Talk:Bruce Lee

Template:V0.5

2007

Merge proposal

If there is no objection, Bruce Lee statue in Hong Kong will be merged into this article. --Kannie | talk 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that woulb be OK. But the Bruce Lee page is so big WP:size, as well their is a page for the Statue of Bruce Lee in Mostar so maybe we could merge both to one "Bruce Lee statue Page" as their is another one I could also put into that page.--Duchamps_comb 05:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there also a statue of Bruce Lee in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Either that, or, merge all Bruce Lee statues in 1 article. There might be other Bruce Lee statues on the planet not mentioned. Neal (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

Reports of students of University of Washington planning a Bruce Lee-statue on campus, have been seen. --87.63.229.10 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that we create a Statues of Bruce Lee article. We know of at least two existing statues and one that's being planned right now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I support merging all the statues into 1 article. I do not support merging the statue into this article however. Benjwong (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2008

Time of birth

The hour of the Dragon is actually 7-9 and not 6-8 as stated in the wiki. Please update this according to his hour of birth. --70.89.75.76 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting you make the effort to point out an error than to actually fix an error. Neal (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Looks to me that this IP did not know which part was correct, the specified time or that indicated by the term "Hour of the Dragon," and was asking for someone who does know to do the job. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New cause of death

According to a Japanese article, The Apple Daily is reporting that Bruce died because he was shot + sent into a coma. Also mentions something about a Japanese oscillation machine & hormones. Hill of Beans (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So which do you believe, the Japanese article? Or the rest of the consensus sources? Or is it not up to what you believe. Neal (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

I think this article might be more appropriate in updating the cause of death. The doctors interviewed in this article state that it is very likely that Bruce Died of something called Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP). This isn't written in the official explanation back when he died, because SUDEP wasn't known back then. It's a condition which has only become known in 1995, well after his death. Anyway, read that article for more information, and if it seems reliable to you, I strongly encourage making the changes. 114.76.23.247 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)pactio_kiss

When

No date given for announcement (let alone production or completion target) of Stanley Kwan film mentioned in Bruce Lee#Pending biographical films.
--Jerzy•t 05:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Weapon

The 2007 produced documentary Human Weapon by The History Channel mentioned Lee in episode Nr. 10 (China and Kung Fu). It calls: "...that made Lee arguably the greatest martial artist of his time, or any other". Human Weapon is a very serious documentary about martial arts. In any episode the hosts, Jason Chambers and Bill Duff, travel across the world studying the unique martial arts, or styles of fighting, that have origins in the region, from Karate to Judo, Muay Thai, Krav Maga, MMA, Marine Corps to Pankreas. To consider Lee as "arguably the greatest martial artist of his time, or any other" is a great honour to him because this documentary is very serious and shows many differnet styles. Maybe it could be mentioned on this wikipedia page. If yes, perhaps in the section "awards an honours", or the opening section? Your choice Wiki-Team. ;-) Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.28.175 (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to adding that description to his awards, or even his summary. That statement has been repeated several times from various sources (Time's Greatest 100, UFC's Dana White, Arnold Schwarzeneger, etc.). If that honor were to be coveted by anyone in that field, it would go to him. Chexmix53 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So, do you now agree or disagree to adding it? And what do you mean with "anyone in that field"? Human Weapon is a documentary about martial art and Lee was a martial artist. Dana White is the UFC boss, and UFC is combative sport, not martial arts. Schwarzenegger is a former bodybuilding champion, actionstar and current gouverneur of California. His statement about Lee was about his physical attributes (weight training, body type and such stuff), not about his martial art. Finally: Dana White -> the boss of a combative sport institution (MMA); Schwarzenegger -> Bodybuilding/Acting/Gouverneur; Human Weapon -> documentary about martial arts. I think a comment in a martial arts documentary about a martial artist has more value "in that field" like comments from a bodybuilding/actionstar legend or a boss from a combative sport (UFC). Again, Human Weapon is a production of The History Channel, and a product of a channel like this should be taken serious. And if you don´t believe me, you can see and hear this comment on youtube, here yo go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APlXmpnvvhQ (watch from 2.27 min to 2.38 min). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.7.6 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that agreeing with someone would bring such brash, ill-constructed sentences of discontent. "Field" is a relative term, and in this case, it can be used to describe people in a martial arts field (White) or in a action movie field (arnold). For your information, Dana White is the president of a mixed martial arts organization, and Bruce Lee has also been termed, "The Father of Mixed Martial Arts." Schwarzenegger was in an interview talking about Bruce Lee I saw a few years ago, and you are wrong, he stated the same thing. I don't need your reference to the you tube video as it is unreferenced and unnecessary to your point. I think that the title "...that made Lee arguably the greatest martial artist of his time, or any other" is appropriate to include in the summary of this article because it is something that has been repeated in multiple mediums (not just your you tube video), for decades. Chexmix53 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the idea of Lee as "The Greatest MAist of his time or any other" a bit of a joke. There are recorded warriors from a number of cultures and time periods who led campaigns and fought face to face with enemies in hand to hand combat day in day out for years. Granted they didn't make any films but I would imagine they'd be better candiates for the title.(79.190.69.142 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Yes, but MA includs more than just practical fighting, it s a combination of philosophy, body, mind, and many theoretical factors. You can t call someone "the greatest fighter of his time - or any other", true. But there is no martial artist in recorded history who had that total paket like him, so the statement about "Martial Arts" (not fighting or someting else) should be ok. And don t forget in the HW documentary, they say "ARGUABLY", which doesn t mean for sure. ;-) They say it like Joe Lewis (martial artist): "BL is the leading candidate for being the greatest MA of all time, but this doesn t make you the greatest fighter".

Drama Major?

Are you sure he took drama for university. I thought it was just philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.60.203 (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere in reliable sources, it is said he was a philosophy major. I'll look these sources up and report back with references. --RisingSunWiki 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

John Little says on pg. 32 of Bruce Lee: Artist of Life that Bruce Lee "majored in philosophy." Bruce Thomas says on pg. 42 of Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit that Lee "signed up for classes in theater speech and speech improvement" and "took courses in drawing, composition, social dancing, Chinese philosophy...general psychology...." Instead of saying he "majored" in something, I think it would be best to say simply that he studied philosophy, drama, psychology, and other subjects. Any disagreements? --RisingSunWiki 20:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As a proud UW grad it is my duty to put these rumors to rest: [1] Lee was a DRAMA MAJOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.32.90 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

This doesn't quite seem applicable as an award or honor, more of a critique, should it be removed from the list?: "The 1993 film Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story claims to be a slightly fictionalized biographical film about Lee. However, few scenes are based on reality." Intel352 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, should it not be moved to the "Biographical Movies" section? 66.93.38.177 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

New footage in Madison Square Garden

He gave a demonstration in Madison Squara Garden which was recorded. The footage was vanished for long time, now it´s on YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.252.8 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Carruthers

Tommy Carruthers was not a student of Bruce Lee. He is a second generation student who has trained with some of Bruce's original students.

The article states that Tommy Carruthers is a "Known students in Jun Fan Gung Fu/Jeet Kune Do". It does not say he is a "Known Student of Bruce Lee". So in essence, this is a true statement. Carruthers is, in fact, a known student in Jun Fan Gung Fu/Jeet Kune Do. One could technically argue that there are thousands of people who could fall into this category, however, Carruthers has a level of notability. Leave him in there, take him out. Does not matter to me, but I thought I'd add this here. Amnion (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Carruthers is a stud, no doubt, but if an exception is made for Tommy Carruthers, then it opens the door for any notable JKD student, regardless of lineage. It would belong in JKD not Bruce Lee, IMO. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Agreed. If you leave it in there it will be the catalyst to a whole new can of worms. I think the wording should be changed though, to reflect that it's for known studens of Bruce Lee.Amnion (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fights section

No source has been added for over a month. Unless one is added, the table should be deleted. Shawnc (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Education error

This is how it posted on the site: "At age 12, Lee entered La Salle College and later he attended St. Francis Xavier's College. In 1959, at the age of 18, Lee got into a fight and badly beat his opponent, getting into trouble with the police.[10] His father became concerned about young Bruce's safety, and as a result, he and his wife decided to send Bruce to the United States to live with an old friend of his father's." I cannot verify the truth of the statement but it would be reasonable to assume that the ages 12 - 18 should be reversed. I don't believe that he entered college at the age of "12". 70.9.141.215 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they are called "colleges" in Hong Kong, even though they are secondary schools by U.S. terminology. The word means something different there. You can verify this in Bruce Thomas' book Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit. --RisingSunWiki 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they're called colleges in most places, the US is the only country that calls university college. The rest of us are talking about what you call high school.125.238.14.68 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it is now incorrect on the site. It says, "At the age of 19, Lee entered..." I believe, as stated above, that it was in fact a high school that he entered at age 12 and should be changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.148.38 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening passage

The opening passage describes Bruce Lee as a philosopher...since when was this the case?! I would remove this, but the article is locked... Reidlophile (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As the article points out in the education section, the philosophy section, and the article on JKD as a philosophy, Bruce Lee studied philosophy as a student at the University of Washington, and actually all throughout his life. This is well-known, and needs no further argument. --RisingSunWiki 23:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Instruction verification

Just browsing this article and I have come across several innacuracies:

1. Ted Wong was given a 2nd Rank in JKD directly from Bruce Lee, not Dan Inosanto. The certificate is signed by Bruce Lee.
2. Taky Kimura was given a 5th Rank in 1969 - shortly before Bruce stopped giving out certificates. Although this certificate was a JFGFI cert, Bruce referred to Taky as the senior most instructor of his arts (Dan accepts this). Taky was also privy to all the ramifications of JKD, as Bruce continued to teach him, and gave him a detailed JKD lesson plan in 1969.
3. The LA, Oakland and Seattle schools were formally shut down in 1970 on Bruce's request. They were told to "keep a small group" for training. James was still alive (you have him deceased at that time).

As a Lee historian, I have spent considerable time researching the lineage and verification of Lee's Students. All of the above have been verified. All the Best. JKDoug (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one

Sorry to come up with more:

At the time Mike Stone, Joe Lewis and Chuck Norris trained with Bruce (late 1967- 1968) - all three men were already established Karate champions and Mike Stone had retired from Karate competitions already, having been champion for some years. Joe Lewis' championship career had been on track for over 2 years BEFORE agreeing to train with him. Chuck Norris had also been on the national championship level for several years. In fact - the first time Chuck met Bruce, was at the All American Karate Championship in New York, where Chuck Norris was fighting Joe Lewis for the Grand Championship Title (late 1967).

The suggestion that Lee's instruction made them champions is baseless. They were all current or former champions when Bruce started teaching them. These facts are verifiable. In addition, Bruce was fond of boasting to anyone who would listen, that he was teaching the 3 biggest WORLD Champions of Karate. This is found in several news articles and also in letters from bruce himself to students (Letters of the Dragon). JKDoug (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fanboy article

This is a total fanboy article -- too much inane crap about the vitamins he took, a poorly written incomprehensible history which contradicts itself, and sanitized aspects of his life such as that he died at the home of his mistress. I'd try to make corrections, but the article's locked, apparently to keep it in its current sad form. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Feats

Folks, we really need to be careful with the feats that are being attributed. I absolutely love Bruce Lee but seriously some of these feats are just over the top. I removed the thrusting fingers through unopened steel cans of Coca-Cola and one finger to leave dramatic indentations on pine wood because they were attributed to the book "Tao of Bruce Lee" p. 141. There was absolutely no mention of this. The other was the holding of a 125 lb (57 kg) barbell straight out. This feat is not only insane; I'm seriously questioning website article "WARM MARBLE" The Lethal Physique of Bruce Lee". I have all of Mr. Little's books and nowhere does he make mention of these claims from the web site. Also web sites are extremely unreliable and should be taken with a grain of salt unless well referenced. The wiki encyclopedia is only as good as its source materials. No sense in using unreliable or unsupported documentation. Just because something exist on a web site doesn't make it true. Journalist usually require at at least two sources before publshing, I think we need to do the same. The other thing is I belong to a pretty big Gym and out of curiousity I asked all the strongest people to attempt this feat and not a single one could even come close; really preposterous. I think we are serously degrading Wiki by allowing such uncollaborated information. FrankWilliams (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the Coca Cola thing, also never heard about it. There is also a feat (witnessed by Joe Lewis (martial arts)) Lee was able to hold a 75 lb. (34 kg) barbell straight out for a time of 20 seconds. Maybe someone change it to 125 lb. (57 kg)...

Well 75 lbs is a much more believable feat then 125 lbs. I would have no objections to adding the 75 lb feat if properly referenced. FrankWilliams (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are some statements which were VERY referenced and not mentioned on this page. Just some of them (including source):

• In a dictionary, you say "greatest", you say "Bruce Lee", that´s the way it is. He is second to no one.
  • Sugar Ray Leonard (from minute 3.46 to 3.57)
• I wouldn't have put a dime on anyone to beat Bruce Lee in a real confrontation. Bruce Lee was the best street fighter I ever saw, even to this very day, and not just pound for pound — but against anyone in a real fight.
  • James Demile in a Temple of the Unknown interview (10 April 2001)
• When Bruce Lee kicked, you shouldn´t blink with your eyes, because if you do, you don´t see his kick, it´s so fast! Human beings can´t move like colibris, so that´s the fastest you can be. Even Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson, their punches are fast, but you still can see.
  • Jackie Chan (from minute 0.45 to 1.14)]
• Bruce Lee is the leading candidate for being the greatest martial artist of all time.
  • Joe Lewis, quoted at Temple of the Unknown
• ...that made Lee arguably the greatest martial artist of his time, or any other.
  • Bill Duff in the martial arts and fighting sport documentary Human Weapon by The History Channel, episode 10: "China and Kung Fu", aired November 2, 2007. (from minute 2.20 to 2.30)

Just some examples. You can actually hear the original voice of Leonard, Chan und Duff. And you can read the statements of Lewis and DeMile (if you have more time, just read the whole interviews, some points are interesting). Even if all of those 5 quotes have credible source, not one of them is mentioned on this page. And with all respect, Leonard is one of the greatest Boxers ever, like Lewis was voted twice as the greatest fighter of all time in the sport karate. DeMile was an undefeated Boxer at the US Air Force with 128 victories, became one of Lee´s first students in the USA, later in 1985 and 1986 he was a teacher for some soldiers in unarmed combat, and finally he was a Sheriff until 2005. Chan is a movie legend with knowledge about martial arts, and Human Weapon is a 16-part documentary about martial arts and combat sport, produced by on of the best and most serious channels about documentary films, The History Channel. You can read all of those comments on Wikiquote, but not anyone has time to check out Wikiquote. Finally it´s on you and the other Wikipedians to make the decision about it. But i think some of those quotes should be readable on Lee´s Wikipedia page as well, not just on Wikiquote. Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.248.72 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean? "Lee's striking speed from three feet with his hands down by his side reached five hundredths of a second." 3 feet = 0.9 meters in a 500th of a second = 450 meters per second! This is over 1000mph! This is a blatantly false feat if I'm reading it correctly. User:Mekhatronic (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (GMT)

Fortunately, you're wrong. Five hundredths of a second = 5/100 s = 0.05 s. Thus, the speed is 0.9/0.05 m/s = 18 m/s

91.156.11.38 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Still ludicrous. 18m/s? From a cold start? Nuh uh. Not even Bruce Lee. Further, I see ludicrous things like the steel coke can have returned. ONLY reliable sources should be cited. The article is explicit in its admission that some of these are unreliable, so lets sort through them until they're all reliable. 61.148.127.54 (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Something on this page appears to be physically impossible, and I don't mean physical dexterity or speed. It says that Bruce Lee could lift leg waits with his body out horizontally resting only on his shoulders. This defies laws of physics ans your centre of gravity is your abdomen, so lying horizontally, he would actually have to be sitting on the bench to not tip forward and be reverted to a leaning position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.189.158 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nunchaku

I'm surprised that there is no mention at all about Bruce Lee's signature weapon. He single-handedly immortalised this particular martial arts weapon. Do you think it's worth a mention somewhere? Or is it too trivial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.23.247 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of videos on Youtube that show him using a nunchaku to play ping pong, and other feats, which are obviously fake videos. They warrant an explanation on this page, since someone may find the same videos and think they are real. Lee never performed these feats, so I have stated so in the "physical feats" section.

No they wont, no one is so stupid that they'd assume Bruce Lee was recorded on some new video phone. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the link to the video via the edit history/prevous versions listing. It does not "purport" to have been shot with a cell phone, not as presented on Youtube, anyway, even though the footage is followed with an advertising blurb for a cell phone company. On the other hand, the man's face can be seen clearly at a few points, and he is definitely not Bruce Lee. That aside, I must ask people to choose their words more carefully. To say that these are "fake videos" is to claim that the footage itself is not real, that there has been some form of image manipulation here, rather than simply that the man appearing in it and being put forth as Lee is an imposter. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, despite Ryan's faith in others, people most certainly are that stupid. It should be mentioned. 61.148.127.54 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinese

He is Chinese , Hong Kong Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.159.110 (talk • contribs)

He is a quarter German, and 3/4 Chinese, by origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.242.212 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was an American. Of Chinese ancestry, to be sure. But he was an American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.26.82 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. He was born to Chinese (Hong Kong native) parents who were VISITING the United States at the time that his mother went into labor, and soon after his birth they returned to their home, where he was raised. They had him invoke the US citizenship, which was a legal technicality resulting from that accident of birth, in his maturity to get away from the street gangs with whom he was getting into trouble. I repeat, he was a Chinese (of partial German ancestry? I've never heard that outside Wiki) who legally claimed American citizenship, possible due to absolutely nothing more than the geographic location of his birth, in adulthood. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He was born in the USA, he had American citizenship, therefore he is American, PERIOD, no caveats, no ifs, no buts. Anyway, back in 1940, Hong Kong was BRITISH and nothing to do with China for another 57 years. Chinese? You're the kind of guy who would say Barack Obama is Kenyan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.56.129 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "no caveats, no ifs, no buts" doesn't make them cease to exist. He was not American in any meaningful sense until he returned to the US in adulthood to claim American citizenship as the location of his birth gave him the legal right to. I'd put in "Hong Kongese" or something if such a term could be confirmed as used by these people. Due to the uncertainty of that, "Chinese" is being applied in the same sense that an Irishman, native to the British Isles, could be called British. Besides, Hong Kong was simply on lease from the country of China all those years and was returned per said lease's terms in 1997; "Chinese" isn't really inappropriate to the people of Hong Kong at all. As for Obama in this context, all I know is that last year someone filed a lawsuit to have both him and McCain (therefore, no partisanship) removed from the ballot as neither qualified as an American-citizen-by-birth. It was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had no standing to sue over that claim, not on its merits. --Ted Watson (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ted, my boy, what do you suppose "American" means? Do you suppose it means "of European ancestry that eventually came to settle in a continent several thousand miles West across an Atlantic Ocean and eventually participate in the formation of the United States of America?" American means bearing American citizenship. That's the dictionary definition. And if the suit was dismissed, what do you suppose that says? 61.148.127.54 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What dictionary? And when I mentioned the suit I said what the exact point of the dismissal was and was not. Can't you read? --Ted Watson (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If he is soooo chinese, how come he went to America, took American citizenship, swore loyalty to the country and constitution of America. And one can't deny that America welcomed him, and gave him the opportunity which made him famous.Civilizededucation (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason to so much as suspect that he ever "swore loyalty" as he did NOT have to go through the naturalization process, but merely produce his birth certificate to prove he was born on USA soil, and the authorities had no choice but to let him simply enter the country with no more restrictions on his movements than anyone who was born and raised here. His birth, I repeat, happened when his Hong Kong-native parents were merely VISITING the country. And "the opportunity which made him famous" came in Hong Kong. Most agree that this wouldn't have happened without The Green Hornet and Marlowe in Hollywood first, but they did not make him famous; the chop-socky pix in HK did that. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is reasonable but the issue is not nearly as clean cut as some people are claiming. First, he has an American citizenship, not a Chinese one, by the virtue of his birth location. Your point about his parents merely visiting the US is a strong one. It's analogous to children born to American military personnel while overseas. Most of them would be considered American. However, the issue becomes muddier when he moves back to the US and lives there for his adult life. He is educated in the U.S. and published in America. While he found his biggest success in Hong Kong movies, he acted in various American movies or shows before that. In addition, he married an American woman and raised a family in the U.S. Lastly, he is also buried in the U.S. If the only reason he was in the U.S. was to flee his gang issues, by the time he was an adult those issues no longer mattered. At that point he could have returned to Hong Kong and relinquished his American citizenship but he didn't. Instead of he choose to stay and raise his family in the U.S. When you weigh his childhood years in the Hong Kong against the total of his life, it doesn't seem fair to call him Chinese. By any other measure except for his childhood and parts of his career in Hong Kong, he would be considered American. (Argument continues below in a different section. It seems the debate here has ended and moved down.) Comatose51 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Lee spent the majority of his life in Hong Kong not U.S. He initially educated in Hong Kong. He started and finished his career in Hong Kong. Remember, Bruce Lee was introduced into films at a very young age and appeared in several short black-and-white films as a child in Hong Kong. He had his first role as a baby who was carried onto the stage. By the time he was 18, he had appeared in twenty films in Hong Kong.

This is a very important issue, he married an American woman doesn't make him not a Chinese, and he buried in the U.S that was totally down to his wife's decision. You said: he could have returned to Hong Kong and relinquished his American citizenship but he didn't? Who knows? He might have given up his American citizenship when he finally returned to Hong Kong in 1971. The term "Hong Kong people" means Hong Kong permanent residents with Hong Kong Identity Card.

You said: Bruce Lee choose to be an American when he was given the choice as an adult? If that was the case, he wouldn't returned back to Hong Kong in 1971. Remember, Bruce Lee only became world famous after the film "The Big Boss" released in HK , since that time, he didn't move back to US. Certainly, Bruce Lee was Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of his death. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

he had dual citizenship, british and american. parents were british subjects and he was born in the states. legally he is entitled to both. if he renounced either later in life then it is a different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.22.11 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I repeat again, here.

Hong Kong people were not British subjects if they did not apply for it before 1997. Perhaps, there were only very few amount of Hong Kong people had BNO or British passport before 1997. Bruce Lee was definitely not in this situation. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as everyone’s concerned…………

Before Bruce Lee became famous, the Americans did not accept him, and did not consider him as an American. That was how and why Bruce Lee felt himself as a Chinese and needed to return to Hong Kong in 1971, and he stayed in HK for his future.

On the other side, before Bruce Lee became famous, Hong Kong people accepted him and were glad for his return to HK. Bruce Lee was impressed by them, he stayed in HK for the rest of his life (although his life was short).

The Americans only supported him after he became famous in HK. But Bruce Lee was not impressed by how the Americans were treating him.

Even in the film: Enter the Dragon (his only starring film targeting the Western audiences), Bruce Lee portrayed as a Chinese Shaolin martial artist from Hong Kong (similar to his other films). “The finished version of the film was significantly different from the original screenplay drafts as Bruce Lee revised much of the script himself, including having written and directed the film's opening Shaolin Temple fight sequence. Lee wanted to use the film as a vehicle for expressing what he saw as the beauty of his Chinese culture, rather than it being just another action movie.” Quoted from Enter the Dragon’s article.

Bruce Lee portrayed the Chinese national pride and Chinese nationalism in his movies. As audiences, and fans of Bruce Lee from all around the world, we could easily understand what’s on his mind. Bruce Lee always felt himself as a Chinese more than anything else, and Hong Kong was his home. That was the only reason he returned to HK. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lee's arguments are absent of logic, but full of emotion, in short, they are pointless and absurd. Bruce Lee was an American citizen at birth, and could have renounced that citizenship in adulthood, but he did not. He moved to America, married into an American family, fathered American children, pursued a career in America. Richard Lee is correct about Bruce Lee expressing a desire to move back permanently to Hong Kong, but that mean nothing. He was an American citizen, and took no know steps to change that. (75.69.241.91 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

Because he was also a citizen of Hong Kong (via his parentage), he did not have to "take steps to change" his American citizenship when he went back to HK, just as he took no steps to change his HK citizenship when he came to the US. It is your post that is "pointless and absurd." --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He failed a US Army medical that could have sent him to Vietnam. 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Series stolen by Warner Bros

As a student of the martial arts, and in particular Bruce Lee, So please I ask you to allow us talk together as the reasonable people we are, I am not without good faith in you, I trust the reverse is true with myself in an edit before anyone goe's willy nilly and reverts an edit or changes such, the cited material came from Bruce Lee's wife/widow in her book, "Bruce Lee, The man I only knew", I ask, what better source could one want?, however there are numerous films and documentary which also agree with this point regarding Warner Bros and their "old thinking" ways, actually prejudice, which I did not mention as this could be open to Non NPOV, and hurt peoples feels unprofessionally.

The George Takei narrated documentary made by Fred Weintraub, "Bruce Lee: The curse of the Dragon", and John Little's feature length biography "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey" both document the fact that Warner Bros stole the Bruce Lee Kung-Fu series concept from him and put David Carridine in it out of fear of how a then very "white" American audience would take to a REAL Asian-American playing an Asian in a weekly series in the LEAD role.

Please wiki friend, In Mandarin I am called "Bei Kai Tuo", and as a female being a student of Lee's "Jeet Kune Do" is not always easy to be sure, but the rewards are beyond measure. Though Bruce Lee had a short life measured in years, his were many thousand in Wisdom, He was a true Master, his philosophy continues to help make many who are unfocused into better and more productive persons worldwide, are there really any other proofs you think Wiki needs to back up what I have said?, it is not research by myself, it is the words of the friends, and loved ones, and colleges of Bruce Lee himself who are saying these things not I. --cathytreks (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have duplicated this on my own talk page (I wish I knew how to do that, other than typing up the whole thing twice, once on each page, but I don't), but this is the more appropriate venue. I have seen the two documentaries you cite, and recall no claim in either that Kung Fu was actually created by Lee. It is one thing to deny him the role, but the credit he is allegedly due as creator is something else. If this is true, he would seem to have had ample grounds for a lawsuit, yet he didn't file one. Indeed, I first encountered this claim in the fictionalized biographical film, Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, made twenty years after Bruce's death, and which depicted him developing it under the actual series' name (rather than as The Warrior, which we know was the name of a TV series he was trying to sell to US networks) and in collaboration with The Green Hornet executive producer William Dozier (although they changed his name to "Krieger" here). If he had actually been involved and Warner Bros. did steal it, you can bet there would have been legal action. I haven't read the widow's book, but strongly suspect that once I do, I'll find it less than conclusive on this. Hence, I—under Wiki regs—called for a citation. I hope that in the future you also remember this incident and look out for work other than that which you wish to revert when you are tempted to use the "undo" function here. Thank you for understanding that in the end. Let me make perfectly clear that I did indeed assume good faith on your part. This is why I did not merely revert and replace my (yes, they were mine) qualifiers, "allegedly...purportedly...if," but merely added cite requests to your version. I do know that many people believe this claim, but I am not one of them. As you now have added proper reference citations, we are settled here, at least until and if evidence to the contrary comes along. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the kindly reply, in the Bruce Lee book Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew about martial arts legend Bruce Lee, written by his widow, Linda Lee Cadwell it is declared that Warner Brothers took away the part of "The Warrior" and turned it into "Kung-Fu" for the above reason's already mentioned.

It is agreed that the movie with Jason Scott Lee that took "some" dramatic licence or elements of course for some of the dramatic purposes only, however the movie was actually based on the book by Bruce's widow Linda, and written shortly after his death also that it was Linda herself, Mrs. Bruce Lee herself who did the final narration at the films end.

The George Takei narrated video is also a worthy review wiki friend, as it does in fact state what was cited in regard to the Studio taking his idea of "The Warrior" in that it was giving a new name and another actor for the earlier reason's specified in my careful edit you helped me realise on the page.

很佩服你 很佩服你 祝你过一个好天 cathytreks (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, I am open to the suggestion that I misremembered one or possibly even both of the videos. But in fixing your reference citations (the two to Linda Lee Cadwell's book did not show in the footnotes at all, and the one to the documentary showed as a red [meaning non-existent] template indicator), I made a discovery. Specific data about the book retrieved from Amazon.com to make a proper cite revealed that it was published by Warner Books, like Warner Bros. Studios a Warner Communications (now Time Warner) company. I find it impossible to believe that they would publish a book that accused them of such an act! Did she rewrite it in the early 1990s for a new, movie tie-in edition from a different publisher? If so, we'll have to change that cite to the later edition, but the book would no longer qualify as "written shortly after his death" and the claim would remain as I have perceived it, surfacing thirty years later. Sorry, but while I do not resist your edit, my doubts remain in place (at least until and if I've read the book). --Ted Watson (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please if you have little faith in my words please go forth and read a copy of the original book by Linda Lee, it was NOT originally published by Warner Brothers when I read/and still own a hardbound copy of it.

Is it's old words of truth and wisdom too much for Warners to bear? did they edit out what was written before?, I would be very interested indeed, as everything I said earlier heretofore is still true, and thus life is too short, also and most importantly, I would not lie to you or any other person.

很好, 谢谢。 Hěn hǎo, xièxie! cathytreks (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com lists only three different editions, two paperback (1975 & 1978, presumably just a second printing) and one hardback (also 1975), all three published by Warners. Maybe you have a Hong Kong edition, with uncensored text, but if so, then the citation would have to be changed to specify that publisher. Page number would be a good idea, too. And since you say Linda accuses Warner Bros. of outright theft (a crime), their book publishing division most certainly would not want to print such words. No question of that. I never meant to accuse you of lying, but of merely misinterpreting what you read. Surely, you would not deny that English is a second language for you, or that this makes such a misunderstanding possible? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Mr. Watson I agree with you completely, I will go back and cite book and page number, and in the documentary the time stamp where the claim is presented regarding Warner Brothers illogical thinking at the time, I have no doubt that today Warner Bros and all of the world respect's and regards Bruce in a much better way than it did in 1973, or in 1978 when Linda Lee's book on her late husband was first published, we have grown closer with more understanding in and less bigotry in the civilised parts of our world. Regards of warmth and respect for a chance to practice my American English grammar and being so kind in my edits out of the sand box. Cathie 谢谢你 --cathitreks (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. So, I write a blog about the television show "Kung Fu" and have researched the show. I've got a couple of sources that contradict Linda Lee Caldwell's assertion. They include: The Kung Fu Book of Caine by Herbie Pilato, Carradine's autobiography, Endless Highway, and the documentary on the making of the series that comes with the DVD set and is now on YouTube. I'll cite all three and, if I've done something wrong, we can change it (I'm new to Wikipedia). My blog is: kwaichangcaine.blogspot.com - charliekkendo 3/20/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliekkendo (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lee was American

We seem to be going back and forth on Bruce Lee's nationality. While he was born an American and holds an American citizenship, a strong case can be made that he is Chinese rather than Chinese-American because he spent the first 18 years of his short life in Hong Kong and his later acting career success happened in Hong Kong. On the other hand, he returned to the US, was educated in the US, had his early acting career in the US, married an American woman, raised his family in the US, and is finally buried in the US. Yet of his short life, the majority of them were spent in Hong Kong. Should he be called a Chinese-American or Chinese? Comatose51 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He is born in the USA and he had only the American citizenship for all his life.We should write "An American with Chineses origins".--Ujkaj4president (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the thread of similar topic immediately above, Lee did not claim US citizenship until reaching maturity. Somebody who knows Hong Kong legalities will have to establish just what citizenship he grew up with, but it was not American. His legal right to claim that was nothing but a geographical accident of birth, which was ignored until he got into trouble with gangs and claiming US citizenship and relocation was a handy means of getting him out of harm's way. --Ted Watson (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you call someone born in the USA and with American citizenship Chinese? Hong Kong was a part of British Empire, so his only Chinese part were the parents.--Ujkaj4president (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your question but I'll lay out the point again. Lee was born with the right to claim US citizenship, not the citizenship itself, and did not do so until he was a legal adult. Therefore, your first posting's statement, "...he had only American citizenship for all his life" is erroneous; according to your new statement, he was apparently a British citizen. Furthermore, he made the claim out of a need to leave Hong Kong, not a specific desire to come to America for itself. Were it not for those troubles, he almost certainly would never have exercised the option. It is absolutely inappropriate (at the least) to refer to him flatly as an American in the intro of an encyclopedia article. --Ted Watson (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

But we should say of his Ameican citizenship.Without that "accident of birth" he maybe would never made movies like he did!do you agree writing Chino-American or something like that?--Ujkaj4president (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: French/Spanish/German/Italian wikipedia:American with chineses origins. If you Americans don't take your own people, who will? --Ujkaj4president (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not our "own people" as I have already explained. Ignoring that and asserting the contrary will not make it so. We should say something about his American citizenship, yes, but flatly calling him "American" in the intro is not it, and that was what you have said you want. I have no idea what you think you are accomplishing with that list of other Wikipedias and the phrase "American with chineses [sic] origins," but as our dispute is whether or not Lee qualifies to be flatly called an American in the first place, they are irrelevant. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ted, you're seriously confused about several issues.

1. If someone is born in the US, they are a US citizen. There is no need to "claim" the citizenship. Therefore, BL was an American his entire life. He probably was also a British citizen from birth, since his parents were residents of HK. He was NOT however, ever a citizen of the ROC or the PROC, and so was NEVER a Chinese citizen.
2. It is standard practice in bios on ENGLISH wikipedia to list the person's citizenship in the intro, usually in the opening sentence.
3. Even if you erroneously ignore the fact that BL was an American his entire life, you must acknowledge that at the very least he immigrated to the US, and it is standard wikipedia practice for bios of people who immigrate to a country and obtain citizenship (regardless of their motives) to list that citizenship in the opening sentence of the intro. See eg, Ariana Huffington or Rupert Murdoch.
4. If a person's ethnicity is notable, it is perfectly fine to note it in the intro, either as a phrase ("John Smith was an American of Chinese ancestry") or hyphenated term ("John Smith was a Chinese-American"); however it in NOT acceptable to conflate ethnicity with citizenship (eg, "John Smith was Chinese").

Therefore, while it is correct and standard to say, eg, "Bruce Lee was a Chinese-American" or "Bruce Lee was a British and American martial artist of Chinese ancestry" it is wholly incorrect to simply say "Bruce Lee was a Chinese martial artist". 68.73.84.231 (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: BL's maternal grandfather was indeed German, as a review of any of the cited sources will confirm. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I know of these matters, Lee was born with dual British-American nationality. There is some possibility he may have had triple British-American-Chinese nationality, but I don't know enough about Chinese law to comment. As I understand it, all children born on US soil are automatically US citizens. His father was born in 1901 in Hong Kong, a British colony, and at that time all children born on British soil (with very minor exceptions) were automatically subjects of the British crown, and his children would have become British subjects by descent.

Is there a clear distinction between someone "having the right to claim US citizenship" and simply being a US citizen? Did Lee have to go through some formal process of claiming US citizenship? He probably did have to apply for a US passport to get into the USA, but was this fundamentally different from the process any US citizen went through? Did he have to renounce his British nationality at any point in this process?

In my view, "Chinese-American" is the best brief description in the introduction, we can go into more detail later in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys are all wrong. I'm in the same situation as Bruce Lee. My parents were from HK, and I was born in USA too. I am Hong Kong, Chinese and American citizens.

Hong Kong people were NOT British, they were Chinese. Only the people who work for the government before 1997 with the right to claim British nationality. Therefore Bruce Lee was only Hong Kong, Chinese and American citizens. Bruce Lee was Chinese, even he was born in USA. Let me explain: he was a triple Hong Kong, Chinese and American citizen. BUT

• He was Chinese ancestry.
  • Nearly all Americans are of non-American ancestry, except for American-Indians. Comatose51 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• His parents were from HK.
  • See above.
• He raised in HK.
  • But he spent the majority of his adult life in the US, married an American woman, raised his family in the US, and is buried in the US, despite having died in HK. Comatose51 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• He started and finished his career in HK.
  • According to the article, he started acting in the US but later found success in the HK. Comatose51 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• He spent most of the time in his life in HK.
  • He moved to the US as an adolescent, was educated in the US, and his early career was in the US. Comatose51 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Because there is no such "Hong Kongese". Therefore all the Hong Kong people are Chinese. The introduction in this article should be: "He was an American-born Chinese Hong Kong Martial artist". See Daniel Wu Jaycee Chan for examples. Even though his English skills are a little lacking and he didn't sign→BINGO! --Ted Watson (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in the 2 sources quoted to back up the claim about his parents' citizenship. I don't think there was a separate Hong Kong citizenship at that time, the inhabitants of Hong Kong were British subjects. If Lee's father was born in China he was presumably a Chinese national, although he may have become naturalized British. PatGallacher (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know nothing about Hong Kong law, please do not edit. There was a separate Hong Kong citizenship and the inhabitants of Hong Kong were not British.

I'm an American-born Chinese, and my parents were from Hong Kong. I'm triple citizens but not British. User:Richard Lee 9 (User talk:Richard Lee 9) 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Chinese law, the PROC does not recognize dual citizenship. Articles 3 and 5 of their nationality law would pretty much exclude that. My background is similar to yours except I was born in China, moved to HK, and then moved to the US and was raised here in the US. At the end of the day, I consider myself American because not only do I hold an American citizenship, I also spent most of my life in the US, have American values, and have strong sentiments for the US. My litmus test has always been, if there was ever a war between China and the US, which side would I want to be on? The answer was clearly America so I consider myself an American. How would you answer the question? How do you think Bruce Lee would have answer that? I actually don't know how he would have decided. Comatose51 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See British nationality law and Hong Kong. So at the time Lee was born there was no separate Hong Kong citizenship and the bulk of the inhabitants of Hong Kong were British subjects. Anyway, this does not address my main concern i.e. that there appears to be no source for the claims about the nationality of his parents. PatGallacher (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See Hong Kong Identity Card. Hong Kong people do not have British passport.

You reckon his parents were not Chinese and Hong Kong citizens that they lived in Hong Kong for years, and his father was even born in China? Im sure his parents were Chinese and Hong Kong citizens. User:Richard Lee 9 (User talk:Richard Lee 9) 15:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article on Hong Kong Identity Card, this describes the current situation, not the present one, and the article says that this was only introduced in 1951, a few years after Lee was born. I don't know what his parents' nationality was, but I know I don't know. If you persistently remove the dubious flag from unsourced (and in some respects implausible) statements then I will take this further. PatGallacher (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Many articles in Wikipedia are uncertain anyway.

The Hong Kong Permanent Identity was introduced in 1949, Bruce Lee (with his parents) lived in Hong Kong from 1941 to 1959 (3 months old until 18 and a half) and he was then returned to Hong Kong in 1970s. So they must have the Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card.

The only thing unsure is his parents were actually American citizen or not ? This article is about Bruce Lee not his parents, therefore we should not quote his parents' nationality. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Citizenship can be a complex issue with many people. Looking into this further in related articles, Lee was definitely a US citizen, probably a Chinese citizen, and possibly a British subject. However there was no separate Hong Kong citizenship in his younger days, the inhabitants of HK were British subjects. Hong Kong may have introduced its own identity card system during his childhood, but that was not quite the same as a fully-fledged separate citizenship. PatGallacher (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card is the Hong Kong citizenship document. They used card instead of passport or paper document because it is compulsory to carry one's identity card when in public areas and to produce it when requested by a police or immigration officer.

I have no idea why do you think his parents were only American citizen but not Chinese and Hong Kong citizens? They were born in China and lived in Hong Kong, they were only touring in the USA and Bruce Lee was accidentally born in San Francisco. They returned to Hong Kong when Bruce Lee was 3 months old. (This might because his parents were not allow to stay longer in USA due to non-American citizen). Bruce Lee was American citizen due to the accident of birth in San Francisco, but he was also Chinese and Hong Kong citizens due to (his returned to Hong Kong) and his parents' Chinese citizen. I have already said, I was in the same situation as Bruce Lee. I was born in LA, then I returned to Hong Kong when I was a baby. I held Hong Kong, Chinese and American citizenships. Sorry my English is very bad but I hope you understand. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But Bruce Lee's action as an adult suggests that he chooses to be an American and that's what we should consider him. After fleeing to the US because of his gang problems, he could have just as easily returned to Hong Kong. Instead he choose to live in the US, be educated in the US, marry an American woman, and raise his family in the US. He is also buried in the US. The majority of his life was spent in the US and when given the choice he chose to live in America. You choose to live in HK so no one is going to doubt that you're Chinese. Comatose51 (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is in danger of going round in circles. Your circumstances may not have been exactly the same as Bruce Lee's. I never said his parents were only US citizens, in my view there is the serious possibility they may have had Chinese or British nationality (or both) but we need clearer evidence of this. Try reading Hong Kong Identity Card and British Nationality Law and Hong Kong, the latter states "Citizenship matters were further complicated by the fact that British nationality law had always considered those born in Hong Kong were British subjects ...". The HK ID card is just that, an ID card, for all those with right of abode in HK, it was never a separate nationality. Citizenship can be a complex issue, the law of some countries has changed since Lee was born, the status of HK is particularly complex, we cannot go further without further evidence. PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you talk about evidence, by quoting references from other articles, books or web sites are not a strong evidence at all. ( The information from other sources can be incorrect ). In this case, we need to demonstrate all the Identifications, documents and passports of Bruce Lee in order to state what citizenships he held. ( but of course we can not do that ). You quoted "Lee was definitely a US citizen". I think you need to prove by showing his American passport. What I mean is this is only an online encyclopedia, not a statement, we can assume something by common sense. ( Just like many other articles in Wikipedia ). Richard Lee 9 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can put paid to this. Winston Churchill had just as much US citizenship at birth as Bruce Lee, in his case because of his mother (Jenny)'s nationality. The only difference is that while Churchill never used/invoked/claimed his birthright (that particular one, anyway), Lee did upon reaching legal adulthood, and then for what might be called an ulterior motive (to get away from his troubles with Hong Kong street gangs). If Bruce had never done that, just as Winston did not, then no one would be trying to flatly refer to him as "American" in his article's intro here. As for Lee's parents, I'm just about dead certain that this was the inadvertent result of some editor's limited English-as-a-second-language while trying to deal with Lee's multiple citizenships. And take a look at the "Early life" section: that line is long gone! --Ted Watson (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese-American article prominently features an image of Bruce Lee. If you are so adamant about him not being a Chinese-American, shouldn't you change that article as well? Shaolin Samurai (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Ted Watson (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong people article also prominently features an image of Bruce Lee, and he was listed in it. It's obvious that he was Hong Kong people. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating the argument I made above since it seems that the debate has moved down here. First, he has an American citizenship, not a Chinese one, by the virtue of his birth location. The point about his parents merely visiting the US is a strong one. It's analogous to children born to American military personnel while overseas. Most of them would be considered American. However, the issue becomes muddier when he moves back to the US and lives there for his adult life. He is educated in the U.S. and published his book in America and in English. While he found his biggest success in Hong Kong movies, he acted in various American movies or shows before that. In addition, he married an American woman and raised a family in the U.S. Lastly, he is also buried in the U.S. If the only reason he was in the U.S. was to flee his gang issues, by the time he was an adult those issues no longer mattered. At that point he could have returned to Hong Kong and relinquished his American citizenship but he didn't. Instead of he choose to stay and raise his family in the U.S. When you weigh his childhood years in the Hong Kong against the total of his life, it doesn't seem fair to call him Chinese. By any other measure except for his childhood and parts of his career in Hong Kong, he would be considered American. He spent the majority of his life in the U.S., raised his own family in America, and is buried in America. Within reason, a man is whatever he chooses to be and it seems that Bruce Lee choose to be an American when he was given the choice as an adult. Comatose51 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm wrong about spending the majority of his life in the US. I didn't realize how short his life was. Comatose51 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, Bruce Lee spent the majority of his life in Hong Kong not U.S. He initially educated in Hong Kong. He started and finished his career in Hong Kong. Remember, Bruce Lee was introduced into films at a very young age and appeared in several short black-and-white films as a child in Hong Kong. He had his first role as a baby who was carried onto the stage. By the time he was 18, he had appeared in twenty films in Hong Kong.

This is a very important issue, he married an American woman doesn't make him not a Chinese, and he buried in the U.S that was totally down to his wife's decision. You said: he could have returned to Hong Kong and relinquished his American citizenship but he didn't? Who knows? He might have given up his American citizenship when he finally returned to Hong Kong in 1971. The term "Hong Kong people" means Hong Kong permanent residents with Hong Kong Identity Card.

You said: Bruce Lee choose to be an American when he was given the choice as an adult? If that was the case, he wouldn't returned back to Hong Kong in 1971. Remember, Bruce Lee only became world famous after the film "The Big Boss" released in HK , since that time, he didn't move back to US. Certainly, Bruce Lee was Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of his death. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comatose51: You say, "First, he has [sic] an American citizenship, not a Chinese one, by the virtue of his birth location." You say that as if he can have only one citizenship, but that's not true. As I have said more times than I care to count, his American birth (certificate) gave him the right to claim American citizenship whenever he (or until he reached the age of his legal maturity/independence and had the right to make that choice himself, his parents). Whatever citizenship went in his time with being a native of Hong Kong was the citizen he grew up as. He was raised with the exact same citizenship as his siblings, Hong Kong born all. We here at Wikipedia freely admit that we are not clear as to just what that citizenship would have been, but it damned sure was not American. Your attempt to dismiss the circumstances of his moving from HK to USA is irrelevant as it is a documented fact not open to dispute that this is what happened. His American citizenship was a birthright that was ignored at best for the first eighteen years of his life and was indeed no more than a right to be claimed. That his USA burial was his American widow's choice and not his own previously expressed wish is significant. He disliked Enter the Dragon, his only starring film targeting a "Western" audience, and he did not want Way/Return of the Dragon dubbed into English. There is no question that Lee's American citizenship was secondary to his HK/Chinese status in his own mind. In fact, I'd like to ask one question: When Bruce went back to Hong Kong in 1971—and stayed—how did he do it? Did he get a HK entrance visa as any other American citizen would have to do, or did he produce his birth certificate with its identification of his parents as HK natives and walk in as a citizen of HK? --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that he can only have one citizenship. For this article though, it seems that we need to conclude if he is American or Chinese (although I'm starting to wonder if that's the right way to do this. It's a difficult question to answer with a simple answer in cases like this.) I think your last question would be a really good way to tell how he thought of the issue himself. Do we have an answer to that? Also, I was just reading the article on Eric_Liddell and I think he is a really good analog for the issue at hand. He was born in China and lived there for a few years until he moved back to Scotland for his education. After competing in the Olympics, he returned to China and later died there. In his case, there's little question that he is considered Scottish. If we use that as an example, I would have to change my position and consider Lee to be Chinese. I believe I stand corrected on this issue. I want to leave the RfC tag up for a while longer to let other people chime in on this issue. Perhaps someone else could bring in a viewpoint that will sway our opinions. Comatose51 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tbrittreid is truly correct.

As far as everyone’s concerned…………

Before Bruce Lee became famous, the Americans did not accept him, and did not consider him as an American. That was how and why Bruce Lee felt himself as a Chinese and needed to return to Hong Kong in 1971, and he stayed in HK for his future.

On the other side, before Bruce Lee became famous, Hong Kong people accepted him and were glad for his return to HK. Bruce Lee was impressed by them, he stayed in HK for the rest of his life (although his life was short).

The Americans only supported him after he became famous in HK. But Bruce Lee was not impressed by how the Americans were treating him.

Even in the film: Enter the Dragon (his only starring film targeting the Western audiences), Bruce Lee portrayed as a Chinese Shaolin martial artist from Hong Kong (similar to his other films). “The finished version of the film was significantly different from the original screenplay drafts as Bruce Lee revised much of the script himself, including having written and directed the film's opening Shaolin Temple fight sequence. Lee wanted to use the film as a vehicle for expressing what he saw as the beauty of his Chinese culture, rather than it being just another action movie.” Quoted from Enter the Dragon’s article.

Bruce Lee portrayed the Chinese national pride and Chinese nationalism in his movies. As audiences, and fans of Bruce Lee from all around the world, we could easily understand what’s on his mind. Bruce Lee always felt himself as a Chinese more than anything else, and Hong Kong was his home. That was the only reason he returned to HK. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be getting the bottom line settled, which is that the intro should not flatly refer to Lee as an American as he didn't consider himself primarily one. However, there are a couple of secondary points. The term Chinese apparently applies to Lee only ethnically, as "China" does not seem to have been part of the name of Hong Kong throughout his life. The real rub is finding out what "citizenship" came in his day with being a native of HK, which ALL of his siblings were, and he definitely was raised under the same citizenship status as they were, which was legal due to his having the same parentage as them. Our difficulty in determining that does not justify flatly calling him an American. Acknowledging his US citizenship under which he lived for about 12 years, certainly. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people misunderstood that all Hong Kong people were British subjects before 1997. In fact, Hong Kong people were not naturalized as British subjects, they have to apply for it. Generally, only a few amounts of people in Hong Kong (civil servants) were allowed to claim British citizen before 1997. However, some Hong Kong people applied for BNO before 1997, (for travel use only). BNO did not mean British citizens. They are not granted right to abode anywhere, including the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, through their British National (Overseas) status. Therefore, this nationality was specially "tailor-made" for the Hong Kong residents with British Dependent Territories citizen status by virtue of their connection with Hong Kong, and to let them retain an appropriate relationship with the United Kingdom.

Bruce Lee did not apply or claim for British subjects. He claimed US citizen in1959 at HK, lived in US for 12 years, but then returned to HK in 1971. A lot of people may ask: how did Bruce Lee and other Hong Kong people returned or stayed in HK? The answer is Permanent HKID (Hong Kong Citizen Identity).

There is an important thing that needs to be confirmed here. Bruce Lee’s mother, Grace Ho (何愛瑜), was only a quarter of German ancestry (or maybe less). Bruce Lee was possibly 1/8 of German ancestry? (If my math is correct). Anyway, as per the explaination above, Bruce Lee considered himself as a Chinese. Hence, we could ignored that Bruce Lee was 1/8 of German ancestry only.

Lastly, I was just wondering whether we should describe him in the introduction as: Bruce Lee was “American-born Chinese actor” or “Chinese-American actor” or just “Hong Kong actor” ?

Generally, “American-born Chinese” means a person born in the US of Chinese ethnic descent and raised in US (naturalized US citizen). In Bruce Lee’s case, he was only born in San Francisco but raised in HK (non-American citizen until he claimed in 1959 at HK).

That's incorrect. Someone of Chinese heritage born in the US and raised in the US is simply "Chinese-American". Someone born in the US but raised in China would be "American-born Chinese", which is the case with Bruce Lee. I think American-born Chinese is apt. Comatose51 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

However, “Chinese-American” means American of Chinese descent, which can not be applied to Bruce Lee. Since he returned to HK for good in 1971, and he was classified as “Hong Kong people”.

Certainly, “Hong Kong actor” can not be ignored. As he gained celebrity since being a Hong Kong child actor, and became world famous from being a Hong Kong actor. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people considered him as a Chinese actor, but some considered him as an American actor.

Most people would recognize him as a Hong Kong actor (Included Bruce Lee himself).

Out of respect, I think we should go for the option of most people and Bruce Lee himself. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that definitively states that Bruce Lee considered himself a citizen of Hong Kong and not an American. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. Nobody suggested putting a flat statement to that effect in the article. What we are trying to do here is determine whether or not it is proper to flatly refer to Lee as an American in the intro, and the accumulated evidence that he did not think of himself as one is admissible to this discussion. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You say there is "accumulated evidence" that Bruce Lee did not think of himself as an American, but all I see is conjecture and opinion. It was mentioned that Lee expressed frustration with Hollywood and his lack of starring roles, but this is not relevant to his citizenship. I could easily point out that Lee hobnobbed with some of the biggest young stars in Hollywood at the time, such as Steve McQueen (a pallbearer at his funeral), Sharon Tate, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the then unknown Chuck Norris, etc. His family was American. Many of his friends were Americans. He lived and worked in America, with American citizenship. I believe these facts speak for themselves. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaolin Samurai: You say: “His family was American. Many of his friends were Americans. He lived and worked in America, with American citizenship.”

Are you sure about that? I think you should learn more about Bruce Lee before you come to this discussion. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this really need to be broken down for you?

Linda Lee: American

Brandon Lee: American

Shannon Lee: American

I hope I needn't go on. It seems YOU are the one who should do some (very basic) research before coming into this discussion. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The word (family) is a bit tricky, what about his parents and ALL of his siblings? However, Linda, Brandon and Shannon were irrelevant to his citizenship.

You only mention the things that have happened from 1959 to 1971 and ignored everything else, then, flatly refer to Lee as an American. That was unacceptable. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How on earth have I "ignored everything else?" I really have no clue as to what you are talking about. Nowhere have I ever said that we should ignore Bruce Lee's past as a Chinese. The fact is he was both American AND Chinese, a fact that is not accurately reflected in the wiki intro as it currently stands. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You only mention the things that have happened from 1959 to 1971. Read your own comments. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but isn't Lee's nationality something that reliable sources should be deciding rather than editors here? Basing the outcome on an argument about the nationality laws of Hong Kong, China, the US, and the UK, it sounds likely to stray into original research/synthesis territory... What do the sources generally say, and why can't we stick to whatever that is? Miremare 23:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

To get back on topic, I believe it is notable to point out that Bruce Lee is widely accepted as an Asian American and Chinese American icon in Asian American studies programs. Numerous SCHOLARLY and ACADEMIC texts reiterate the fact that Bruce Lee was an Asian American, and discuss specifics such as his role in the portrayal of Asian American men in the media and his influence on Asian American culture in general. There have been PLAYS [2] written about his impact on Asian Americans. The University of Washington, Lee's alma mater, even has a page describing him as "the first Asian American superstar." [3] If scholars, biographers, and academics can accept Lee as an American, without caveat, than so can his Wikipedia article. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books link to "Chinese American Masculinities: From Fu Man Chu to Bruce Lee" [4] Shaolin Samurai (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I agree. Moreover, this talk page is the only place where I've ever heard the argument that Bruce Lee was not an American. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is the only place where I've ever heard the argument that Bruce Lee was not a Hong Konger or Chinese. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to properly format your responses to make it clear which posts you are replying to. It helps keep the talk page organized. Also, it seems you are confused as to what the discussion is about: we are discussing whether or not Bruce Lee was an American, NOT whether or not he was Chinese. There is a significant difference between the two. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler could have phrased himself better, but there is no doubt in my mind that he understands the point here: "...heard the argument that Bruce Lee was not 'a Hong Konger or Chinese' [but instead an American]." Am I right, Undefeatedcooler? However, the actual dispute is whether or not to flatly refer to Lee in the intro as an American. There is a significant difference (if a more subtle one) between that and what Shaolin Samurai said it was, too. --Tbrittreid (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly what I meant. The actual dispute was whether to flatly refer Lee, in the intro, as an American or not. Whether he was a Chinese or Hong Konger was completely ignored.

Nevertheless, someone is trying to ignore Lee was a Hong Konger and flatly refer to him as an American by metioning his US citizen only (but for 12 years only) and throwing British subjects in which is irrelevant. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any objection to referring to Lee as both an American AND a Hong Konger/Chinese in the introduction. Being an American and Chinese are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the argument is made that Lee spend "12 years only" as an American in his adulthood but the fact remains: his wife and children were exclusively American citizens, and had his life been not cut short there is no indication that he would not have remained an American citizen the rest of his life. I'm not aware of any rule that states you must be an American citizen for X amount of years before you are truly able to be considered an American. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"...had his life not been cut short there is no indication that he would not have remained an American citizen the rest of his life." Only in the sense (as some have argued on this page and which I do not concede) that having been born here he was a US citizen whether he wanted to be one or not. There is no indication that his move back to Hong Kong in 1971 would not have been permanent, and there is in fact a strong implication that it would have been. "I don't think there is an objection to referring to Lee as both an American AND a Hong Konger/Chinese in the introduction." Uh...what do you think I've been making here, chopped liver? Lee was a "Hong Konger" who by a more or less geographic accident of birth had US citizenship as a birthright, but one which he chose to ignore until he had reason to get out of HK, and that was far and away the simplest way to do so. After a little more than a decade of facing racism (far less than blacks had to endure here during the same period), he returned to his homeland-by-any-term-but-place-of-birth for the all too short remainder of his life. These are the facts of Lee's life, and deny flatly referring to him as an American in the intro of an encyclopedia article. Which is not to say his American citizen status should not be mentioned at all, but it must be kept in proper proportion. "An American-born Hong Konger" (if the latter term is indeed the proper one for that concept) hits the nail right on the head. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can somewhat appreciate your point of view but no matter what the circumstances, the fact remains that Bruce Lee held American citizenship for what was effectively the ENTIRETY OF HIS ADULT LIFE. In going back to Hong Kong to pursue a film career he did not renounce his American citizenship. You cannot dispute this. The statement "After a little more than a decade of facing racism (far less than blacks had to endure here during the same period) he returned to his homeland..." hardly seems like a "fact" but your own interpretation of Lee's life and is ultimately not relevant to the fact of his citizenship. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, just the facts. To "refer to him flatly as an American" would be factually accurate. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained more times than I would care to count, the FACT of the matter is that it would NOT be factually accurate to flatly refer to Lee as an American. Put your idolism aside and you deal with the facts. BTW, my mentioning the racism he endured—and Linda if not Bruce himself is on the record about that—was to give the reason he returned home. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to debase my argument by falsely attributing a motive to them. I am not interested in any form of "idolism." I am only interested in making sure this article is accurate and factual. At any rate, we seem to be going around in circles since you refuse to accept the fact of Lee's American citizenship without throwing in irrelevant circumstances and stipulations. 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaolin Samurai (talk • contribs)

Just a response to Tbrittreid's comment above that "There is no indication that his move back to Hong Kong in 1971 would not have been permanent, and there is in fact a strong implication that it would have been." Various statements in Linda Lee's biographical The Bruce Lee Story contradict this statement, and indicate that Bruce Lee and his family had no desire to loosen their connection to the United States. For example, on page 188, Linda states about Bruce "He was happiest when he lived in the Pacific Northwest and we often talked about having a home there in the future." On page 178, one can see that Lee took full advantage of his US Citizenship shortly before his death: "Bruce's mother, Grace, came to live in the United States in the early 1970s when Bruce was able to help her enter this country because of his U.S. citizenship." Per pages 178-179, other siblings of Bruce (e.g., Robert, Phoebe, and Agnes) soon followed in making the United States their home. Far from abandoning the United States, it seems that the Lee family was only too eager to emigrate from Hong Kong to the United States. — Myasuda (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tbrittreid is NOT “refuse to accept the fact of Lee's US citizenship with throwing in irrelevant circumstances and stipulations”.

We (all) were accepted Lee’s US citizenship, ALSO his native HK citizenship, and the fact he returned to Hong Kong for good in 1971. Lee gained celebrity since being a Hong Kong child actor, and became world famous from being a Hong Kong actor.

There is no question that Lee's US citizenship was secondary to his HK/Chinese status.

Shaolin Samurai is the only one seems to “refuse to accept the fact of Lee's native HK citizenship with throwing in irrelevant circumstances and stipulations” and (trying to flatly refer to him as an American by mentioning his US citizen only).

Shaolin Samurai: You say: “I don't think there is any objection to referring to Lee as both an American AND a Hong Konger/Chinese in the introduction. Being an American and Chinese are not mutually exclusive.” So, what brings you here? Undefeatedcooler (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler, your post is rambling and incoherent and I cannot ascertain what you are trying to say. I only gather that your tone is highly accusatory and even insulting. As such, I will no longer reply to them until you say something that actually contributes to this discussion and helps us to reach a consensus. Also, don't even try to tell me I'm the only one who feels this way on this issue - just look how long this talk page is. You are only flaming and insulting. All you are doing is quoting me but not responding to my points in any meaningful way. Also, I am not "trying to flatly refer to him as an American by mentioning his US citizen only." This is completely false. I do not know if you are purposely attempting to misrepresent my position or if you are just ignorant. Please re-read my posts carefully. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaolin Samurai, what makes you think that my post is rambling and incoherent? And I am not highly accusatory and not even insulting you. My point is: As we all (included you) don't think there is any objection to referring to Lee as both an American AND a Hong Konger/Chinese in the introduction. Why did you say: “To refer to him flatly as an American would be factually accurate” ? (but now, you seems to deny that trying to flatly refer to him as an American). You always change your mind.

This discussion already reached a consensus. There is NO objection to referring to Lee as both an American AND a Hong Konger/Chinese. And everyone was satisfied with the intro “American-born Chinese Hong Kong actor” as it currently stands. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that clearly states Lee was "an American-born Chinese Hong Kong actor." Otherwise, you are engaging in original research. Stick to the sources. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that clearly states Lee was "Asian American but not an American-born Chinese Hong Konger." (apart from the internet, which can be edited by anyone), you are engaging in original research too. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. It is clear you have not bothered to review the sources provided, and are only interested in pushing your own opinionated agenda. If you revert the page again I am reporting you for violating the three revert rule. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What sources provided? He was only listed in the Asian American recently. (that was not the source). Everyone was satisfied with the intro “American-born Chinese Hong Kong actor” as it stands for long. It seems that you are the one interested in pushing your own opinionated. If you revert the page again I am the one reporting you for violating the three revert rule. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s more suitable for Lee to be list in Chinese American rather than "Asian American". I don’t know why the editors removed him from Chinese American and replaced him in Asian American.

The intro "Chinese American and Hong Kong actor" would be the best outcome. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By Title 8, Section 1401 of the US Code, Bruce Lee was a "citizen of the United States at birth" as opposed to being "born stateless but with the right to obtain US citizenship at a later date." This meant that Bruce had US citizenship for his entire life since the day he was born. Because China never allowed multiple citizenship, he could not have had Chinese citizenship without relinquishing his American one. And because Hong Kong is and was never an independent and sovereign country, the idea of Hong Kong "citizenship" does not exist in the common definition of the word - the HKID card only offers permanent residence and not citizenship, just as people with Green Cards are not Americans. It's still acceptable to call him a Hong Konger, since this term does not imply citizenship, but claiming that he has "HK citizenship" is misleading.

Going back to the opening sentence, the widely accepted definition of "American" is a person with US citizenship. As a consequence of this definition, one is either American, or one is not. There is no in between or varying degrees of being American. Living abroad or being predominantly ethncially Chinese does not make him any less American (because the only way he can be less American is to not be American at all). JFK isn't described as an "Irish American" in the opening sentence, nor is Jennifer Aniston described as a "Greek American." Some people feel the need to label him as a "Chinese American" because it's drilled in their heads that the only "true" Americans are White (Bruce was part White by the way). This article should stick to facts based on accepted and objective definitions of nationality, rather than people's personal opinions of what they consider him to be. Aplafic (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Aplafic: Bruce Lee was a "citizen of the United States at birth" as opposed to being "born stateless but with the right to obtain US citizenship at a later date." This means that Bruce had US citizenship for his entire life since the day he was born.

Only from the perspective of American law, which is a technicality and not important here, as his parents were natives of Hong Kong and raised him as one—whatever citizenship that might have worked out to in Lee's day—which was just as much his birthright through his parentage as the US citizenship was through the location of his birth. His citizenship through HIS perspective is the one that counts. As I posted back on 12 April, American citizenship was as much Winston Churchill's birthright as it was Lee's, but he CHOSE not to take it, while Bruce did, if temporarily (Myasuda's quotes from Linda's book about Bruce published not long at all after his death are, because of that timing, highly biased and untrustworthy; she was trying to sell that book to an American publisher, if she was not contracted by one to write it in the first place; is there other evidence for the alleged moves of his mother and siblings to the US?). Churchill destroys your position, Aplafic, as he proves that there are varying degrees of being an American, when multiple citizenships-by-birthright are part of the picture, as they are here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

More incorrect statements from Tbrittreid. The book was published in 1989. Why did you lie about this, and where is your source for impugning Linda Lee's book and her honesty? Or is this simply your POV? The fact that several members of the Lee family emigrated to the United States is well known. Besides Linda's book, Bruce Thomas' book "Fighting Spirit" mentions Grace Lee as living in Monterey Park, California. Also, some quick searches bring up [5] and [6] showing Grace, Robert, and Phoebe as residing in the United States. — Myasuda (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did some additional re-reading of

• Lee, Linda (1989). The Bruce Lee Story. Ohara Publications. ISBN 0897501217.

and found some rather definitive quotes regarding Lee's plans regarding future residence. On 146, Linda writes "He had visions of leaving Hong Kong and returning to the United States where he could truly carry out his dreams of being an international star and provide better living conditions and educational opportunities for his children." And on page 154, Linda writes (regarding the point in time about three months prior to Bruce's death) "It was about this time that Bruce decided that we would return to live in the United States where life was easier and there were more opportunities. He would return perhaps twice a year to Hong Kong to make a picture because there he would be afforded the added control and freedom necessary to pursue specialized film projects." This should close the book on Lee's state of mind on this topic. — Myasuda (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tbrittreid you question the validity of the sources provided but have not managed to produce any supporting your viewpoint. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for original research or your own personal theories. The golden rule of Wikipedia is sources and verifiability. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Aplafic’s definition of "American" and in comparison with JKF and Jennifer Aniston, that is irrelevant. There is a significant difference between them. JFK and Jennifer Aniston were raised in US, educated in US only, lived and worked in US only, and were only US citizens. (whereas Bruce Lee was not the same).

There is a significant difference between American ethnicity, European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans and others etc…….

Take a look at Steve Vai, Vai is in the same case as Jennifer Aniston, but Vai's widely referred as an Italian American in the intro. (He is white too, so not only "true" Americans are White).

Take a look at Kevin Cheng, Cheng is in the same case as Bruce Lee, but Cheng is flatly referred as Hong Konger in the intro.

Why? Because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is widely accepted by everyone, with commonsense and facts. Not personal theories and (dead sources).

You guys don’t understand the term Hong Kong people. (Because someone tried to remove it from the intro). Hong Kong people means Hong Kong permanent residents with HKID. Anyone can be Hong Konger (not only Chinese), as long as they were Hong Kong permanent residents and have claimed HKID. (Whether HKID is a citizenship or not isn’t matter, since they only need the HKID to be classified as Hong Konger). “The city's population is 95% Chinese and 5% people of other ethnicities” (see Hong Kong). Bruce’s father Lee Hoi-chuen was a FULL Chinese, his mother Grace Ho (何愛瑜) was 3/4 Chinese and 1/4 German. Bruce Lee was definitely a Chinese Hong Konger.

“Bruce Lee gained celebrity since being a Hong Kong child actor, and became world famous from being a Hong Kong actor”. These are the facts, and it is necessary to mention Hong Kong actor in the intro. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Hong Kong" should definitely be there in the intro for obvious reasons despite "Hong Konger" not being a proper nationality. He may be culturally less "American" than most Americans, but as far as nationality is concerned, he was American (and just that) and that should be mentioned there too. The description "American-born Hong Kong actor, martial artist..." sums it up nicely IMO. Aplafic (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The only book by Linda about Bruce that I am aware of—and I searched Amazon.com when someone claimed a later date for it and that it included flat claims that Warner Bros. stole Bruce's TV series concept titled The Warrior and turned it into Kung Fu—was published in 1975. No lie on my part. That earlier person, BTW, did not cite a different title as you have; the one I know of was Bruce Lee, The Man Only I Knew.

Another statement by Aplafic: "He [Bruce Lee] was an American (and just that)...." If by "just" you mean "only", i.e., no other citizenship, it has been repeatedly explained here that he had the exact same citizenship that his parents and siblings had as Hong Kong natives (whatever the hell that might have been, unless someone wants to suggest that such people had NO citizenship of any kind). Therefore Aplafic cannot possibly believe that at this stage of this discussion, and unless by the word "just" he/she mean something other than "only" that I cannot conceive, he/she is lying.

As for Myasuda's "The fact that several members of the Lee family emigrated to the United States is well known," it is not known at all to me, and I have been a fan of Bruce Lee since the original 1966-1967 run of The Green Hornet. If they have, I'm certain it was because they did not want to live in the People's Republic of China, which took control of HK in 1997, and proves nothing about Bruce's preference between his two citizenships.

Bottom line — The fact of the matter is that while Lee had American citizenship by virtue of happening to be born in the USA, he/his parents completely ignored it until he reached his maturity and had need to get out of Hong Kong. It is therefore inappropriate to flatly refer to him as an American in the intro of an encyclopedia article (that's a crucial aspect of this dispute). Furthermore note that, since in Lee's case "Chinese" refers only to his ethnicity rather than nationality, the term "Chinese American" makes no allusion whatsoever to his multiple citizenship status and the use of it constitutes calling him an American and nothing else nationality-wise, which like it or not is inaccurate. He grew up a citizen of whatever a native of Hong Kong was a citizen of in his day, and claimed American (like it or not, the term is appropriate here, just as Winston Churchill chose not to claim the American citizenship that was also his birthright) upon reaching his maturity. The HK-based citizenship came first and last (you can bet that when he went back to Hong Kong he did not get the visa, etc., that anybody who was only an American citizen would have had to do to go there) in his life. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim that you performed an Amazon.com search. It must have been a very poor search on your part since here it is [7]. I gave the title and author, so I can't see how you could possibly have made a mistake. Furthermore, anyone familiar with this article would have seen that The Bruce Lee Story (the "authorized biography") is one of very few entries in the Reference section. And since his siblings that came to the United States arrived in the 1970s or before, your claim that they came due to 1997 concerns (more unsupported POV on your part) is without merit. — Myasuda (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He may have been a British Overseas Territories citizen (the citizenship many Hong Kong people had unitl 1997) as well, but this is speculation and I welcome you to verify this. I have not come across a reliable source that makes this claim - every source I've looked at flatly refers to his nationality as American, which by American law, he possessed since birth. Aplafic (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

“He may have been a British Overseas Territories citizen (the citizenship many Hong Kong people had until 1997)” That's incorrect.

Hong Kong Certificate of Identity is the citizenship many Hong Kong people had until 1997. He possessed from his native Hong Kong parents with his returned to Hong Kong. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, read the Wikipedia article on the Hong Kong Certificate of Identity. It's not a form of citizenship, but merely a travel document for "Hong Kong permanent residents who did not hold and could not obtain any valid travel documents for overseas travel". This isn't the kind of thing you get from birth.

If Bruce Lee did in fact possess an additional citizenship to American (so far no one has provided a reliable source that verifies this), it most definitely was British (derived from his parents) - namely, the British Overseas Territories citizenship, since Hong Kong was a British Overseas Territory. Again, this information isn't hard to find. Aplafic (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Certificate of Identity was a formal travel document and passport, issued by the Hong Kong Government's Immigration Department until June 30, 1997.

Again, I have said before. NOT ALL Hong Kong people have actually claimed BDTCs or BNOs. (at least my parents didn’t). I am certain about it, because they only had HKCIs but not BDTCs/BNOs in the old days. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion isn't particularly relevant. I think we all can agree that "Hong Kong" should be in the opening sentence. Aplafic (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Aplafic: He may have been a British Overseas Territories citizen (the citizenship many Hong Kong people had until 1997) as well, but this is speculation and I welcome you to verify this. Putting aside the question of whether or not that is the citizenship natives of Hong Kong had within Lee's life span and is therefore the other citizenship he held, I don't have to verify such because I am not trying to put a statement to that explicit effect in the article, merely trying to get you to admit to the reality of Lee's situation and let the article not contain an inaccurate statement otherwise. You continue: I have not come across a reliable source that makes this claim - every source I've looked at flatly refers to his nationality as American, which by American law, he possesed since birth. So did Winston Churchill, as I have said twice, but that does not justify flatly calling him an American. "By American law" is a legal technicality and here we're dealing with real-world practice. I literally do not believe that there are no reliable sources that fail to flatly refer to Lee as an American, partly because those that do are wrong, partly because I've seen many that don't go into his citizenship. In fact, many reliable sources DO state that he grew up in Hong Kong and made use of his American citizenship only after reaching legal adulthood. Furthermore, ANY sources that do flatly refer to him as an American and deny him any other citizenship (not that I believe that any go that far) are unreliable because in addition to his American citizenship he had the same citizenship that his parents had by virtue of being their natural and legal offspring, and it was that citizenship under which he grew up, alongside his siblings, who had no other. The fact that we can't get anything remotely resembling an agreement as to just what that citizenship was doesn't change the fact that he damned well held it, and was raised that way, not as an American. The only thing that could change that fact would be documentation that Hong Kong natives in those days had no citizenship of any kind, which you will find convincing me of a very difficult job. The specification of "British Overseas Territories citizenship" might have been speculation, but that was your statement not mine, and he did have the same (as yet unidentified) citizenship as his parents and siblings. That is as legally automatic (and therefore requiring no further verification/documentation) as the fact that he was born in the USA conferred US citizenship upon him is. The fact that Lee had been born (well) outside Hong Kong was ignored by the family and him, until he had reason to leave Hong Kong (not to go to America specifically, but just to get out of HK). Once again, this debate is not simply about Lee's nationality, but whether or not he should be flatly referred to as an American in the introductory passage of an encyclopedia. The mere fact of multiple citizenships, let alone the fact that his heritage and upbringing was the other one, argues against doing that. Now cease the cranial-rectal-insertion and get a grip on reality, Aplafic. I am getting tired of repeating myself because you ignore what I've said (particularly the Churchill precedent), and that because you can't defend your position against it.--Tbrittreid (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote Tbrittreid (talk):"Furthermore, ANY sources that do flatly refer to him as an American and deny him any other citizenship (not that I believe that any go that far) are unreliable because in addition to his American citizenship he had the same citizenship that his parents had by virtue of being their natural and legal offspring, and it was that citizenship under which he grew up, alongside his siblings, who had no other."

I love how this effectively amounts to "Any sources which disagree with my POV are unreliable." I guess a respected publisher like Routledge and the University of Washington do not meet Tbrittreid's personal standards as "reliable sources." -- Shaolin Samurai (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tbrittreid: "... in addition to his American citizenship he had the same citizenship that his parents had"

I'm going to stray away from discussion of nationality laws beacuse that's not what's important. I remind you that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that does not publish original research or original thought. If he did possess an additional citizenship, this needs to be verified by a reliable source, as per WP:V. Failing that, we are to assume that American was his only nationality, for that is the information that reliable sources (such as the ones Shaolin Samurai listed below) have provided us. -- Aplafic (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see there are arguments on both sides, and both sides seem to be sticking emphatically to their own. But at the risk of repeating myself, Lee's nationality isn't something that Wikipedia can decide. Arguing about laws is useless - verifiability not truth. There must have been a lot written about the man, so what is the general concensus amongst sources regarding his nationality, and can we have some relevant citations listed here for all to see please? Cheers, Miremare 00:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Posting these yet again for all to see. I believe the sources speak for themselves. No "cherry picking" at work here as I struggled to find any sources that stated he should not be considered an American.

Chan, Jachinson (2001). Chinese American Masculinities: From Fu Manchu to Bruce Lee. Routledge . p. 196. ISBN 081534029X. (google books preview link [8])

University of Washington 100 Alumni of the Century - Alumni from J through O

Asia Pacific Arts, UCLA Asia Institute Choppy Water

AsianWeek - The Voice of Asian America Chinese American Hero: Bruce Lee

US Asians BRUCE LEE A Legend that Never Dies! -- Shaolin Samurai (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Those (American sources) that provided by Shaolin Samurai were only referred him as Chinese American or Asian American, (Not flatly refer to him as an American). Although I strongly believed books and articles were not sources, since that was only the author’s opinionated.

If you look at the (Chinese sources), I can bet that they were all flatly referred him as Chinese. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So those sources refer to Lee as "Asian-American" (3) and "Chinese-American" (2). Undefeatedcooler, please consider that, this being the English language version of Wikipedia, sources in English are preferred (see WP:NONENG). However, if you have issues with the reliability of any of the sources above (rather than the views expressed by them), then I'm sure that can also be discussed. Please also consider posting a list of sources that support your side of the argument. Cheers, Miremare 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's possession of the same citizenship as his parents by way of being their legal and natural offspring is as legally automatic and as not needing verification as his American citizenship by way of happening to have been born in the USA is. PERIOD. The only aspect of that requiring verification is just what Mr. and Mrs. Lee's citizenship was (if it needed to be specified, which it does not), but NOT the fact that Bruce "inherited" it from them. Any source that says his only citizenship was American is wrong and blatantly so, but you have cited NONE that actually and categorically deny him another one; they all appear to be lists, not descriptive text, which is quite limiting to verbage. Those referring to him as Chinese-American and Asian-American do so because he did invoke American citizenship (which I do not deny was his birthright) and live as such for most of his adulthood, and, again, out of being lists they are less than definitive statements. It is not wrong to put him in those two categories, but doing so does not constitute a statement that he had no citizenship other than American. Relevant to posting those sources Shaolin Samurai wrote, I struggled to find any sources that stated that he should not be considered an American. That's not the point here, SS, but whether or not he should be flatly referred to in the intro as an American and nothing else. Nobody here claims that he should not be considered an American at all.

Shaolin Samurai also wrote about something I said and just reiterated in different words to the same effect: I love how this effectively amounts to "Any sources which disagree with my POV are unreliable." No it doesn't; it means, "Any sources which disagree with easily known factual reality are unreliable." Remember, Wikipedia regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with those sources. There are many precedents across the encyclopedia where strict enforcement of these regs has fallen to common sense and common knowledge, and since (I repeat from just above and now further clarify) the point here is whether Lee should be flatly referred to as an American or should the fact that he was raised in Hong Kong under his parental heritage/citizenship be acknowledged (however vaguely) in the intro of this article, this should be one of them. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Stop all the original research and cherry-picking. Grab any major English-language biography of Mr Lee and put what it says, with a citation. End of story. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It does matter, since Mr Lee’s life was raised and ended in HK. The (American version) English-language biography of Lee may not be accurate. Unless you don’t care about the (English language version) Wikipedia of Bruce Lee, and try to lie about it.

By the way, the English language version of Wikipedia is for English language readers (Not only for American readers). Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OrangeDog is right. If no reliable sources (and surely at least one actual biography would mention it) say that he had a particular citizenship then we can't put it in the article. Tbrittreid, saying that this is something that doesn't need citation would be OK if it were not controversial, but this clearly is. There's not going to be consensus to include it uncited, so please, anyone with sources that would allow the inclusion, post them here. Miremare 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What we needed, are the facts and commonsense, NOT unreliable sources. I believe the facts speak for themselves, NOT the unreliable sources speak for themselves.

The question: When Bruce Lee went back to Hong Kong in 1941 (3 months old), stayed for 18 years, also in 1971 —stayed— How did he do it? Richard Lee 9 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To answer the first part of Richard Lee 9's extremely intelligent question (I thought about and dealt with the latter trip back to HK earlier, albeit logically), by definition of the circumstances at 3 months old he went back on his parents' documents and their citizenship. Otherwise (i.e., travelling with only American citizenship, which is what you people insist on believing here would require), he would have needed a visa, passport, whatever. Come to think of it, that would also require him to have grown up with some form of "resident alien" status!

Miremare posted: ...saying this is something that doesn't need citation would be OK if it were not controversial, but this clearly is. There's not going to be consensus to include it uncited.... The only reason that the fact of Lee's citizenship from his parentage on top of his US citizenship from the location of his birth is "controversial" is because too many people here want to believe something else, and are committing cranial-rectal-insertion to do so. I anxiously await for tomorrow to see the responses to Richard's crucial-to-our-dispute question and to my absolutely irrefutable answer to the first prong of it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2009

Hatnote issues

See WP:Hatnote: "Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." The longer version of the hatnote which one editor is trying to introduce seems similar to the improper hatnote for Ayesha quoted here. If anyone believes that the article about the arsonist should be renamed to Peter Dinsdale or anything else raise it there. PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the article about the arsonist should be renamed to Peter Dinsdale, since that was his real name. Richard Lee 9 (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Death

One doctor says Lee might have died from equagesic and cannabis. Another says cannabis. A third says he might have died from the painkiller (equagesic). What I think is he died from both the painkiller and the cannabis. The autopsy revealed both in his system when he died. In a article I read it said "Lee later on took a nap" he must have used the cannabis after the Equagesic painkiller and later on went to sleep and didn't wake up. It was an accident. May Lee rest in peace. By Jonathan Farnum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.167.243 (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bruce lee var enn stygg og sterk fyr..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.174.211 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC News article claiming Bruce Lee and Betty Ting were lovers. 86.136.61.102 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Physical feats needs revising

Some of the feats are not really validated and are mere speculation on the behalf of various authors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.80.175 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Lee could thrust his finger through a steel soft-drink can, and goes on ".(This was when soft drinks cans were made of steel much thicker than today's aluminium cans)". I don't know about American cans but in Europe all cans are made of steel, for recycling purposes. Steel cans can be sorted with an (electro)magnet. I believe cans are made in the USA the same way as in Europe, rendering the statement about "today's aluminium cans" incorrect. --unsigned-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.253.214 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Today's cans in the US are made in a manner that renders them quite easily crushable, which was not the case years ago. Furthermore, most—if not all—such cans here in the US are explicitly labelled as being made of aluminum. Sorry, Unsigned, but you are wrong about this. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Kato/Robin fight scene & Batman set conflict

I see that someone finally (I considered it an inevitability) added the story about the alleged problems between Bruce Lee and Burt "Robin" Ward concerning their part of a fight scene at the climax of the Green Hornet/Batman crossover. I have resisted putting this into any of the relevant articles for the following reasons: Even though GH star Van Williams has told this on several occasions, saying it was a stunt to try to improve Hornet 's ratings, he has indicated that the Caped Crusaders were intended to win the fight outright. Getting beat up by this campy twosome would lead people to watch them in their own show? Paradoxically, the actor has also repeatedly said that his show was winning its time slot. Up against the third season of The Wild Wild West? Not a chance, all of which calls his memory and/or credibility into question, and he is the only source for this incident that I am aware of. However, what really sinks this story is two virtually identical scenes in the Batman episodes, one in each half hour. In Britt Reid's hotel suite, he and Kato are preparing to go out as the Green Hornet and his anonymous "man." Reid reminds his partner of the precarious position they are in, since they are believed to be criminals themselves: they must achieve their goals and escape without making the highly respected Batman and Robin look bad. Reid is effectively telling Kato to restrain himself should they get into a fight with the other two masked crimefighters, further contradicting the claim of a flat defeat in the script. These two scenes are an absolute perfect fit for the differences in the two pairs' respective M.O.'s, and doing it in each part does not come across as something hastily scripted and filmed to salve Lee's pride but rather as something intended to explain just how these two men work to the unintiated among the Bat-viewers, including any who may have missed Part 1. The whole story just isn't believable in the face of these facts. There may well be some truth to it, i.e., Ward was bragging about his alleged karate black belt and claiming he could beat up Lee, and this got to Bruce who didn't like it, resulting in tension between the two men, but not the scripted defeat. So I am going to remove the account (it's unsourced anyway), with a link to this in my edit summary. Please note that I am not putting in (or suggesting putting in) here or anywhere else a passage saying this incident did not (or maybe did not) happen. Not mentioning it at all is neutral. --Ted Watson (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy over Jeet Kune Do" & "Jujitsu"

Just a few questions about the page: What was the controversy over Jeet Kune Do? If there were any, they are not mentioned in that section so the section title is rather inappropriate at the moment. As for the section about Jujitsu, the exact same words can be found just 7 paragraphs above, so are there any need for repetition? (I don't know which one to delete so right now, I'm just keeping both paragraphs)Imnowei (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Books authored

Is this accurate? Tae Kwon Do (Published posthumously)-1973 Never heard of him writing a book on Tae Kwon Do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.94.100 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This was changed (17:34, May 15) from Tao of Jeet Kune Do, which is much more plausible on the face of it. Since there is a Wiki-article on this publication, I'll change it back, first attempting via "undo." Might be too much other have gone by since then, though. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one more note. I believe this was published in 1975 (I was thinking 1979 for some reason also). The Wikipedia article it's linked to says 1973, but in the text it says that his wife decided to compile it in 1975. In any case, it was published after his death, which wasn't portrayed properly in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.94.100 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a book, not neutral

Reads like a book about him. Also few citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadbailey (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that some passages seem less than properly neutral, but "few citations"? There are 94 reference footnotes, a number of which cover more than one statement and bring the total of cites up to 109. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is silly. The article is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.38.252 (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

'The Warrior' to 'Kung Fu'

It has been bandied around for years that Kung Fu was originated by Bruce Lee, then stolen by Warner Bros. It is even asserted that Linda Lee Cadwell said so, but no documentation of any such statement by her has been produced. In the top thread on this page, one editor insisted she said it in her book Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew, but as you can read there, this didn't stand up to investigation. Until and unless you can cite a source with a specific statement that Lee's The Warrior was turned into Kung Fu, it can't be said in the article. Nobody, including Warner Bros., disputes that Lee was considered for the role of Caine, and that is already in the article, just prior to where you've been putting your passage. This fact does not constitute support for the claim about The Warrior. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You continue to state that there is no proof that The Warrior = Kung Fu, yet you continue to erase from the record the words of the one person who can shed the most light on the subject - Bruce Lee himself! You say that all other parties agree that Bruce Lee was in discussions to star in a series about a Martial Artist set in the period of The Western. Bruce Lee himself confirms this in a television interview at the END of 1971. Lee says the name of the series is "The Warrior" not "Kung Fu". Are you suggesting that Lee was in secret discussions for Kung Fu in 1971 at the same time he was publicly saying he was in discussions for a different series called "The Warrior"? Are you saying there were discussions for TWO different TV series starring Bruce Lee as a Martial Artist set in the period of The Western being discussed? Either there were TWO different discussions about TWO different series that took place in 1971, or The Warrior IS Kung Fu. Clearly the Lee's comments on this matter are VERY relevant and you should stop erasing them. Lee even adds that The Warrior will likely not happen because of the studios concerns about an Asian in the lead role. This is the same reason given for Lee being denied the role in “Kung Fu” that went to David Carradine in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playserious (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I rented the Pierre Berton interview's video not that long ago, and don't remember any thing but a brief, specificless mention of Lee's "The Warrior"; no talk of a Western setting for it. Nevertheless, even if your description of the interview is accurate, it is still prohibited synthesis to equate the two projects. Lee didn't say they were the same thing. Claims that Linda did say that remain unsupported (to say the least), and the lack of legal action against Warner is compelling evidence that there is little if any truth to it. Trust me, I have been on your side of a couple of previous disputes about things more obvious and irrefutable constituting synthesis, so give it up. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You give it up. I quoted Bruce Lee word for word and provided a direct link for you and others to watch the Pierre Berton interview that you claim you watched "not that long ago", but don't remember. I suggest you re-watch it and refresh your memory. The Pierre Berton interview is at YouTube.com in 3 parts. Lee discusses "The Warrior in parts 2, and also in part 3. THE WORDS OF BRUCE LEE WHEN DIRECTLY SPEAKING OF THE TALKS HE HAD WITH WARNER BROTHERS AND PARAMOUNT IN 1971 REGARDING A PROPOSED TV SERIES FEATURING A MARTIAL ARTIST IN A WESTERN SETTING ARE ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT TO THIS TOPIC. IT IS BRUCE LEE HIMSELF SPEAKING ON THE SUBJECT. YOUR EFFORTS TO CONTINUALLY REMOVE THIS PASSAGE CONTAINING DIRECT QUOTES FROM BRUCE LEE IS VANDALISM. You repeatedly say that ALL parties agree that in 1971 Bruce Lee was in talks to star in an American TV series playing a Martial Artist in a Western setting. You also say that all parties agree that Warner Brothers had concerns about an Asian in the lead, so the role went to Carradine. All of this is addressed by Bruce Lee himself in the Pierre Berton interview that was taped in December 1971. If all parties agree Bruce Lee was talking to Warner in 1971, and Bruce Lee himself describes the talks he had with Warner in an interview conducted at the END of 1971, then either "The Warrior" IS "Kung Fu", or Bruce Lee was in talks regarding TWO different TV shows at the same time ("The Warrior" AND "Kung Fu"). Since Bruce Lee describes "The Warrior" as a TV series starring a martial artist in a western setting (the same as Kung Fu) and says he doesn't think it will happen with him because of studios concerns about having an Asian in the lead (same as Kung Fu), and Bruce Lee makes no mention of a show called "Kung Fu", despite, as you have said "all agreeing he was in talks in 1971 to play the lead in "Kung Fu", it is not a stretch to say The Warrior IS Kung Fu. Also revealing in the interview is Lee's comment that HE is the one who wants to do a western based TV series and Warner is the one who doesn't because they think the Western is out. It gives support to Linda Lee Cadwell's claim that it was Bruce that pushed the idea to the studios, not the other way around (and she has said that, I have seen her say it in more than one documentary and I will provide a link as soon as I can identify which ones). If you want to continue to argue that all of this does not offer 100% proof that The Warrior = Kung Fu, fine. But again, if "The Warrior" is not "Kung Fu" then Bruce Lee was in talks for two different TV shows about a martial artist in a Western setting. That part can't be in dispute because Bruce Lee said he was in talks about The Warrior at the same time that, as you say, "everyone else agrees he was in talks about Kung Fu". IF THEY WEREN'T THE SAME PROPOSED TV SERIES, THEN TWO DIFFERENT TALKS (THE WARRIOR & KUNG FU) WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT THE SAME TIME IN 1971. The timeline is not in dispute. SO EITHER THERE WAS TWO DIFFERENT SHOWS WITH BRUCE LEE STARRING AS A MARTIAL ARTIST IN A WESTERN SETTING, OR "THE WARRIOR" MUST BE "KUNG FU". EITHER WAY, YOU SHOULDN'T KEEP CENSORING BRUCE LEE WHEN HE IS SPEAKING ON THIS SUBJECT. Also, just because Bruce Lee didn't sue before his death in 1973, doesn't mean Warner didn't steal his idea. Perhaps Lee didn't sue because Warner was going to make it up to him on his next project. ENTER THE DRAGON!!! With Warner now agreeing to back his film career, Lee may not have felt the need to sue regarding them not crediting him for Kung Fu (or The Warrior). --User:playserious (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording stating Warrior=Kung Fu has been clarified to remove Synthesis claim. It now only states that Bruce Lee and Warner Brothers each have stated that they were in discussions with the other about Bruce Lee starring in an Warner Brothers produced American TV series as a Martial Artist set in the period of the Western. The reader can decide for hisself/herself if that means The Warrior=Kung Fu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.106.142 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your edit summary: Do not ever label disagreeing with you as vandalism! Do not ever do that again. What I "continue to state" is that there is no evidence directly equating "The Warrior" with "Kung Fu," and the words of Bruce Lee that I remove do not qualify as such. They are evidence of a marked similarity, but no more than that (I haven't had time to check the YouTube video, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, until I do). Since you admit above that there are two possible interpretations of the documented statements and facts, saying that they are the exact same project—which the passage still flatly does despite your claims that it has been removed—is synthesis. I lost out to administration on something that was absolutely as simple as acknowledging the fact that "1+1=2" but the final ruling was "Synthesis" and I have explained that the situation here is not as clear as that one (the lack of legal action is very difficult to get around). I didn't like it either, but that's the way it works in Wikipedia. If your're not willing to obey the Wikiregs (I doubt that you even read the synthesis reg I linked in), get out. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence equating "The Warrior" with "Kung Fu". You say still haven't had time to check sources, yet you manage to find time every day to check in and vandalize this Bruce Lee article. I am not labeling what you are doing as vandalism because you are disagreeing with me. It is vandalism because you are simply deleting facts that you don't like for no other reason than censoring facts you don't want known. You are claiming you're efforts to silence Bruce Lee's own words is removing synthesis. Yet, you make no efforts to correct the synthesis problem you claim exists, you simply throw out this bogus claim to justify continually deleting an entire paragraph that you don't like and don't want read by others. What you are doing is vandalism. I only admit there are two possibilities because you are obsessed with using a synthesis claim to censor direct quotes from Bruce Lee and any other information that doesn't match your pro-"Kung Fu", pro-Warner Brothers version agenda. The only way the two possibility scenario can be true is if Bruce Lee was in talks in 1971 for two different Warner Brother produced America TV shows starring Lee as a martial artist in a Western setting - one called "The Warrior" and another called "Kung Fu". Lee says he was in talks with Warner Brothers in 1971 for "The Warrior". Warner says they were in talks with Lee in 1971 for "Kung Fu". Why is it ok to keep the pro-Warner statements regarding "Kung Fu", but not any statements from Lee regarding "The Warrior". Why must Lee's 1971 comments about the same type of TV series (a Warner Brother produced America TV shows starring Lee as a martial artist in a Western setting) be deleted? Also, although I am no longer claiming "The Warrior" = "Kung Fu", there are many other sources that do, including...

• INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE: "Kung Fu" Also Known As (AKA) "The Warrior" USA (working title)
• THE MARTIAL EDGE

"The original Kung Fu TV show is now available in the most brilliant of boxed sets, which sees its debut on Great British shelves for the first time since its incarnation over thirty years ago. Of course the show’s concept was around much before, and owes much of its detail, attitude and exposure to the work of someone who, as it turned out, didn’t receive any credit for the show’s success: Bruce Lee.

This show was the brainchild of Lee. Back when he was struggling as a TV actor and bit-part player in mainstream Hollywood shows, where he first introduced US audiences to the spirit and energy of Chinese ‘kung fu’. Lee’s attempt to sell his own show, based in wild west and starring a Shaolin monk fighting evil with his hands and feet, fell on deaf ears when producers decided that Bruce was ‘too Chinese’ to take the lead role. Such bizarre racial slurs from conservative America proved too much for Bruce, who would be forced to travel back to Hong Kong and make his mark on the world from much further a field, while the premise behind his TV show (which Lee called The Warrior) remained on the backburner at Warner Brothers."

MONSTERS AND CRITICS

"Carradine's role on Kung Fu (TV series) (1972-1975) was originally promised and show concept (originally tentatively titled 'the Warrior') was created by Jeet Kune Do creator and martial arts legend Bruce Lee. However the studio purportedly recast the part with Carradine because of their belief that a Chinese leading man would not be embraced by early 1970s' American TV audience."

THE GRINDHOUSE DATA BASE

"Bruce and a Hollywood TV producer began planning a new TV series based around the Martial Arts. It was entitled "The Warrior". Bruce pitched the project but the TV producers balked. "The Warrior" was to feature Bruce as the main character, but Hollywood execs didn’t feel America would accept an Asian as the star of a TV show. After Bruce left the project, the show was recast with an American star named David Carradine."

KUNG FU MAGAZINE

Warner Bros. was considering him for the lead in a series actually developed with Lee in mind, called The Warrior, which eventually became Kung Fu and went to David Carradine instead.

THE BRUCE LEE FOUNDATION

1971 Pitches a TV series to Warner Brothers called “The Warrior” (later called “Kung Fu”) and begins collaborations to develop it. July Goes to Thailand to film “The Big Boss” for Golden Harvest December 7 Hears word from Warner Brothers he will not star in “The Warrior”; instead Caucasian actor, David Carradine, will star.

LOVE HONG KONG FILM

One project that Lee was keen on doing was "The Warrior," a one-hour television drama that he had helped develop for a network. The show's premise involved a disgraced Shaolin disciple who leaves China for the American West, encountering plenty of cowboys and Indians along the way. Bruce Lee jokingly referred to his character as "Hopalong Wong," but was dead set on obliterating Asian stereotypes with this unique, cross-cultural show. In modern features like Shanghai Noon and Once Upon a Time in China and America, the subject matter may seem quaint, but in Lee's time, it was quite daring. In fact, for some people it was too daring: producers ultimately balked at the idea of casting Lee because he was considered "too Chinese" for the role of a Chinese man! The project eventually came to fruition under a different title with a Caucasian actor in the lead role—you might know it as the popular television show "Kung Fu," starring David Carradine.

THE MARTIAL ARTS INSTITUTE

1971 - December 7 (Age 31): Hong Kong - Bruce receives telegram, notifying him that he had not been chosen for the part in the upcoming series, The Warrior. This series was later released as Kung-Fu, staring David Carradine

THE HISTORY LINK (THE FREE ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WASHINGTON STATE)

The Big Boss was a smash hit. It broke the previously held box-office record for films in Hong Kong (The Sound of Music), and was a big success throughout Asia. About this time, Bruce got news that The Warrior, the concept he'd come up with, was being made in the United States without him. Studio executives and producers didn't think a Chinese man would be accepted by American audiences and gave the role to David Carradine. The show was renamed "Kung Fu."

SO YOU GET YOUR LAZY, NON RESEARCHING, "THE WARRIOR" HATING ARSE OUT OF HERE AND STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE! --User:playserious (talk)

First, I have no "pro-Warner" agenda and am doing what I am doing in absolute good faith. If you call me a vandal or my actions vandalism again, I will report you to administration.

That aside, the claim that Lee's The Warrior was taken by Warners and reworked into Kung Fu has been bandied about mercilessly without support by many since the movie Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story included it among its fictions (the film does contain fictions, and this claim is mixed in among them, depicting Green Hornet executive producer William Dozier—whose last name they changed—as Lee's partner in creating the concept! I am not flatly calling this fiction. Let me make that clear: I am not absolutely saying that there is no truth to this, only that the evidence allows me room for doubt, and therefore we cannot say otherwise in the article, especially when your passage explicitly admits to drawing a conclusion, as it still does at this writing). None of the linked-in sources above are reliable about this in and of itself (according to Wiki regs; WP:Reliable sources), and some even say "...according to Lee's widow...," meaning they are parroting the never-verified claim that Linda made a statement to this effect. Note that "The Martial Edge" even attributes the character name "Caine" to Lee's creation, even though it is a Euro-American name used to make the character half-Caucasian and allow the casting of a white actor. There's no way Lee intended his "Warrior" to be a man named Caine. That proves that this is not a reliable source. The only source there that might be convincing is "The Bruce Lee Foundation" (if it is not run by his family) but I notice that even though you give a web address, it is not a link. Lastly, if one of us has a "lazy arse" it is you, for reinstating all of those misspellings of "Linda Lee Cadwell" as "...Caldwell." --Ted Watson (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have completely lost your perspective and are on some twisted personal vendetta to "win" and control the information presented on this page. The very idea that Bruce Lee was in talks in 1971 for two different Warner Brother produced America TV shows starring Lee as a martial artist in a Western setting AT THE EXACT SAME TIME - one called "The Warrior" and another called "Kung Fu" is idiotic. NO ONE IN THE WORLD AT ANY TIME HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT!!!. "The Warrior" and "Kung Fu" are the exact same concept, with the exact same star in the lead, to be produced by the exact same studio and discussed by the same two parties (Lee & Warner) at the exact same time. Obviously "The Warrior" IS "Kung Fu". Then, on top of that you have 10 different sources saying that they are the same series concept. Yet you feel it's ok to continue to delete all comments Bruce Lee makes about the show he is in talks about starring in for Warner being called "The Warrior" (and you also think it is ok to ignore the 10 other sources I've listed), but yet you think it's ok to leave info saying Bruce Lee was in talks in 1971 about starring in an American TV series for Warner called "Kung Fu", despite Lee himself making no mention of "Kung Fu" even when he is directly asked in a December 1971 interview about the "Western" style TV series he was hoping to do for Warner. THIS IS A BRUCE LEE PAGE. WHAT HE SAYS MATTERS!!!!

TEN DIFFERENT SOURCES ARE LISTED SAYING "THE WARRIOR" IS "KUNG FU", YET THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU. IF I LISTED A THOUSAND SOURCES THAT SAID "THE WARRIOR" IS "KUNG FU" IT WOULDN'T BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU. So you found thing to question about the information found at the webite for 1 source ("The Martial Edge" - saying that it attributes the character name "Caine" to Lee's creation) and you think that makes it ok to dismiss the other 9 sources and also erase and entire paragraph of quotes from Bruce Lee himself on the subject.

AND I REPEAT, THERE IS NO LONGER ANY CLAIM IN THE ARTICLE BY ME THAT "THE WARRIOR" = "KUNG FU", even though I would be justified in saying it because of the sources I have listed. Where are your 10 sources saying Bruce Lee was in talks for a show called "Kung Fu". Bruce Lee NEVER said that. He believed he was in talks for a show called "The Warrior" - AND SAID SO ON TV IN 1971.

GET A LIFE, CAUSE YOU'VE COMPLETELY LOST IT. You are out there in your own little world where you are keeper of who gets to see what information. This is personal with you. You feel the need to win despite all logic and truth. STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE! I HAVE REPORTED YOU TO ADMINISTRATION FOR YOUR CONTINUED IRRATIONAL OBSESSION TO CONTROL AND CENSOR THE INFORMATION FOUND ON THE BRUCE LEE WIKIPEDIA PAGE --User:playserious (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The completely inapplicable "vandalism" yet again. Violations of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, on top of ignoring the regs I have previously linked in. You are going to be very surprised at how this turns out. However, I will wait for admin's response to your report rather than removing your non-reg edits at this time. Thanks for saving me the trouble of reporting you. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally not continuing your fixation on deleting an entire paragraph of Bruce Lee's own words when asked about the Western TV series he was in talks to star in for Warner Brothers. --User:playserious (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.106.142 (talk)

I said that I would wait for administration to respond to your report. Note that the claim was already covered in the article's previous paragraph, where the dispute of it was also mentioned, and no conclusions were drawn. Given your repeated failures to properly sign your posts and log yourself in, I must wonder about the execution of that filing. I shall not wait long before submitting one of my own. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening thread

I don't know who it is, but someone changes always the line "He is widely considered as one of the greatest martial artist of all time" to "...considered by his fans...as one of the greatest martial artist of all time". If you want to call him "the greatest ever", than it s ok to write "by his fans". But ther is no doubt he is widely regarded as the greatest MAist of the 20th century, not just considered by his fans! So please change it to "considered by his fans as THE greatest in history", or "considered as ONE OF the greatest in history" or "the greatest of the 20th century". All other options makes no sense! Take Care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.2.194 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Bruce Lee is NOT considered one of the greatest martial artists ever by experts in the martial arts. Bruce Lee never won a major tournament, held a black belt, sash, or certification in any martial arts, nor beat any ranked fighters in the ring. To compare Bruce Lee to an 8th degree black belt in karate (such as someone like Chuck Norris) is very misleading and biased. I personally have problems with the entire article as it was obviously written by a fan that is idolizing Bruce Lee. Many of his physical feats that are listed are just not possible and cannot be factually verified from UNBIASED sources. Example - 50 one-arm chin ups are not possible since the world record is only 26 done by a gymnast. If you don't want me to bring into question the ENTIRE article then you should leave the change I made in the opening line alone. Kids on the Internet are reading this article and actually believing many of the claims that are pure fantasy. Fan-biased articles like this one only hurt the integrity of Wiki." - Augy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augydoggy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You don´t understand the difference between martial arts and combat sport. Real martial arts was made for fighing without any rules, like on the warfield. It doesn t matter if you won any tournaments, belts or trophies, because all kinds of combat sports are "fighting games", not real fights. In any combat sport (Boxing, K-1, MMA) you have rules and certain restrictions they automatically limited the potential to get hurt, simply because it s a sport. Lee is not considered by anyone to be a great combat sportsman, but a great martial artist. Martial arts includs much more than just fighting, it includs philosophy and much theory as well. BL is definately considered by many guys in martial arts folklore to be the greatest of the 20th century, like it or hate it.

I agree with the person above. There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between the martial arts, especially and combat sport or competition. In Bruce Lee's case, just for the sake of argument, Bruce Lee could be considered one of the greatest martial artists ever or at least in the 20th Century because he tested his skills and his theories in real-life situations (street fights, one-on-one fights with other martial artists in his native China). These "competitions" are truly putting martial arts techniques into the situation where there are no rules, no holding back; the true test of whether this punch, kick, throw, etc will work. Lee's base style of Wing Chun was developed by a Buddhist nun (one theory) from one of the Shaolin Temple's that was destroyed by the government. The techniques to form what is Wing Chun were battle-tested in reality against actual soldiers/warriors/fighters/etc. So, to many martial artists, who train for this type of reality-based martial arts or martial artists who have trained in arts that are based in that tradition, that takes more precedence than success in modern martial arts competitions.

You can compare Lee and Chuck Norris in terms of their martial arts experience. Lee has a big advantage over Norris as Lee started training much earlier than Norris and Lee used his training in real no-holds barred fights. SO, Lee's practical experience is more indepth. Comparing degree of rank between Lee and Norris can be done just on a superficial basis, but to say that Norris is "better" than Lee just because he is an 8th degree black belt is unrealistic. Just because he has an higher rank, doesn't necessarily means that he is better. In that case, since Lee created Jeet Kune Do, that would make Lee a Grandmaster, which trumps 8th degree black belt. And then that's debate since in many martial arts styles, the title Grandmaster in rank can go anywhere from 8th-10th degree. So, are we talking about Chuck Norris 8th degree in his base style of Tang Soo Do or 8th degree in his style of Chuk Kuk Do? It's all in the interpretation.

To say Lee's physical feats are impossible is being rather closed-minded. Closed-minded in the fact that while they may have not been officially documentation by Guinness, doesn't mean that it's not possible. It's like saying that a martial arts technique such as the acrobatic 720 kick isn't possible, but it is. Many of the speed and altitude records for the SR-71 Blackbird have been declassified and they show that the true record differed from the official released records. Gymnasts focus more on flexibility than strength. I didn't say that they don't train for strength, but flexibility is their home and it's hard to twist and turn with alot of muscle. Much of Lee's training relied on training for strength for explosive power. Lee had both power and speed. SO, this translated in the extraordinary feats he could perform> Lee was very unique in the martial arts world. So, whther his actually perform 50 chin-ups or not, it's safe to say that he could've easily done the world record.

And my views don't come just from being a fan, but as a martial artist who has trained and researched and talked to other martial artists.

Rayghost (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

19th century philosopher?

I've no doubt that Lee studied philosophy. However, being born in 1940 discredits him from being a 19th century philosopher. He was a 20th centry philosopher, if anything. Why is he tagged as a 19th century philosopher in the tags on bottom then? Red dwarf (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lee Bruce

Trivia mentions "On 31 March 2007 Lee was named as one of History's 100 Most Influential people, according to a Japanese national survey that was televised on NT". I was curious, since the family name is listed first in Japan (not sure about in China) would they call him Lee Bruce? Just in case I redirected it, but would anyone know? Tyciol (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In China it s the same, family listed first. But remember Lee s chinese name is Li Xiao Long (cantonese Lee Siu Lung), his western name is Bruce Lee. I know the people in China and Korea calls him Li Xiao Long, but i don´t know how the japanese do it. The japanese Samurai Miyamoto Musashi is called in China Niten Doraku, why? Because it´s his buddhist name. Just an example, it´s complicated. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.216.215 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

chinese symbols

The Jeet Kune Do Emblem. The Chinese characters around the Taijitu symbol indicate: "Using no way as way" & "Having no limitation as limitation" The arrows represent the endless interaction between yang and yin.

Can anyone tell me what the Chinese symbols mean that appear on the headstones of Bruce and Brandon Lee??

65.71.189.66 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the vertical stones, the Chinese characters are their names in Chinese. You can compare the chinese text with those displayed in the article itself. On MS Windows, you may need to turn on the East Asian Language support in your OS to see the font correctly. On most Apple platforms, like Mac and iPhone, you should be able to see the Chinese characters without your intervention. On the book like sculpture on Bruce's headstone, the characters are identical or variants to those on the right with the exception that on the headstone, the characters run in two vertical columns from top to bottom but the emblem on the right shows the characters in a circular pattern. Kowloonese (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis in death

Anonymous IP 76.75.84.94 removed all mention of cannabis from the section on Bruce's death at 22:52 on 6 September. Since it is still there, I have to ask: Is there some good reason for this, or is it vandalism that should be reversed? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the aforementioned edits, but several scientific studies have concluded that the human LD₅₀ of tetrahydrocannabinol is virtually intangible by means of cannabis inhalation or oral consumption. If any claims are made about cannabis toxicity in this article, they should undoubtedly be presented in the form of a direct quotation.   — C M B J   23:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

At first, the article states that Lee suffered from cerebral edema on 1973-05-10, and that the "same symptoms that occurred in his first collapse were later repeated on the day of his death". Shortly after, the article goes on to explain that on 1973-07-20, Lee "complained of a headache", was given an equagesic by Ting, and then died of cerebral edema. Either this means that there is an unstated assumption that Lee was consuming equagesic for months prior to his death, or that there is no logical basis to wholly attribute his cause of death (cerebral edema) to equagesic.   — C M B J   23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over Jeet Kune Do

The article contains a section titled: "Controversy over Jeet Kune Do"

"'The name "Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do" was legally trademarked and the rights to Bruce Lee's name, likeness, Jeet Kune Do emblem and personal martial arts legacy (including personal photos and countless personal effects and memorabilia) were given solely to the Lee estate for copyrighted commercial use. The name is made up of two parts: 'Jun Fan' (Lee's Chinese given name) and 'Jeet Kune Do' (the Way of the Intercepting Fist).'"

This don't seem to show any controversy, or indeed any reason why the content of the section is controversial?  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

His brother

There could be some edit warring taking place on this issue. If the information in the Robert Lee (musician) article is accurate then is would be legitimate to mention this somewhere here. If it is not accurate then we have some bigger problems. PatGallacher (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the editors actually reverting this information. It seems that article doesnt have that many reliable sources? --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but if you suspect that the article on his brother is a hoax then you should raise it there instead of here. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the article and it looks reasonably well sourced, doesn't look like a hoax, see one source.[9] PatGallacher (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I never suspected it was a hoax, just that it didnt have that many reliable sources. Feel free to add the information in. --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 18:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Too long

This page is in desperate need of archiving. I am experienced in archiving if anyone want me to do it? --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

yes please— Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedgrant (talk • contribs)

minor grammatical correction

Under "Death" there's a sentence that read... " Dr. Don Langford, who was Lee's personal physician in Hong Kong and had treated Lee during his first collapse He also believed that "Equagesic was not at all involved in Bruce's first collapse."[86] " I added a comma after "collapse" and deleted "He" so it read as a complete sentence rather than a runon. ~Luke W.

Clean up of article

There is too much redundancy in the article. I have attempted to clean it up by making the events chronological. The article also needs to have more references put in as well as presented in a neutral fashion. This article is not a place to advertise your name or kwoon through some relationship with Bruce Lee. I will remove such attempts. The level of prose is inconsistent as well as disorganized. The article should be written at the same intellectual level of a newspaper article - any 6th grader should be able to read and understand what is written. Huo Xin (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean up tag added

I added the clean up tag to the top of the article. I've reorganized it so that it is more chronological and historic and edited content so that it reads better. Huo Xin (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tae Kwon Do

I would like to put this in:

According to the Tae Kwon Do Grandmaster Jhoon Goo Rhee, Lee learned kick techniques from him and he learned how to punch from Lee: "Bruce Lee did not know how to kick. He had some hand skills but his kicking could not compete against Taekwondo. He first saw me jump 8 feet and break 3 boards. We became friends after that. I learned hand techniques from him, and taught him kicks. He gained his fame through kicks."

Someone said that YouTube is not a reliable source and pulled this info out. The fact that Jhoon Rhee actually said that Lee learned how to kick from him is right on the Video (he is being interviewed). So unless he is a fake, there is no question that at least Jhun Rhee *claimed* that Lee learned how to kick from him. --Tonsdon (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that I could make a video and claim Lee learned how to kick from me. The problem is I was born in 1969 so there's no way it's real... but I can say it on YouTube because there's no editorial oversight. The fact hat someone claims something isn't what we're after. We'd like to come close to presenting facts. With no editorial oversight there's nothing to back this claim and it's no good as a fact. Padillah (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would Rhee lie for? Since he's a credible figure, not some random person like you, he's words are pertinent, and in all probability, he is NOT lying. --Tonsdon (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You said it yourself "in all probability", in other words - you can't be certain. Please understand, I am not trying to prove that particular YouTube clip is factual or not. I'm merely pointing out that without editorial oversight, the question of veracity remains. Or, you are forcing the reader to make the same assumption you have made, that "in all probability" some statement is factual. Only now you've put the weight of Wikipedia behind that assumption so it's a lot more like an assertion. It's this ability to get swept away that limits our use of reliable sources to ones that will accept responsibility for the factual content of their statements. Padillah (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The following might be more appropriate as a reference (if suitably qualified): Nilsson, Thomas (1996). "With Bruce Lee: Taekwondo Pioneer Jhoon Rhee Recounts His 10-Year Friendship With the "Dragon"". Black Belt Magazine. Vol. 34, no. 5. pp. 39–43. Retrieved 2009-11-19. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) — Myasuda (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect example, thank you. A magazine such as this, with an established editorial oversight, would not publish something it had not fact-checked. Or it would make sure that what it did publish was presented with sufficient disclaimer that readers were allowed to make up there own minds. So, always assuming that the article does present the Taekwondo anecdote we can incorporate it into the article in whatever manner it is given to us in the magazine. Nice find. Padillah (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Years Active?

Years active 1941–1973

I really don't understand what that means. Is it his acting career or his martial arts training? Also is 1941 a little early or is that just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.233.125 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)