Talk:William Cheung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Cheung article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

Martial arts Portal	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article if you think something is missing, please help us improve them! You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Biographies Manual of Style
???	This page has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)