Talk:Weng Chun

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the source material is not copyrighted and the author is referenced. The history of Weng Chun cannot be written in my own words without the danger of misrepresenting the facts. --Thamesbank (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: I have made extensive edits to the texts and hope this has resolved the issue. Regards and sorry for the trouble! --Thamesbank (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Duplication Detector report message, I have removed the text which was orginally from the website referenced and replaced it with an original text. --Thamesbank (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weng Chun is not an art in and of itself, it's merely a different romanization of the Chinese characters for Wing Chun. What this page is about is the Lo Family style of Weng Chun, which is a very SMALL part of the world of Weng Chun, and is thus extremely misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.77.248.115 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint would be incorrect given the current subject matter and it's references. Likewise, there's two separate sets of characters being discussed here, not simply a different romanization. In order to make the kind of changes you're claiming, you'd need some pretty verifiable and reliable references (by Wikipedia's standards) instead of your opinion (which constitutes wp:or). That's the way Wikipedia works. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]