Talk:Choy Li Fut

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cai Li Fo → Choy Li Fut – Most sources use this spelling or a similar Cantonese-based version. The current title is a transliteration from Mandarin Chinese seldom used in English sources. See also previous discussion here. —  AjaxSmack  04:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support. I get 22 (11 deghosted) post-1990 English-language GBook results for "Cai Li Fo". For the Cantonese spelling, there are 410 (124 deghosted) for "Choy Li Fut", plus 100 (69 deghosted) for "Choi Li Fut". Kauffner (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Pinyin usage gone wild. Not everything Chinese is automatically pinyin. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if specifically related to Cantonese culture/food etc then Cantonese can be used over pinyin. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Multiple issues (January 2015)
This article has many issues:
 * WP:PEACOCK: "powerful", "agile", "effective", "particularly noted", "like all great martial artists", etc. Especially bad in the lead section, which sounds like it's trying to make Choy Li Fut sound awesome (especially with the Bruce Lee quote). By contrast, the lead sections of karate, wing chun, and silat, just to give a few examples, describe those respective arts plainly.
 * Much of the text in the article is just a list of trivial lineage information. A typical Wikipedia reader would want to know the description of the art and the history of its practice, not just a list of random names. A list of only the more notable practitioners can be split off into a separate list article (or a category) if necessary. Most of the names given in this article are not notable, nor is there any citation given for them. The article is short on actual information about Choy Li Fut's techniques and principles. Compare to Wing Chun's detailed Characteristics and Curriculum sections.
 * Extremely dubious references:
 * Wong Kiew Kit, in both his books cited here, unquestioningly repeats the long-discredited Bodhidharma myth of Shaolin kung fu (see Meir Shahar's Shaolin Monastery, or Tang Hao's work on the subject). Wong also repeats the myth of Emperor Taizu of Song having created a martial art, and of Zhang Sanfeng being the founder of taijiquan. Reading around on the web, Wong seems to believe all kinds of kooky fringe stuff. He is not a reliable source for anything.
 * Historical lineage info from online sources that provide no documentation of their own sources. Which 19th century documents did they consult for such detailed information? Lineage fraud is common in Chinese martial arts. Where's the evidence?
 * The Way of the Warrior by Chris Cruddelli is used as a source for some Choy Gar info. The book only contains basic, unsourced info about various martial arts. He has two short paragraphs on the whole thing and doesn't say how he knows who the founder was. The intro to the book even says it's not necessary to be "overly clinical" in addressing the differences between facts and fables. Seriously?


 * Dubious fairy tales with intentionally misleading citations:
 * The cited page in the Bruce Lee book The Tao of Gung Fu does not include the details given in the paragraph about Choy Fook.
 * Similarly, the cited page on Barefoot Zen doesn't include any of the details of the paragraph about Choy Fook it's given as a reference for.
 * Given the above, the entire section on Choy Fook looks like made-up bullshit to me, tarted up with a couple of references that don't back it up. At this point I'm not even convinced that Choy Fook was a real person.

--Difference engine (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although some books are cited, only a few of the citations give page numbers. Given that the two that I checked that did have page numbers were bullshit (see above), I'm extremely skeptical about the ones that don't cite any specific page numbers.
 * There are many details about the 19th century history of Choy Li Fut that do not cite any sources. The only cited sentences in those sections pertain to general facts about that era. Where is all this information coming from?


 * For future reference, Clftruthseeking responded to my comments (above) on my talk page. In case I archive my talk page in the future, is my reply to him. --Difference engine (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Too many unverifiable claims to lineages
There are far too many claims to lineages to CLF on this page. Self-promotion is a nuisance. This page should be only about the history and foundation of CLF and just because someone took a class from a master who shared a room with another master doesn't make you an heir to CLF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.175.249 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Massive clean-up needed
Far too many unverifiable references to random names and practitioners on this page. If you review the other major martial art pages, they do not contain multiple references to unknown individuals and random teachers and students. Only notable practitioners should be noted on the main page (ie: Wesley Snipes in Shotokan, etc..). All other claimed lineages, individuals and branches should be listed on their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.175.249 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)