Talk:Jim Fung

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Information on Grandmaster Fung's Academy belongs in this section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Agenda fueled edit war. 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Please do not use Blitz magazine as a reference. 95% of this magazine is either advertisement or articles written by martial artists (or their shools) themselves  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.25.250 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making edits based on your own personal opinions and unverifiable claims about Jim Fung.  Unless you can provide your own references to back it up, its WP:OR.  --Marty Goldberg  06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Way to slander the dead guy without references.Rpf 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, Figheter5765 Rpf was actualy saying that the comment was slander he didn't make the comments, check the edit history. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: a) I'm not affiliated in any way with Jim Fung or his linneage.  b) Once again, you've provided only personal opinions.  Stating something is fact or "verifiable" without providing actual verifiable references is called WP:OR for a reason.  That's the way Wikipedia works.  And posting a long rant and making accusations about others doesn't change that fact or put forth a convincing argument.  And it appears all your attempted edits of this article has followed the same pattern.  --Marty Goldberg 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marty, isn't this article exactly what you just wrote - WP:OR? All references are in Jim Fung's website - a bit too circular, don't you think so? You ask me to put forth 'a convincing argument'. I am asking anybody to put an argument proving that this article is not a pure fabrication. Without references to IWCA's website, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.176.197 (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current article is WP:OR?  Hardly, because it has references.  Most of the content in this entry (and much of it was removed by myself and others because it read like an advertisement), was written when Mr. Fung was still alive.  Consequently it had to follow WP:BLP, in which it clearly states self published material by the subject is entirely permissible. WP:OR covers what you're trying to do - claiming viewpoints and saying your statements are true just because you say so.  You need actual WP:V references that back up your claims about Mr. Fung and your statements about the magazine, etc. etc.  That's what you were asked to do, not "provide a convincing argument".  You can argue until you're blue in the face and waste more time here, but that won't change a thing unless you have actual citable references to back it up. Likewise, just because you don't agree with the current references that go against your opinion (which is all it is at this point), doesn't make them any less credible.   What this entry does need now however, and why there's currently a tag calling for it, are additional references.  Once again though, your emotional rants, accusations, and pure lack of desire to follow Wikipedia policy is not helping the matter or getting anyone to take you seriously.  --Marty Goldberg 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaggerated claims 

message: Dose someone want to explain why this tag has been fliping on and off this article, someone obvious questions the content & someone else seems to be protecting it what it contentious bit? --Nate1481( t/c) 08:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nate, if it were a legitimate concern for WP:OR I wouldn't care.  However, its being used as a tool by the same guy out of Sydney that was making the bordering on vandalism edits to the page and that started the "Exaggerated claims" thread above. Basicly thinking if he can't get his own WP:OR in here he'll use the same call on the article itself.  --Marty Goldberg 15:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Resarch tag 

message: I am writing this note to address the ridiculous comment above by someone who clearly knows nothing of the Sigung Chu Shong Tin lineage. I am a fifth year student of Sifu Lai in the UK who is a student of Sigung Chu Shong Tin. There is no doubt in my school that Sibak Fung was the most senior student of Sigung Chu.
The comments made about Sibak Fung are of no substance and are clearly worded to bring undue criticism to a greatly respected Master of my lineage. I respectfully submit that they should be removed by moderation staff.
Humblepersistence 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you mean the comments by  203.10.25.250.  While his material was removed from the main page entry, the comments above are not subject to that sort of editing.  This is a Wikipedia:Talk_page, an area for discussing (and debating) the editing of the main article.  It is against Wikipedia policy to edit another person's comments on a talk page, unless they had nothing to do with the article editing discussion.  And in this case they did. --Marty Goldberg 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sibak Fung 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Fung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070424193633/http://notices.smh.com.au:80/death/28308/notice.aspx to http://notices.smh.com.au/death/28308/notice.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified