Talk:Chan Tai San/Archive 2

Gus Kaparos

The following exchange has been copied from my Talk page, User Talk:JohnInDC, to here, where the discussion is more appropriate. The issue is the inclusion of one Gus Kaparos as a student of Chan Tai San.

Without boring you with a long (and pointless) history, let me just say that the person who keeps changing the entry has a LONG HISTORY,mostly negative, including legal issues, and it is probably best in the interests of the entry and wikipedia in general that you not step in and give support where you don't have the details. The existing names are supported by the articles/links already included in the articles references. If you want to contact me more directly feel free to do so at info@nysanda.com

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I know: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Legitimate_content_and_discussion_on_said_content_being_delted. I don't care to, and am not required to, review each of the various footnotes to ascertain whether they support the assertions that these redilinked persons were students of Chan Tai San. It is up to you to place them properly in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be emailing you too, actually. Maybe we can figure out exactly what your issue is in email, since you simply delete my attempts to talk on your page and harass the people I attempt to help me. All I will say here is that you know for an absolute fact that Gus Kaparos was a student of Chan Tai San and its petty and insulting to the memory of your Sifu that you would claim otherwise.

Xavierq (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are you that you claim to be such an expert on Chan Tai San? And should I point out that you attempted to get Mike Parrella's entry deleted? Why? Perhaps because you are either (1) a student of Gus Kaparos or (2) Gus Kaparos himself and that after Parrella's lawyer "fixed" the other situation on the Kung Fu online forum you just want some "pay back". The other individuals are supported by the FOOTNOTES in the article, that is what they are there for! You scanned a single page without even referencing the source and it is a third hand account by a WING CHUN PERSON WHO NEVER EVEN KNEW CHAN TAI SAN Nysanda (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

JohnInDC (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nysanda - if your sources support the claims you are making for these individuals, then attach the references in the proper place in the article. It is not incumbent upon other editors to guess at which references support which assertions - particularly in the case of disputed content such as this. Please make those changes, since you are apparently knowledgeable on the subject matter, or the inclusion of the redlinked names will be subject to removal as well. JohnInDC (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DONE Nysanda (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I became aware of technical issue related to web site RE links, they are NOW ALIVE, please do NOT delete alive links to sources! Nysanda (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you, but I'll repeat it here (since I hadn't found this conversation until just now). I am not Gus. I am not one of his students. Though I do train with someone from the Chan Tai San lineage. You and I do not know eachother. (I assume you're Dave Ross) My interest is simply in making this article accurate.

I see you've fixed the angelfire links. Thank you. I never claimed the rest of the list was false, just that omitting Gus is incorrect. My goal is the overall accuracy of this article, that includes your information.

I've no idea what legal things have happened between you and he, but it has NO bearing on this article. This is an encyclopedia article containing facts, not a forum for spite.

Speaking of no bearing, yes I tried to have Mike Parrella's page deleted. This was because there are no working footlinks at all, no proof of any kind. Also there's been a notability warning for TWO YEARS that's never been responded to and citation request for 18 months that's also been ignored. Deleting it is a completely reasonable request. I went through the proper channels, and it was denied because you guys contested it. That's fine, please fix it. It doesn't justify this crusade against Gus that you're on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chan Tai San's disciples are VERY TIGHT, if you aren't Gus or a student of Gus' then one would wonder WHY you wuld try and get Mike Parrella's entry deleted and why you are trying to insert him into the article. Were you at the banquet? Doesn't add up at all I'm afraid. The legal issue has definite bearing because if you are trying to get an article deleted just for "pay back" that is not acceptable here. If you are interested in making things "accurate" stop trying to change this article... Nysanda (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Link #4 still doesn't work.

You linked four references defending the names on your list. Your new references, 14, 15 and 16 are just the same image already linked as reference #2. It is a magazine cover image that has Chan Tai San's name on it. It does not mention any of the men you listed, nor does reference #1 that's also used. If their names are given in the article, you need to link the actual article.

Also, none of this has any bearing on the fact that my reference to include Gus Kaparos was valid.

Xavierq (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that adding Gus Kaparos is inaccurate? You're honestly going to tell me that Gus never trained with Chan Tai San? That you didn't spend years training side by side with him? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • ::contribs) 00:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to you personally listing Gus Kaparos as someone who trained with Chan Tai San. It's quoted by other people in the same thread, so don't bother trying to edit it.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=826161#post826161

Xavierq (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the refs. Of course they are cold refs, in that the content can't be viewed or easily verified, and for that reason it seems to me that they are, for now, not much stronger or weaker than the ref that supported the inclusion of Gus Kaparos. For that reason I've added him back in. JohnInDC (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not Mike Parrella, nor was I involved in the two times lawyers smacked down Kaparos (though considering to this very day he plagarizes my writings on his web site I certainly COULD do the same). The fact you tried to get Parrella's entry deleted at the same time agains raises questions about who you are and your agenda here.

I not only was CTS's primary translators, accompanied him to all the events he attended and helped him in his demonstrations I ALSO WROTE ALL THE ARTICLES, so trying to claim I am not a direct student will get you nowhere. On the other hand, your sole source is a WING CHUNG person basicly saying "my friend gus says...". IE it is NOT a reliable source in any way! Nysanda (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed you weren't a student. You're the one who's claiming that Gus wasn't. Whatever legal issues Gus and Mike had has no bearing on this article.

My link is a scan from the same magazine you used as your source. If its valid for you, its valid for me.

Again, you know for a fact that Gus was a student. I don't know why you're going to such lengths to act as if he wasn't.

Xavierq (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I will scan entire articles which include family trees and references and then "John" can see that official stories about CTS include names where the "other source" is a friend saying "my buddy says he is a student of CTS". When I do that, I expect I will be able to edit the article without your reverting it

Nysanda (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: if you really want to push the issue here, we can link the the bullshido article about his propensity towards being a pathological liar. The man states that he is an orphan who was raised by CTS! The fact that for a good deal of time you could walk into a dinner and talk to the Kaparos family in person made that story a bad joke! I'd prefer to leave the wiki piece what it is, an article about CTS with SOURCES...

Nysanda (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a source. Again, its the same magazine your source comes from. Not some friend of mine, as I have no idea who wrote it. The bullshido article isn't relevant, I said the man trained him, I didn't say he was his father.

I'll ask again, as to make it very clear. Are you saying that Gus Kaparos never trained with Chan Tai San?

I don't care one way or the other who's on this list or isn't. But if the sources for the various names are equally reliable and verifiable, then all the names should be in - or out, as the quality of the sources dictates. I look forward to the results of your efforts! JohnInDC (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To state the obvious! Just because it is in the same magazine does NOT make it "the same!! One is an article about CTS, co edited by the CHIEF EDITOR OF THE MAGAZINE (Dave Cater). The other is an article about a WING CHUNG guy who is not a student of Chan Tai San's (and who never even met Chan Tai San) who in talking about his friend says "Gus was a student blah blah blah"

John can't use me as a source saying "well, he said that this guy said this"! THERE ARE SIGNIGICANT DIFFERENCES and when I scan the complete articles I strongly suspect John will see this and no longer revert the changes

Nysanda (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article you post specifically excludes Gus, I don't see how anything it says would invalidate my reference. It isn't some forum, it's a professional magazine that checks facts and puts its reputation behind every article it publishes, no matter who the author. Just because the chief editor wrote yours doesn't make mine false.

And again, I'm asking you what your motive here is. Are you claiming Gus Kaparos was not a student of Chan Tai San? I think you avoid answering because you know for a fact he was. Even if you somehow invalidate my source and force me to find a better one or remove the reference, you still know for a certainty that he trained right next to you. Xavierq (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You try and delete the official facebook page run by the senior students? Sad, pathetic, vandalism. STOP IT. You're really acting poorly Nysanda (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the Facebook link is highly questionable. Generally such links are to be avoided - see WP:ELNO. It appears to be in the nature of a tribute page and I am not sure the basis on which that would pass muster. Certainly calling its removal "vandalism" is inappropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted actual scans of articles published during Chan Tai San's lifetime. The first is a 1989 IKF article written by myself and Steve Ventura in which at the time we and Stephen Laurette were considered the top three disciples (Mike Parrella had not met CTS yet). The article's lineage chart reflects this. The second scan is the 1996 cover story that IKF ran. The piece was actually written by CTS himself, translated by myself and Stephen Innocenzi and co edited by Dave Cater, editor of IKF magazine. Thus, of the original list, the peopel that remain in "question" would be Ho Chi Yu and Carl Albright ... and of course Kaparos... The absence of Kaparos from the articles AND the pictures (also linked in the article) weighed against an article which is about NEITHER CTS NOR Kaparos and was published in 2008, FOUR YEARS after CTS was deceased, should in my opinion demonstrate my point

Nysanda (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking all that work, and so quickly, but I'm afraid the foregoing runs squarely into the prohibition set forth at Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. The article discussing Kaparos states plainly, "Sifu Kaparos is a disciple of the late choy lei faht and Tibetan lama pai grandmaster Chan Tai San..." That is, as best I can tell, a reliable source for kung fu information, and per this source, Kaparos was a disciple of Chan Tai San. You can't argue by inference that he is not. Based on what I've seen, if you want to leave Kaparos off this list, you're going to have to find reliable sources that say he is *not* a student / disciple.

At this point I think the matter should be deemed settled. We have a reliable source for including Kaparos and no reliable source to the contrary. Please do not remove his name again. JohnInDC (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are joking, right? (end sarcasm). You have an article that is not about Chan Tai San, written in fact about a Wing Chun person (CTS had no connection to wing chun) in which the person states that his friend simply told him he was a disciple. Do you really think that is the same as articles (NUMEROUS) about CTS in which the disciples are mentioned and he is NOT?? Clearly they are NOT THE SAME! So what is the "higher authority" here? Because I have done TONS of citations here, and all the other person has produced is this rathter lame single page with teh above noted problems!

Nysanda (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course I'm not joking. We have an article, published in what is apparently a reliable source, stating something as a fact. You contest this fact by arguing that this presumptive act is not set forth in other places where one might expect it to be set forth. That is precisely the kind of reasoning that WP:Synthesis prohibits. If you can find reliable sources to the effect that this (thus far, reliably sourced) claim is not true, then perhaps it should be removed. Pending that - there doesn't seem to be much more to say about it. But perhaps I'm wrong. Why not post something to WP:EAR and ask? There is already a section on this article there, right at the top. JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did indeed take it over to the "EAR" thing, let's see if others jump in. I find it amusing that you want to ban me after I've more than demonstrated I have reliable sources on the subject. In fact, I might point out that I am the AUTHOR of many of those articles... Well, let's see how this plays out, but clearly you can't see the difference between teh numurous sources I've cited and this lone page of questionable value!

Nysanda (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I mean it sincerely. I hope we can sort this out. JohnInDC (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My interest is singular and direct, to preserve accurate information about my late teacher. It is the reason I have provided so much documentation for this article. I feel I have supported every claim I have made with ample evidence. I am willing to let things cool for a while, but hope that as I do links are not deleted and content not changed 14:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nysanda (talk • contribs)

I still say that a facebook page is not an appropriate link, but if you will leave the sourced reference to Gus Kaparos in place until we get some more independent opinions, I'll leave the facebook link until that point. It sincerely saddens me that you're challenging this. You know for a fact he trained with him. You're not challenging the fact, just my ability to prove it. If you were interested in accurate information, there never would have been a question as to if Gus Kaparos trained with Chan Tai San. Xavierq (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The facebook page is (1) administered by the disciples who we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt were direct CTS students AND (2) contains many pics and scans of CTS, including writing in his own hand, the articles, etc... You continue to deny you are affiliated with Kapros, yet refuse to explain what knowledge you have about this subject? Again, not only am I a person who you can not deny had intimate knowledge of CTS, I have also backed up everything with citations Nysanda (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Then this information should be hosted on more appropriate environment than facebook. I'd have no problem with the link if it went someplace besides facebook containing those same images. It's the collateral content also present by nature on a facebook page open to public discussion that I feel has no place linked to this article.

What knowledge I have has no relevance here. In fact, personal knowledge is a completely unacceptable source for wikipedia. You are required to have notable sources, which is exactly what I've done. The burden of proof is now on you to prove false something we both know is true. Or do you require more links to your own posts discussing Gus training with you and CTS to refresh your memory? Xavierq (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear lord, grasping at straws now are we? So the pics of CTS with his disciples are not legit if they are on facebook? The scans of the actual articles, published when CTS was alive are not legit because they are on facebook? LMFAO, please! This reeks of desperation! Also, if you read the guidelines, personal knowleddge if it is "expert knowledge" is acceptable if the person cites how they gained such knowldege. Please read what John linked to! IN my case, the years I spent with CTS and other Tibetan MA people is an obvious part of my knowledge base. You keep saying you know something is true, well how do you know it? To me, who spent time with CTS, your comments and actions confirm for me beyond any doubt that you do not know anything at all about CTS or hiw disciples. Finally, while IKF is a legit source, it is also CONTEXT. Your "source" is someone who never met CTS claiming he was told by Kaparos that he trained with him! My sources, in one case were written by CTS himself! Nysanda (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here, you can refer to WP:COS - Citing oneself "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources". Nysanda (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked about my personal knowledge, not your own. But it makes no difference, either way you need sources cited. If IKF is a valid source, it validates both our citations. The weight of their name and reputation hold one up as well as the other. The only piece of evidence you could possibly provide at this point is a scan of a retraction from IKF claiming that author was incorrect and Gus Kaparos never trained with CTS.

Though since you're the author of half the articles linked anyway, why not just write up an article claiming you've never met Gus and he never trained with you or CTS and then link it? If you're a credible source yourself, that should be all the proof needed, right? Though since we both know that to be untrue, it'd be outright libel if you posted such an article with your name on it, right? Xavierq (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL, clearly you're losing it! By the way, your grasp of the law is as poor as your grasp of the facts regarding CTS. Nysanda (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum or a name calling contest, can we please keep this discussion to the relevant points, in this case the inclusion or exclusion of Gus Kaparos on the list of people who've trained under Chan Tai San. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we could do without the needless distraction of this back-and-forth. JohnInDC (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means, keep this relevant and to the point! The point is, that all the articles about CTS published when he was alive list the others on the original list but not Kaparos. The SOLE source that "Xavier" can come up with is an article that (1) is not about CTS and (2) is written by someone who never even met CTS and (3) whose entire "source" is the fact that Kaparos made the claim. You can threaten me with "libel" and it won't bother me nor distract me. But please when you have a chance explain again the above three points! Nysanda (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some links that might be found interesting: You mentioning Gus being part of the same article you used to verify the rest of you... http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=831152&postcount=1317

You calling Gus Kaparos your training brother http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=567098&postcount=204

You referencing when Gus met CTS: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=826161#post826161

Mike Parrella referencing when Gus met CTS: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=826183&postcount=1057

Chris Jurak referencing when Gus met CTS: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=826208&postcount=1067

You making reference to Baai Si ceremonies done in the school you, Parrella and Gus opened: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=560089&postcount=18

You referring to yourself, Steve Ventura and Gus as "Seniors" http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=560928&postcount=73

You linking a picture of Sifu Chan, yourself, Gus Kaparos and Mike Parrella in San Francisco with the Leung brothers. Sadly, this link doesn't actually work any longer. http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=561338&postcount=100

You making reference to what sets CTS had you, Parrella and Gus working on for Kwong Tit Fu's birthday http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=561578&postcount=110

You telling a story about CTS, Mike, yourself and Gus http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=573721&postcount=285 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to your deleting my above comments (which was undone) and stating "posts on chat forums do not constitute evidence:

This wasn't posted as a source. I have a cited source. It was simply posted to prove a point. Most of these posts were made by you personally. The real reason you're going to so much trouble to delete something you know as true is because you're the owner of a business that has a vested interest in your name being listed and Gus's not being listed. You're using this page as a piece of advertising. I believe that's actually call for having your account banned. I'm not requesting that happen, as you do contribute a great deal of much needed knowledge on lama and cts here. But I've no interest in your biased self serving version of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite a "personal attack" but perhaps someone else may disagree. In any case the personal identifying info should come out, eh? I've done that. See WP:TNO. JohnInDC (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Since he's cited himself by name in the CTS article, I didn't think I was saying anything he hadn't already made public knowledge. His user name, "nysanda" is the name of the business he owns, which I believe is a violation of the Wikipedia User Name Guidelines.

This is the title page of the article you're using as evidence that Gus Kaparos wasn't a student of CTS right? http://www.angelfire.com/ny/sanshou/magazine1.jpg Can you tell me who the gentlemen to CTS's right in the picture is please? You know, the man who's standing between you and CTS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierq (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You are going to revert personal attacks?

Lord John, maybe we need to start looking closer at YOU and your motives? You reverted a personal attack? Xavier's "you're the owner of a business that has a vested interest in your name being listed and Gus's not being listed". First of all, my business is in no way aligned or affiliated with any traditional kung fu system or teacher (I am "nysanda" and I suggest you look at www.NYSanDa.com and see if you can determine how my business in any way is dependent upon kung fu much less CTS personally). Second, LMFAO at the idea that Gus Kaparos, a person with 15 students (only 5 of them adults) who has a school MILES from me, in the middle of literally NOWHERE would have any effect upon my busines? And now Xavier threatens me with a "ban"? LOL again, who is he to ban me? Seriously John, what is your role in this? Seriously? Nysanda (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just see two editors ruining a Wikipedia page with what appears to be a completely extrinsic and increasingly personal dispute - starting with your repeatedly removing properly sourced material (which it *is*) and up through his claims that your actions are personally motivated; it's been going on for *months* and I wish you two would just knock it off. It's embarrassing. That's my role - to try and persuade you two to act like responsible, adult editors of Wikipedia. There's probably a better way to handle this than what I've done - by someone who's better versed in Wikipedia policy, or maybe someone who could block one or both of you for this endless bickering and edit warring - but I haven't been able to draw the attention of other editors to this page and so you're stuck with my efforts. Or rather, were. It occurs to me that I've spent way too much time trying to bring order to an article that I have no particular interest in or knowledge of; and inasmuch as *no* one else seems to be troubled by this dispute, perhaps the page is of so little general interest that finally it doesn't matter. So I think - and I say this in resignation rather than with rancor - I will simply unwatch the page and let things unfold as they will. I hope you guys get it sorted. JohnInDC (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be better to have more neutrals weigh in on this. But it is such as it is.. Sorry if I come off as "personal", maybe I am a bit hot headed. WIKI seems to lead to tireless and never ending edits and re-edits and reverts. I think I improved the Lama Pai article, so some success at least I suppose. Be well Nysanda (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think its a personal attack, contact an attorney and we'll discuss it in court. Otherwise, I will ask you for what must be the tenth time now to not delete user's talk comments and not delete properly sourced material. Even if you wrote that material, you do not own it. This isn't your personal page. 64.52.227.66 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The full article in question has been added and all debate on this subject should now be concluded. The citation should speak for itself now. In light of this, I'd like to delete this rather embarrassing discussion on the topic. I'll give it 7 days for either party involved to voice a disagreement then I'll remove the discussion.Xavierq (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

the RfAR has been declined but...

Would anyone like to give me a short recap of what's going on here? Gwen Gale (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Xavier wants to add the name of a person, Gus Kaparos, as a disciple or student of Chan Tai San. He has a source. Nysanda disputes this claim for Kaparos and asserts that the cited source is not credible, or at least not as credible as the sources the article cites (or in some cases fails to cite) for the others. (All sources appear to be the same magazine, but the articles are by different authors.) It went back and forth for quite some time, me favoring inclusion of the name given that it appeared to be reliably sourced. The back and forth generated a lot of heat and not much light. Later Xavier found Kaparos's name listed in the very article that Nysanda was using as a source for people he was ready to include as disciples - that seemed to me to be pretty conclusive but by then I had given up on this. (Both editors were behaving pretty contentiously, both of them probably qualifying for a block for one or another transgression; my efforts weren't helping to quiet things and no other editor seemed much to care. It seemed a good idea back away slowly and quietly -) There have been other disagreements along the way but I can't remember the details at this point. I hasten to add that both editors seem generally willing to respect the policies of Wikipedia, as well as the judgment of a third party (well - a fourth party actually). They both seem like nice enough fellows, just a bit too personally invested in the contents of this article. JohnInDC (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This posting at EAR may (may) be a bit more concise than the Talk page here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Legitimate_content_and_discussion_on_said_content_being_delted JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

cleanup and sourcing, xlinks

Geocities and Angelfire personal web pages are almost never taken as reliable on en.Wikipedia because such pages are not verifiable. I've removed anything cited to them. Likewise, I took out all the external links, none of them met WP:EL (the Facebook page may not be run by his heirs or anyone else authorized to do so).

I've cleaned up the English syntax and the citations.

I've taken out and deleted the photo of Chan because it's scanned from a magazine and most likely still behind a copyright, yet was uploaded PD.

I've left in the paragraph about former students, but there are spamming worries about this, since there seems to be a commercial value to being listed among them on en.Wikipedia and hence, conflicts of interest may overwhelm the sourcing and weight policies. Keep in mind, citing a photograph as verification for this kind of thing is original research and not enough. A commercial school most likely shouldn't be named (or listed as an external link) unless there is overwhelming support to be found in reliable sources that it is a very notable school within the field and/or has an instructor who studied with Chan. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking this. The article is going to be quite a bit shorter, I think, than it was before but much more in keeping with Wikipedia standards and policies. I'm glad someone with a better sense of them than me has stepped in to help, and I'm sure Xavier and Nysanda will be grateful for the neutral and informed eye. JohnInDC (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please let me express my concerns, in no particular order. (1) The claim that the photo is from a book or magazine is NOT correct. We took a picture that Chan Tai San gave us and scanned it to clean it up. (2) Chan Tai San is from Guangdong and spoke Guangdonghua and we always used the transliteration "Choy Lay Fut" and believe since that is what he prefered it to be written as we should not have it reverted in the article (3) is there a policy that prohibits the linking of video and pictures of him? (4) I am not sure the Engish is "improved" but that is a small matter Nysanda (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the photo, although someone else may later wonder about it, so you may want to further document your ownership of the image through WP:OTRS. Since you're releasing it PD, you might also upload it to Wikimedia commons. As for transliteration, the most widely cited spellings are used, see Wikipedia:Romanization. YouTube videos are dodgy because they are so hard to verify, even as external links, see Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites. I indeed tightened up the English quite a bit, this can be somewhat subjective but I do think it is now much more readable. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider this, "Choy Lay Fut" is a martial art most widely practiced in Guangdong and among Guangdonghua speakers.. transliteration of Cantonese is dogey (I prefer Parker Huang's Yale myself) ... but I'd suggest the most "common" way it is rendered in English is at least some varition of Guangdonghua (Cantonese). Certainly I can tell you no one in Chan Tai San's group would like recognize the Mandarin / Pin Yin... perhaps discuss further? Nysanda (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I disambiguated some terms to their Wikipedia articles. This is not a big deal. Are there any others? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far, progress! Without coming off as "aggressive" but initially changes seem overwhelming to me, ie like a lot. And I am typing believe it or not with a broken finger which makes this hard. Can I take some time to compare versions and renew discussion perhaps tomorrow? Nysanda (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, a sweeping cleanup like that can be both startling and overwhelming and you may have been worried you wouldn't have any further input. Your input is indeed welcome, the only pith here is, spinning up text which is helpful, readable, encyclopedic and sourced within policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to re-read this current version vs original, I think I find much of importance the same. It just "looks" different. Personally, I'd like to see the pics of him teaching back and maybe the video, but that is PERSONAL. However, after all the back and forth, I'd like to see the "student" list just deleted wholesale. It would not effect the article and would kill the constant squable Nysanda (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. The list was the only worry I had left. Other pictures (or video) can be linked to only if they aren't copyright violations on the sites that carry them. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The original pics were ones I took or were taken on my camera by Steve Ventura (another student). But they are hosted on angelfire? Rather than edit and then have revert, please advise? Nysanda (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to images on Angelfire is dodgy, because images there are more often than not copyright violations and they'll later be questioned. If you were willing to release them into the PD (or CC or GNU) and upload them to en.Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons, that would do the trick. If for some reason you cannot or do not want to do this, a strong statement as to ownership on the Angelfire page(s) where the images are carried might be helpful. As for the videos, if you own them, you might want to think about releasing them in the PD (or CC or GNU) and uploading them as ogg files (I can help you with that). A third way to do this would be to ask for an WP:OTRS ticket through which you would prove the content was yours, then list that ticket (hidden) with the links, but that would be a bit skeinish and heavy to go through (and I can't say I've ever seen it done, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I might upload the pics here on wikipedia then Nysanda (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're ok with releasing them under a PD, creative commons or GNU licence, uploading them would end any worries, they could be put in the article (or in a gallery at the bottom of the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When i am ready to do so, I'll ask you to explain how that works, since I thought I had put the first pic in "commons" and had not?? Nysanda (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page, I can also answer more questions about this for you there. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've been absent for this process. I've had pneumonia the last couple weeks and have been completely out of commission. I'd honestly given up on anyone showing up to help out here. I'm glad to see we have another independent editor here helping out. While I don't like having the student list deleted, I'll agree that none of the students really have any notability on their own and that there is indeed an implied commercial value to being on the list. If removing it is the only viable solution, I'll support it. The rest of the edits seem like minor clean up on syntax and transliteration, which NySanda is more qualified to comment on then myself.Xavierq (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

photo

About what year was the photo taken? It would be helpful to readers if that was in the caption. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The photo was taken in the Phillipines, which was late 1980 to early 1981. It was taken by a student. Chan Tai San gave it to me in 1986 Nysanda (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to add all that info to the image page at File:Chantaisan.jpg, along with saying that it is a scan of a passport sized photo which has been digitally repaired. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)