a different version of the history. Two descepencies in the history are in the early stage and the period where Wing Chun was passed to the Opera performers. One version said there were a few more masters between Wu Mei and Yim Wing Chun. Another vresion said the few masters during the river boat opera era were all learning together, i.e. they shared the same sifu. One problem in researching into Chinese material is that these writings do not quote references. And some claims are impossible to verify. Kowloonese 21:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's quite true that the stories differ. Even an account of who tells which story would be nice, though. But I think that there are probably lots of archives of information on this sort of thing for those who know where to look; I don't, and I'm not even in a good position to get the oral history straight. But here are some possible areas that could be filled in:

  • The historical role of the Shaolin Temple, in this and in other martial arts
  • The recent history of the art (masters in the last century, schools, Hong Kong, worldwide dispersal)
  • Forks and off-shoots (Jeet Kune Do etc.)
  • Wing chun in movies, TV, books, etc.

Moreover, dates for known historical events could be provided: if the Shaolin Temple was destroyed by the Chinese government, surely one historical record exists; if the riverboat opera troupe was operating against the government, which government was it? Why does modern wing chun come to us from Hong Kong rather than mainland China? (see below - Rook)

Anyway, I certainly don't know all this, but some of it must be recorded in reliable sources; even unreliable sources could be specifically quoted. Andrew 00:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Jiequandao is not an offshoot of wing chun. It was developed by a person who happened to be a wing chun practitioner, but it is not wing chun, and Li Xiaolong also happened to practise boxing; nor does it take all that much at all from wing chun. Please check any and all relevant Jqd literature - I recommend Teri Tom - and you will see where it came from. Also, "the historical role of the Shaolin temple" is not 1) verifiable or 2) realistic. The only Shaolin temple was and is in Henan province. Wing chun grew in Fujian and Guangdong. The myth of the " southern Shaolin temple" is a fictive creation of the wuxia novelists (who have a lot to answer for in modern martial arts myths). Unless you can find real, authoritative evidence of any such southern temple, and even more, of any such temple ever having influenced the art, then the whole idea should be removed, or at the very least changed to reflect the fact that it is a legend or myth and not a fact, grounded in reality. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some brief historic accounts on many Kung Fu school websites. Many were written in Chinese. Again if you trace their lineage of these schools, most of the time you can trace it back to Yip Man because he was the first Wing Chun master to teach the art openly in Hong Kong on a school fee basis. Hence a large number of students under his branch. Traditional Kung Fu masters only teach selected talented students with the sole purpose to passing the art from generation to generation. These websites look like they simply cut and pasted from someone else's websites. The last student of Yip Man, Leung Ting branched off Wing Tsun (vs his master's Ving Chun) as an international franchise. He published some books in English about Wing Chun. No doubt, his view is based on the Yip Man branch. Yuan Kay-shan is not from Yip Man's branch and his school's website (see the external link in the article) tells quite a different story. However, I found that his writing is very confused especially regarding the sihing who trained Yip Man. That kinda discredited the accuracy of his website because I bet Yip Man didn't remember his own teachers wrong. Kowloonese 02:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've split up the history section and added a bit of modern history (mostly based on the above). I don't claim it's good, or even especially accurate, but it's there, at least, and with luck people will expand on it in a positive way. Andrew 21:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

As for why modern wing chun (Ip/Yip Man lineage) comes from Hong Kong rather than central China... Ip Man moved to Hong Kong from his hometown of Fut Shan (Foshan), China in 1949. I believe due to economic reasons, but I cannot find that resource right now. (source: Also the history you have given as being from the YM lineage is a little different from what I was taught, and this is the lineage I train in. I'll look into posting more/editing later.

Segung's site has some interesting links at - Rook 8.25.05

When you search ving tsun you get redirected to the wing chun page, wasn't ving tsun somebodies own version of wing chun and not just a differant way of spelling wing chun?

"WingTsun" is the trademarked name of Leung Ting's branch of Wing Chun. "Ving Tsun" is the romanization used by a number of branches descended from Yip Man.
JFD 01:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Personalities section (refactored)

I made some minor modifications to the personalities section, removing some potentially inflammatory remarks about a couple of the personalities. I'd like to help keep the wikipedia entry free of the politics that have plagued wing chun for so long. I think it would be appreciated if others would help do the same. Thanks! :) --alex 03:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You didn't make "minor modifications," my friend, you reverted vandalism! Well done! I will place this page on my watchlist to revert any future vandalism, anyone else who is interested should do the same. Fire Star 03:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Guys, i watched the modified page and I still ask myself "why to remove Mr. Dingeldein from this page"? Beside to be afraid of some marketing issue (that i can accept), we're talking about the history of wing chun in Europe, since Dingeldein was the "right arm" of Leung Ting and Keith Kernspecht. He was the techincal chief in Lagenzell castle, so why did you remove him from the list? I think that under your good proposals there is a true cover up fact. Unbelievable. I suggest to read the first book that Leung Ting wrote, to gain some info, but the first edition of the book... Furio 11:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


It should be noted here that in his younger years Wong wah-bo was a practitioner of the Sil-Lum Hung Gar style having learned the Long pole tecniques from no other than the legendary Shaolin master Jee Shim himself.

What's the source of this story? According to the Yip Man oral history, Leung Yee-Tai who was the pole master and taught its use to Wong Wah-Bo.

Yik Kam (??, yi4 jin1 in pinyin, whose name means literally mean "changing gold") is one such peers of his masters. Better known as Cheng-Tan Kam ( ???, zheng4 dan4 jin1) due to his sublimal portrayal of female lead characters in the opera, Yik Kam retired and settled in Panyu province where he was challenged by a young Cho Dak Shing who was beaten soundly. Eventaully learning at Yik Kam's feet, Cho Dak Shing went on to establish the legacy of Cho Ga Wing Chun (????, Cho's Family Wing Chun).

Also heard (via article by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie & Hendrik Santo) that the "Yik" in "Yik Kam" means "wings" rather than "change." Same article mentions Cho Shun, an intermediate generation between Yik Kam and Cho Dak-Sing.

JFD 10:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Vertical punch and other value judgements

In this section, the author lists the advantages of the vertical punch over the horizontal punch. While cogently written, it is not appropriate to make such value judgements in an encyclopedia that claims a neutral stance. The general tone of the article, furthermore, seems to imply that Wing Chun is objectively better than a lot of martial arts, something which should be avoided...the article should inform the reader not try to 'sell' itself. Such statements belong to martial arts forums or specialist Wing Chun sites. This, along with other value judgements, deserve deletion...any thoughts? Tarkovsky

Agreed, not NPOV. Let's see if I can make it more objective without removing too much. Frogular 19:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the section some. What do you guys think? Frogular 23:56, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! Perhaps I'll pitch in some more later

Scientific and logical?

Here, one should distinguish between interpretation and origin. Wing Chun is able to be interpreted scientifically and logically because its principles are coherent with laws of physics (straight line theory, angles, etc.). This doesn't mean, however, that it was created from scientific principles. It's obvious from the history that Wing Chun was created by synthesising Shaolin styles, not designed from the ground up to be scientifically compatible. It may appear scientific in hindsight but one cannot call it a 'scientific and logical' martial art because this implies causality. -Unsigned comment by

Very true, the scientific method can describe things (stars, planets, cultures, animals, plants, etc.), and scientists may design technology based on those findings. But originally, it is for observing and describing natural processes. We recently had a discussion at the acupuncture article along these lines. Regarding another martial art, Wu Chien-ch'uan wrote: "Scientific principles could apply to every aspect of T'ai Chi Ch'uan skills. That being said, the ways that empty and full transform are truly unfathomable." Fire Star 14:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

What are Shaolin styles? I mean that sincerely. What styles from Henan (where the one and only Shaolin temple was built) could have influenced this Kejiaren style? Or are the contributors seriously considering the concept of the "southern Shaolin temple" in Fujian? That was in fact a creation of writers of wuxia fiction in the 19th century (Adam Hsu is in agreement here, for instance). The history of wing chun is of course murky, but it would be very unwise to believe oral history, good marketing and myth in an encyclopedia article. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics and principles (in general)

1. The author mentions that Wing Chun competitions are rare because it has 'retained its focus as a practical fighting art'. This is a value judgement, although a more subtle one. The author is implying here that Wing Chun schools that do enter competitions are not being faithful to its focus as a 'practical fighting art'.

We cannot truly know why certain Wing Chun schools avoid competitions; they do so for their own, internal reasons. This is a contentious issue best suited to specialist martial arts sites. Thus, I propose we delete this statement and move on.

2. The author mentions that 'Bruce Lee managed to develop Jeet Kune Do from Wing Chun because Wing Chun trained him to think about fighting in a scientific way'...this needs a reference, otherwise the quote appears tenuous, too much like a rumour and should be deleted.

3. 'There are no...techniques that mimic animal movements' Yet in the Oral Histories section, the author mentions that Wing Chun was created by observing and mimicking the movements of a crane trapping a snake. This should be resolved or deleted.

4. On the vertical punch: 'The vertical punch was kept unchanged in Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee'. False. Lee modified the punch to rise from the hip upwards because he believed the human eye was less sensitive to moving targets below the eyeline. Furthermore, Jeet Kune Do utilises a 45-degree cat stance which negates fundamental centreline principles governing the Wing Chun punch

5. On students being taught 'the reasoning behind each technique' and sifus being 'friendly and open' seems the author has confused his/her personal Wing Chun experience with the general Wing Chun community. I will delete this immediately, as with other such subjective statements since there should be no question of their inappropriateness.

6. On the 'External or Internal?' section. This entire section deserves deletion since its discussion of body structure, sensitivity and relaxation overlaps with the following sections. Furthermore, the 'external vs internal' debate is of questionable merit. Most martial artists reject the distinction, recognising that internal and external power are complementary (rather than conflicting) elements to Wing Chun, if not all Chinese martial arts.


1) Where are the internal body mechanics in wing chun? Taiji, xingyi, &c, all use hip rotation and pushing up from the floor - this is the internal element (when taken to a sensitive enough degree) as the movement can be extremely small and still powerful. If the body mechanics could be elaborated on, that would be great (I'm a Chinese wrestler, and I'd like to know about power generation in wing chun, and this article was somewhat lacking.)

2) Bruce Lee took more from boxing in his straight punch than wing chun. Read Teri Tom's book, The Straight Lead; Tom discusses Bruce's influence, primarily being boxers like Jack Dempsey (famous for his powerful jab) and Jim Driscoll, and goes into great detail about the correct form for the punch. Pushing up from the floor (in fact, practically jumping towards the opponent), powerful hip rotation with a whip into the shoulder, from a boxing hand position and close to a boxing stance, with the rear heel raised (&c) - none of which is recognisable from wing chun at all. Only the vertical fist is still in use from wing chun, and that instead came from the concept of a perfect three-knuckle landing without gloves (also in bareknuckle boxing). Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wing Chun Punch

Some proposed changes, please give feedback:

1. 'Because the fist is not loaded by first pulling the elbow behind the body, the vertical punch is faster than a conventional roundhouse punch' A conventional roundhouse punch (I'm assuming you mean a boxing one) begins loaded within the stance. Pulling the elbow back for delivery is not needed, unless one is throwing multiple punches in which case the speed penalty is absorbed by the wholistic fighting movement of the entire body/opposing hand anyway. Speed, furthermore, is a function of the practitioner's expertise not the Wing Chun principles. Perhaps this should be changed to "distance" instead.

2. 'Keeping the elbow low and forward protects the front midsection of the body whereas pulling the elbow back would expose it.'


1. "distance" is definitely more appropriate, although the shorter distance often translates into a faster, weaker punch if identical subjects are doing both a a) wing chun vertical punch and a b) regular punch. What about qualifying the statement instead? Something like "faster but weaker" given other variables held constant.

2. While it does imply that, such is the nature of martial arts. Different arts focus on different skill sets. Wing Chun practitioners may like to guard their centerline more than others, but this comes at the expense of a smaller variety of possible movements. Also, other styles that guard their centerline may do so using their forearms, or turning their body in a sideways position instead of their elbows, or attempting to keep the opponent out of close striking range and in the kicking range instead. How about "the elbow... reduces the need for other methods/techniques/positions of guarding the centerline?" or "elbow... is Wing Chun's preferred method of guarding the centerline?"

Frogular 00:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What is a regular punch? What does that mean at all? Is it a jab? Or a hook? Or a cross? Or an uppercut even? Or is it a karate style strike? It seems that knowledge of other striking methods is lacking on this page, as generalisations are frequently used. And before someone says "this is an article about wing chun, it's not about comparing it to other systems..." - well, it is about comparing it, because a person cannot understand the article at all without some frame of reference, and showing the difference between, say, a jab, and a wing chun punch (bear in mind too that vertical punching in boxing was the norm until the late nineteenth century) is practically a necessity. Also: what is a conventional "roundhouse punch"? A bearcat fighter's punch? Certainly, no boxing punch is ever as wild as a street fighter's weapon, and a good hook is very close to the body and protective, as is a good uppercut. On top of that, no boxer draws their hand back when punching. The elbows remain at the ribs until the punch is released. Power comes from the lower body. It is also possible to reference a boxing punch as being more powerful than wing chun straight punching in neutral tests. I will provide links as soon as I can re-discover the sources. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Corrections made to the section "The Wing Chun Punch":

  • This section appears to have been written by someone with minimal or no knowledge regarding Wing Chun's soft power.
  • The section also mentioned twisting the waist. This implies that the body does not move as a unit, thus 'disconnecting' the body structure and violating basic Wing Chun theory.
  • Chain punching was also improperly defined, although assumably unintentionally so due to improper wording.

Graphik 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"'Keeping the elbow low and forward protects the front midsection of the body whereas pulling the elbow back would expose it.' I don't like how this is worded. It seems to imply that martial arts stances which do not keep their hands in the centre are exposed, vulnerable and therefore weaker."

If the midsection is not covered, what other word would be more appropriate than "exposed"? This is not a stylistic preference or an attempt at putting down other styles, it is plain logic.

"Something like "faster but weaker" given other variables held constant."

That would be fine, were the Wing Chun punch weaker. Fortunately, this is not the case: Wing Chun uses less conventional methods of generating power, and actually scorns the use of pure distance. Soft power, or, perhaps more accurately put, relaxed power is preferred. It does not require tension or distance, but rather a relaxed, driving force as demonstrated by Bruce Lee's use of the 'one-inch punch'.

Graphik 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but do you honestly believe that other martial arts encourage tension in striking? I think you'll find that none do. And with regard to so-called "internal" striking methods, the main styles famous for their internal strikes (xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, liuhe bafa, bajiquan, &c) all use distinct body mechanics that are utterly different from the wing chun methods - including explosively using the hips and pushing up from the feet. If you wish to scientifically show how wing chun generates power, as is certainly possible with the "internal" styles, then it should be put into the article. Saying that the punch is "relaxed" is not enough, because boxing, muay thai, karate and all others also use relaxation. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

To Graphik:

As Frogular implies, martial arts systems have different ways of solving the same problem. Some arts refrain from *covering* the mid-section because the exposure is offset by other factors (a diagonal stance for example, which reduces the open area). Other arts (Western boxing for example) rely on body movement and mobility to defuse attacks, in which having one's arms held at the mid-section area would be cumbersome. There is, in fact, nothing logical about using your arms/elbows to cover your mid-section and it *is* a stylistic choice.

What must be avoided here is to imply that "exposing" the mid-section is an objectively bad thing because this supposed tactical disadvantage (from a Wing Chun point of view) may simply be absorbed and incorporated by other martial arts systems as a part of the game.

To Frogular:

What I propose is that we simply delete the few words which mention exposure of the mid-section. The original meaning of the sentence remains. Tarkovsky

Question in general: Do we have any pictures of practicing forms/masters to upload?

Tarkovsky: Agreed

Graphik: I practice an internal style of Wing Chun where we train (quite successfully) to generate very powerful short distance soft strikes. I just do not think it would be appropriate to state that in the main page as this would make the page look even less neutral and more zealotry. I already made some changes (didn't see your discussion response, sorry!) to the wording taking out "internal" and adding "alternate methods" which I think sounds more believable than "great magic chi power!" The Bruce Lee example remains to show that such ability is possible. Let me know if you disagree. Twisting the waist should be taken out. I believe that violates Wing Chun theory too. And chain punching has to be reworded, too.

-Frogular 01:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To Tarkovsky:

What I was saying was not that covering the midsection was the only logical thing to do, but rather that if one did not cover it it would be by definition exposed. Not that this is automatically bad (though that is how I would see it).

To Frogular:

I don't think that mentioning short-distance powerful strikes would be violating NPOV. Rather, it explains WC theory in greater completeness. The reader can decide for himself whether this is what he chooses to believe. As for Chi, I agree that it is not a mystic energy. The phenomenon of Chi is measurable, but those who would claim that it is magic are misguided in my opinion; it all reduces to more intelligent use of the body such as correct muscle/ligament use. It's similar to the theory of gravity as presented by Newton. There may not be much of an explanation provided, but it provides an accurate enough model to predict reactions between objects.


A terse statement on neutrality and fact

I have edited many martial arts articles and the Wing Chun one is notable for its bias and continual use of weasel words. Updates typically include comments like:

"Some Wing Chun practitioners believe that such trade-offs are not advantageous to the overall combat situation"

"Some Sifu's discourage the use of Feints and Fakes as these are seen as opening up your body to attack..."

These statements do not* use a neutral point of view. Nor are they fact. The attempt to qualify statements with prefixes like "Some Wing Chun practitioners..." doesn't render the statement anything more than opinion, it merely disguises it through weasel words. It may be *true* that some Wing Chun practitioners believe this but this doesn't necessarily mean it is fact. It may be true that some Wing Chun practitioners believe the art originated in the 19th century, it doesn't make it fact. This is the ad populum fallacy, another constant feature on this article.

Some examples of correct, neutral statements:

"Forms are a meditative, solitary exercise which develop self-awareness, balance and sensitivity. Forms also train the practitioner in the fundamental movements of Wing Chun. It is from the forms that all Wing Chun techniques are derived."

"Wing Chun believes that small movements, properly timed and correctly positioned, can and should be used to defeat large movements"

"A correct Wing Chun stance is like a piece of bamboo, firm but flexible, rooted but yielding."

Finally, please stop writing comments about what your school thinks, about what your Sifu says or your own personal experiences or opinions about the art. They do not correctly support a position and have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. These are best suited to specialist martial arts sites, fora or personal blogs.


I fail to see how your own statements are not themeselves a far more extreme example of ad populum fallacy. "Correct Wing Chun" can be discussed, but not individual viewpoints? What defines "correct Wing Chun"? Popular acceptance?

Additionally, Wing Chun is not martial mathematics, it is martial art, and is nothing but a personal interperetation. Saying that only fact can be discussed in a Wing Chun article therefore leaves us with a blank page. Graphik 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

There are currently 17 links with the article. I have just removed 2 that were inappropriate and one that was dead. Seventeen links is probably too many, don't you think? Perhaps we should remove some of the links to individual schools. WT guy 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Links to individual schools should be avoided unless they also contain a large amount of general Wing Chun information. Frogular 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I add a link to video clips that I like. Maybe, start a new article: "Wing Chun websites"? 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory.


Please note that Wing Tsun and Wing Tzun are not alternate romanizations to Wing Chun but rather alternate forms of the art, owned and copyrighted by individuals. The first paragraph has been modified accordingly.

Recent history

It doesn't make sense to randomly name schools in this section considering the large number of first generation students of Yip Man (see or similar). Looks more like random advertising to me. I'm ditching it. Rpf 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Can we please get an audio file of a native Cantonese speaker saying 咏春? — Gulliver 07:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why gauge wing chun against MMA success???

Wow, I was really taken aback by the section describing Wing Chun essentially as unproven in MMA and how practitioners have a cult like mentality.

What about the multitude of martial arts that exist that aren't tested in MMA? Does that make them ineffective as well. If you aren't doing Juijitsu, Muay Thai, or Wrestiling then you are practicing an impractical art? Hmmm, sounds like a weak arguement to me.

I can tell you with complete confidence that my sifu has LOTS of successful street fighting experience utilizing wing chun (new york 1970's and 80's). I can also tell you that bones, sinews were often brokend and noses, knees, and groins annihilated. I know there are a lot of sifus and practitioners (including myself) who haven't ever tested the art in a real situation.

My sifu is probably an exception to many and has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness and power of this ingenious system.

I'd go as far to say that the cult and MMA aspects of this page should be removed as they are inaccurate and disrespectful.

What should matter is if they are factual, not what your personal opinion of disrespectful is. The entire article is infused with subjective sentiments regarding the effectiveness of Wing Chun. It is a fact that only two people claiming Wing Chun background have competed in MMA, and both were defeated. This does not mean Wing Chun is ineffective, nor does it mean that any art that does not have competitors in MMA is ineffective. However most arts do not trumpet effectiveness like Wing Chun does, and if they do, there should be an objective basis for it rather than simplistic theorizing about the distance between two points. The statement regarding lethal strikes looks similarly adolescent. It is an embarrassment to Wing Chun to suggest that it can only work if one targets the eye or throat.

Excuse me, but this is not a fact. There have been much more than "two people" competing in MMA (I'm assuming you're refering to the old UFC matches of Levecki (who had a year's training in wing chun when he was promoted as a "wing chun" fighter) and Asbel). Off the top of my head, Alan Orr's team has been competing in England for several years now and several of his people have won championships there including just this last Septh. 9th. Secondly, the "subjective sentiments regarding the effectiveness of wing chun" are most certainly not subjective. This is wikipedia, it is an entry on a specific art. While detailing a specific art, you tell the things they do and why they do it. They do x because of y belief. Nothing subjective about that. What was subjective and dissrespectful was the anonymous editing by you under the title "Practicality". --Marty Goldberg 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you could have edited the section and discussed MMA. Rather than make the entry more impartial, and fairly address issues of how poking someone in the eye could possibly be considered practical given the legal repercussions, you chose to simply delete what you didn't like personally. Perhaps that should be an additional reference under the cultishness of Wing Chun.

No, put simply, that type of material has no business in a root article on the art. It belongs in a MMA article perhaps (have your fun over there). The legal practicality of an eye poke (why focus on that either way out of the entire art?) also has no business here, as the technique is indeed a historical part of the art - something the entry strives to document. Not whether invidividuals view things as practical, or whetever specific modern laws in a specific part of the world make a technique "legal". If you want to discuss whether an "eye poke" is legal, then create a Wikipedia entry entry entitled "Eye Poke" where you can discuss its history and current legality across the board. But I get the feeling that's far beyond the scope of your intent - you come off as a person with a vendetta (or at the very least an ill-conceived point you're trying forcefully to prove) against this art. If anything, your original edit and continued responses on the matter are what come off as a bit cultish. As in a MMA'er with something to prove, throwing out typical soundbytes trying to take an art down some imaginary (and also ill-conceived) "notch".
The reason for the eye poke focus is the mention of lethal strikes, which is childish and makes the article look like a silly fanboy article as alluded to by Tartovsky. As far as Alan Orr, his group appears to do the usual MMA blend of arts. Perhaps the Wing Chun is for the "deadly" portion of the curriculum. If you want to use this as support of Wing Chun's effectiveness, find a single video on YouTube or any other source showing any matches involving any of Orr's fighters using any identifiable Wing Chun technique. Or, since you won't be successful in that, try to make the article more balanced so Wing Chun doesn't look as bad as the fan sites make it seem. Your choice though.

An eye strike can be lethal, as can many other type of strikes to vulnerable areas (as can certain chokes, breaks, etc.) I don't see the entry trumepting it as the be all end all of techniques as you're claiming. As for Alan, talking about "what it seems" doesn't add much water to your position. Its not a "blend", he teaches those arts seperately, and does his wing chun related material (of his branch) in a ground environment as well. You have his email address there, contact him. He also has video's on his site (so your assertion is incorrect and more of the usual MMA head bravado). I don't have to use it to support "wing chun's effectiveness", just showing your earlier statement that "only two had competed" has a lot of holes. And what is "indentifiable" Wing Chun techniques? That alone shows your ignorance towards the art, where (as described in the entry) there are many variations - some completely conceptual - that includes key terms like "tan", "bong", "fuk", and "pak", which take on more of an energy (force vector) standpoint than a pose of the hand or body. Alan is from one of the linneages, as am I. The article is actually very ballanced (and sorry, I only contributed a few things), and talks specifically on the content, history, training, concepts, and principles of the art - which any good entry should. Once again, the material you're trying to add and goading for doesn't belong in an article of this scope. It wreaks of someone (a MMA'er) with something to prove, using the usual bravado vernacular and dissrespecting sarcasm I've come to expect from your type. --Marty Goldberg 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe the "wreaking"[sic] of bravado and presumptions are on your part, and again, writing about the lethality of strikes is adolescent. Wing Chun has no need of purported lethal strikes to be usable, yet this statement makes it sound as if it can't function otherwise. The article is not neutral, the entire section on the Wing Chun punch is written to "prove" the superiority of the method, which is entirely speculative. It is not balanced in any way. If it were balanced, it would either mention strategic tradeoffs of the punch vs other approaches, or else simply be worded neutrally. You made the claim that Mr. Orr's students have successfully competed in MMA using Wing Chun. The fact that you cannot show any objective evidence for this, and yet still made the statement, is entirely consistent with the tone of the article and general attitude of many Wing Chun practitioners. It's a shame that this attitude can't be avoided even when it has been pointed out by more than one person (see Tarkovsky entries) in an article written by group consensus, but again this reflects upon the group and is no surprise. Have it your way, it's your style that looks silly as a result.
There has been no bravado on my part, the language is clearly in yours and your use of catch phrases and usual points of contention used on the MMA front. There is no statement in the entry on needing to use lethal strikes to make it functional, yet they are a part of the system and need to be covered. You're reading that in because several wing chun people on the net over the last 10+ years have stated they can't take part in MMA because of the "deadly eye poke", which has now become part of lore. The section of the wing chun punch simply talks about why its structured this way in application and the beliefs surrounding it - other art's punches are not in the scope of the entry. Only the main wing chun punch (and I say main because there are other "punches" and "strikes" in the art), because it *is* an entry on wing chun. And please, stop the spin - Mr. Orr's students' wins are a matter of public record and can also be obtained by writing to his school or the events his student's competed in (which are also mentioned at his site and on his site's discussion forum). You asked for specific youtube video of fights or footage of "wing chun techniques" in fights. I clearly stated he has video of a few of his students from a competition (from 2 years ago actually) on his sight, and he'd be willing to discuss and give the info on the others (including the events themselves so you can contact them directly and not go by just Mr. Orr) - just write to him. So once again, stop the attempt at spin and take it to a MMA entry. You want to talk there about all the different arts that have or have not done well in MMA competitions, knock your self out. You're not trashing this art in its own entry, under the veiled guise of "keeping it real". --Marty Goldberg 22:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I looked at a few of the videos on Alan Orr's site. Calling this MMA is disingenuous since these are obviously limited affairs where striking to the head is not allowed. But OK, at least he is being progressive and trying to be functional, good on him for that. Perhaps this is why there is not a single Wing Chun vertical punch used anywhere. Spare me a lecture about my ignorant eyes being unable to discern the use of Wing Chun body structure or similar nonsense. You'll note that a boxer's "structure" is never seen to collapse when he hits a heavy bag or his opponent, so the little test in the vertical punch section "proving" the importance of not having torque due to any reaction force is a non-issue. If this "structure" is the Wing Chun contribution to the kickboxing shown in the videos, you can safely ignore it and stick with real kickboxing. The points espoused on the main Wing Chun article about the virtues of the vertical fist punch are completely ignored in these matches, and for good reason. Wing Chun is one of the most well-known Chinese styles in the world, and the lack of the vertical punch in MMA is not due to obscurity, it simply fails on merit. Since you're a fan of emailing, why not email Hawkins Cheung and ask him about the relative merits of the boxing blast vs the traditional vertical fist punches? Of course if there were any example of these punches really being used to good effect in MMA, I'm sure there would have been a proud entry about it in the article already. You can delete all the criticism you invite with lefthanded comments about not "drawing the elbow behind the body" (an obvious slam on karate, which has a vastly better competition record than Wing Chun), but this does not change the objective reality that the traditional Wing Chun vertical fist punch has such serious drawbacks (relative lack of range, power, and protection, for example) that no serious fighter uses it in modern competition. MMA has been around 10+ years, and you can bet that in another 10 years that will still be the case.

Will this person post some disadvantages of the vertical punch to balance that section? I think it's worth a look. What's everyone's opinion on this? 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Chi Na omitted too

Chi Na is also from Shaolin and was incorporated into Wing Chun as well as other arts.

There is an excellent article in the Sept. issue of Kung Fu magazine showcasing my sifu.

Very informative and info should be added here.

Not all Wing Chun schools use it so I would hesitate in covering such divergences in the article. I would stick to the common, canonical features common across most schools. What does everyone else think? 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

'Close range

Can we propose to delete the second paragraph in the 'close range' section, it is pure fan bullshit. Cheers. 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Fan bullshit" and the viewpoints you've been presenting overall have come off as anything but neutral. The material presented is a relevant explination of the viewpoint within the art of why the material is done, and is neutral. If it were to make claims about other arts specifically and/or use negative language towards specific arts and techniques in comparison, that would not be neutral. As it stands, it only generically discusses why this art does things a specific way. --Marty Goldberg 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"This theory can be tested by examining various distances of range with a partner. Standing two metres away from your opponent, you are both out of each other's range." So far so good...

"A full arm's length away, you are within a range typical of most martial arts; round house punches and most kicks are effective at this range." 'Range typical of most martial arts'? Well let's be specific and name some! 'Most kicks are effective at this range' Which ones?

"Now stand close to your opponent, your arm slightly bent, your elbow a hand's width from your chest, and your fingertips just touching your opponent. This is the wing chun range." 'Wing Chun range' is opinion.

"While wing chun punches, hand strikes and low kicks are highly effective at this range, it is too close for an opponent of the same height and using a different style to counter-attack with a roundhouse punch or any kicks." Pure speculation, fancruft, presumptive negative view of other martial arts.

"A taller person will find it even harder to defend themselves if attacked at this close range." Speculation, fc.

" any typical forms of counter-strike will be ineffective without room to gain momentum" Speculation, fc.

"...and once their hand extends past their opponent, they have no means with which to protect their centreline." Speculation, fc.

"A saying much-relished by smaller wing chun practitioners is "the bigger they are, the harder they fall".{fact}" And where is the reference to this 'much-relished saying'?

I cannot see how the statements in this paragraph cannot be anything but speculation, fancruft and yes, fan bullsh*t. Unreferenced, general blanket statements about how the art can defeat other arts at close range are not neutral, though probably relevant to a Wing Chun fan. Instead, references to actual well-known events where Wing Chun's supposed close range advantage was demonstrated against other martial arts would be worth a look. Even so, this opens another debate of whether an encyclopaedia article should be 'selling' the benefits of the art by comparing and yes, belittling other arts. To be neutral, you would have to balance these with accounts of when Wing Chun fighters were defeated by fighters of other arts. But by then, the content might be quite large and might warrant a separate article on MMA competition records.

To avoid going down that path, I propose we make as few comparisons to other arts as possible. This may mean deleting a lot of the content and being rigorous. But hey. 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With no comments after a week, I have made these changes. 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Spring chant'?

As a speaker of the Chinese language, I would argue Wing Chun means 'eternal springtime' and not 'spring chant'. 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Then as a speaker you'd know that translation depends entirely on the context. The base words taken individually do say "spring chant", and the author notes this by stating "literally". Within the art, it is translated as "eternal springtime" or "forever spring", which could be added as well if you wish. --Marty Goldberg 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. And when you translate statements from one language to another you do not do it literally but render it in a way that preserve its meaning best. 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you always provide root literal translations for etymology purposes in an encyclopedia. --Marty Goldberg 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be some confusion with the Chinese characters yong ( and yong (

I thought it was the former (which means 'eternal'), rather than the latter (which means 'chant') which is used in 'yong chun' (Wing Chun).

Can a native Chinese speaking Wing Chun practitioner clear this up? 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No confusion, the two were actually alternately used throughout the history of the art. The one is usually refered to in english phonetics (for differentation purposes only) as Weng. Weng usually refered to the southern hung root arts, however there were times throughout the art's history where some of the principles were involved with both. Here's an article that will explain it for you. --Marty Goldberg 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The question now (oh dear) is; which is the correct, canonically-accepted one? 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

'Car' analogies

In the section regarding forms there are several analogies comparing the Wing Chun forms to car components like the chassis, engine and turbocharger.

These analogies are perhaps useful when teaching the art and explaining the relevant body mechanics; but perhaps not so appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. I propose to delete them. 07:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, and that logic is circular. That is the purpose of the encyclopedia entry - to explain (rather than teach) the art, body mechanics variations included. The statements are meant to convey a sense of the contextual relationship of the forms to body mechanics in branches of the art (which vary greatly) in a summation format. The "car" analogy is also a common literary tool in published articles on the art. --Marty Goldberg 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I understand what analogies do. I also understand what an encyclopaedia does. My argument is a question of style. This is a historical article on an ancient traditional Chinese art. Do you not think it is crude, distasteful or perhaps offensive to liken it to mechanical engineering components? The analogies may create a better understanding of how the arts *works* (and hence why I suspect the author appropriated this from a Wing Chun class) but an encyclopaedia entry should also preserve and respect the cultural aspects of what it *is*. A person who reads this will come away with the broad understanding that this Chinese art is like a car; this lacks elegance. 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your position on "crudeness", "respect", "elegance" and "cultural aspects" interesting and might be able to take it more seiously if you hadn't previously demonstrated it with phrases like "pure fan bullshit", "fan shit", and condescending statements such as "i'm getting tired of these so-called....", sighs like in the other section, etc. The issue of "ancient" I won't even get in to. The issue here though is this *is* Wikipedia - an encyclopedia, on the internet, read in the 21st century, for people living now. Taking cultural and more traditional terms (which are included) and included modern explinations for the *current* reader alongside is certainly acceptible and is anything but dissrespectful or crude. Hawkins Cheung, a well known and respected Yip Man student, for example wrote a series of articles published in Inside Kung Fu in the 90's that used the car analogy. A person comes away with a better layman's understanding of what's being said through an analogy, not that the art is "like a car". That's just a plain irresponsible assumption. Likewise, what constitutes "traditional and cultural apects" has changed with every generation - or do you still learning using Foshan era Yip Man terms like baat gwa lung na there at your school in Canberra? Chances are you're using more "modern" terms introduced during the 50's through early 70's "Hong Kong" era. --Marty Goldberg 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between what style is appropriate for Inside Kung Fu magazine and Wikipedia.

The ultimate test, of course, is whether this article would be accepted as a featured article. That would mean it had fulfilled all style conventions. I invite you to submit the article in its current form to ther Wiki staff, drawing attention to the car analogies, and ask for their feedback. I'm not the one who can enforce these questions of style any further. 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits attempting to weed out fancruft

Someone deleted my edits so I will now explain (again) my reasons for modifying these statements:

Doing a quick response, I'll try and fill it in more when I have time. What is your background in this art by the way? --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps the foremost principle of Wing Chun is that of viewing movements and gross technique as of secondary importance to the energy behind the movements." Different schools differ as to what the foremost principle is. Hence, I propose to just say what the principles are generally.

Actually all schools work on the pinciple of energy and gings as part of its foundation. Principles (and kuen kuit) are not. The problem with "generally" is its not neutral or verifyable. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My school did not see the sensing of energy behind movements as a foremost principle. Hence that statement "Perhaps the foremost principle of Wing Chun is that of viewing movements and gross technique as of secondary importance to the energy behind the movements." is logically invalid.
What was your school and what linneage? Helps put a frame of reference on what was taught, as I'm familiar with many different linneages, families, and banches of the art due to my background. Logically it could also be that you were not exposed to it during x ammount of time there, did not understad things at that level, or your sifu put his own spin on things (which happens), etc. etc. That's why you have to go through sources to find the root (i.e. foundation). --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As a future lesson, it only takes one opposing case to destroy a statement like that. When writing articles, I think we should always talk generally to be on the safe side.
I can agree with generalities, but disagree with the logic. If say, 15 different linneages do it and 1 does not (or an entire linneage does it but 1 or 2 schools in that linneage does not), its still a fair statement to say its important overall. Also again, the problem with generalities is that they are often to general. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with saying "the principles of Wing Chun are x, y, z" without saying which is the foremost, which might differ among schools. That was my argument.
Tarkovsky 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand, and agree with it at its base. The problem is it becomes a circular argument - as you stated, the school you studied at (in your experience) didn't do "z", so how can you then say the principles are "x, y, and z"? --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say my school didn't have the sensing of energy behind movements as a principle. I said it didn't see it as foremost ie it did not see it as more important than all the other principles.
You just showed in your argument; that some sifus put their own spin on things, why my position is valid. The reverse could be true: 10 out of 15 sifus could see the sensing of energy behind movements as the foremost principle...but then that is also their spin on things and does not make it true. It is a matter of interpretation which principles are more important. As one progresses through Wing Chun, some principles may seem more important than the others at different times. That is why I believe an objective encylopaedic should not presume to say which is the more foremost or the most important, regardless of how many sifus say as this is simply aggregating opinion. Tarkovsky 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Directness. The punch is not "loaded" by pulling the elbow behind the body" Yes it is loaded. In continuous punching it is continuously loaded.

No, its not. Loaded here refers to cocking to add momentum (i.e. loading). Wing Chun punches (regardless of the linneage) have the characteristic of not chambering (and therefore pre-loading) the punch. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a semantic argument.
In my opinion, all punches are loaded, otherwise there would be no punch. This doesn't have to involve pulling back, simply having a fist in a ready position, in the guard or otherwise, counts as being loaded, in my opinion.
This is why in continuous punching, yes the hands come back to guard; to load the punches.
As a compromise, perhaps it could say "in the WC punch, the elbow is not pulled behind the body."
Tarkovsky 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My hands and those of my students do not come back to load, nor do they always come back to "guard" before punching (though "continuous" punching and the idea of "chaining" means something different for me than it does for you I'd gather). Same in a number of other linneages. When the arm "comes back" it is through relaxation (which naturally draws it back), not through pulling back to that position to chamber or cock. Power (for us) can be generated even with the hand still in contact with the opponent (0") - arm extension not needed. I didn't write the passage or use the word load, and I can agree with your point on rewording in general though and will say that we could reword as possibly "in the WC punch, the elbow is not cocked or chambered before sending the punch. This includes not pulling the elbow behind the body." or something along those lines. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's be more precise. "Cocked" or "chambered" are loaded terms. Writing "the elbow is not pulled behind the body" is sufficient, I think. Let's avoid hiding behind ambiguous words like saying "relaxation" pulls the arm back (it is muscles that pull it back).
Could you explain how you and your students generate punching power without extending the arm? (0" extension, in your words). So do you place your fist against the target surface and force appears? Is this why "loading" is unnecessary for you? Is this the famed "shadow punch" of martial arts lore? Tarkovsky 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"This also aids in generating power by use of the entire body structure rather than only the arm to strike." Tenuous. For example, wouldn't the body aid it more if it was moving?

Putting the body in to motion is not the basis for the punch, though it can be added as a layer to enhance it as you mention. The point of the original statement is to refer to the use of bone alignment/body structure and why it's important in the art to have the alignment of the body directly behind the punch within the Wing Chun viewpoint. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Then it could say "WC does this to align the bones and body structure behind the punch." It's confusing to a reader who reads this paragraph and tries to imagine a body being 'used' while it remains stationary the whole time.
Tarkovsky 03:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Many skilled practitioners pride themselves on being able to perform the "one-inch-punch", a punch that starts only an inch away from the target, yet delivers an explosive amount of force through the application of the wing chun techniques." Fancruft. 'Skilled' is a loaded term, 'pride' is inappropriate, 'only' is non-neutral, 'explosive' is loaded.

I agree with a lot of your points, but rewrote the entire thing to be a little more neutral yet inclusive. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Your take: "Many skilled practitioners pride themselves on being able to generate "short power" or large ammount of power in a short space. A common demonstration of this is the "one-inch-punch", a punch that starts only an inch away from the target yet delivers an explosive amount of force."
1. I don't think "pride" is an appropriate word for an encyclopaedia.
So a word that's in this encyclopedia, (pride), is not an appropriate word to be used in an article in same said encyclopedia? --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
2. "Common" is a loaded term, I think should be removed. What do you mean it's common? How many times can it be demonstrated before it is common?
Common means commonly found, as in I can provide x ammount of websites on wing chun and wing chun related arts that talk about this demonstration of power generation, provide video's of their teachers and students doing it, etc. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. "Only" is a loaded term, I think should be removed. It implies it is very short. How short does a punch have to begin for it to said to be short?
Actually, linguistically here it does not refer to limitation (adverb) but rather functions as an adjective to call focus on "one inch". "One Inch" and "Three Inch" are the exact limitation terms themselves and the standard demonstration lengths of short power that have sprung up over the years since Bruce Lee first started promoting those distances at Ed Parker's tournaments in the 60's. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My take: "Skilled practitioners can generate a large amount of power in a short space. Some can perform a "one-inch-punch", a punch that begins one inch in front of the target but delivers an explosive amount of force."
Tarkovsky 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Again though, it leaves out the traditional term for the act of that sort of power generation - Short Power (keng ging), which doesn't limit in exact distances but rather refers to the idea talked earlier about not chambering or "pre-loading". Chinese arts tradtionally use the terms "long bridge" and "short bridge", and short power is the kind of power generation used in short bridge arts. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok then: "Skilled practitioners can generate a large amount of power in a short space. Some can perform a "one-inch-punch", a punch that begins one inch in front of the target but delivers an explosive amount of force. This is traditionally called 'short power' or keng ging".
I didn't understand your argument on the one inch punch and why "only" should be retained.
I don't like the sound of the sentence with pride. It sounds more professional without it. Maybe someone with experience in copyediting can provide some input here.
Same with common. You basically proved my point about common being a loaded term by saying "x amount of websites", yes how many is x? Of course you can't say because common is a loaded term and means different things to different people.
Marty, you claim to know something about different lineages and branches, and it seems you know a fair bit about the art. Maybe you could put your knowledge and expertise to good use and find some factual references from reputable sources for this article.Tarkovsky 12:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"In contrast, the rebound of the horizontal punch creates torque in the puncher's body." Here, torque is implied to be a negative side-effect, which may not be the case in other arts which use different stances or different methods of generating/absorbing power.

But the point is, this article is about *Wing Chun*. This is the view of why *Wing Chun* does it that way, it is viewed within the art as a negative and undesireable. Other arts are not mentioned and "straw man" technique comparisons are not used. I rewrote the original (before your edit) though to make it a little more clear. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Then it's more neutral to say "Wing Chun does this to avoid torque recoil from a horizontal punch which would disturb the Wing Chun stance". This is different to making a factual claim on a perceived negative effect of the horizontal punch.
Tarkovsky 03:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that, but would reword the last part to "disturb the desired functionality of the body in Wing Chun." Its more than just the stance, its the body as a whole and how certain things (interruptability, linking, etc.) get effected. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Does anyone else have any input?Tarkovsky 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"This means that if the technique fails to connect, the practitioner's position or balance is not compromised." If an attack misses, the attacker's position is always compromised, regardless of whether an attack was uncommitted or not. It is more correct to say it is *less* compromised.

I actually agreed on your point and left it, but changed the comment about "Most punches or kicks can be strung together to form a "chain" of attacks." The foundation of interruptibility (one of the "general principles" you wanted to change a previous section to) in Wing Chun is that you be able to change one "technique" (whether that be an attack or defense) in to any other as required. --Marty Goldberg 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this true of all martial arts? It's a matter of whether that change is easier or not or helped along by the movements. With enough practise I could change a bong sau into a Karate side kick but it's a matter of practise.
No, becuase that's simply a change of flow, which is not what is being discussed. Interruptability by Wing Chun standards does not refer to being able to take the momentum of one technique and simply change it to flow through another (i.e. changing a missed backfist in to high vertical hammer fist which is seen in a number of arts). It literally means not being comitted through limb momentum and being able to stop and change direction of the limb on a dime - something that is physically impossible once a certain ammount of momentum is generated in the limb. Once that threshold is broken, if you wish to change the technique the limb has to flow in to a change in vector that compliments the previous one until that momentum ceases. To not reach this threshold and maintain interruptability by these standards, the arm can not be cocked, chambered, or focus of power generation. This is precisely what was being talked about earlier in "loaded" vs. "unloaded" and the idea of using "localized" vs "whole body" (where whole body here also does not mean throwing your whole body behind it, ala a boxer). --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I oppose your claim that it is physically impossible to interrupt a motion "once a certain amount of momentum has been generated in the limb."
This is because limbs aren't inanimate objects, like boulders pushed down an incline which cannot be stopped once they are set rolling. Your limbs are wired to your nervous system, which retains some control. It is not purely momentum which pushes them around. You *can* change a backfist mid-motion to a hammerfist. It just isn't good practice.
But in WC, these techniques are perhaps designed to allow this to be done easier. This is perhaps because most of them begin from the same place; the centre, and do not involve sudden shifts of weight from one foot to the other. This is my point; that WC attacks chain *easier* but this is not to say in other martial arts it is impossible, just discouraged, because attacks may be executed from angles other than the centre and are difficult to chain together, unlike WC techniques.
Generally, your argument about momentum is vague and confusing and I don't see how WC completely excludes itself from these physical laws.
In my opinion, all martial arts techniques are 'committed'. All attempts to hit someone, essentially, to generate force, requires commitment to that movement. You can't spend kinetic energy and remain immune to the effects of momentum. WC attacks may be easier to chain together but this is because they commit less, not because they are uncommitted. The term 'uncommitted' is simple hype and pseudoscience.
But if you insist it is true, provide a reference to a peer-reviewed article on biomechanics, preferably one which explains the "thresholds" and "vectors" you mentioned and how WC techniques circumvent these (physical?) laws.Tarkovsky 12:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be correct to say "WC is designed so movements are easier to combine and chain together."
Tarkovsky 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Replacing " All Wing Chun techniques permit this. Any punches or kicks can be strung together to form a "chain" of attacks." with that sounds fair. Man, this conversation is getting laid out on this page really unruly (nested trees, etc.) Wikipedia's software was just not designed for this sort of discussion format. Hopefully it won't get to hard for other readers to follow us. --Marty Goldberg 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I also want to emphasise to those who have been following this talk page: this is not some sort of personal slinging match between Marty and myself. Although I never knew Marty till this discussion, I suspect we are both passionate martial artists who simply want a bit of justice done to this article. But we don't have all the answers. For example, an expert on biomechanics could help close the post above. Wikipedia is an open, inclusive, international project and decisions shouldn't be made simply because two people slugging it out on the talk page agreed on them. So to the readers, please speak up and have your say. Protracted internet exchanges can look intimidating but really, we won't bite.Tarkovsky 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll comment to the "in progress" stuff soon, just wanted to say hadn't ignored it - just got back from out of town and have to get caught up on some contract work. And to everyone reading, Tarkovsky is correct. No mud slinging, I respect his opinions, and we're just both passionate in our views/beliefs/experiences. In fact I think this is becoming an even better resource because of opposing views discussing things and finding a middle a ground. Nothing wrong with that, that's what makes wikipedia a great resource. And no, we won't bite, maybe just swear a little.  ;) --Marty Goldberg 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment. 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With no comments after one week, I have made these changes. 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In the future I would recommend such "school" or "lineage" based differences in teaching should be keep on the pages for those lineages/branches that way the neutrality of this article is maintained and funcruft is left out. I will also point out that not all schools/lineages/branches deserve an article; or specific differences in teaching are even important enough to mention. photodude 17:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Claimed Edit War

Wugungfu, this concerns the Wing Chun kung fu article. I posted my proposed changes in the discussion section for one weeek and you did not respond and simply reverted my edits after I made them yesterday. You offered no explanation and simply changed them however you wished. This is edit warring which is discouraged. Could you please state your reasons for reverting the above changes? Tarkovsky 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy in the "real world" and other contributions, likewise I didn't just simply revert the edits. Out of the five seperate edits done you'll see some were kept (and very agreeable), and others were edited (including some of my own original text) and this was mentioned in the blurb. Simply claiming an edit war doesn't make it so. I was planning on responding to the previous questions in detail either today or tomorrow (sorry my schedule doesn't meet your demands). However, the posing for questions in the previous sections were by and Are you saying those are both you? Once again then, "fancruft" and your other previous useage of language ("pure fan bullshit", "fan shit", and condescending statements such as "i'm getting tired of these so-called....") doesn't exactly portray a neutral point of view to your edits. Nor does it help your position when claiming an "edit war". --Marty Goldberg 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I did make an effort to discuss my changes here, after you reverted them the first time. After a week, with no comments or oppositions, I made my changes. You then proceeded to revert them a second time, straight after I made the changes, and after having contributed nothing to the discussion. I had to assume you were being, how shall I say, an annoying edit warring shit.

Granted you didn't revert all of them but still.

And being busy in the 'real world' is no excuse. Reverting first and explaining later is not an alternative action for being busy in the real world. We are all busy, we know how you feel, it's ok mate. If you are busy, then continue to post discussions on the talk page, however infrequently, before a resolution is made. But pre-empting democratic decisions like this and saying 'oh I'm too busy to discuss this with you, trust me it's all good, I'll explain later' pisses everyone who are also busy and still have made an effort to discuss changes (ie me). Tarkovsky 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful Springtime Error

Regarding the request for a reference, I was refering to a language reference. That is a misstranslation - the root character does not mean "beautiful". Here's an article that will explain it for you.

NPOV: Lineage Hijacking and advertising

I am seeing Robert Chu and Rene Ritchie being represented with pretty intense saturation in references and external links in a couple Wing Chun articles on wikipedia.

If you notice, those were added by people outside of either linneage. With the exception of the one reference I added for the difference in character useage. The two have been major contributors to published research both on the net and in publications for many years now, likewise has been a generic archive not affiliated with any one branch. I'm not sure why you tagged the beginning section as "dubious", removing that as well. That's standard and verified, some linneages use the more commonly seen character set, others (such as Pan Nam's) use the latter. --Marty Goldberg 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anybody's motivation, but a simple look at all the sources referenced here all go back to the same places and people. With the miriad of students of Yip Man as well as internet sources and forums, I just want to address the balance. And with being registered and controlled by Rene Ritchie it is bordering ridiculous. Yes there are other contributors to the forum and articles, but a bit of common sense here would go a long way. I'm chopping the link. Rpf 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

With the recent edit war, I am starting to get the feeling this article is becoming a little skewed and biased.

What edit war? I see Tarkovsky and my self discussing things and coming to a general consensus.

Marty, I appreciate your expertise, but please stop referencing yourself and advertising websites/mailing lists you have a strong affiliation with, especially if you are going to police the external links section.

It would seem obvious to me that to maintin NPOV, the first step is to remove the external links section.

As long as its not removing links to sources you're just not familiar with (as you did last time), not a problem. --Marty Goldberg 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The next step is to incorporate other sources such as the wing chun museum by other experts in the field. Rpf 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC) is not my site and has been a main reference for the online wing chun community since the mid 90's. I have not "referenced my self", not sure what you're getting at. I can understand about the mailing list, but I am putting back --Marty Goldberg 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is simple. Someone of Chu lineage doesn't look all that credible arguing for the neutrality of books, articles and websites run by parties of the same lineage. I thought this was obvious. A quick google reveals plenty other sources and mailing lists. Rpf 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that is not of the "Chu lineage" or run by anyone in the "Chu linneage", I thought that was obvious as well. Rene is from the Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung linneage, and his site is a "neutral" archive site (in fact the oldest archive site). Likewise the mailing list has been removed, so I don't know why you're continuing to argue about it. However, since you are - the WCKML is the oldest internet discussion list for wing chun (established in 1992), and also completely neutral. It is not a "Chu" list and was founded long before any association of mine with the "Chu" family. There are currently close to 400 members, from across all linneages and branches. These are facts. Regarding the resources of Complete Wing Chun (which was being used as a resource here long before I contributed to the entry), each chapter of that book was written by the people of those respective branches. Yuen Kay San by Yuen Kay San people, Cho Ga by Cho Ga people, Pan Nam by Pan Nam people, etc. Likewise before you start claiming NPOV yet again regarding the resource articles, you better start coming up with concrete examples of where the resources violate NPOV. Otherwise I will take this to the admin's regarding continued vandalism. Once again, Robert = Yip/Chu family, Rene = Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung, Hendrik = Cho Ga family. You want other sources, than add additional sources. But the fact that I am currently with the Chu family (previously with others) has no bearing on some claimed lack of "neutrality" and is an afront to my morals. One of the whole reasons I started the Friendship Seminars back in 1998 was to allow people to get out and experience other linneages and perspectives first hand. As a Wiki admin put it in another entry (regarding the Steve Jobs/Atari connection where someone similarly tried to claim NPOV on me because I do contract work for the current Atari): "he can't attack you because you are affiliated with Atari." NPOV as stated by the Foundation goes both ways, you can't claim NPOV and try and discredit someone's contributions just because they come from an affiliation. --Marty Goldberg 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Information_suppression. I don't think the majority of sources, nor the websites and parties I've already mentioned are representative. Please count the number of references to the same handful of authors, then look where wingchunkuen comes in google. I'll leave it for others to decide. Rpf 11:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Then as stated, add *more* sources and websites. That's a far stretch for "Information Supression", especially since a)You can simply add more references b)There's a full cooperative discussion on said information for this entry going on between Tarkovsky and I (which you're taking away more time from me for), and c) You're the one that just demonstrated information supression by deleting links on bogus "Chu linneage" affiliations. And I don't recall a page ranking on a certain search engine on a certain day being a qualification for NPOV and Information Suppression. Epecially since rankings constantly change (its based on the number of robot traveled links to the site on that given day, not hits) - even google itself doesn't always show up first when searching keywords. --Marty Goldberg 14:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the way to add balance here is 1. Specify which lineage each link refers to, 2. Add more links to lineages other than Chu's. Rpf, perhaps could you help in that area, and post links referring to other lineages like Yip Man's?
Wikipedia articles are gradual and collaborative. I think it's unfair to demand that ten links to ten different lineages appear all at once. Of course people will reference the ones which they practise first and hopefully people from other lineages will do the same.Tarkovsky 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify for the numbered points above 1) As far as linneages, Complete Wing Chun is all linneages, the linneages in the two articles with Hendrik are Yip (Chu), Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung (Rene) and Cho Ga (Hendrik). 2) Chu is branch under the Yip Man linneage. And I completely agree, it'd be wonderful for people of various linneages to add references to other resources to further cite the content in the article. --Marty Goldberg 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that people who want to add links that are lineage-specific do so on a page for that lineage? That would clean things up and, I suspect, reduce contentions. Graphik 19:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, a good suggestion, that. Any objections? 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian Wing Chun

A category for those who practice Wing chun

To add yourself to this category, add the following to your user page:

[[Category:Wikipedian Wing Chun|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

The part after the "|" puts your page into its proper place in the alphabet, ignoring the "User:" prefix; otherwise, you end up under "U." photodude 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets improve the page layout

This is hidious, there is no profile page and the pics are full of pixcilated images. Look at the taekwondo pages, Looks professional, has a profile, and nice layout.

If no one disagrees I will start touching up the Chinese martial arts section. (Seong0980 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

I think as long as you run by everyone here what you specifically intend to change to "clean up", and it follows the guidelines laid out by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts, I don't think anyone should have a problem. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "profile". There is no section on the Taekwondo page listed as "Profile". If you mean the infobox with the Korean flag in it and picture of two Taekwondo guys, I could see maybe adding something like the text portion of that here (but I don't see that much that's applicable here). Likewise, I don't see an "pixelated" pictures. Unless you're refering to the snapshot from the Yip Man video on YouTube, whose video is pixelated to begin with. --Marty Goldberg 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


hello i added some info about the dymmy.I saw it got reverted. Can someone please tell my why ? I added it again ,i won't add it again if you think it is for some reason innapropriate !Also i tried adding an external link with a lot of information.Tomorrow I will add a few morre things to the article :)Mariachi50 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was it didn't fit in with Wikipedia standards and was written from a point of "original research". The information you presented was of personal opinion and not standard across the board: The height and measurements of the mook jong are not standard, and size of the dummy vs. the opponent is not a tenet mentioned anywhere in the art - it's amatter of personal opinion. Also, while teak is the most common wood (which could be mentioned), there once again is no tenet in the art stating what the dummy is to be made of. --Marty Goldberg 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


well here are some additions I would like to make to the article:

for Weapons - Long Pole

The "Six and a half long Pole" form learns to the practitioners how to apply energy and strengthen the arms, the legs, the back, the wrists and much more the punches because of its weight. The practitioners in Wing Chun system of Kung Fu, use this weapon in order to fight from distance with their opponents. At this form (Six and a half long Pole), there are three basic stances in which the practitioner learns how to stand, how to defense and attack. The first stance's name is the "Pole Stance" or "Kwun Ma" and is the basic stance. The practitioners use this stance in order to learn how to attack and defense their opponents. The second is the "Quadralateral stance" or "Say Ping Ma" and the third stance is the well-known "T stance" or "Ding Jee Ma".

for Chi Gerk

Furthermore, at this form (Sticky legs) the practitioners learn how to manage low kicks and how to block with their legs the opponent's legs. Also, the practitioners learn how to break the equilibrium of the opponent and then it is easy to beat him. As at Chi Sao, also at the Chi Gerk form the leg has three parts as the forearm has and these are the ankle, the knee and the hip and respectively the wrist, the elbow and the shoulder. On a close range combat this technique is very effective.

are they appropriate ?Mariachi50 09:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Link section

Let's define a set of criteria for a url to be included in the link section. At the moment it seems more about who is more stubborn.

I propose:

  • It must have minimal advertising for books etc WP:SPAM
  • It should be notable (it should be a high traffic wing chun site). If it is a school, it must have lots of general information on history or techniques and it must by high enough up the lineage tree to have decendants numbering in the thousands. We don't want obscure Bob waxing lyrical about Bhodidharma. VTAA is a great example; huge number of decendants and lots of photo's and history.
  • If the pages aren't notable, they must be considered good sources by wiki standards.
  • If a page is closely linked with a particular group, it must be explicitly noted.

My favourite example of a good source is

But I still insist we ditch this section: Quoting WP:SPAM

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpf (talkcontribs) 03:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

  • 1) WP:SPAM is for sites that are themselves advertisements (as in that are composed of dummy info as filler to surround with advertisements) or links that are being put in entries here to advertise. A reference site that also sells has a store (such as vtmuseum, or or is a member of revenue programs to help cover server server costs (such as is not a WP:SPAM site. Spam links have very specific definitions under WP:SPAM, none of which any of the current links fall under. Don't think I'm not seeing where you're trying to go with this attempt again. WingChunKuen.Com is a longstanding and well known reference site that much later in its life added a store and Amazon revenue share to cover costs. Especially ironic since that you keep pushing (a much more recent site), started as a web promo for their store site with content initially ripped from the WingChunKuen.Com references.
  • I gave up long ago trying to argue with you on most things, that cheesy website being one of those things. Feel free to promote and revert its removal. Just before accusing me of another conspiracy to remove Uncle Ritchie's site (remember multiple IP's?), take a deep kidney breath. Rpf 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And your continued sarcasm hardly promotes anything you say seriously. And its a perfect example of the fallicy of your "notability" judgement, calling a well known and *long* respected website "cheesy". --Marty Goldberg 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is why I don't argue with you. Petitio Principii, Ad Hominem and Ad Antiquitatem to justify a crappy website in one breath. Rpf 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And this is why you never get anywhere, because you ignore facts and keep making POV statements. Petitio Principii? You're the one that keeps using circular logic with once again, POV statements and trying to give your own meaning to wikipedia content guides that just aren't there in an attempt to continuously reach and revisit a point. Ad homenem? When the person is making POV judgement calls as part of their statement, yes, you discuss the man and his ideas. And once again, calling a long established and well used referenced site "crappy", "cheesy", etc. etc. perfectly demonstrates your inability to remain neutral. And you don't just do that with regards to this website, your sarcasm and POV manners have been a part of your edits and discussions for some time now. Ad Antiquitatem? Tradition isn't the matter here, I'm all for evolution based on logic rather than POV push for changes of guides and policy. --Marty Goldberg 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) Inidividual schools are generally not welcome in this article. If they are a large reference site that is hosted by a school (such as the VTMuseum), that is a different matter. Your VTAA example is an example of a large organization, which is already covered in the current guideline. Likewise, its not realistic to cover notability by "traffic", unless you have access to server records. Notability is generally referenced by length of operation (in years) and quality of information as a reference.
  • 3) "Closely linked" is a loaded term that has many implications, first of which is judgement of content info by its hosted affiliation. As in "I don't like that so and so is affiliated with this site, so its information is tainted and it must go." If its an organization, the link is implied in the name of the site. If its a general reference site, the affiliation of the owner has no bearing - especially because it can imply advertisement for that owner's linneage or school.
  • Rubbish. Notable means it is widely recognized and relevant. Widely recognized means lots of students and/or a big fat google rank. Relevant means more people care than just you. It is silly to assume relevant info will come from tea parties and forums. With such alarge and diverse wing chun family teaching radically different stuff a lot of the time, do you really think quality of information is going to be an objective thing? Take the "Wing Chun Darts" in the Yuen kay-San branch; Yuen Kay-San adherents may think links on how exactly to use darts is quality stuff, but the devastating majority may think that it is a pile of Dit Da Jow and has absolutley nothing to do with Wing Chun. The total hearsay that is Wing Chun curriculum can not really be proven or disproven. All that is left is context.What is important is that each link should have a bit more explanation as to relevance and context. I can't see how anybody would find this a bad idea. For example: "This is a link to the Sum Nung homepage: approximately 1e-5% of wing chun exponents are familiar with it." Rpf 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That entire paragraph is what's rubbish, and completely POV. Ranking "Context" and "Importance" are POV, and your comment on the darts show just that. The darts are a long standing part of that branch, and as such are a part of "wing chun". There's other branches (such as pao fa lien) that have even more weapons and more forms. That's the problem with a lot of "practitioners", they like to tag importance on to things based on what they know as being the most "correct" and "important" and everybody elses being of less relevance or correctness. Wikipedia is not a place for POV or original research. Once again, school links are not welcome in this article so student rank has nothing to do with it. Search engine ranks are in no way stated as a valid criteria at Wikipedia in any of the listed policies, and highly unstable at best. Even google's own name appears down the list instead of at the top when searching for "search engine" and rankings change constantly based on what algorithm is being used and how its being tweaked that day. I can't see how anyone would find your proposal a good idea, its once again applying POV to try and come up with a judgemental relevance ranking statements (which by the way, is simply not done in an Encyclopedia let alone anywhere else on Wikipedia). There's a far cry between that and trying to judge a material's relevance for inclusion in the article based on the established guidelines. We should stick with those instead of subjective relevance tags. --Marty Goldberg 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are branches of Karate that have a strong christian element. They are underwhelming in the scheme of things. Do we include them too? Rpf 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If they are long standing branches, or represent an actual shift in the history of the art, and include additional content that further illustrates the article, yes. That's part of what an encyclopedia and NPOV is about. --Marty Goldberg 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Read this: [2] Rpf 01:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Which says absolutely nothing to do with this or your ranking system. That's describing views, not content of a system. If I say such and such branch feels wing chun evolved from a buddhist nun, and such and such branch feels it evolved from Tan Sau Ng, those are views, and what's being described int he equal validity passage. If I say such and such branch has darts or these additional san sik drills as part of their traditional wing chun curriculum, that's not a view point. That's a statement of content, and fact. I'd say this is a perfect example of your usual MO of trying to read things in to guidelines that are just not there, but you'd probably cry Ad homenem again. --Marty Goldberg 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If we come up with further defined standards (which I'm certainly not opposed to), it should be based off the curent standard:
  • The standard that exists outside of your opinion I pasted above and I took directly from the spam standard. Links generally suck. Better to take the information and put it in the article.Rpf 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia isn't a link farm. A link should be here if it provides significant new info related to the art as a whole, not simply to promote business or lineage. Please don't add links to individual schools."
--Marty Goldberg 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Who wrote this? What is it based on?Rpf 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
They were added back in July of 2005 by another editor, and have been used as a guide all this time. A complilation of statements listed on Wikipedia:External_links, and pretty standard actually - similar reminders appear in other entries as well. I for one agree with the EL policies, and it appears others do as well for them to have survived this long. --Marty Goldberg 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't mean that at all. An article that has existed at least since July 2005 and is still at the "start" classification shows not enough people care about this article to fix it up, let alone address the external links microcosm. That vague declaration pretty much translates to "please don't spam us! if you do want to spam us, call it a branch not a school". Rpf 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not, it states what it means very specifically. Links need to add significant new info related to the art as a whole (right out of the WL policy), and commercial links such as schools and businesses are not welcome (again, right out of the WL policy). Another example of your brand of Petitio Principii, trying to continually push a point by stating more and more obfuscated interpretations of guidelines and content. And the start classification is still there simply because no one has bothered to take it down yet. Happens with a lot of articles. This is long past the "start" stage, which is usually reserved for stubs or post stub articles. Now once again, there is an established guideline for links that is part of this article and follows the EL policies. We can certainly work on expanding it to have further defined standards, I'm certainly not opposed to that and of course think its a great idea - as long as it follows current EL established guidlines. The ideas you proposed so far have not. --Marty Goldberg 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to learn in L.A. ? or a website for finding well respected locations to learn ? or world and national headquarters for various styles ?


I'm looking for a place to practice in L.A. Where would I figure out how to find something? While I don't think the article or talk page should directly advertise specific locations to learn, I think it should be more helpful in directing someone who is interested in the right direction. Thanks. Tkjazzer 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:NOT#DIR, just google wing chun in LA and then look up Branches of Wing Chun

Republic of China, eh?

The article has "China" written as its origin, which would be fine, were it not for the fact that there is an ROC flag and not a PRC one in the box.  I live in Taiwan, but the land where Wing Chun was created is now de facto in the People's Republic whether claimed by the ROC or not, and this is not a political article.  I propose putting a PRC flag instead of an ROC one. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)