Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 12:30pm

Originally Posted by Ming Loyalist

yeah, and in most cases there are pictures on the altar and/or the wall. we have pictures of everyone back to wong fei hung (there are no photos of him, so we have a statue) and no one should care about lineage before him, anyway, since he changed the art so much.

Ming, I've always noticed the wiki page on Fei Hung has what they say is an "alleged" photo.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...g_fei_hung.jpg

I have yet to find out why this is "alleged". But why there are no pictures of someone who was quite popular in a time when photography was relatively common...why are the only supposed photos of him so suspect?

There are very grainy videos of Mok Gwai Lan in her 80s doing what looks like tiger/crane and chain whip demonstration for a TV show...really old stuff. Boy I wish someone had gotten Fei Hung on video...

YouTube- Mok Gwai Lan

-ED

**Sri Hanuman** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 12:43pm

Please, never use Wikipedia as a source of credible information.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 12:46pm

Originally Posted by Sri Hanuman

Please, never use Wikipedia as a source of credible information.

The Wiki picture is included from non-Wiki source material (ie Wikipedia didn't magically create a 100 year old looking photograph for the site.)

-ED

**Sri Hanuman** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 12:51pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

The Wiki picture is included from non-Wiki source material (ie Wikipedia didn't magically create a 100 year old looking photograph for the site.)

-ED

1. Anyone can edit Wiki to insert any crap they want.
2. Wikipedia doesn't critically evaluate it's sources. One can easily cite an Ashida Kim equivalent on any topic.
3. If you want to cite sources, do some reading, use proper academic sources, cite that.

Wiki <> credible source of info.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 12:59pm

Originally Posted by Sri Hanuman

Wiki <> credible source of info.

The credibility of individual articles might vary but well written/edited articles certainly have citations to more credible stuff. In the case of Wong's photo it's controversy predates Wikipedia anyway, which was just the first link that came up when I went searching for the photo.

-ED

**Sri Hanuman** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 1:03pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

The credibility of individual articles might vary but well written/edited articles certainly have citations to more credible stuff. In the case of Wong's photo it's controversy predates Wikipedia anyway, which was just the first link that came up when I went searching for the photo.

-ED

Are you just here to argue or what?
Please note, I'm being nice.

1. Wikipedia does not critically evaluate it's sources.
2. That means, any jackass can write a book or article, and Wikipedia will accept it as a source.
3. This further means that Wikipedia is not a solid source of information on which a poster can rely to deliver solid, indesputable backup to his stance.
4. If you want to back your point, get off your ass, read a book, make sure the author is someone who knows what he is talking about (background in history, ma, or known scholar, etc.)

Otherwise you're just arguing a moot point.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 1:07pm

Originally Posted by Sri Hanuman

Are you just here to argue or what?
Please note, I'm being nice.

1. Wikipedia does not critically evaluate it's sources.
2. That means, any jackass can write a book or article, and Wikipedia will accept it as a source.
3. This further means that Wikipedia is not a solid source of information on which a poster can rely to deliver solid, indesputable backup to his stance.
4. If you want to back your point, get off your ass, read a book, make sure the author is someone who knows what he is talking about (background in history, ma, or known scholar, etc.)

Otherwise you're just arguing a moot point.

If I was here to argue I'd be debating you bullet by bullet. I am just pointing out the picture in Wiki happens to be the same picture all the other sites/books about Fei Hung have, and they all claim it is "supposed" but "questionable". I wanted to know if anything knew why this picture is considered "questionable".

-ED

**Sri Hanuman** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 1:08pm

I'm not talking about the picture.
I'm talking about Wikipedia as a source of information.

**Ming Loyalist** · Posted On: 6/25/2010 1:11pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

If I was here to argue I'd be debating you bullet by bullet. I am just pointing out the picture in Wiki happens to be the same picture all the other sites/books about Fei Hung have, and they all claim it is "supposed" but "questionable". I wanted to know if anything knew why this picture is considered "questionable".

-ED

what i heard is that it's a photo of one of his sons who "looked like" him.

your point is TOTALLY irrelevant to this discussion. please drop it, it does NOT matter. if you want to talk about how ready to discuss lineage all legit CMA instructors are then, we have something to talk about.

so... did your sifu (certainly a legit sifu) trace back your lineage to at least WFH for you? IIRC it's part of the first belt test in your system to be able to recite the whole lineage.