" 

 == 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. 
 * 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? 
   "