Talk:Wing Chun/Archive 3

Wing Chun is a striking art.

I think we can include darts, chin na and other bits and pieces, but I believe the majority treat wing chun as a striking art, not some hybrid (which if you read the page, implies MMA/JKD spirit).

[1] WP:DUE

I'm changing the box to say "striking" only. I don't think this is unreasonable. Rpf 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because we "control" to strike. Most would consider it as a striking and "trapping" art. And then, everyone does kicks as well. Which is why the original box was actually more accurate. Nate's the one who put up "Hybrid" as a compromise, which I also agree doesn't sound right. I'm going to include the others back in, except the chi na, since its not as common across the board. --Marty Goldberg 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to revisit this, the problem with the current template box, is that it calls for only allotting one descriptive to an art to present a "flavor" of the art. Its not always so cut and dry. Wing Chun is known just as much for being a trapping and "trapping range" art as it is a striking art, if not more so. They're both intimately linked, and references can be provided if need be. There's also WP:IAR in this case, since I believe having a complete "flavor" is in the best interests of improving the article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede the point here, my worry is just that will will end up in the situation we had before with everything listed for every art. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand that worry. And I think it is a good rule, but it should have a guideline for consensus written in specifically for situations like this. That way you won't have the long lists (that nobody here wants), but it still allows for exceptions via consensus. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wing Tsun old man

Yong Chun is a 'sound' ,not a kungfu

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

• it means, Yong Chun is a 'sound' ,not a kungfu.

Two different Sets

• In this page, The Mandarin pronunciation of the characters has Two Sets,
  • One is south kunfu '詠春' (chant spring)
  • The other is '永春' (forever spring) .It is from Far Kuen. It has no relation with white crane.--Koonleg50 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the 'Yong Chun' will be used in this page ? The content in this page is only about 'chant spring', no content of Far Kuen is mentioned here(Chu Chung Man or Wei Yan-Both are not 'Chant spring' man).--Koonleg50 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not familiar with the topic. There is a book published last year by master Yip Mun (葉問) in Hong Kong. It is quite informative.

And, In daily life in Hong Kong, I've never met one written as 永春 and pronounced it. Every one just stick on 詠春 or 咏春. If you know Cantonese, 永 is of different tone from 咏/詠. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Cantonese pronunciation

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

I see the block time period is up. Once again, you're repeating the same things as before including the WP:OR and further accusations about people that have no place in an encyclopedic article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From Master/Sifu Yip Mun's book, Wing Chun is nothing related to South Shaolin. He doubts the myth of burning South Shaolin and attributes that the myth was from those participate anti-Ch'ing Dynasty activities. — HenryLi (Talk) 00:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are there two articles for the same subject?

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

There's not. Wing Tsun is about Leung Ting's branch and version of the art. The spelling is associated with his branch. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

...which calls into question the legitimacy of Wing Tsun as an alternate romanization in the introductory paragraph of this page. Graphik (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about the legitimacy of the romanization; it is an explanation for it. 67.180.76.138 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wing Chun has divided into branches, after Yip Man. Leung Ting decided to call his school "WingTsun", which is now the most outspread in the world. The reason is to avoid confusion from what he taught to what the other students of Yip Man taught. WingTsun IS pure Wing Chun, just as any of the other schools are pure Wing Chun. At this point, there is very little written material og Wing Chun, which makes it difficult to verify this article. Pethol (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the rooftop fights?

I am missing any information about the 14 rooftop fights conducted in the early 1950's in Hong Kong. Four students of Yip Man challenged pretty much all the great sifu's of other styles and fought with them on the rooftops of Hong Kong buildings. (The only place where you can have some privacy).
Their names were: Wong Shung Leung, Wong Kiu, Tjeu Shah Tin and Lok Yiu. They won every fight and since then Wing Chun had made a name for itself. It also attracted the attention of a boy who would become a very famous movie star: Bruce Lee. There is no doubt that this boy joined the school of Yip Man. But I am pretty sure that Yip Man was not his teacher, Wong Sheung Lung was; he taught Bruce Lee Siu Lim Tau.
[ Ming Dak Ka Mat (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) ]

Not sure if this is relevant for an overview of the system. Would definitely make sense to be added to the Yip Man or Wong Sheung Lung articles, though. Stephen.andrew.lynch (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions on the names of the forms.

Siu Lim Tau does not mean Little Idea. Siu Lim Tau is a Budhist expression. It means Fundamental Concept.

Cham Kiu does not mean sinking bridge. It means Looking For The Bridge. Where the bridge is the contact with the opponent.

Biu Jee does not mean darting fingers or thrusting fingers. Again, Biu Jee is s Budhist term or expression and stands for pointing to the target. When you point to your target, you are applying the centerline technique. Biu Jee learns you how to deal with situations where you lost your centerline and are no longer pointing to your opponent.

Siu Lim Tau is also referred to as Eight Palm Works. There are four different strikes with the palm of the hand. Four with the left hand and four with the right hand.

Note the analogy with the Eight Slice Knife form: Baht Cham Do. This is quit logical. After all the knife is just an extension of the hand.

Ming Dak Ka Mat (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're stating are not a common concepts across the board and per wikipedia policy, you need to provide valid references for such claims that they are the defacto inerpretation. Otherwise it violates WP:OR, and a host of other guidelines. Its all listed in the edit summary. Likewise, half the content you added was written in a personal, non-encyclopedic style. This page already has enough non-referenced material, and doesn't need any more WP:OR. Finally, some branches do translate as mentioned (i.e. they have different characters for the 2nd form that translate as sinking the bridge), and Buddhist contexts for form names are not a common interpretation. The current names and contexts are the most commonly seen, non-linneage specific versions as this page is for a generic description of the art as a whole - not any one specific branch or linneage. If your branch uses specific interpretations, feel free to include them on a page specific to your family/branch if there is one on Wikipedia. See Leung Ting's Wing Tsun page for an example. Another solution is to add material to the relevant sections of this article that discusses how some view a buddhist interpretation and provide valid references for each. That way you don't state them as the defacto interpretations as you tried, but still cite them as a valid interpretations. --Marty Goldberg

First, we all agree that Wing Chun has been brought outside China by Yip Man to Hong Kong in the 1950's. It is therefore safe to say that his teachings are the original teachings and thus the most correct. Non-Linneage Wing Chun or Wing Chun as a whole does not exist. What we know of Wing Chun comes from Yip Man. The fact that some branches use different characters for the names of the forms does not make it right. The names I mention and their meaning come straight from the source of Yip Man through the teachings of J. Wang Kiu. Sifu J. Wang Kiu is well known in the Wing Chun community for his unadulterated way of teaching and his remarkable knowledge. He is also known for his participation in the rooftop fights that started the fame of Wing Chun.

Claiming that a Buddhist interpretation of the names of the forms are not accepted across the board is simply not correct. Wing Chun comes from the Shaolin Temple, which is a Buddhist Temple. Originally taught by Ng Mui, by some refered to as a nun or as a monk by others. The gender is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Buddhism. By understanding the Buddhist connoctations of the forms make the material richer, it is added value. But appearantly the significance is lost on you. I also added the sayings of the Kuen Kuut, which you deleted. I wonder why? It is okay to mention the existence but not the content? The Kuen Kuut are an integral part of the Wing Chun as taught by Yip Man. Wong Sheung Leung, Lok Yiu, Tjeu Shan Tin and Wang Kiu had boards with the characters of these sayings. There have been numerous seminars and demonstrations in Europe, USA and Canada where these board were on display and explained their meaning and application. Here is an external link http://www.yellowrose-wingchun.org/1998/kk1a.htm

You want to do a proper article on Wing Chun? Then you have to start with Yip Man and his teachings. The shape of the article right now is very poor. It should be called misconceptions about Wing Chun or Wing Chun spinn offs and their western interpretation. It is realy a shame that you have hijacked this subject. I consider my view an eye witness account of the unadulterated and original teachings of Yip Man. Appearantly there is no place in this article for such content. Pearls for the pigs. Here is an external link with a proper description of the history (no, it is not from my linneage) http://www.eawingchun.co.uk/history/index.html#shaolin
Ming Dak Ka Mat (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Once again, this is a generic article on the art, not on Yip Man or his branch. It covers all branches. 2) Any claims on what is "most correct" is based on personal opinion, which is WP:OR and violates Wikipedia standards. And frankly, it wreaks of political nonsense that is not welcome in an academic environment. 3) Claims that wing chun comes from the shaolin temple are not viewed as truth across the board. Not everyone believes or records that, and the Ng Mui story is one of several. 4) The Kuen Kuit and what they consist of vary across the board, even across Yip Man's family. 5) Nobody has hijacked this subject, that's what you're trying to do. This article is the result of the contributions of many people, and the consensus of a number of long time contributors. And the attempt to paint it as otherwise because you can't force your opinions on the article is a discredit to all of them. 6) Your attitude ("hijacking", "pearls for pigs") is now also violating WP:CIVILITY. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, that the wiki-editor in charge of this article should stay. I think it would be wise to stand down and let another editor that is not biased take over. To be honest, I don't see an objective academic approach to the subject, from where it should come. It would be nice for the users to democratically vote away the Wiki-dictators. Pethol (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note "First, we all agree that Wing Chun has been brought outside China by Yip Man to Hong Kong in the 1950's." is incorrect Hong Kong has always been part of China, it was leased to the British as a trading colony for 100 years, but was still part of China jsut administered by Britan. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Marty, no pun intended but you are being inconsistent. I wish we could communicate on this subject in other way. You say it covers all branches and not Yip Man's branch. How is this possible? All branches acknowledge Yip Man as the source from which Wing Chun spread all over the world. What academic environment are you talking about, please enlighten me. There are no peer reviewed articles on Wing Chun. Not in the way as for instance Scientific American or Nature magazines. In the History section of the article Ng Mui is mentioned as a buddhist nun, yet, you claim that Wing Chun does not come from Shaolin because some people believe that this is not so. Then why mention Ng Mui as a Buddhist nun? This is not consistent and certainly not academic, to use your own words. Ditto for the Kuen Kuut. You acknowledge that they are there but you will not cover the details. You say because different people have different views of the meaning of the Kuen Kuut. That is propably the case, but that should not be a reason not to mention them in detail. It makes the article shallow and certainly will not give it the academic depth that you strive for. You also claim that the notes I tried to add as a valuable contribution are just my view. Can't the same be claimed for the references made in the Forms sections? Are those references made not just the view of those schools and teachers? I have tried to correct an error in the Cham kiu section that really belonged in the Biu Jee section. Biu Jee deals with the recovery of the lost centerline. Not Cham Kiu. Cham Kiu deals with seeking contact with the opponent. I can make a sorts of references to web sites where this is explained. But does that make it so? According your reasoning it does not. Then as a consequence, the references made, are also disputable. This will get us nowhere. Too bad that we can't reach consensus. Maybe we can agree that we don't agree how this article should be written. I really like reference nr 11. Did you ever try to read this? It acknowledges that Biu Jee is about pointing to the target. (pointing to the moon). It acknowleges Yip Man and the Buddhism part. Therefore my additions were not just my view, it also happened to be the view of Wong Sheun Leung and Yip Man.

Well, good luck with your wiki subject on Wing Chun. Ming Dak Ka Mat (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Ming Dak Ka Mat means: To understand a virtue you have to analyze the matter. (Another buddhist expression)

Merger proposal

• Oppose- Very bad idea, the linage wars and POV disputes in any area of _ing _un are bad enough, these are differentiated styles and cross linked appropriately and are not a POV fork. Merging will only cause trouble with whose paragrpah should come 1st and inter style vandalism, including removal of one styles section by members of the other school. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Wing Tsun article describes Leung Ting's notable subset of the art. He's copyrighted and trademarked that spelling for his branch, and there's also enough documentation on that branch that clearly states they consider it a "separate" version from the rest of the Yip Man family and art as a whole. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I did not notice at first when I added the merge template that those are two different branches. Maybe it would be better to have an article explaining the differences between the two styles. --helohe (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a sub-branch of the Yip family of Wing C hun, and even then they consider it different than the wing chun art as a whole. An article of the type you propose would have to include all the various versions, branches, and sub-branches of the art in comparison. There are many - there is no one main version of the art, and it wouldn't be just a comparison between "the two arts". Wing Chun itself is almost like a catch phrase for a wide variation of subsets under the banner. And quite frankly, the main Wing Chun article itself needs enough work on references already to start creating another article of that type, besides dealing with all the politics etc. I understand what you're going for, but I think it'd be better to use resources on improving this article with references for right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Wing Chun is a generic name almost like 'Karate' (空手). Wing Tsun is a company trademark, as if somebody romanized (空手) as 'Karati' and opened a Karate school. The branch is noteable and easily differentiated from the rest of Wing Chun. McDonald's should not be merged with Hamburger. - Rpf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal 2009

• Strong Support Leung Ting trademarking a different spelling of the word in not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Wing Chun is not as generic as Karate; Karate represents a whole group of JMA while Wing Chun is a single southern TCMA with a rather uniform curriculum. Bringing this to the attention of the NPOV board.Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This was closed last year, and I'm not sure where you got the idea about "uniform curriculum". Likewise, Leung Ting's WT represents an approach he's continued to expand, etc. both curriculum and content wise - just as William Cheung has with his TWC. It's not an issue of just trademarking a different spelling. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The three main sets and the wooden dummy drills; weapons being twin butterfly knives and, in the Ip Man lineage the long staff though that is rare. Does Leung Ting's WT not use those? How about core theoretical concepts? Simultaneous attack and defense? Shortest-line striking? Center-line theory? There are differences between the Wong Fei Hong/Lam Sai Wing Hung Gar and other branches of Hung Gar / Hung Kuen and yet they are on the same page.Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A) Yip Man linage is not the only lineage. B) There are lineages that have more or less than those 3 sets. c) There are lineages that use other concepts than the "center-line theory" you're talking of or use them differently. D)Simultanious attack and defense is also not interpreted the same across the board. E) With regards to Leung Ting's group, it has it's own further development of material that doesn't belong on this page, including the material developed in Germany (currently highlighted on that page), the Lat Sao program, the combination with Latosa Escrima, it's specific ranking organization and international governing body. All things that do not belong on this page but do belong in an article on that specific and notable branch of the Yip Man family. That's the reason for bringing up points A throuh D, becuase this page was designed non-lineage specific and to be generic enough to include all the branches - which there is indeed a wide variance of. RPF was correct in his assesment of the genericness, you are incorrect in regards to yours on that matter. It appears you're not familiar with Cho Ga, Yuen Kay San, Nguyễn Tế-Công, Pao Fa Lien, Fut Sao, Hung Fa Yi, and others which are in many cases drastically different. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing each point in turn:

• A) Not disputed.
• B) And Leung Ting's lineage?
• C) Does Leung Ting's lineage make use of that concept?
• D) Does Leung Ting's lineage make use of that concept?
• E) So he added some Escrima; that is actually quite a common syncretism within the WC / VT / WT / Etc. community. The question becomes is Leung Ting's branch of WC notably different enough from the core of WC to warrant a separate article. I say no.

Furthermore I would ask you not to attack me as a poster, rather debate the ideas. This is not a martial arts forum and this is not a site to vent lineage wars. I am perfectly aware that there are lineages other than Yip Man. In fact one of my main points has been to mention that non-Wong Fei Hong / Lam Sai Wing lineages of Hung Gar and Hung Kuen are referenced through the Hung Gar page and do not have separate pages for their lineage. Although I haven't surveyed them I imagine the same is true of the multitudinous lineages of Choy Lay Fut.Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not "attacking you as a poster", please do not take it or promote it as such. There is also no promotion of "lineage wars here" or any "forum like conduct". You're obviously not familiar with me either, I've been promoting against "forum wars" on the net and promoting unity and understanding amongst the art since the early 90's. That includes the groups of multi-linneage "Friendship Seminars" that were done through out the late 90's to expose people to the wide variance in the art and promote peace and understanding. And I resent any attempts to promote me as otherwise as you just tried to do. You had promoted the view that wing chun is not generic as if from some main source that recently divided because of bickering, I simply stated you were incorrect in that view and adressed you directly and proceeded to list other lineages from outside of Yip Man's in direct relation to what I was discussing. That hardly constituted a "flame" or "lineage war" and I'm astounded at how you pulled that accusation of me out of nowhere. Flame would have been me literally seeking zero discussion and posting peronal attacks at you. Linneage war would have been me doing some rant promoting some linneage at the expense of other's and their legitimacy. Forum like conduct would have been examples of the above two. They simply do not exist in my postings, and I resent an implication on your part that they do. I'm doing nothing but trying to discuss. And let me firmly state, I respect your opinions and anyone elses here.

Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that a merge would pass, I'd be against just dumping info from that page in to here. I'd prefer to see it as an expansion of the Yip Man entry on the Branches of Wing Chun page as part of a subsection on "Notable branches of Yip Man". In fact, you'd get no argument from me about proposing merging it to there right now and I'd vote yes. Same with the William Cheung Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu subset. The problem with putting it here is again, this page is specifically constructed not to draw attention or highlight any branch/lineage/sub branch, of which there are far to many. To put that here, then you'd need to add material about Yip Man and his linneage to be able to explain the Wing Tsun sub branch material, then do the same with the others etc. Unlike the Hung Gar page, there's a lot more than just three main branches. And if you look at the edit history over the years of this page, there's been enough of a problem with anonymous IP's trying to promote their linneages' viewpoints over others. Something I've worked hard to keep neutral per wikipedia's policies on undue weight. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose for merger here, but Strong Support to merge some of the notable material with Branches of Wing Chun under Yip Man. See above. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I will support merging the Wing Tsun page with some other page (eg: branches of Wing Chun) but I maintain that it is not notably different enough from Wing Chun to warrant it's own page.Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

{undent} moved discussion to appropriate section.Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose- Very bad idea, the linage wars and POV disputes in any area of _ing _un are bad enough, Wing Chun] should be on the over all art, of which Ving Tsun is a style that is notable enough and has enough sourcable material to support a separate article they are cross linked appropriately and are not a POV forks. Merging will only cause trouble with whose paragraph should come 1st and inter style vandalism, including removal of one styles section by members of the other school. Further to that, exactly how big would a merge of the various articles be? The Branches of Wing Chun needs cleaning up a bit (but its a lot better than a year ago) and there could be a benefit in removing duplicated material from the Ving Tsun article to there and there but there will be enough to justify the separate article. --Nate^t/_c 07:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Strong Oppose" - I see no benefit in merging the two pages, and I do see potential for damage. Wing Tsun page has a lot of information specific to the Leung Ting interpretation of the concepts and the IWTA curriculum and grading. The curriculum and grading sections would add nothing to the overarching Wing Chun page. The Leung Ting specific interpretation of the concepts and training methods would be either a) changed as "incorrect" by other school members (because they do not correspond to those school's interpretations), or b) confuse the hell out of people who would read three or four different interpretations of the same ideas on the same page. I and others have spent a good amount of time on getting the Wing Tsun page into a consistent state that would give a good overview of the system, and it would be a pity to see it go to waste. To those who argue that Hun Gar branches are listed under the same page; I am not convinced that that is a good idea either. And I did meet teachers from various Wing Tsun / Wing Chun / Ving Tsun schools, and can definitely attest to the fact that the curriculum between the schools can and does vary drastically depending on the lineage and the approach, certainly no less than variations between different styles of Karate. 67.180.76.138 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

'Wing Dao'

I remember practicing an Americanized dojo calling its form of martial art "Wing Dao", google has hits, is this related or separate? Should there be a redirect or a page? 65.102.7.165 (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it, do you have a link? Unless they decided to call their specific school that to identify with the wing chun swords/knives (the dao), I'm hard pressed to believe anything than it just being another Americanized offshoot. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External links

Do we really need them on this page? They do not really further the users reading, and if they do they should be linked from a citation. ie the wing chun archives linage section could be linked to the main article where it is relevant in the body but just adding them as external links is not really good use of wikipedia. They mostly promote businesses. I vote we remove all external links that are not relevant to the page, otherwise every good article on the internet or big wing chun site could end up linked as soon as site owners realize wikipidia drives alot of traffic in! 90.207.244.38 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to clear out any that are promotional, and include others as sources --Nate^t/_c 15:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

wing chun is not weng chun

Weng chun is a completely different kung fu style than Wing Chun. The redirect from 'weng chun', and the claim on this article that weng chun is some sort of branch or direct association of wing chun, is incorrect. Could anyone who knows more about this alter this part? I am currently already making an article on Weng Chun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddotk (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This was already covered and discussed extensively. The character set has been used interchangeably throughout the history of the art, and there is already an article on Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu covering the background of the specific Weng Chun branch art. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though discussed, it does not change the fact, that Weng Chun is NOT Wing Chun. Thus the style should not be associated with Wing Chun any more than Karate can be associated with Wing Chun. Pethol (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And once again, there's "Weng Chun" the grouping of arts, and Weng Chun the characters. The character set, as already discussed, has been used interchangeably with the Wing Chun characters in it's history. That's what the article discusses, and I'm sorry if you were confused by it. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I smell a logical fallacy here. Just because two religions are gathered in the same area, it doesn't mean that they are the same. That two martial arts styles share the same character, does not mean they are related either. All Martial arts share the words "martial arts", but that does not make all styles the same. The articles in wiki should be for facts - not discussions. If there is doubt about something, then it should not be mentioned, or at least be marked as "unverified claim" or something similar. It looks more like someone is trying to force a relation beteen Weng Chun and Wing Chun. Pethol (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, there's Weng Chunt he grouping of arts and Weng Chun the characters which there seems to still be confusion on. The character set has been used interchangeably with the Wing Chun characters hence it's mention in the article. There was a full discussion and consensus reached, the doubt is on your end which does not change consensus. Likewise consensus is per the guidelines here, and was not by one editor's opinion regardless of claims of someone trying to force content which themselves qualify as continued personal attacks and violate WP:CIVIL. The usage is more than well documented and in fact referenced in the article - there is no "unverified claim". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bat analogy

"A common analogy is a baseball bat being swung at someone's head (a round-house punch), as opposed to the butt end of the bat being thrust forward into the opponent's face (wing chun punch), which would cause far more damage than a glancing hit"

This is an awful analogy. It seems to be exactly backwards. A swung baseball bat to any part of the head is one of the most devasting blows anyone could ever deliver. Even someone untrained could kill someone very easily and they do very often. Deaths from single punches are common but mostly from hitting something else when falling. By all means list the advantages of straight punches but this needs to go. --Chrisjwowen (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Relaxation/Training

Wouldnt it be good to note that there's drastic differences in training methods and not all wing chun practitioners use soft and relaxed training. some practitioners use tension like lau gaur practitioners do, though they may avoid tension while punching. this is easy to verify, it is a minorty practice, it is a large minority though. Chan Kam Shing and every sifu through him is one example of this, though not the only ones, but it is easiest to verify through chan kam shing's lineage what with him being relatively vocal about his doctrines.

Its butterfly swords not knives

In this page there is link called Butterfly knives, which links to butterfly swords. The link should be called butterfly swords because it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.13.4 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because the actual characters used are for knives. The article it links to is not Wing Chun specific, hence the difference. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong Airlines

This airline has begun training its stewardesses in Wing Chun, which I think is worthy of a mention.

So far, I have only found one English speaking source, but it is behind a paywall (South China Morning Post). Have you found a better source?

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=ae3a098f73f5f210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=Hong+Kong&s=News

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

While interesting, that's really trivia in content, which doesn't really have a place here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Verification & Objectivity

I hate so say this, but there is hardly any written material on Wing Chun. On top of it, each school, even each Sifu has an individual approach to the different concepts and techniques. To write a universal article about Wing Chun is no longer possible. Like religions, there are several branches, where everybody claim to be correct. The whole text should be reformulated with emphasis on the differences. Inspiration can be gained from the articles about Buddhism. Pethol (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea there is hardly any written material on Wing Chun. There are a plethora of books, magazines, etc. dating back to the late 60's. Likewise, the current article was structured by many authors specifically to not be lineage or sifu specific. Additionally, Wikipedia does not work on WP:OR which is what you're proposing be done via a comparison of differences. The only way you could include such a comparison is if there's reliable third party sources that do it. What the article needs are more references that meet Wikipedia's standards, not more WP:OR which is what routinely gets reverted. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I rephrase then - the material available, that is not incorrect, is scarce. Pethol (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia works as I stated above. It seems as though you're intending to state that Wikipedia should only use references that you deem as correct vs. incorrect. That kind of subjectivity is not how we valuate references here and almost seems reminiscent of an attempt to evaluate on branch politics vs. actual substance. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Punches

There are several other techniques than just the punch. For a lower graduate, the punch is the most common attack technique, but eventually several types of techniques are used to inflict damage. The choice of technique depend on availability of the moment. So I suggest to make a section of "Attacks" and "Defenses" and then add the different techniques available under those sections. The Siu Nim Tau show several forms of open hand strikes. Pethol (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue with that is your categorization is not common across the board, nor does Wikipedia exist to categorize a listing of one version's techniques over another. There's actually a wide variance of techniques, hence the attempt to paint with the widest and most verifiable brush in these articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

About "Punch" in this article, I just do not understand the term "vertical" about Wing Chun "main" punch... Ok, I'm french so perhaps vertical mean something different, but about what I know, Wing Chun main punch is "horinzontal". Jazalh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.254.5.224 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A vertical punch means the fist is held vertically. Thus the wing chun punch is considered vertical. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Lee

While Bruce Lee was famous, he was not famous due to Wing Chun performance, thus does not deserve to be mentioned. The editor of this article need to be changed with another. Where can a user complain about editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pethol (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not how Wikipedia works. Bruce Lee was a notable wing chun practitioner, which is more than well referenced in books and magazines, which is what we use as references here. You wouldn't be the first new person here that has grand visions of rewriting entire articles to your personal viewpoint, and you certainly won't be the last. Luckily we have an established methodology for content on Wikipedia, for gaining consensus for changes, and for providing adequate checks and balances in the overall process. Lastly, I don't appreciate all the personal attacks and conduct here. Besides violating WP:CIVIL it simply does nothing to portray any of your points in a positive light to the other editors here.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

excessive credit to Yen?

Surely it is a bit excessive to say, "Yen is widely credited by many as the person responsible in popularizing the traditional martial arts style known as Wing Chun." Wing Chun was already a world-wide art years before the film. Perhaps a rephrasing to "bringing a renewed popularization" or "a new wave of interest/popularity" (79.190.69.142 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC))

Removed it all together, it somehow snuck in. Doesn't belong in the article summary and was to poorly referenced to move it in to the main body and not consider it WP:OR. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge Wing Tsun to Wing Chun

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 not merge but create new discussions on merging the style articles Wing Tsun and Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu with their respective founders and including only style specific information.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Hi there, after reviewing Wing Tsun I can not see any reason why Leung Ting's lineage has a separate page. I'm proposing a merge of that content to here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support There seems to be a lot of the same material and it is hard to see what would be left if it were removed. The little that was left would probably best be merged into the article on the style founder Leung Ting rather than its own article. Even if the article remained it should be far more brief.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There is a lot of unsourced fringe opinion on the Wing Tsun article regarding "anti grappling," expanded descriptions of the forms common to all Wing Chun, information on the grading system, uniforms, etc. that doesn't pass WP:DUE and then what's left? Lineage (which is broken but belongs under Leung Ting if notable); history (belongs under Wing Chun and Leung Ting although most of the latter probably fails WP:NPOV currently; Principles which seem universal to Wing Chun... and that's about it. Which is an expanded explanation of why I want to merge. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Mixed What's changed from the last three times this has been proposed? [2], [3], [4] I'm also concerned that this article was purposely done to be generic across the board, whereas the Wing Tsun article (which is a spelling and branch specific to Leung Ting) has it's own specifics. I wouldn't want to see lineage specific stuff merged into this article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

*Response Reviewing the 2009 merger proposal the reason put forward to not merge were 1) to avoid lineage wars (which is a silly reason) and 2) information specific to the Leung Ting lineage which is mostly non-notable un-cited and occasionally fringey. So if I start going in and editing away the WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE content we won't have anything but a Wing Chun page with a variant spelling and slightly more references to Leung Ting. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps the best approach is to remove the information already covered in the Wing Chun article leaving local redirects and see what' left.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I also what to add that there is nothing inherently wrong about separate articles about sub-styles. I am thinking about Aikido with separate articles for its main styles where there is little repetition by way of a good example.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Which other Wing Chun lineages get their own pages? Simonm223 (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu does. Otherwise, every other lineage is represented on the lineage head's page (Yuen Kay Shan, Wong Shun Leung, etc.) Might it be more beneficial to see about merging Wing Tsun to Leung Ting's own page and Traditional Wing Chun to William Cheung's own page to bring them in line with every other person in the art on here? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose merging Wing Tsun into Leung Ting's page rather than this one if that would be a better merge. I just don't think it warrants its own page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd also suggest merging Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu into either this page or its respective lineage head's page. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said above. I motion for changing this merger request to two merger requests then: Wing Tsun -> Leung Ting, and Traditional Wing Chun -> William Cheung. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I like this. If that was the consensus we would have to close this merger proposal and open two new ones as above. I suggest that we let this discussion run for a bit longer to ensure consensus and then move based on the outcome.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm amenable to this suggestion though I'm a bit busy so I might not be able to action it for a few days. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I will let this discussion for a week and then, unless you beat me to it and assuming that is the consensus, close this and open the other two discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please ping me on my user talk page if you do that change before I am able to. Simonm223 (talk) 16:40, 24 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.

Further merging of different romanizations

My understanding is that Ving Tsun is as particular to the Moy Yat lineage as Wing Tsun is to the Leung Ting lineage. Currently, the Ving Tsun doesn't forward anywhere (not hotlinked) and Wing Tsun forwards to Leung Ting's page. I think it would be appropriate to forward Ving Tsun to Moy Yat's page so as to avoid confusion. To my knowledge, no other lineage of WC spells it VT. Incidentally there is no longer a Ving Tsun page, such that even the Ving Tsun link on the Moy Yat page comes back to this page though it is hotlinked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ving_Tsun. It seems like it should be handled the same way for both lineage-specific romanizations.Blackthorne2k (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. That romanization is a common alternative one and is used by more than just Moy Yat (who is certainly known for gravitating towards that romanization though). That includes the Ving Tsun Athletic Organization or VTAA, the organization of Yip's students started in 1967. Some other examples are [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. As for why the other two are redirected, that's covered quite clearly in the above merger discussions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was indeed mistaken. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Best wishes.2601:4:1500:7AD:97B:DEE7:97ED:8C74 (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No advertising please

As in this edit [[11]] I have twice reverted insertions of the wing chun self defense blog. This is not a WP:RS and a single WC blog doesn't merit a see also or an external link. Wikipedia is not for advertising your school or your blog. Stop inserting it please. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree, that blog seems a bit targeted towards retail. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it being a blog and not merited under Reliable Sources does not explicitly prevent it from being an External Link. If we could find blogs that were written or edited by a recognizable authority, then those would be acceptable, correct? From just a quick search, the first few I came across didn't even warrant mentioning here. FlashClairvoyance (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wing Chun. 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 https://web.archive.org/20100203231318/http://www.richhealthandwellness.com:80/martialarts2.html to http://www.richhealthandwellness.com/martialarts2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415165829/http://www.cebridge.com.au:80/wongwebsite/kwoon/BiuJi.htm to http://www.cebridge.com.au/wongwebsite/kwoon/BiuJi.htm

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 23:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Japanese

The part "Japanese: wing6 ceon1" is obviously false, it is not Japanese. I suspect it to be Cantonese instead because of the context and the tone numbers. But I don't understand the wiki code to make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.6.28.35 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Leung Jan

The picture of Leung Jan ought to be removed, it's confirmed to be fake and there are no pictures of Leung Jan known to exist.

Also, why is William Cheung on there? He's certainly not in the same league of influence as Yip Man, Yuen Kay San, or Leung Jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.219.51 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree in both opinions. Lsanczyk (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wing Chun. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kungfuonline.com/form1_siu_nim_tao.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501000049/http://www.teamwingchun.co.uk/forms.php to http://www.teamwingchun.co.uk/forms.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628121302/http://www.tstvingtsun.bc.ca/Training.html to http://www.tstvingtsun.bc.ca/Training.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnvt.com/zh-cht/mysifu.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding removal of the concept of "structure"

Hi guys, I made a major edit to the subsection previously under "Balance, structure and stance", which I would like to discuss here. I believe the use of the term "structure" is actually erroneous. To illustrate why, it seems as if the authors who use that term are claiming that a Wing Chun practitioner stands with a fixed structure to deflect or redirect the opponent's attacks. But this concept of an immovable stationary structure, contradicts the principle of "receiving" the opponent's attack and then striking once the opponent retracts, which is well attested to in the following description of WC by Yip Man in a 1972 interview:

"...what makes Wing Chun indicative of a bamboo stick is that when the opponent strikes close, if one uses Tan Sao, Fuk Sao or Bong Sao to receive the attack, that actual strike will be as if hitting on a bamboo stick – one’s defence will, at that moment of attack, becomes pushed back as a result of the force, just like bamboo. When that strike retreats, however, one immediately strikes back at top speed, much like a bamboo stick will bounce back after with great force."

Therefore I deleted content like the following: "This structure is used to either deflect external forces or redirect them." and anything mentioning "rooting".

Thus, I think this is strong justification against using any concept of fixed structure in the article. I understand that some schools promote this concept very strongly and that it could be a point of disagreement. However, given the authenticity of the source material and the fact that Yip Man is perhaps the most respected figure in Wing Chun by the majority of those in the Wing Chun community, I think it would be wrong to describe Wing Chun in a manner that directly contradicts his own description so explicitly. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditht (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Page looks like somebody's personal blog no references

This page looks like it has been turned into a promotional blog from members of one single Wing Chun Kung Fu Academy and I have identified who is responsible, I won't name names but it is without honor. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC))

3 article weaknesses

It should have at least a paragraph about each of these: sticky hands (Chi Sao), the wooden dummy (Mu ren zhuang), and Wing Chun trapping (which is different from Clinch fighting). Phantom in ca (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sic quote; probably "word" not "work"

The quotation from Yip Man in the original source contains a probable spelling error. The word "word" works, "work" doesn't work as a word here. I don't think that a cited quotation can be corrected, so I assume it should be removed? --Wragge (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation for Robert Downey, Jr.

http://fightland.vice.com/blog/how-wing-chun-helped-robert-downey-jr-battle-addiction - Not sure if this meets the requirements for a source or not, but it does confirm. ERNesbitt (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling Yip Man / Ip Man?

His name is spelled both ways in the article. Which one is right? Only found this information...? How about using only one spelling in the sense of consistency? :] Tidras (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternate Spellings

The introduction contains this phrase:

"also romanised as Ving Tsun or Wing Tsun"

This is misleading. "Wing Tsun" is not an alternate way of rendering the name of the art in the Roman character set, it's a copyrighted name for a commercial variation owned by Leung Ting. Wing Tsun and Wing Chun are not the same, and we risk infringement and confusion by claiming otherwise.

If nobody objects I'll change the article to reflect this soon.

—Cryptophreak (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on Wikipedia many times over. Whether or not Leung Ting copyrighted that english romanization is irrelevant, it is still an alternate romanization of the Chinese characters, and was such long before any copyright claims. Regardless, such copyright identification is already in the Wing Tsun article. There is no risk of "copyright violation" any more than mentioning other brand names and trademarks elsewhere on Wikipedia is an issue. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue at all, because "Wing Tsun" is in fact not "an alternate romanization of the Chinese characters", it is the name of a distinct subset within the art. To quote the Wing Tsun page, "the particular phonetic spelling of 詠春 as Wing Tsun was picked by the branch founder Leung Ting to differentiate his branch from the others." Ving Tsun is an alternate romanization scheme, Wing Tsun is not.

Because a particular contemporary teacher decided to adopt a specific romanization for his branch does not change the fact it's an alternate romanization of the Chinese characters. Likewise, Leung Ting and his branch already have articles here. This is just repetitious of the argument presented above and all the times in the past, nothing new presented. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please defend your claim that Wing Tsun is a valid romanization of 詠春. It does not conform to any romanization standard that I am familiar with, and as far as I am aware the sole reason for the existence and use of that spelling is to differentiate from other lineages. Cryptophreak (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

While I'm sure this conversation is dead and over with, Wing Tsun is a valid romanization, just not a common one. WingTsun (note the lack of a space) is Leung Ting's trademarked variant. 詠春 can be romanized from the Cantonese pronunciation as Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, Wing Tsun, Ving Chun, etc. 彩虹牧師 (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Restoring Past Deletions

This page previously contained much more information which has since been deleted. The last point where this information was present is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wing_Chun&oldid=864505320

It makes sense to revise the content to be better cited and more encyclopedic. However, I do not think that simply removing the information wholesale is the ideal solution. This resulting in certain aspects of Wing Chun being completely absent from Wikipedia (e.g. San Sik) and causes the article to almost exclusively reflect the Ip Man sect of Wing Chun.

Therefore, I propose restoring the removed sections and then working to more selectively edit and cite them.

--Harimau777 (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I restored the information on less common forms including San Sik. These still need citations and the Empty Hands section still needs to be edited to use a table like the rest of the forms. --Harimau777 (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I restored the information on Chi Sau and Chi Geuk. This section still needs citations and the text should probably be revised. --Harimau777 (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to add information on Wing Chun's centerline theory, strategy of simultaneous attack & defense, emphasis on uncommitted strikes, and "inch power". It also likely makes sense to discuss the distinctive aspects of the Wing Chun punch (e.g. striking with the bottom three knuckles) and the "straight blast". Finally, it might make sense to at least mention Wing Chun's approach to kicking.

Unfortunately, the information on these topics in the previous version likely needs more extensive revision and organization before it is ready to be restored.

--Harimau777 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yuen Kay Shan continually listed as a founder

I wanted to bring this up on the talk page, as I've seen this get added back more than once. Yuen Kay Shan never claimed to be the founder of Wing Chun, only passing on what he had been taught himself by Fok Bo Chun, and Wong Wah Bo before him. Fok Bo Chun was a contemporary of Leung Jan, who we can historically date, and therefore know Wing Chun existed at least one generation prior to Yuen Kay Shan, if not more. Furthermore, neither Yuen Kay Shan himself, nor his disciple Sum Nung, ever claimed he created the art. Yuen Kay Shan's lineage exists in parallel to many others, and like most of those, claim their founding back to Ng Mui (who may or may not have existed). I submit that if anyone should be listed besides Ng Mui, it should be Chi Shin, as he is attested to in many of the Kuen Kuit and Oral Histories, the Pole form of Wing Chun is claimed to have come from him, and the Weng Chun lineages all claim to have descended from him as founder. I would also submit that Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai be included potentially, as in many stories they are credited as the ones who created the full system out of the prototypical Wing Chun before them, and Chi Shin's Pole form. However, rather than making these edits myself, I submit this for consideration by other more experienced Wikipedians to discuss. 樂牧師 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New article on Sifu Julian Hitch

Hi!

Would anyone be open to collaborating in order to create an article about Sifu Julian Hitch?

He is a Wing Tsun teacher living in London and I've just finished reading a book he has written. I'm looking for an experienced Wikipedia editor who is knowledgable about Wing Chun (Wing Tsun) and interested in helping me with the article?

I have done my research and have lots of interesting content and references I'd love to include, but I've not contributed to Wikipedia before and finding it hard to know where to start. I also want to ensure none of my information is biased or misleading, as I only recently found Wing Tsun and as a woman, I am so fascinated by its history and origins and how it differentiates from any other martial art! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abitlo (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have done a search on Sifu Julian Hitch and found nothing to establish notability. The main reference needed is a news article on Julian that is national even having multiple news sources that are local papers are not enough. Grandmaster Pan Nam himself does not have his own article for that reason even though he is famous. Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Weaknesses and controversies involving fights against MMA

Is it worth mentioning these? Context: A number of Wing Chun practitioners have challenged MMA fighters and gotten badly beaten. It could be dangerous to portray Wing Chun as an effective form of self-defense without addressing its weaknesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9201:4020:3C8E:707F:BEDA:5CE0 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Those wing chun masters never fought in the ring the ones who have are successful fighters, there are several out there Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

lack of ground / wrestling skills

seems to be a non-discussed matter in this art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. We don't grapple, but we regularly use the ground against opponents. It's part of the Wing Chun concept of "Settling" your opponent to better deliver the force of your attacks into their body. I won't edit the page, since I can't cite a direct published source at the moment, but I'll ask my Sifu in the Moy Yat lineage to write an article expounding upon this, and link here for consideration by more experienced Wikipedians. 71.237.103.184 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

William Cheung teaches ground fighting techniques as for wrestling most martial arts don’t wrestle Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The red boat opera company

After extensive research and discussions with a Wing Chun Grandmaster I believe that the red boat opera cohort was responsible for the creation and spread of Wing Chun and should be written as such. Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur with this recommendation. We can verify Wing Chun existed as an art at least one generation prior to Leung Jan, and the oral records state that he was taught by 2 members of the Red Boat troupe. In my discussions with my cousins in the Yuen Kay Shan lineage, they similarly trace their Wing Chun back to another member of the troupe. While the stories of Ng Mui can not be corroborated, the tales of the Red Boat troupe are much more recent, were attested to by persons who show up in the historical record, and oral tradition also states the art took on the pole form at this time, resulting in the Wing Chun we know today. Excellent recommendation, Australianblackbelt. 樂牧師 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Chi gotta be kidding

Quote: Chi Sau in Wing Chun is ...

Well, I don't know what Chi Sau is, could you please translate this? Thank you. Maikel (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging History of Wing Chun into Wing Chun. I think the content in History of Wing Chun can easily be explained in the context of Wing Chun, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Wing Chun because its History section is only 5 sentences in length.

1. History of Wing Chun was created in 2005 without any reference to the Wing Chun article, it is 16kb in size, classed at quality = Start, and received an average of 37 visitors per day over the past month
2. Wing Chun was created in 2001 and there was no discussion about creating a WP:SPINOFF article titled History of Wing Chun in 2005, it is 24kb in size, classed at quality = C, and received an average of 1,221 visitors per day over the past month

I cannot see a reason why Wing Chun should be separated from its history. There are benefits in bringing these two together. I shall wait one week for other editor's views. William Harris (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The merge is now completed. Interested editors are invited to apply WP:MOS to the expanded History section. William Harris (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Weng Chun

Should Weng Chun be merged with Wing Chun? Functionally, Weng Chun (atleast Chi Sim lineage) is some sort of intermediate form between Hung Ga and Wing Chun of Ng Mui/Leung Bok-Chau - it is kinda like Tang Soo Do to Wing Chun's Taekwondo if that makes sense. The Weng Chun system and name mainly perpetuate amongst Wing Chun lineages originating from Chi Sim, with also Pan Nam lineage using the name.. Also Chu 2015 ocassionally refers to "Always Spring" (translation of Weng Chun) variation when discussing these lineages + the Nanyang one, which claims to be fusion of Ng Mui's and Chi Sim's systems.

However, there are martial arts scholars - Ip Man included - who consider Weng Chun to be a seperate/sister style of Wing Chun. Thoughts? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)