Talk:Bruce Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2016[edit]

2600:1017:B82C:853C:29EC:95B6:C129:2B17 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Lee is english descent[edit]

If his parent were citizens of Hong Kong before it was returned to China in 1997 then Lee would have been a British citizen by birth. As also is Jackie Chan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bruce Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016[edit]

The page is not accurate. He began learning Wing chun at age 13 not "age 16, in 1957" which is actually impossible because he was born in 1940. He began learning Wing chun at age 13 in 1953 when William Chueng took Lee to the Restaurant Workers Union Hall, and introduced him to Yip Man.

"Cheung did not believe that Lee would be a serious student. Lee persisted, and with some reluctance on an autumn day in 1953, Cheung took Bruce Lee to the Restaurant Workers’ Union Hall, where classes were held, and introduced him to the Grandmaster of Wing Chun kung fu, Professor Yip Man."

“I thought he was just learning kung fu because everybody was doing it. I still didn’t take Bruce very seriously. Then, shortly after we moved the school to a bigger facility in Kowloon, we started hearing complaints about Bruce beating up his seniors, as well as other people who were training with him. They became very upset because he was progressing so fast. He practiced every minute of the day. Even while talking, he was always doing some kind of arm or leg movement. That’s when I realized that Bruce was actually serious about Wing Chun.”

2600:1017:B82E:2B94:C1EF:4E06:6A5F:560A (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Contradicting information in Wing Chun section[edit]

In the Wing Chun section the following sentences contradict each other.

"Lee began training in Wing Chun when he was 16 years old under the Wing Chun teacher Yip Man in 1957, after losing several fights with rival gang members."

"However, Lee showed a keen interest in Wing Chun, and continued to train privately with Yip Man and Wong Shun Leung in 1955."

If he began training in 1957 he could not have continued training in 1955.

Dylanseago (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Philosophically suicidal[edit]

He and his son died by their dangerous job. Eclecticism is to select what you LIKE the best, but is not connected causally, never in his books was he deeply causal, but emotional, because what we like IS emotional. Mistake which happens two times isn't a mistake. His philosophy isn't functional. Also as a pure eclectic philosopher caused his followers not to accept philosophical debate, simply to LOVE him as God, even if he was anti-metaphysical. Philosophy isn't about what we LIKE and LOVE, that's lust. Physical risk and early death, isn't statistically functional. His risks didn't improve philosophy. Early death cannot make you savvy, especially when there is no god as he claimed. People need to be alive in order they learn. He didn't die because of an external factor. He killed himself and his son, because his "put in what you like" uncausal philosophy, lead to statistically high risk of mortal physical damage. Also that risk was ALSO accumulative not only a binary risk between life and death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:7800:756D:3D0C:F4DC:4F05 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)