Talk:Wing Chun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wing Chun article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wing Chun is a striking art.

At least, I'm pretty sure that is the majority view.

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)


[edit] Wing Tsun old man

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) ]

[edit] 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)
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)