Talk:Jim Fung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is about a recently deceased person. Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known.

Contents 1 Advertisement? 2 Clarifications 3 Images removed 4 Information on Grandmaster Fung's Academy belongs in this section 5 Agenda fueled edit war.

[edit] Advertisement?

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

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

the following things are simply not verified:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is chi supposed to be fact now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Clarifications

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

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

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

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

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

Tall poppy syndrome has no place on Wikipedia.

[edit] Images removed

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

[edit] Information on Grandmaster Fung's Academy belongs in this section

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

[edit] Agenda fueled edit war.

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

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

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

Storkrodent 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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