Jump to content

Talk:Jim Fung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advertisement?

[edit]

This message was originally posted by some unknown person. I have answered their points in bold. Takunr3 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this article is in no way impartial. It is advertising copied almost word for word from his site.

the following things are simply not verified:

"which opened in South Australia in 1973, is now the largest martial arts school in Australasia. "

See the editor's column of Blitz Magazine, May 2003. Takunr3 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"his own remarkable prowess are undoubtedly other important factors. Over the years, Grandmaster Fung’s mastery of Wing Chun’s devastating ‘thought force’ (or chi) has become well known in martial arts circles. Two examples are his famous one-inch-punch, in which a punch delivered just one inch from its target can send an opponent sprawling up to three metres away, and the equally effective thrust kick."

Grandmaster Fung's striking power is well documented in the mainstream press.

See newspaper articles: http://www.wingchun.com.au/img/scans/auschinesedaily.jpg http://www.wingchun.com.au/img/scans/singtao.jpg

Additionally, refer to the video clip of the IWCA's 30th Anniversary. 2500 members of the public witnessed the event, as well as many news reporters: http://www.wingchun.com.au/multimedia/open%20day/openday_highlights.wmv Takunr3 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User if you can make NPOV improvements to the article, please do. Please be sure to follow the wiki guidelines on biographies. Rpf 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


is chi supposed to be fact now?

"However, he says the greatest honour thus far was having his Academy officially recognised by the Chinese Government and world ruling body for Chinese martial arts in the All Chinese Martial Arts Register published in 1998."

there is no recognised world ruling body. this is blatant exaggeration for purposes of advertising.

The All China Martial Arts Register is a well known branch of the Chinese Government. See: http://www.wingchun.com.au/credentials.shtml Takunr3 13:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no functioning world ruling body for Chinese Martial Arts, period.

I agree - this page is 95% advertising and in appropriate for Wikipedia and should be removed

Wikipedia is not about hyperbole or recruiting new students. Sadly I don't have the time or inclination to do anything about this. For anybody reading, take this article with a pinch of salt... Or make that two.

Could all parties concerned please stick to the rules of biography such as: The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. Rpf 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

[edit]

With a student body of over 2,000, there is no other single Australasian martial arts establishment of this size.

It is informally known as the 'All China Martial Arts Register', not 'All Chinese Martial Arts Register'. However, no official English name exists for this well known Chinese body. You may read the entry, and even have the Chinese title looked up by a Chinese speaker here: http://www.wingchun.com.au/credentials.shtml

Chi has its own entry on Wikipedia, so what do you have against the author for referring to it in this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

This entry lists achievements of Grandmaster Fung and the IWCA. Although these achievements are greater than those of a common martial arts schools, they are nevertheless factual, and are noteworthy for use in a biographical entry.

I do not see this article to be any more self promoting than any other martial artist's Wikipedia page. This is a high quality article of solid fact. I have confirmed this article's statistical content to be correct, and do not think that this article's hard statistics should be replaced by ambiguities.

Tall poppy syndrome has no place on Wikipedia.


Images removed

[edit]

I've removed the images from this article - according to http://www.wingchun.com.au/wikipedia/wikipedia.html these images are copyrighted but licensed for use on Wikipedia. However, please see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html which explains why such images cannot be used here. CLW 09:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on Grandmaster Fung's Academy belongs in this section

[edit]

The establishment of Grandmaster Fung's school in Adelaide was an important milestone in the development of Chinese culture in South Australia in the 70s. Anyone living in Australia at that time, particularly South Australia will recall the change of events in the 70s and the expansion of SA's Chinatown post-1973 and the White Australia Policy. For this reason and due to the fact that the query for 'International Wing Chun Academy' points to this page, I am reinserting information about the school into this section. Storkrodent 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda fueled edit war.

[edit]

Looking over past edits to this page, I have become aware that the user Wgungfu has consistently reverted legitimate submissions to this page by other members. His motives are clearly agenda driven as his edits to other Wing Chun kung fu related pages are not consistent with his edits to this page.

Recently he submitted that the titles 'Grandmaster' and 'Master' only apply to students under this lineage. He used this as a basis for editing a reverted version of this page in an attempt to make his version 'stick'. I have accepted his submission regarding the titles 'Grandmaster' and 'Master' and have included them in my own submissions to this page. However, Wgungfu has once again reverted to an inferior copy of the page, which I do not accept.

From what I have gathered, Wgungfu seeks to remove information regarding Fung's well known school, the 'International Wing Chun Academy'. In Australia, the school's official registration under the Australian Government's Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board places the school on the same tertiary level as schools such as TAFE, which have their own pages on Wikipedia. I do not think there is enough information on Fung's International Wing Chun Academy to warrant creating an entirely new page for it, so the information is contained within Fung's biography page. It should also be noted that the search term, International Wing Chun Academy, also points to Fung's biography page.

Storkrodent 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim an agenda war, but that does not make it so. Wiki MOS plainly states this is not to be used for self-promotion. The academy was not being cut entirely out of the article, it was still being mentioned under "accomplishments" along with his other accomplishments (his accounting degree and move to Australia info you added for example are still there). However, this is an encyclopedia article on Jim Fung, not a brochure for the academy. If people want more detailed info about his academy, they simply can visit his website. Likewise, claiming edits by other students to keep adding in said info as "legit" hardly makes it "legit". The fact is, its people related to Jim Fung that have cause for an agenda here. And frankly, the other wing chun related articles I've made edits to hadn't read like a promotional brochure for a school. If they did, I'd be happy to change those to (and in some cases, other editors had already edited out that type of material). However, they did have other issues that needed editing that this one did not - strange no claim of agenda there. So please at least have some understanding of edit hierachy before claiming "agenda". Usually people who don't like the same well stated rules applied to them are the ones that cry "agenda". And I do apply said rules across the board, such as with the GM/GGM edits issue which you'll plainly see were applied across several entries (another well known editor also contributed a few). Once again, strange no claim of "agenda" driven edits there. --Marty Goldberg 17:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated claims

[edit]

Please do not use Blitz magazine as a reference. 95% of this magazine is either advertisement or articles written by martial artists (or their shools) themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.25.250 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits based on your own personal opinions and unverifiable claims about Jim Fung. Unless you can provide your own references to back it up, its WP:OR. --Marty Goldberg 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why do you think my 'personal opinion' is not verifiable? What makes a reference to his own website verifiable? Are you an instructor from his school that you defend him so passionately?

1, Jim Fung was training under Chu Shong-tin only about 3 years since age of 15; he left for Australia when he was 18 years old. He trained under Chu Shong-tin only occasionaly on his visit to Hong Kong. This was publicly admited by Chu Shong-tin in Fung's memorial service. This claim is VERIFIABLE.

I was personally at Sifu Fung's Memorial Service and Sigung Chu said nothing of the sort. Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2, Jim Fung used to claim that he used to train under Chu Shong-tin 'every day, all day' for eleven years. This (exaggerated claim) is verifiable - and it's a lie.

Where did this claim come from? I do not know if Sifu Fung trained continuously ever day all day for eleven years but in total he certainly would have trained far longer than eleven years under the private tuition of Sigung Chu. These years of training were reflected in Sifu Fung's skill, which I and many others have felt. Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3, Jim Fung used to claim he had Nim Lik. This is verifiable. Chu Shong-tin says he was far from this skill. This is verifiable.

He says she says? Sigung Chu denouncing his top student and protege? The student Sigung Chu owes much of his worldwide fame and success to? Your comment doesn't make sense. In every one of Sifu Fung's demonstrations, he showed the use of 'thought force', which for your information is English for 'Nim Lik' Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4, Jim Fung used to claim he was the secong best practicioner of Wing Chun in the world, second only to Chu Shong-tin. This is verifiable - and not true. Chu Shong-tin is opposed that Jim Fung has ever been one of his best students. This is VERIFIABLE

He said that Sifu Fung is his top student at the memorial. He has also said so in many interviews. You do not need to look far to find this information. In fact, why not ask him this week? He will be giving private seminars at Sifu Fung's school this week as well as teaching Sifu Fung's most senior Chief Instructors in private all week long, which is an honour to Sifu Fung, Sifu Fung's school, and his instructors. Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5, As far as 'references' goes, can you provide reference that he has been training 'till his last days'? Please do not ask his 'senior' instructors, they just need to keep the business running. Just for an illustration - the school has some 1000 full-time (ovrerseas) students, each paying some AUD $4,500 a year. That gives $ 4,500,000 a year. A good reason to exaggerate anyone's skills, don't you think so? The claim about fees is VERIFIABLE.

Sure, go to the Sydney IWCA and you will see framed photographs on the wall of Sifu Fung and his son training in private with Sigung Chu in December 2006. Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to slander the dead guy without references.Rpf 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rpf, I consider your description of Sifu Fung unacceptable and demand that you retract it. Afford others the same respect that you expect them to afford you. Fighter5765 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, Figheter5765 Rpf was actualy saying that the comment was slander he didn't make the comments, check the edit history. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you please provide reference to claim mentioned above (Blitz) that >Grandmaster Fung’s mastery of Wing Chun’s devastating ‘thought force’ (or chi) has become well known in martial arts circles< Who exactly is 'martial arts circles'? A general public having no idea about Wing Chun - or perhaps people who spend 9 dollars for Blitz so they can read this 'article' written by a manager of Jim Fung's school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.25.250 (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) I'm not affiliated in any way with Jim Fung or his linneage. b) Once again, you've provided only personal opinions. Stating something is fact or "verifiable" without providing actual verifiable references is called WP:OR for a reason. That's the way Wikipedia works. And posting a long rant and making accusations about others doesn't change that fact or put forth a convincing argument. And it appears all your attempted edits of this article has followed the same pattern. --Marty Goldberg 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marty, isn't this article exactly what you just wrote - WP:OR? All references are in Jim Fung's website - a bit too circular, don't you think so? You ask me to put forth 'a convincing argument'. I am asking anybody to put an argument proving that this article is not a pure fabrication. Without references to IWCA's website, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.176.197 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is WP:OR? Hardly, because it has references. Most of the content in this entry (and much of it was removed by myself and others because it read like an advertisement), was written when Mr. Fung was still alive. Consequently it had to follow WP:BLP, in which it clearly states self published material by the subject is entirely permissible. WP:OR covers what you're trying to do - claiming viewpoints and saying your statements are true just because you say so. You need actual WP:V references that back up your claims about Mr. Fung and your statements about the magazine, etc. etc. That's what you were asked to do, not "provide a convincing argument". You can argue until you're blue in the face and waste more time here, but that won't change a thing unless you have actual citable references to back it up. Likewise, just because you don't agree with the current references that go against your opinion (which is all it is at this point), doesn't make them any less credible. What this entry does need now however, and why there's currently a tag calling for it, are additional references. Once again though, your emotional rants, accusations, and pure lack of desire to follow Wikipedia policy is not helping the matter or getting anyone to take you seriously. --Marty Goldberg 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Resarch tag

[edit]

Dose someone want to explain why this tag has been fliping on and off this article, someone obvious questions the content & someone else seems to be protecting it what it contentious bit? --Nate1481( t/c) 08:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, if it were a legitimate concern for WP:OR I wouldn't care. However, its being used as a tool by the same guy out of Sydney that was making the bordering on vandalism edits to the page and that started the "Exaggerated claims" thread above. Basicly thinking if he can't get his own WP:OR in here he'll use the same call on the article itself. --Marty Goldberg 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sibak Fung

[edit]

I am writing this note to address the ridiculous comment above by someone who clearly knows nothing of the Sigung Chu Shong Tin lineage. I am a fifth year student of Sifu Lai in the UK who is a student of Sigung Chu Shong Tin. There is no doubt in my school that Sibak Fung was the most senior student of Sigung Chu.

The comments made about Sibak Fung are of no substance and are clearly worded to bring undue criticism to a greatly respected Master of my lineage. I respectfully submit that they should be removed by moderation staff.

Humblepersistence 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean the comments by 203.10.25.250. While his material was removed from the main page entry, the comments above are not subject to that sort of editing. This is a Wikipedia:Talk_page, an area for discussing (and debating) the editing of the main article. It is against Wikipedia policy to edit another person's comments on a talk page, unless they had nothing to do with the article editing discussion. And in this case they did. --Marty Goldberg 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jim Fung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Fung&oldid=1212936375"