Talk:William Cheung

Comment

It appears that a few people have difficulty with historical information regarding William Cheung. Why do I get the feeling that some of these people are based in the Wing Tsun or a variant of this? If you have difficulty with what Cheung and other's contend as historical, please do not summarily delete or revise. Merely, ADD to it with your non-POV refutations. On the other hand, however, if you attempt to refute a historical contention with merely another's POV, it does nothing for validity and accuracy to replace what you allege as an "opinion" with another POV. Please note that the Wing Tsun "Board" was ad hoc, they did not remain together (essentially fractionated and disenfranchised from one another), and claim that they were founded by among others, Yip Man in 1976, when he died in 1972. If you insist on a penchant for validity, please be consistent! Regards, KM

Controversy

This section (or a section similar to it) should remain as an important part of the article. It is clear this has been the subject of a revert war already.

Can somebody site where there following came from: 'seminar that was possibly bogus and set up by Boztepe's students'Rpf 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yah, that most likely came from my published interview with him on the situation that was published as "The Germany Incident: 10 Years After. Just do a google search on it, its all over the web.

--Marty Goldberg 16:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the fight between Emin Boztepe and William Cheung, I think it is important a) to separate the agreed-upon facts from hearsay, and b) to nevertheless include the hearsay. Why? We need to do (a) to establish NPOV and (b) to explain why the fight and video are so controversial; to give a sense that the controversy is ongoing; and frankly to prevent edit wars with those who would otherwise insert the unverified claims into the body of the article.

Including the claims in bullet points makes it easy for people to add commonly held but unproved beliefs without starting a revert war. If someone does put something controversial in the body of the article, one can simply move it to the list of controversial claims rather than deleting outright, again hopefully averting war.

WT guy 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dot points: I think the way we prevent the perpetuation of hearsay is to leave it out of an encyclopedia. It looks a bit too cynical but more importantly doesn't include sources (are these claims "independant research"?). A bit like when Fox news says "some people say" without actually saying who. If people are putting in unsourced claims, we will just have to deal with them. I can see what you are trying to do but unless you can quote a source for the bullet points, they don't belong there.

Speaking of unsourced, I don't agree with the personal view of infighting. A quick google will find you photos with the majority of senior first generation students having dinner etc. The tone is cynical towards kung fu in general and doesn't belong there either. Source it if you want it back. Rpf 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Bruce Lee paragraph from the controversy section, not much of a well formed point for claiming a controversy. Wong was before William, who was before Bruce - which is a fact. William introduced Bruce to Yip Man and Wong has verified that in interviews and in a translated article here (though William's last name is misstranslated as "Chang". Its also been verified by Wong protoge David Peterson here and here. Those articles also discuss Bruce training with William first and then Wong.

That's great, but I think it is a key area of contention. All dates that I can find point to Bruce starting in 1953 which is almost before Wong (which I had never heard before). Have I believed a bum steer that Lee started in 1953? Rpf 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind you I'd feel a lot less confused if WSL actually started earlier. The guy was supposed to be assistant instructor and some kind of mentor to Lee. If there was only a few months in it then it seems a bit off...Rpf 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That really belongs in a Bruce Lee entry though and not in the William's, since now we're talking about controversy with Bruce's starting date. Again, there's no controversy that Wong was first, William second, and then Bruce was brought in afterwords - that's already well established and corroborated by all three parties and their students and the other studnts of Yip Man. Jessie Glover's book Bruce Lee: Between Wing Chun And Jeet Kune Do also doccuments this relationship really well. The 13 year old/1953 starting date is usually something put forth by Bruce's camp, and its incorrect given the facts.--Marty Goldberg 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Makes sense to me -- Rpf 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding whether the fight is an internet phenomenon - 1, 14,500 hits for "william cheung" and germany. And regular discussions on the Usenet group rec.martial-arts dating back to at least 1992 when searching for "william cheung", germany and Emin. --Marty Goldberg 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"By his own admission"

Can we get a source that WSL started before him (and that Cheung said so?) -- Rpf 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire episode of William watching Wong fight, seeing Wong join up and then deciding to join up himself was published in Black Belt Magazine in 1983 under a multi-part series entitled "The William Cheung Story". It was written by William and (his first U.S. student) Blaine Collins. A copy was up on William's site until a recent redesign, but can still be accessed through archive.org. Its the fourth article in the series that has the account in detail and can still be read here. He also repeated the description in detail during a taped interview that was conducted with him from which the Germany Incident article I wrote came from. Still have a copy of the audio somewhere, but the Black Belt reference should be enough. --Marty Goldberg 16:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening Bio

I think there is no need to put Grandmaster in quotations. It is noted that he is Grandmaster of what is recognized as his version of Wing Chun. Placing it in quotations connotates disputed or questionable information. There is no dispute within his system that his title is Grandmaster and he as addressed as such within his Kung Fu association. I am removing the quotes unless there is contention with this.--Hokgwai 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a few people have difficulty with historical information regarding William Cheung. Why do I get the feeling that some of these people are based in the Wing Tsun or a variant of this? If you have difficulty with what Cheung and other's contend as historical, please do not summarily delete or revise. Merely, ADD to it with your non-POV refutations. On the other hand, however, if you attempt to refute a historical contention with merely another's POV, it does nothing for validity and accuracy to replace what you allege as an "opinion" with another POV. Please note that the Wing Tsun "Board" was ad hoc, they did not remain together (essentially fractionated and disenfranchised from one another), and claim that they were founded by among others, Yip Man in 1976, when he died in 1972. If you insist on a penchant for validity, please be consistent!

Regards,

KM

First, it appears you're new here and are having problems writing material that doesn't violate NPOV, MOS, and other Wikipedia policies, or material that follows an encyclopedic (vs. advertisement) format. To help you out and in a compromise, I've taken a bunch of the material you wanted to add and put it in the proper format for here. I've also set about reformating the entire entry to better present that info. This page and most of the other martial arts entries are watched over by the people in the Martial Arts Project on Wikipedia, whose sole interest is in quality of content and not political agenda. Most of the people removing your edits over the past month have not even been Wing Chun people, and are evaluating content solely on its adherence to established guidelines and an encyclopedic format. Writing off everyone who cites you for these violations as "Leung Ting people" or people "jealous" or "afraid" is not exactly painting your attempts at contributions in a good light, and is in fact doing a disservice to the other hard working contributors of this project and Wikipedia. Regarding some of the statements you made above: The VTAA (its not a Wing Tsun board, Wing Tsun is Leung Ting's trademarked art - the VTAA is for all of Yip Man's students) has been constant since its inception and has not broken up. William himself was a member until he withdrew membership at the time of the controversy. Likewise, nobody claimed the VTAA was formed in 1976, that was a typo in the magazine that reproduced the original letter (quite old news actually). It appears you're going off copies of the letters from these magazines of the time, i.e. simply repeating what you've been told by your statement. This problem cycles through every time a new group of followers (from either camp) suddenly discover pride and loyalty in their new linneage and want to trumpet the party line as if its never been done before. Honestly, there's a reason this has been labled and linked to the entry for internet phenomenon. There's also a reason for the NPOV, non-useage or "weasle words", etc. --Marty Goldberg 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just passing through and was thinking that the first two introductory paragraphs could do with some editing because they pretty much repeat the same information, surely they can be merged into one paragraph. I would do it, but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes as it were. 143.210.182.197 11:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do and Be bold! -- Rpf 11:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And have done. Hope you all like it. RF Red Fiona 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is not neutral. Some specifications are deposited inexactly with inexact references.
These inexact references partially damage the reputation William Cheungs.
This contradicts the Wikipedia rules.
I suggest the deletion.
(Sorry, my english is not the best).
1. Challenge
It gives absolutely different witnesses for this "fight". The specifications are not protected. The references are not unequivocal. Read the Post "Boztepe, Giese Videos nur Kinderklopperei ?" Nr.53 in http://www.kampfkunst-board.info/ User AKED (it is Dieter Knüttel, ModernArnis a neutral observer.)
He was there.
Read the text after "Was also passierte, erst mal die Fakten, da war ich dabei:"
Or speak with Sifu Augustinus Yie (not Leung Ting and not William Cheung) he has supported the seminar.
2. Start Date
Where writes Wong Shun Leung personally "1954"?
The references are not protected.
3. Live-in status
Has the Author contact William Cheung?
Is with 1954 something else meant? Often shorttime living-in or overnight stay? (W.Cheung lived not by his parents in this time)
W. Cheung writes in his book city of Dragons on the page 25,26 and 29 that he has lived together permanently with Yip Man and Song Lian from Summer, 1955.
Not Chu Shong Tin has written these lines.
It is written about Chu Shong Tin.
The references are not protected.
The Text is not from Chu Shong Tin personally.
4. Letter VTAA
The Letter is not alone from Chu Shong Tin. Who knows, that he has formulated the word „intermittently”.? The references are not protected.
I know that I am not neutral, too. I think the deletion is the best compromise. In Germany is the Emin Boztepe article delete. It was a workable solution. Thank you Wingchun4fun (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) edit 9 Aprill 2009 better translation Wingchun4fun (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Start Date

WSL don't know his own start date. See on WIKI Wong Shun Leung Interview in the references 84.129.71.160 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not use itself as a reference. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. The references is "http://www.vingtsunupdate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=77" WSL: I started Wing Chun at around 17 or 18 years of age.

That's not giving a date, that's giving an age he started around - which also in no way states he's unclear - that's what you're reading in to it, which is also WP:OR. There are currently multiple sources, including with him, and his students, and even the 50th Anniversary book, that state 1954.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WSL is born 1953. "at around 17 or 18 years of age" is 1952 or 1953 and not 1954. The text in Start Date must be edited. 84.129.67.61 (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How can he be born 1953? Likewise again, wikipedia works by having multiple sources to evaluate a statement. If multiple sources (including his students, the VTAA, etc.) state 1954 and one doesn't state a date but says "around this age", the multiple sources are gone with. You do not dictate how things are done around here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, typing error. WSL is born 1935.

Hope this helps!

Differentiation in "Wing Chun Warrior" by Duncan Leung.

Student, Private Student, Formal Disciple in Yip Mans School 84.129.60.50 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In "Letters of the dragon" Bruce Lee start date is 1953. Is that right WSL can not start in 1954. 84.129.60.50 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect, there's actually been several start dates for Bruce presented by Linda. You also have William himself stating he introduced Bruce to Yip Man in the summer of 1954 in this article he did in Blitz magazine (Australian martial arts magazine). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"presented by Linda" reference please. 1953 is in "Letters of the Dragon", "The celebrated life of the golden dragon" and other. „It was I who introduced Bruce Lee to Wing Chun School in the summer of 1954.“ Is this a new William Cheung controversy?Ng111Mui (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No controversy, VTAA states 1954 for Bruce as well, so does Hawkins Cheung who started at the same time. Once again, we have multiple sources directly from the people involved stating 1954, that's the date that's staying right now, and I'm getting really tired of going in circles. The section is entitled controversy, i.e. it's meant to cover controvercial topics. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit erase

My new edit is erased! Why? 84.129.71.160 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its clearly stated in the edit history. This is not a discussion forum, and your edits were violations of that and WP:SOAPBOX. Likewise, your edits to the article were unsupported, google hits are not a valid form of reference here. Lastly, you can not remove material supported by valid references, just because you disagre with them. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether the fight is an internet phenomenon - 1, 14,500 hits for "william cheung" and germany. And regular discussions on the Usenet group rec.martial-arts dating back to at least 1992 when searching for "william cheung", germany and Emin. --Marty Goldberg 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My words? No. The link after "phenomenon" is google ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.71.160 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no google link in this article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in the Artikel. In your Discussion Statemant is "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22william+cheung%22+germany+&btnG=Search"

Yes, it's not being used as a reference as I stated. Google hits can not be used as a reference. It can be brought up in discussion, like it was here, when evaluating a statement. At best, if there's no valid reference for a statement and you're questioning a statement, then you would put a citation required tag and give people an opportunity to find one. If not, then the statement can be removed. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

He - You

Ha, Ha !

It is not an internet phenomenon - it is ANTI William Cheung (a living person) publicity.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Please Mr. Goldberg.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln

You have the power!--Ng999Mui (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it occurred is a mater of history, is well covered by resources (including William's own published interviews on it), and not a case of tabloid material. It is controversial (as both sides disagree as to what happened), which is why it's in the controversy section along with some of the other controversial material. Likewise, the wording of the section is extremely neutral, if not tipping more towards William's favor with the addition of his views on the video being edited. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

References from VTAA

The References from VTAA not fairminded. See on "http://www.vingtsun.org.hk/" History & development 1950-1953, Foto: Grandmaster Ip Man and his students at the Shum Shui Po Hotel on 25th April 1955. Third row! Count the people - read the names below. William Cheung is erased!

Writings

"A Comparison of Wing Chun and Jeet Kune Do" Volumes II (with Ted Wong) is not in the Library of Congress. Written? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng111Mui (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenge Date

20. September 1986 From various german Martial Art forums. Ng111Mui (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, forums are not considered reliable sources of information on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Professor

On October 10, 2009, Foshan Sports University in China officially appointed Dr. William Cheung, Grandmaster of Wing Chun Kung Fu, as Guest Professor in charge of Special Programs for Elite Athletes. [1] Ng999Mui (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A) The Wikipedia martial arts project guidelines does not allow titles such as "grandmaster". B) You'd need a verifiable third party source to include that. That's a link to his own page, and a Chinese document (this is the English wikipedia). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay - No note in the article. Ng999Mui (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Without a source, this gets removed. I'd like to add that comparing dates, etc and drawing conclusions is Original Research. This is a Biography of a Living Person and if you want to include the flaws, you damn better have a reliable third party source to back it up. The Bullshido Forums do not fit this category, neither do personal web pages.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File:William Cheung.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:William Cheung.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:William Cheung.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Božidar Bobby Gabershek

Notability of Božidar Bobby Gabershek? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Merge Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu to William Cheung

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge Peter Rehse (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Consensus of a discussion on merging Wing Tsun to Wing Chun was that it is better to merge style specific information into the founder's article with an opportunity for further discussion. This would keep it in line with other styles of Wing Chun.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I was the one who brought forward the original Wing Tsun to Wing Chun merge discussion and the reasoning that built that consensus is one that I think applies strongly. Most of the variants of Wing Chun are only as notable as their founders (aside from being variants of a wide-spread martial art). As such it makes sense that anything specific to the founder's variant of the martial art should be addressed in the founder's article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Every other sub branch is represented in the head's article, not their own. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William Cheung. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715054224/http://www.pawingchun.com/assets/teachers/cheung_eggs.jpg to http://www.pawingchun.com/assets/teachers/cheung_eggs.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Biographies of other people

This article is about William Cheung, but biographies of several other people have twice been inserted. If these people are worthy of Wikipedia articles, articles about them should be created, and linked to from this one if there is a connection. But they do not belong here. I have removed them again. Maproom (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Maproom, Sifupr and Australianblackbelt, let's please discuss the matter here on the talk page. This article is about William Cheung, biographies of other people do not belong here. If you have sources that discuss these people in relation to Mr. Cheung, then perhaps a line or two, but not sections/paragraphs equalling more than the contents of the rest of the article. I am removing the content again as it is clearly not appropriate, especially with the non-neutral section titles of "most successful" and "most acclaimed". Non-neutral statements like that need to be cited or quoted. Do you have independent news/journal sources that say these people are the most successful or most acclaimed, and directly associate that success with being students of Mr. Cheung? If so, then we can find a way to work these students in, in a more encyclopedic fashion. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that biographies of Cheung's students should be "worked in" to the article at all. If the students are notable, articles about them can be created. Then they can be mentioned in the Cheung article, with wikilinks to their own articles. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the wiki page of a Grandmaster in order to establish that infact he is a grandmaster and not just a martial artist there needs to be mention of either a large amount of his students whom have reached black belt or instructor lever or at the very least mention of his students that have achieved something relevant in martial arts. Grandmaster Yuen Kay Shan's profile mentions 4 of his student as does Ip Man's profile mentioning many of his students. Wong Shun Leung's profile goes as far as to includ a letter to him from his student Bruce Lee. Master Arnett and Master Oram students of Cheung are very relevant and include references for the information stated. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Maproom what you are saying is you think there should not be any mention and Grandmaster's highest achieving students, then go and delete all of the students mentioned in every martial arts Grandmaster on wikipedia. No offence but what your opinion is incorrect in relation to a Grandmaster. More references can and will be provided for Arnett and Oram this profile even if at a later stage should someone create separate wkiki profiles for these students they will still remain mentioned under Cheung. Thank you(Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Shun_Leung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuen_Kay_Shan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yip_Man just to name three (Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Hello there Australianblackbelt, thank you for coming to discuss this here. Though this wasn't directed at me, I'll respond as Maproom hasn't done so yet. Firstly, we're here to talk about the problems with this article, not others. Secondly, personally I don't have a problem with mentions of notable students. The article, however, cannot support paragraphs long biographies of completely different people. If these students are notable, then they should have articles of their own, and we can then Wikilink to them. Chrisw80 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the three other articles. I have removed the biographies of students from the first, and the mentions of non-notable names from the "lists of notable students" in the other two. Maproom (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to add information on Robert Downey Jr's page about his Wing Chun Training and his master Eric Oram with references but somebody keeps deleting it all. There is a lot of hatred towards William Cheung thus things relating to his students get deleted without a second thought. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC))

Is there a problem :Chrisw80, with shortening the info on Arnett, Oram and Downey with references? I think its important to mention Cheung's student Oram and how he was trained Robert Downey Jr unfortunately :4TheWynne, seems to think it's all irrelevant and deletes as he pleases. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC))

"Deletes as he pleases"... wow. Seriously, Australianblackbelt? I can see now that this may or may not be a point of relevance, but does this group of edits appear constructive? No. Thus, I removed it, and provided an explanation on my talk page. There were no extra mitigating circumstances surrounding me removing this "information" from Downey Jr's page. I think you need to provide a stronger argument and go about this in the correct manner, as explained above by Chrisw80 and Maproom, respectively. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

4TheWynne, what does that mean ;(wow seriously), Look at all the reference material available on Oram and Downey's professional relationship yet you delete averything without so much as allowing Oram's name bieng mentioned once ===> http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Comeback-Kid http://www.mensfitness.com/life/entertainment/robert-downey-jr-he-was-skinny http://m.tmz.com/#article/2015/12/25/robert-downey-pardon-kung-fu-eric-oram/ http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/robert-downey-jr-s-cosmic-punishment-20121017 http://www.mensfitnessmagazine.com.au/2012/08/holmes-improvement-2/ http://m.fightland.vice.com/blog/how-wing-chun-helped-robert-downey-jr-battle-addiction Maproom Why not write about Oram and Downey's Wing Chun training as for Sum Nung whom you have deleted from Yuen Kay Shan's page I will be creating a page for him in a few weeks time referencing a national latino newspaper since Sum Nung is half peruvian. It's fine to delete loads of content on Wing Chun but not so easy to find writers like me without help instead hindrance (Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC))

Chrisw80 Heading Teaching accomplishments actually means something now and is not a pointless heading.. Cheungs teaching accomplishments are the success of Oram and Arnett. Problem solved, Cheers (Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

If you believe that Oram and Arnett are notable, then you can create their biographies as independent articles, and link to them from this article. This should be a biography of Cheung, not of anyone else. Maproom (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem here, Australianblackbelt is that it's not just "Oram's name bieng mentioned once". It's a large paragraphs of information about people that are not the article subject. Continuing to re-add the disputed content without letting this discussion take it's course is called edit-warring and may very well result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. Please allow this discussion to take it's course before re-adding the content again. If we can't find a resolution through consensus among us, there are means to request feedback from a wider selection of editors in a neutral manner. Maproom and 4TheWynne are trying to work with you here, as am I. I thought our discussion on the IRC channel yesterday would have helped you understand more about what we're trying to accomplish here, but I was saddened to see that you continued on in this direction. Please stop re-adding the information to the article so we can work through this. To Maproom and 4TheWynne, User:Australianblackbelt obviously has a different idea of what is relevant here and isn't familiar with how to write a Wikipedia article. I think there may be enough source material about Oram that may actually be relevant to Cheung's biography (and Downey Jr's) that could warrant a short sentence at least - not sure about Arnett, though, haven't looked into that yet. I don't have time to look into this specifically now, but can in a couple days. Either way though, Australianblackbelt is definitely not helping matters with this edit warring. Chrisw80 (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done enough trying to write about Wing Chun in a positive way I have nothing to do with Oram Downey or Cheung what so ever just believe in this style, if anyone wants to write or contribute instead of just delete everything I'm writing great. My time on wikipedia will be for writing an article for Sum Nung Yuen Kay Shan's only disciple. Cheers! (Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

Protected edit request on 14 May 2016

Unlock the article please my email is jacobroozie@gmail.com 198.52.13.15 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: We need to be reasonably sure that the disruption won't recur before we can unprotect the article. I'm not really seeing any evidence for this yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable students

Traditional wing chun has been repeatedly adding names of non-notable persons to the "students" field of the infobox. As stated at Template:Infobox martial artist, this field is for "notable students of the person". "Notable" here, as throughout Wikipedia, means "the subject of a Wikipedia article". If someone creates an acceptable article about Rick Spain or any of the others, then his name can be added to the list. Meanwhile, I have removed the non-notable names. Maproom (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Note the user name Traditional Wing Chun is the name of William Cheung's style. User may be the too close to the article's subject or be the subject himself. Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Cheung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170108012405/http://www.gamerkungfu.com/kung-fu-masters-and-celebrity-students/ to http://www.gamerkungfu.com/kung-fu-masters-and-celebrity-students/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Problems with article?

This edit added claims that much of the article is incorrect, "The article says he is still alive even though he's been dead for over a decade. Some of the things cited as reference material are incorrect and simply requotes of things he told people before he died, the news articles themself were written AFTER he died and were simply other people retelling stories Sifu Cheung had told them before he died. These cited proofs are not proofs at all only hearsay and stories from a man who was famous in the martial world for telling big stories...I don't know how to make notes for editing, but a lot of information on this page is incorrect. I studied Wing Chun with Sifu Cheung. He has been dead for over a decade now but every time I add his death to the page someone removes it. The relationship between him and Bruce Lee has been greatly exaggerated, and the only citation given for these fantasy stories is a newspaper article written after he was dead. I traveled to Hong Kong with Sifu Cheung in the early 2000's and he was not welcome in any schools. We were treated poorly/rudely even by people he referred to as old friends."

I have no information to verify any of these claims. The lead photo is dated 30 November 2011, inconsistent with the anonymous editor's claim that the subject has "been dead for over a decade". The official website gives no indication that the subject is dead. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I met Grandmaster William Cheung in 2012 we ate a lobster he bought back from his trip to Tasmania, his two sons and wife were present. The anonymous user is completely insane LoL Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Immigration date

Article states immigration to Australia took place in 1957. The following article states 1959. https://www.ewingchun.com/sifus/william-cheuk-hing-cheung#more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.154.106 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ewingchun.com is not a reliable source as anybody can write on it without references. Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The fake "friendship" photo

The photo of Cheung standing with Bruce Lee is a fake, featuring a photo of him pasted over a cropped photo of Lee: https://archive.ph/Rjric (Normally, we'd just remove such a thing and carry on, except that in this case, the fake photo is on Cheung's own site: https://archive.ph/BtvnY .) --2601:444:47F:F620:1069:2EB0:89C6:3A51 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are onto something. The uploader, User:Australianblackbelt has done a lot of sketchy stuff here and there - and even Cheung himself seems to have a perchant for egregious self-promotion. The user in question has been banned and it seems the mods are slowly starting to remove select pics they uploaded. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 06:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of W. Cheung's statements.

I implore that some of the things William Cheung says to be taken with grain of salt -- and not as absolute truth. He seems to have bit of flair for self-promotion and controversial statements.

[Regarding Bruce Lee being taught modified Wing Chun by Ip Man's kwoon] Bruce Lee's teenage friend and fellow student, Hawkins Cheung (William's nephew)[...] "Modified, traditional -- it's all bullshit" says Hawkins. "That's just William making mischef." Hawkins implies that William has completely invented this historical divergences in the art, simply to promote his own teaching.

— Bruce Thomas, quote from Hawkins Cheung.

TrickShotFinn (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• William Cheung and Bruce Lee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)