From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Superiority implicit? 2 Request to remove the 100 terms of "claimed" 3 Maintaining Neutral Point of View 4 Yip Man's 'superiority' 5 Traditional vs Modified 6 On hyperbolic claims about Grandmaster William Cheung 6.1 No such thing as Traditional Wing Chun

[edit] Superiority implicit?

Whats wrong with implying that the traditional system is superior? From a scientific point of view, it probably does have more advantages, even when viewed from a neutral point of view. I have studied both systems, as did Yip Man, and have also found the traditional system to be superior. Being neutral is perfectly fine, but when a neutral point of view (such as someone who has studied both systems) clearly finds one of the systems to be superior, and can name precisely every small detail as to why, then this should be accepted by the wikipedia community. Cheungs testimony should be taken seriously as he is an extremely accomplished martial artist, and I feel there is only doubt spread upon it, due to the fact that many people do not want to accept what he says is true.

Many parts of the article are also biased against Cheung, such as the insertion of "claimed" about 100 times in the article, and incorrect details about Traditional Wing Chun.

If this was a real encyclopedia, we would have this article written from Cheungs point of view, as a teacher, and for information.

For example, we do not have "Einsteins Claimed theory of relativity".

This should be absolutely no different. -- 202.12.233.21 20:56, 4 March 2007

What's wrong is that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. Likewise, personal viewpoint is also not allowed (and is tagged under "original research"). This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. In an encyclopedia, all referenced points of view - both William's and others, are to be included. Lastly there's a big difference between Einsteins theory of relativity, which is a universally accepted and accredited theory among physicists, vs. William's claim on traditional vs. modified (which is not universally accepted or supported). Lastly, to say you took both "modified" and "traditional" doesn't make a lot of sense - considering a) There are many many variations under Yip's branch, and b) There are branches outside and seperate from Yip's (some of which had nothing to do with Leung Jan as well). It would be more accurate to say who and what branch under Yip you studied with before studying William's system. Being you're in Sydney, its most likely Jim Fung's (which is Tsui Shun Tin's variation). I also found it hilarious that you tried to undo edits by SifuPR (Master Phil Redmond), one of William's and your organization's main instructors in the U.S. --Marty Goldberg 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"William's claim on traditional vs. modified (which is not universally accepted or supported)" Neither are other things, such as the string theory or even extremely distant concepts with barely any support such as the "Raelian Movement". In wikipedia, these ideas, groups, or catagories are rarely reffered to as "claimed". It is not "the claimed Raelian group" or the "claimed string theory". The post stinks of anything other than NPOV, and should be altered apropriately. Furthermore I am not in Sydney, and would like to think of people who update this encyclopedia as ABOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS, obviously, you have shown you are not. Furthermore I am well aware of the other branches of Wing Chun Kungfu, this does not change my original edit or post. Whilst I do have a personal viewpoint, is it not the personal viewpoint of others that Grandmaster Cheung has "claimed" certain things, and simply accepted to others?

Jesus and Muhammed and other spiritual leaders "claimed" many things, you will not find this in any of their wikipedia entries. They performed supernatural feats, Grandmaster Cheung has simply revealed scientific and historic revelations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.12.233.21 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

So you understand more clearly - string theory and Raelian Movement does not imply all other theories are substandard or somehow lacking nor does the wording in their articles promote that. So that's really not an accurate comparison. The very use of the words "Traditional" and "Modified" violate NPOV here. Others tried to have them completely removed, (and in fact the entire article completely removed), I felt it was important his views still be kept here. Hence the compromise by the useage of the words "claimed". His followers view the claims as scientific and historical revelations, the outside world and NPOV people do not. Lastly, there were no personal attacks and to claim otherwise is simply to try and draw sympathy for your position. You are from the Sydney area, your IP is from there. You "attacked" others in your area by claiming they taught you a less superior "modified" version compared to TWC which you now studied, yet you named no names or verifiable facts - i.e. who you studied with and what actual branch it was instead of the generic "modified". You also edited out a well known master of your branch, that is also a fact. --Marty Goldberg 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to remove the 100 terms of "claimed"

Why is this necisary? Almost everything in wikipedia is a form of knowledge, through which someone has "claimed" as correct. I suggest removing all of these words from the original topic, and then having one section "Contraversy" or such. It is over the top to have "claimed" every single sentance in this topic, and is anything but neutral.

I would prefer someone who actually has a neutral point of view to comment on this further, ie NOT "Marty Goldberg".

The word "claim" in itself implies that this revelation is unsubstantiated. Nothing could be further from the truth when looking at the actual facts. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.12.233.21 (talk • contribs).

I agree the word claim should not be used so often. As for the facts: well, the world is not ready for the awesomeness of the facts.Rpf 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no "facts" there are his "claims". Calling every other wing chun "modified" is a not a fact but a claim, and actually goes against NPOV here. Calling his art traditional over all others is a claim, not a fact and goes against NPOV here, because once again it implies all other wing chun is somehow substandard. Hence the "claimed" to keep it neutral. The entire topic is controvercial in and of itself. And actually, I have a NPOV, it is you that does not. I actually fought to have this article kept when others wanted it completely removed, because I felt it was important enough. --Marty Goldberg 14:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to let this drag on, but mabye you can tell us about your experience with Traditional Wing Chun, if this is the same Marty Goldberg that became an instructor in the system? I meant no disrespect earlier, but only to uphold respect to Grandmaster Cheung and his devotion to the art of Wing Chun (hopefully that isn't seen as a claim, but is a fact).-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.185.138 (talk • contribs).

And I have the upmost respect for him and his accomplishments and all other wing chun sifu and their accomplishments. I enjoyed my time in TWC and still have many friends in it. The word "claimed" is not derogatory towards William nor intended in that light. Claimed is a neutral word, it states "To ascert to be true while open to question", which is stating neither side (those who believe TWC vs. those who do not) has been proven or dissproven and neither side is false or true. You devotion to Cheung sifu should be admired and is not being called to question. As stated, I felt they were important enough to keep here as well hence the desire to keep the article here and finding a way of keeping his thoughts (which are controvercial) while maintaining NPOV. --Marty Goldberg 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining Neutral Point of View

It's important. Someone has modified this article lately and it's obvious that this person favours the 'Traditional' system since the article implies, in places, that the Traditional system is superior. I will rectify what I see fit and any objections may be posted. Tarkovsky

[edit] Yip Man's 'superiority'

The author implies that by learning the Traditional system, Yip Man was able to become superior to 'eleven seniors who had studied under Chan Wah Shun only'. This borders on supposition since we have no way of knowing the specific conditions of Yip Man's supposed superiority, (did he defeat the eleven seniors in combat?) or whether this was because of the Traditional system at all or other factors. This also lacks a proper reference, and is therefore of dubious credibility. I will delete this now. Tarkovsky

[edit] Traditional vs Modified

The opinions of Hawkins Cheung and Robert Chu are included in the final paragraph discussing the Traditional/Modified dichotomy because they are intended to balance the rest of the article which seems to slightly favours Traditional Wing Chun. It is not designed as a departure point for a debate on Traditional vs Modified. The following paragraph, recently added, is an edit war just waiting to happen:

"...many modified wing chun practitioners who have studied under William Cheung have found that the "Traditional Wing Chun" system is superior and more effective than the more widely known "modified" wing chun, some even dedicating their lives to teaching it. Some of the modified wing chun practitioners who currently teach Cheung's "Traditional Wing Chun" include Phillip Redmond, Brian Lewadny and Dana Wong."

All this says is that there are some people who like Traditional Wing Chun very much. It offers no significant input and its only purpose is to stack the deck in favour of the Traditional school by attaching famous names. I will delete this immediately to avoid future trouble. Tarkovsky

[edit] On hyperbolic claims about Grandmaster William Cheung

This article is a neutral encyclopaedic entry. It is not the place for syrupy hero worship and heaping undying praise onto Grandmaster William Cheung with hyperbolic claims of his skill.

Posts like this are biased and inappropriate:

"Master Phillip Redmond, a student of William Cheung for over 22 years studied Wing Chun from three other students of Yip Man who all say that William Cheung was the premier Wing Chun fighter in Hong Kong at the time. Bruce Lee who was introduced to Yip Man by William Cheung also said the same thing. On a ship from Hong Kong to Australia William Cheung sought a fight with 27 sailors, armed to the teeth with knives and poles, who had been hired to kill him by the Hong Kong triads. He fought them all successfully and hospitalised several, but was placed in protective custody by the ship's Captain for his own safety. The incident made the Hong Kong newspapers and is recounted here: http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/ Though the controversy exists William Cheung did live with Yip Man for over three years and no one can be sure what he was taught during that time period."

This represents, at best, an anecdotal account of Cheung's supposed martial prowess. The link to Traditional Wing Chun is...to put it charitably, "tenuous". Posts like these will be deleted without question.

Tarkovsky

[edit] No such thing as Traditional Wing Chun

Reading all this it is obvious that Mr. Cheung is just trying to make a name for himself. Anyone who likes to use the name traditional with a martial arts is showing how desperate they are for validation. The fact is that all martial arts, no matter the name, have been in a constanct state of change, and would not have survived if they did not. That fact is that from school to school in the Wing Chun system you will find radically different methods and no one, especially Mr. Cheung can lay a claim to the non-existant "Traditional" title.

So this whole article should be removed, it is blatant self promotion by Mr. Cheungs followers. Best Regards.--Bigzilla 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that TWC (the titled name Traditional Wing Chun as opposed to the descriptive lower case traditional Wing Chun) is the trademark name he's been using for his version for a good 25+ years (just as Wing Tsun is attributed to Leung Ting). Likewise, this controversial topic and branding has been a matter of public record for even longer. The article seeks to clarify his reasoning for people (such as your self) to read and make their own opinions (just as you did). As such, it includes relative counterpoint views to try and maintain an overall NPOV. Simply removing an entry meant to inform people so they can make their own informed opinions, just because you read same said entry and your opinion was of a negative view, presents a contradicting viewpoint. It would also not allow people to be well informed and make the same or opposite opinions, because you want to take the very same resource away. --Marty Goldberg 05:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point Marty. --Bigzilla 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)