Talk:Bruce Lee/Archive 2

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

Physical Feats

Shouldn't it be "Alleged Physical Feats"? I thought the too fast for the camera thing was just a myth, and the real situation was that all martial artists had to slow down when they shot scenes very close to the camera, as from that distance, the moves would look too fast to be appreciated by the audience.Protatard (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Protatard ALL THERES IS TO SAY HERE IS THIS ASIAN WAS ONE BADA@# NI@#A

I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Negro. A lot of the Physical Feats are within the grasp of a serious athlete, and a couple of them are obviously untrue. A lot of Hong Kong martial arts films of the 1970s were indeed speeded up. Of course a faster fps speed would make the other actors look slower. I'll have to look for that the next time I watch Enter the Dragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


The Arnold Schwarzenegger quote misspells Schwarzenegger's name. (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Thanks. Ted Watson (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth date

i think bruce lee's birth date in the box must be changed, he was born on 27th november 1940, i foud this complete biography at , it matches with the Bio pdf below.--Abdeltruvian 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee's date of birth is on 27th November 1940. Another way to prove that is try to look at the photo which is about Bruce's grave, inside this article, it is show that bruce's date of birth is on 27th november 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given name


Bruce Lee's Cantonese given name, Jun Fan (振藩; Mandarin Pinyin: Zhènfán), literally means "invigorate

I thought Jun Fan meant "Return Again". I heard that on a documentary on bruce lee?? -H4eafy 01/02/07

Look the characters up on our nifty sister-project wiktionary feature: . The first character means invigorate or excite, the second means fence or boundary. Idiomatically, the combination could possibly mean return again but someone with more Cantonese than I have would have to tell us. --Fire Star 火星 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found this on the bruce lee foundation website: It says: "Bruce’s parents gave him the name “Jun Fan.” Since it is Chinese custom to put the surname first, Bruce’s full name is written Lee Jun Fan. The true meaning of Jun Fan deserves an explanation as it, too, would foretell the journey of the newly born Lee son. Literally, JUN means “to arouse to the active state” or “to make prosperous.” It was a common middle name used by Hong Kong Chinese boys in those days, understandably because China and the Chinese people were very vulnerable at that time, and everyone, including Bruce’s parents, wanted the “sleeping lion of the East” to wake up. The FAN syllable refers to the Chinese name for San Francisco, but its true meaning is “fence of a garden” or “bordering subordinate countries of a big country.” During the period of the Ching Dynasty (1644-1911), many Chinese immigrated to Hawaii and San Francisco as laborers, and the implication became that the United States was FAN of the Great Ching Empire. Thus the true meaning of Bruce’s name--JUN FAN--was “to arouse and make FAN (the United States) prosperous.” The gut feeling of many Chinese at that time, who felt suppressed by and inferior to foreign powers, was that they wished to outshine the more superior countries and regain the Golden Age of China. Bruce’s parents wanted Bruce to have his name shine and shake the foreign countries, which he certainly succeeded in doing."

If you look at Bruce Lee's tombstone on the Brandon Lee page, his name is different (chinese) than on the article here. On the tombstone his name is release, or invigorate - while on this page it is "little dragon" - Any suggestions?

The hour of the dragon is 7:00AM-9:00AM, instead of 6:00AM-8:00AM Source: --Zachdouglas -05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I find it interesting that according to Wikipedia, Bruce Lee has an "official website". Who decided that ? Bruce died in 1974, decades before web sites were used. So why is it he has an "official website". Could it be that this is advertising, masquerading as an entry ?

The "official website" is the website of the Bruce Lee Foundation (something that probably deserves its own article but redirects to Bruce Lee right now). The Bruce Lee Foundation was founded by his wife and daughter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

-It seems very obvious to me that the Lee Foundation and other have a vested interest in promoting Bruce as a Martial Artist first and an actor and a dance teacher second.I never heard Bruce describe himself as the greatest martial artist ever but I've heard it many times from 'lee foundation' sanctioned biographies.

the official website is designed for promoting his teachins in philosophy & his jeet kune do it states by his wife...daughter & the son in law. lee's wife married twice since, so the son in law of the current husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeiko321 (talkcontribs) 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

La Salle College entry

I've been rewriting and cleaning up some of the "Early Life" sections of Mr. Lee's article, and came across a contradiction -- at one point it is stated that he entered the La Salle College in Hong Kong at the age of 12, whereas it later states he entered it at the age of 14 instead. Could anyone who has access to or knowledge of valid source material clear this matter up? Thank you. DieOfGoodLuck 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article is too long, repetitive, filled with trivia, and needs copyediting.

The lead section says the same things three or four times. There is a typo where some bold text isn't closed properly and the rest of the paragraph is bolded. There is a lot of detailed material that needs to be moved to another article and summarized here, for example the filmography and the extensive list of quotes. --Ideogram 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no pony in this race, but the summary gives an immediate impression of bias, even with the qualifier "widely regarded" applied to the phrase "most influential".

-- anonymous newbie

error in summary?

I noticed that in the summary of this article it states that Lee was a "homosexual", but I don't think that's true. It also doesn't make sense with the rest of the paragraph, leading me to believe that it was a mistake. However, when I went to edit it, it does not appear in the editable text. I am unsure how to resolve this. 20:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was much better 6 months ago. Why is the section about Lee's feats removed? 10:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


There is an interview on google videos with pierre burton provides additional details, might be a good thing to log in the reference section.
Synapse001 13:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tai Chi

i think someone should make clear that Tai Chi is NOT a fighting system but a health system that looks like Kung Fu kata but has no real fighting application. Also that learning Tai Chi is nothing special in china as people use it as exercise first thing in the morning. This should not be reffered to as one of Bruces fighting skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Taijiquan wasn't one of Bruce's fighting skills, but someone who says it isn't a martial art is misinformed. The level of misinfirmation represented by that statement is further confirmed by the use of the two language phrase "Kung Fu kata", a mixed metaphor that someone well-versed in Chinese martial arts would never use. Western hippies notwithstanding, Taijiquan was originally a military art good enough for Qing dynasty and Kuomintang officers, and Hong Kong police (as well as Yip Man sifu, who was a good friend of Wu Ta-ch'i sifu, according to his nephew), none of whom would presumably be impressed by a "nothing special" art. --Fire Star 火星 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i didn't know these facts. Ok my bad on the typo "kung fu/kata". To attack someones credibility from a simple error is rather uncalled for as your quite wrong I've trained a wide range of martial arts over the years and to be honest i dont think ive ever seen anyone use Tai Chi in any real fight/tournament ever, though im not saying it doesnt happen. So im wrong stating it as a fact but it is true in my personal experience of martial arts. I must admit the fact the tia chi was taught to Qing dynasty and Kuomintang officers all sound very impressive but lets face facts here its not like they had the net or the UFC to be able to take time and work out what really works and what is make believe. I mean if you had to choose a martial arts to teach to a modern day army would you choose tai chi over any other martial art in the world today? It seems the most widely taught version of tia chi these days is a modified system that allows it to be used more as a health system. So while there may be specialist aspects to the art they are not the focus of the Tia chi that gets practiced by millions of people in hong Kong every morning. Its the most popular martial art in Hong Kong, i know there's like 2 different styles they both retain martial aspects of the original art but one more than the other. I think the most popular of the two is the one that retains less of the martial aspects , though i could be wrong. So i stand corrected Tai Chi definitely has some fighting applications and has been taught to the police and the army at some point in the past. But you say it wasn't one of Bruce's martial arts that he trained anyway which would seem rather odd , in fact some chinese might even call that lazy.

You've obviously never heard of the lei tai fighting stage. Here's is a familiar quote that is related to the lei tai: "two men enter, one man leaves." --Ghostexorcist 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually that quote is from the Mel Gibson movie Beyond Thunderdome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Statue in Bosnia

Is there any reason why the statue of Bruce Lee that was built in Bosnia not in the article? I thought I remembered seeing it a while back, but it's since been deleted. I think it's relevant and important to the article enough to keep it in. <-- that is the website you were looking for. it says "Lee was chosen by organisers as a symbol of the fight against ethnic divisions. "

yes i agree...this should be put on the wikipedia as this is BIG news for his legacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeiko321 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Signing comments

This is just a reminder to sign all your comments on this page with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically print your signature and date-stamp your comment whether you are signed in or editing as an anonymous user (see: WP:SIG). Thanks. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


The article has non-Anglicized Chinese characters in it!

These names were first used by director 袁步雲 of the 1950 Cantonese movie 細路祥 in which Lee would perform.

I vote for very speedy change. --Bentonia School 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee in comic books

With someone complaining that this article is overlong, I hesitate to do this, but will anyway. Discounting Green Hornet comics utilizing his image as the Kato character, there are two---that I know of---comic stories about Bruce Lee. There was a biography of him in the Marvel magazine, Deadly Hands of Kung Fu, described, including credits, in that publication's own article, and at the Grand Comic Book Database ( In the mid--90s, Malibu Comics published a six--issue "Bruce Lee" miniseries, written by Mike Baron, who had also written three Kato solo stories as spin--offs to the NOW Comics Hornet line (only two of which saw print). This was a completely fictional adventure that would have shown more respect to Lee if done as a "Kato" story. Strangely, the GCD does not have even blank slots for this series up, but I used to have copies (lost them due to my own carelessness) and absolutely guarantee it was published. This loss prevents me from posting the Malibu mini info myself, and I feel that all of this should go up simultaneously. Even if I could, there would be the problem that I am not sure just where in the article this information should be included, and throw that question open to debate. Thank you. Ted Watson 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life

Under Early life, I saw some garbled footnote citations and attempted to fix them, but if someone else would take a look at that I would appreciate it.

The same section also says that Lee "did not have Chinese" citizenship. Note that the link there is piped to People's Republic of China. However, Bruce Lee grew up in Hong Kong, not in the People's Republic of China; in fact, the PRC did not even exist until he was almost 9 years old.

The real question is whether he was a British subject, or as British nationality law later developed, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. (See British nationality law and Hong Kong.) I don't know the answer, and maybe he wasn't (since he was born in the USA). But, on the other hand, Lee's father was born in Hong Kong so he must have been a British subject, which in turn makes it possible that Lee could have been a British subject by descent, or at least he might have been eligible to become one.

Anyway, I don't claim to understand the nuances of British, Hong Kong, or Chinese nationality law; I'm just saying that maybe this phrase should be changed to say "unlike his contemporaries who were born in Hong Kong, Lee was not a British subject", if in fact that is true. --Metropolitan90 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion

Image:The.Way.Of.The.Dragon.1972.Bruce.Lee.flex.front.jpg has been tagged for deletion. If anyone wants to keep this, you must supply a fair use rationale and the copyright information. Some info I gathered:

  • Hong Kong distributor Golden Harvest (source)
  • Producer: Concord Productions Inc. (source)
  • US DVD release: 20th Century Fox (source)

Shawnc 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He is American martial artist by all criteria

  • He is born in the USA, not China
  • He is an American citizen, not PRC's
  • He speaks English relatively well
  • He went to school here, he acted in films here, he started his career here.

Yeah he studied in China when he was young, and of Chinese physical descent, but articles like Mike Tyson, Michelle Wie lists those people as "American" not African-American or Korean-American, because their citizenship is American. Michael Jordan, Shaq are all listed as American, not "African basketball" player.

Whatever emotion that people might have, citizenship and birth is critical to define who the person is. He is "American martial artist," or maybe Chinese-American if people wants it to be neutral, but not at all Chinese. Even Chow Yun-fat is listed as Hong Kong actor, not Chinese. Come on. People who wants to list Bruce Lee as Chinese actor, should compare him to Chow Yun-Fat, Jackie Chan, Liu Xiang, Ang Lee and Jet Li and decide whether there is any difference between Bruce Lee and them. I would have no problem listing him as Chinese actor if he was born in China and had Chinese citizenship, lived and worked totally in China. 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to wp:mosbio. Its about Nationality/citizenship, PERIOD. Chinese-American is NOT appropriate in the LEAD sentence. Its OK for categories/lists/ect. Thanks! --Tom 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The obvious compromise here is to just leave it out altogether. I don't know why it is necessary for someone who is as well-known internationally as Bruce Lee to introduce him as any race or nationality. And anyway, regardless of what WP:MOSBIO says, we'd be hard-pressed to find any major media sources that introduce him first and foremost as an "American". Doing it here flies against the face of common practice. He was best known as a Chinese person internationally, for being ethnically Chinese and for having rose to international fame for his work in Hong Kong. A common story one might read about is that he started learning martial arts because he was bullied while growing up in Hong Kong, not while growing up in the US. There is obviously a certain amount of ambiguity here, just like, for example, Albert Einstein. That article doesn't lead off by saying he was an "American" scientist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be an "obvious compromise" to you, but I would argue that most editors will agree to stick to Wiki's manual of style. Einstein's is not a good example because he was born one place and held multiple citizenship. This is ONLY about the LEAD sentence. People are interested in folks nationality/citizenship and it should be mentioned. Do you have an agenda for leaving it out? Thanks --Tom 19:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
My "agenda" is that I don't think it is necessary and also that it'll help divert this American/Chinese disagreement. Besides, we actually do not know if he never had any other citizenship. I believe he actually had to go and official declare his American citizenship when he was 18 (from my personal knowledge of how American citizenship works). That he was born in the US technically only made him eligible for American citizenship, without his parents also being American citizens. And according to this TIME article, he had dual citizenship. Sure some people may be interested in reading about his citizenship - I have not opposed putting that he was an American citizen somewhere in the article. And my point remains that it flies against common practice to introduce him as "American" when he was internationally known as a "Chinese" guy. It's confusing, and really most people apply the "American" label not as a status of citizenship, but as a cultural identification. There's an obvious ambiguity here when Bruce Lee was known for his work in Hong Kong, and as a Chinese person. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO is not absolute law here on WP. Right in the second sentence it says, Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended. And I believe I have provided a convincing argument why introducing Bruce Lee as just "American" is problematic. Note also that I am not pushing for him to be introduced as "Chinese" or "Chinese American". I am saying we just leave out his race and nationality altogether in the leading sentences. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And according to this source, Bruce Lee had "triple" citizenship; American citizenship for having been born in the US, British citizenship for both his parents having been born in Hong Kong, and Chinese citizenship for his father's ancestors. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me lay out the FACTS and then I'll butt out. His family were multiple-generational residents of Hong Kong, whatever specific citizenship that worked out to in the early 1940s. While they were BRIEFLY VISITING the USA, Mrs. Lee gave birth to Bruce. They soon returned home, i.e., to Hong Kong. As Bruce passed through adolesence, he got into trouble with street gangs (still in Hong Kong, mind you), and upon his reaching the age of 18 his parents made him take advantage of the location of his birth, claim USA citizenship (which had not been considered until then) and go there so as to get away from his troubles. So to flatly refer to Lee as an American is as wrong as flatly referring to Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger as an American. Sure, their citizenships are naturalized, rather than by an accident (more or less) of birth, but the only difference is that Bruce always had the option of claiming his, but did not. They all "became" Americans effectively in their maturity. I categorically deny accuracy to the "all criterion" header here. Ted Watson 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If Lee had dual citizenship, Chinese and American, then he should be introduced as "Chinese/American", "Chinese-American", etc. That would fit WP:MOSBIO. Is that the case, a dual citzenship? The article says he had only US citizenship right now, but that is unsourced. Mad Jack 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
After reading the first paragraph of the body of the article, I don't see how all of the intricate details of the ethnicities and nationalities of himself and his parents could possibly be summed up adequately in the lead. Simply calling him "American", or "Chinese" is misleading. He obviously is ethnically Chinese (ok, seven-eighths Chinese, one-eighth German), so trying to avoid calling him Chinese might appear POV. On the other hand, calling him Chinese is an inadequate (as well as inaccurate) summation of both his citizenship and ethnicity. Let's look at the rule at WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph:
"3. Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)"
  1. You're supposed to give the country of which the person is a citizen or national - obviously, he was a citizen of both.
  2. Or, you're supposed give the country of which the person was a citizen when they became notable - he became notable in China for Hong Kong action movies, and separately became notable in America, first for movies and tv, and then later for changing martial arts philosophy and practice
  3. You're also supposed to mention ethnicity when it is relevant to the subject's notability - Surely Lee's Chinese ancestry is extremely relevant to his being passed over for tv roles, conflict with Chinese-American community for teaching Americans martial arts, and his interracial marriage, to name a few.
The rule gives no solution to this particular problem. Allow the problem to be solved through the natural explanation of the story of Lee's life. There is no need to pigeon-hole him into a particular category. In fact, doing so where a significant portion of his lasting contribution to society is related to his breaking down ethnic barriers for asians in the U.S., in the post WWII atmosphere of racism towards asians, is particularly ironic and absurd. Bradford44 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well let's look at real the real world here - nobody or hardly anybody indicates someone as "American" just as a matter of citizenship, and nobody is going to introduce Bruce Lee first and foremost as "American", when the world recognises him as a "Chinese" guy. For most cases, introducing an American as "American" is fine because their work or whatever made them notable either has no identity ambiguity or it's within the realm of American society. In the case of someone like Bruce Lee, the nationality clause of WP:MOSBIO is wholly inadequate and makes an intro confusing. Let me point out again - WP:MOSBIO is not an official policy, it is a guideline, and following a guideline, though recommended, is not required. Also let me reiterate another thing - I'm not saying we should not include somewhere in the article that he has American citizenship, or that he had lived in the US, got a degree in an American university, etc etc. I'm only saying we need not introduce him first and foremost as an "American". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is lacking

This article is really lacking in terms of his personal life. It's only served by a couple of short paragraphs. There's more text explaining his different names than his personal life. This bio from the Bruce Lee Foundation can be used to expand upon sections about his personal life. The Bruce Lee Foundation is led by Bruce's widow and daughter, so I think we can say that's a reliable bio. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Philosophy" section of this article is basically a bunch of Bruce Lee's quotes. We need to cut down on the quotes and add some real content in the form of prose about what his philosophy. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee Physical Feats

The following isnt a physical feat, I can do it - its a trick the coin jumps - this should be removed, it made out like its a feat only he can do becouse of his tuned body etc etc**In a speed demonstration, Lee could snatch a dime off a person's open palm before they could close it, and leave a penny behind.[53]*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is quite difficult to take the article seriously with this section in its present state. First, many of entries in the list are very vaguely worded, for example

  • Is "five hundreths of a second" actually "5/100 seconds" (which would really be "1/20 second") or "1/500 second"?
  • "Bruce could collapse steel reinforced head protection gear." How? Because so can I, I just need a sledgehammer.
  • "Bruce can punch an opponent 7 times in 1 second." (emphasis added) This is particularly impressive for a dead guy.

And, "Bruce could throw grains of rice up into the air and then catch them in mid-flight using chopsticks"? Come on, it sounds like the next thing on the list will be that he was faster than a speeding bullet, and can leap tall buildings in a single bound. This isn't Chuck Norris Facts. Sections like this are why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Bradford44 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1/500 is not a syntactically valid interpretation of the wording, that would be one five hundredth. --Belg4mit 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of that looks like vandalism, pure and simple. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of these claims are unsubstantiated nonsense. Someone should clean this up, or tag it, or something. Resting heartbeat of 18? Come on now. Even if true, where is the citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2007-07-13 03:47:29
Well, most of what you object to are documented facts and can be found in the sources cited; such as Lee collapsing steel protected headgear, catching rice midair, and punching at five hundredths of a second. I agree though that some of the latest edits do need some sources such as the claim of resting heart rate of 18 beats per second. Also 1/500 of a second would be worded one five-hundredths, so there is nothing vague about that. --WalAloe 09:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A qualifying source must be considered reliable. A source that does not cite the full name of its author can not be considered reliable. This is an official policy. Shawnc 09:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to be ridiculously picky on a minor point, but in fact, 2/500 would be "two five-hundredths" (plural), but 1/500 is "one five-hundredth" (not plural), while the article states "Bruce Lee's striking speed from 3 feet away was five hundredths of a second". Note that the article does not say how many "five-hundreths", or even say "one five-hundreths" as you state that it does, but instead gives the impression that the statment is referring to 5/100, or simply, "five hundreths".
Further, the following are not sufficient sources for this information:
  1. A fansite that contains a virtually identical and completely unsourced list of "A few of Bruce's awesome feats"
  2. Another fansite that contains quotes from people who knew Lee but no information to verify the quotes (date, name of interviewer, place of publication, etc...). That makes this essentially equivalent to original research.
  3. The video clips are proof only of what they show, and the "Bruce Lee Death" website is fine for the quote that he was "muscled as a squirrel...", but the strange further statement that some doctors assert that it was in fact Lee's belief in his own invincibility that actually killed him is troubling.
Bradford44 12:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of those physical feats are false, someone needs to delete them. How is it possible to perform a 3 kick combination in midair? I know Wikipeida isn't always accurate but I can obviously tell a lie when I see one, even the ones that have sources are obviously lies. A lot of these rumors that Bruce was extraordinary are exaggerated. Seeing is believing, and the fact that no one has seen him do all these feats prove there nothing more than rumors.LockDog387 23:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)LockDog387
Bradford44, I was simply responding to your confusion on whether five hundredths mean't 5/100 or 1/500, and answered it by letting you know that 1/500 = one five-hundreths. Five hundreths is 5/100. The feats section is now the most heavily sourced section in this article, with 11 different sources that include video biographies(with quotations from witnesses), books, websites, and video clips(one of them from the Biography Channel). --WalAloe 07:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
To emphasize: the number of sources is irrelevant and useless if they are not reliable. This means, as mentioned above, sources that lack the name of interviewer or author. Moreover, if an offline source is used, which means that it can not be readily verified online by other editors, the person who added the information should be expected to specify all relevant information such as the precise page in the book or the exact text used. Shawnc 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The documentaries are reliable/valid, and they were cited correctly, see Wikipedia:Citation templates. The video links showing clips of feats are were also obviously valid, and in fact come from Biography Channel's documentary on Bruce Lee, I'll clarify that in the citation. I've added web citations from the John Little article about his book "Bruce Lee: The Art of Expressing the Human Body." I've also found published book citations for most of them. I'll finish citing what I've missed over the next few days.--WalAloe 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To all editors: all unsourced, questionable claims are be deleted immediately, per the official policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, only reliable sources may be used; personal websites that do not cite a reliable source may not be used to justify any claims. Any attempt to re-insert unsourced statements are to be reverted immediately. Shawnc 05:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid cited information is being deleted from the feats section without reason. The items in question are supported by documentaries, reputable published books, and valid(non-fan) websites. Deletion of such items should be reverted.--WalAloe 08:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Published sources are a welcome addition to the article. The reason cited information was deleted inadvertently was because it was mixed with some improperly cited information at the beginning. Valid information has been re-added. Shawnc 09:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've readded the cited information below and fixed the deleted citation.--WalAloe 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Shawnc, you asked for valid cited sources so why did you delete items with valid citations? For instance, the following were deleted by you without reason.

-Bruce could cause 235lb opponents to fly and crash 15 feet away with a one inch punch.[29][43][30][31][33]
-Bruce would hold an elevated v-sit position for 30 minutes or longer.[32]
-Bruce could perform push ups using only his thumbs[26]

All three are supported by books citations and/or documentaries, and the one inch punch is in fact Bruce's most famous feat. In addition, a edit was made that DELETED a valid book citation with no given reason on the following fact.

- Bruce could cause a 300-lb bag fly towards and thump the ceiling with a sidekick.[26][33]

Also many of your other edits in the section appear very random and it is making the section look sloppy. You are bunching up the items illogically when a list should have a separate bullet after each new feat. Also, a concise statement of the feat is sufficient. Information such as "When Lee lived in Bel-Air, Los Angeles, he kept a heavy bag hanging on his patio" adds nothing to the statement of the feat and just serve to clutter the section. In addition, your citation method isn't consistent with the way the entire article is sourced and makes the section look sloppy as a result, stick with the citation method used throughout the article. The citation templates for websites does allow for you to add the author of the quote, I'll even save you the trouble and do it for you.--WalAloe 10:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, you have continued to include statements which may be considered POV: "Bruce's combat movements were so fast...", " and crash". Please make use of more neutral sounding words for all instances.
Regarding the deletions:
-"Bruce could cause 235lb opponents to fly and crash 15 feet away with a one inch punch": multiple improper sources were used for this entry. First it cites "bruceleedivinewind", the fan site, which does not provide a full name of the source of information but merely provides it in the fashion of a tabloid. This fails the verifiability requirement. The second citation, a video on metacafe, does not verify this claim: the person being punched merely took a step backward and fell back into a chair, which is significantly different from the statement "fly and crash 15 feet away". The third citation, a video from Maniac World, is simply wrong: it is a citation of the push up and not the punch. At this point, an objective editor will likely have doubts about this claim, even if the two leftover sources appear to be reliable sources. The burden of proof is then on the interested editor to make a comment here about the actual source and why this claim may be considered verifiable. If the claim of "15 feet" is justified by one of the offline sources, do point it out, but please understand the cause of concern.
-"Bruce would hold an elevated v-sit position for 30 minutes or longer.": This was already included in my last edit.
-"Bruce could perform push ups using only his thumbs": I apologize for missing this one, but do note that citation was incomplete because it merely gave an URL without naming the author, John Little.
-"Bruce could cause a 300-lb bag fly towards and thump the ceiling with a sidekick.": This was already included in my last edit as well. In addition, the word "fly" is again arguably POV.
The reason that I cited the full name of the individuals was becuase the information came from the fan site which may not be used unless we also cite the author. Frankly, the fact that such a web page even appears as a source makes this article questionable, so at least a full name must be provided. For instance, you have made the entry "Bruce performed pushups with 250lbs on his back" citing the fan site but without providing the full name of the source of information; this is unacceptable by the standard of this website. In comparison, even visually sloppy content is much preferable to non-verified content. We could hide full names from the article's main body, but it still needs to appear in the reference section.
I object to the use of numerous random bullet points in this article without a context, which resembles a trivia section. As per the guideline: Avoid creating lists of loosely related information.. In this case, such a random collection of bullet points also makes it likely for readers to consider the content questionable or non-believable. Instead, the sections I grouped together were meant to be pertaining to weight training, speed and so on, which would serve to create a coherent picture. If this was not clear, it could be made clearer by an intro statement. Better yet, I think, would be to get rid of all bullet points altogether.
The entry about "riding an exercise bike for 45 minutes" can hardly be considered a "physical feat" when activities of this type is commonly done. It belongs in a training/fitness section.
Another point is that subjects are to be addressed by their last, not first, name; Bruce Lee is to be addressed as "Lee", not "Bruce".
I encourage other seasoned Wikipedia editors to provide suggestions and directions for the section, in particular the suggestion to use paragraphs instead of unordered bullet points. Shawnc 14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The way they were worded was the least POV because I used the same words from the sources themselves(fly and crash are the actual words used by the source). Another would be Lee would use one finger to leave dramatic indentations on pine wood.
The striking speed feat need only include the fastest time, Bruce could also perform push-ups with 4 fingers or 30 1 hand pullups, but only his best of each feat should be included. If you have problems with a few of the video sources on the one-inch punch, you can remove them, but the statement from the book source is that he caused 235 opponents to fly and crash 15 feet away.
Also, the bullet points are hardly random, they are all tied to being "physical feats", which is a very specific criteria. In order for it to be considered trivia, the list criteria would need to be under a overly general title(Facts, Misc, Other information,Cultural references, etc). Therefore I don't think bullet format doesn't need any change. What you are suggesting would in fact just make it more cluttered, as the feats section could become as large as the article itself if all the minor and irrelevant details are added, see the BLDW feats section. A concise bulleted list of just the feats themselves is best, if someone wants all the small details, they read the sources themselves.--WalAloe 20:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
If words such as "fly and crash", "so quick", etc, appeared in a source, then the source is not neutral. Whether the source would then even be considered reliable enough for inclusion may even be an issue. At least, all non-neutral languages must be neutralized in the article.
Your last edit again referred to Lee by his first name.
The entry about punching, in particular the "2 feet" and "five hundreths" parts need to be improved. First, it is not simply "2 feet", but between 18-24 inches or as low as 1.5 foot, and it is not simply five hundreths but as high as eight hundreths. That means, the two factors combined could lead to movements only half as fast as the aforementioned statement suggests, which means the statement may be considered hyperbole and non-NPOV. Stating "0.05 to 0.08 seconds" is the most accurate and least likely to be misunderstood, which has already occured.
From the discussions above, many users clearly have had issues with the section in its present format. Having a random list format contributes to this bad impression. How many Featured biographies have an unordered, ungrouped list about some person's "feats"? At the current state, I doubt this article can ever become featured. I noted that you stated above that "Lee collapsing steel protected headgear" and "catching rice midair" are "documented facts", even though these have been shown to be tall tales from fan sites, not to mention the absurd joke of "18 heart beats per second". Everyone needs to be more skeptical and emotionally distant from Bruce Lee for the sake of the article. Shawnc 00:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You are using a bit of a straw man argument there, I see no mention above of the list format, just some objections to the contents(which I've worked to address, with sources). One of them has not even tried to hide their strong bias in their language either. There are plenty of biographies with lists, just look at any sports star, they are full of unordered lists. The use of a list is not against any Wiki policy either, your basis for format change appears to be just your own whim.

You talk of being emotionally distanced, yet on the comment below you challenge a citation without even checking it. Furthermore, there is irrational focus on this one section, despite other sections of the article having fewer sources by far, and you haven't even acknowledged my attempts to constantly improve and find sources for the section. Instead, you've been overly aggressive, deleting my cited material from valid books/documentaries/etc. and even sources. You've deleted entire feats for minor things as not typing the authors name in a web-cite, when it would of been more reasonable fix the mistake, instead of deleting the entire entry.
Lastly, about those feats above, no less that the top Bruce Lee biographer himself, John Little, has collaborated the statement of Bruce catching rice with chopsticks as training for reflexes. So I don't know how a statement of fact from the top Bruce Lee biographer can be called a "tall tale." What I've seen though is a consistent lack of respect for valid sourced information that is being provided. With deletions of valid cited material, challenges on sources without actually checking, and calling factual information from the leading Lee biographer "tall tales" just because it doesn't agree with your own bias. For the record, it was ME who removed the "18 beats per second" entry. so don't' even try bringing that up.--WalAloe 08:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the one inch punch, I am challenging the sources as being inaccurate, or the citation being incorrect: there is no way a 235lb opponent would travel 15 feet or over 4.5 meters in mid air due to the punch, as may be implied by the phrase "fly and crash". With a running sidekick, it might be just barely believable, but certainly not with such a punch. The punch could cause the opponent to stumble and take numerous steps backward for balance, which would be very different from "flying and crashing 15 feet". Shawnc 00:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The section needs to be on based on the sources and be based on a push on your own feelings. The citation is right off the book, and I find it amusing you are challenging the citation as inaccurate without checking. The one inch punch source is from John Little's book on Bruce Lee. He is the premier Bruce Lee biographer, and the only one authorized by Linda Lee to review the entirety of Bruce's personal notes, sketches, and reading annotations. His book is certainly a more valid source than you.--WalAloe 08:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not alleging that using a list in this article is directly against policy. I am expressing that in this section, at this time, it is of questionable quality: the items in this list are not ordered in any way, while poorly sourced or outrageous claims have regularly been added as bullets, presented as simple matters of fact, without context, alongside properly sourced information. Show us a biographical Featured Article on Wikipedia, not just any article, which has such a presentation about an individual's so-called feats. I await input by other editors on this issue.
The citation was challenged based on fact checking: the video clip provided as citation for the claim, as mentioned, does not come close to verifying the citation in the book. There is therefore a case for doubting the book's claim, both based on evidence as well as common sense. A reliable for source must also be neutral; does John Little have reasons to be biased toward Bruce Lee?
The focus on this section is justified by the fact that it has been vandalized constantly. Whatever entry I reverted, I made efforts to verify that I had a valid reason in doing so. By "tall tales", I mean the clearly unsourced ones taken from fan sites. With due respect, please understand why there would be concern when new contributors to Wikipedia state that a person "collapsing steel protected headgear" is a documented fact, contributors whose edits have included erroneous statements ("3 feet" instead of 2 feet) and words such as "so fast". You may not mean anything malicious by it, but critical editors will be alerted. [Addendum: I am reading that "3 feet" appears in John Little's book. However, the only source used previously was the fan site which did not state that number.]
It would not be neutral to simply present all information which appears on a person's biography as fact when the information may be considered controversial. Instead, it would be more accurate to state that according to so-and-so this is the case. That a person weighing over 200 pounds would fly 15 feet (the length of a room) across the air before landing after being punched from a distance of one inch away is not something any objective reader needs to accept as fact without evidence. I would say that such a thing happens in fantasy movies, not real life. Cautious skepticism can hardly be considered bias, but is something I would consider to be a crucial necessity for this project. Shawnc 03:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of a unordered list does not even figure into the criteria for a Featured Article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, so the section is fine as it is. In addition, your suggestion that more unnecessary detail be added to the section actually figures against the criteria for a featured article. Another thing that figures against the criteria for a featured article was your inclusion of a citation method inconsistent with the rest of the article(since resolved).
The book's statement was not specifically on his punch during the taped Long Beach tournament, and likely was without the chair behind the participant as we saw in Long Beach which does kill a lot of the momentum. Lee obviously did not just perform his punch during Long Beach and did it many times privately without a handy chair nearby. Also, John Little didn't make the claim, he is simply reporting it. The video source of the one-inch punch was removed yesterday anyways, so it is a none-issue now.
I don't mind reverts of the vandals, but when you revert sourced entries and even delete the sources individually without a valid reason, that will obviously not be acceptable. Also, my inclusion of "3 feet" rather than "2 feet" was not erroneous as the website states "3 feet." It is the first entry in the page in fact. You also don't have any basis to call the claim in the book controversial because there are no valid published sources that dispute it as false, thus no controversy. Your own personal feelings and bias are not legitimate basis to call it a controversal, btw.
I also noticed a dubious tag added, according to guidelines you are to add them only when
It contains unlikely information, without providing references.
It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.
The statement has a reference, it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I have been very good with basing my edit entries on sources. The wording is also based on the reference itself, changing the wording from the reference would be introducing our own POV since it changes the meaning of the statement. The tag should be removed.--WalAloe 06:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Featured Articles are required to be particularly well written, and I am not surprised that one would not find too many or even any of them to contain an unordered list with seemingly random entries about feats or abilities. In any case, consensus needs to be reached first, which has yet to occur. There is also no agreement on what is considered necessary detail for this section.
Non-neutral and factually inaccurate information would hurt an article more than an inconsistent citation format. It is not acceptable to delete sources without a valid reason, and a valid reason for deletion is unreliability. The fan site's claim of "3 feet" is unsourced, so using it was not acceptable. The relevant quote on the page which could be sourced was by Glover, who said 18-24 inches, not 3 feet. The only time it becomes acceptable to state "3 feet" is when a published book is used as the citation, as in Little's book.
From the template's page, the dubious tag is used "for tagging statements that are subject to ongoing dispute among editors, e.g. due to conflicting sources or doubts about sources' reliability". There is cause for concern regarding John Little's claim, and I will continue to disagree with your characterization of justifiable skepticism as "bias". The public have referred to claims of Lee knocking a man across the room/ring with the one inch as "legend"[1]. The word word "fly" literally means to hover through the air with no part of the body touching the ground. Not only do the videos shown so far fail to verify the claim, they serve to make a case for skepticism. Also note the plurality of the word "opponents", despite the specification of "235lb", implying that this actually occurred on a regular basis. I am confident that other editors would see a strong case for skepticism as well.
I am willing to remove the tags by rephrasing the statement to specify that John Little is the source of information, and to put words in quotes. Shawnc 08:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I am repeating myself, but the inclusion of a unordered list does not even figure into the criteria for a Featured Article. Also, their definition of "well written" makes no mention of a list. You've got no ground to stand on. The 3 feet statement is now backed by a reliable book, so it is pointless to even talk about it now. I also have doubts on your desire for changes for the sake of the article becoming featured. You've used inconsistent citations, unnecessary details, deleted of sourced information, and are pushing for a change that is not even on the criteria for "featured articles."
There are no conflicting sources, you don't have a single conflicting source except your own feelings. Bruce did many of the same feats in front of different people, and often didn't do them exactly the same. Slightly different accounts are not conflicting unless they are referring to the same place and time. The statement makes no mention of it referring to the Long Beach punch, so there is no conflict. Not only that, you also have no grounds to challenge the reliable of the source as it passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is from the top Bruce Lee biographer, that has been printed from a large third party and reliable publisher(former Publisher of the Year).
The words legend and fly have many different meanings and applications, that is the nature of the english language, but you are trying to pigeon hole the words. For instance, Gretsky, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jordan's abilities and performance been called legend or legendary numerous times. Fly can refer to being "passed swiftly", " To hasten; spring", or "To move suddenly, or with violence".
Finally, Wikipedia states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." The perspectives have to be based on reliable sources, and not from YOU. Also, it is unnecessary detail to include the authors name when it is already included in the citation. --WalAloe 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there an explicit policy on lists in a Featured Article? There is none, but there is a guideline for Featured Lists to be "well-constructed". Is the list in this section currently well-constructed, and does being completely unordered affect the quality? That is up to the community to decide. Please refrain from unnecessary accusations of malice: I specified individual's names because they never appeared anywhere in the article, so something had to done to at least encourage better citations if nothing else; what is necessary detail or how much context makes statements believable is open to editorial interpretation; deletions were done for reasons already covered above; I am merely pushing for any changes that may move this article as far away from "Chuck Norris Facts" territory as possible. It was not even I who started the criticism about this section. Other editors have referred to it as vague, hard to take seriously, and, yes, Chuck Norris Facts-like, which would mean something is seriously wrong. It may just be the lack of citation at the time, or it could mean other things as well. Both this section and Chuck Norris Facts come in a list. If you don't see any similarities, that's fine. Editorial directions require Consensus. There is no consensus that this section is acceptable to most editors.
Have sources been added that make the section better than it was? Yes. Is there policy that an article is to present claims in sources verbatim, as matters of fact? No. The Verifiability policy states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy." The feat alleged here is exceptional, so policy dictates that the source has to be exceptional, and simultaneously the presentation must be neutral. Other than your assurances, there has been no community consensus that Little's work is of "exceptional" quality, since, being a dedicated biographer, Little has a vested interest in promoting the subject of his books. The various video footages in published documentaries, which are reliable sources, do serve as a verifiable perspective, one which differs significantly with the perspective offered by Little. The word "legend", in the link I provided, referred to a non-verified, extraordinary claim, since the writer put immediately after it, "Here's the real deal... no big deal after all," referring to how the video does not back up the rumor. FYI, I have a tape of Lee's home videos that I acquired from one of his line of students. I don't recall seeing a scene where he punched someone and they just "flew" across the room. If you consider Little's description of "fly and crash" to be sufficiently neutral, non-misleading wording, then I will respectfully disagree with you and let the community offer its own opinion.
In short, I am not arguing for any properly published works to be disregarded. I am simply asking that, again, when presenting claims which may be considered exceptional, we explicitly mention the source of the claim in the same sentence, and either ensure that wordings conform to the neutrality policy, or put the original text in quotes. With quotes, nothing is censored. If we can not reach an agreement even here, then it is time for a peer review.
P.S. Since my last edit some hours ago, this particular section has been vandalised twice. Shawnc 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they are not simply guidelines, but the actual criteria used to judge pages for "featured" status. Wikipedia defines pretty clearly what "well constructed" means, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and again a list is not part of the criteria. You can't simply ask for changes on grounds of criteria that doesn't exist. You are obviously fishing for some random editor to hopefully agree with you, but consensus is not based on numbers, but on policy.
And your comparison of this to Chuck Norris's fact just shows your complete lack of respect for sourced material. You've asked for sources, but when they've been provided, you've been nothing but hostile towards them. I count 8 different valid sources being used in that section, show me one "Chuck Norris fact" that has been published in a serious book, documentary, or magazine.
John Little's book is a exceptional source. He is the only one granted by the Lee family to view the totality of Bruce's notes, and records. He has been published by a exceptional publisher(former publisher of the year). The statement in his book simply a report of information he gathered. Here are the guidelines(Wikipedia:Reliable sources) of what a exception claim is,
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
The claim is widely known as it is published in a popular Bruce Lee book, and even on the largest Bruce Lee website on the net. It is obviously not a report of a recent event, so scratch that. It is not a statement out of character, embarrassing, contraversial(no sources exist that dispute the claim), or against an interest they had previously defended. And last, it is not a claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view of the Bruce Lee academic community. It does not fit wikipedia's definition of a exceptional claim.
Also, I find it funny you have misread the You-Tube video, you really need to read things with more objectivity. The video states "This is one of the techniques that made him famous. Legend has it that he knocked a man across the ring with the punch. Here's the real deal, no big deal after all!" It clearly shows the author saying that Bruce knocking a person across a ring is "no big deal after all", in support of the legend, and not against as you've suggested. Besides, it is a You-Tube video comment, it has no weight here. --WalAloe 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Well-constructed" is officially defined to mean that the list is easy to navigate. If it proves to easy to navigate to readers, it is a good list, or else. Policies refer to stylistic guideline, and stylistic guidelines are subjective, not hard rules set in stone. Editors continuously offer their inputs and suggestions over stylistic items. Even policies can be changed when consensus is reached.

Consensus is not based on numbers, but seeking community consensus over stylistic issues is not "fishing for random editor to agree with me". This is an insulting and hostile remark because it implies that I would refuse to listen to other editors if they disagree with me, even if consensus has been established. I assure you this is not the case, so I suggest that you do not make uncivil accusations.

Regardless of citation or even factual accuracy, the visual resemblence to Chuck Norris Facts has continued to exist: both provide a long list of claims stated as short matters of fact. I shall not continue the discussion about ordered/unordered/grouped lists with you at this point since my preferences may not be important to you.

As for the definition of the exceptional claim and exceptional source, there has been no consensus that Little's statements of someone "flying and crashing 15 feet" is not exceptional, nor is there consensus that Little's book is an exceptional source. The subjective interpretation you provided shows a high regard toward Lee and his associates such as Little and his supporters, and is therefore biased -- what about the view of general public and the martial arts community at large including non-affiliated critics regarding Little's claims? There is no currently consensus on what that is either. Here is another subjective interpretation: the claim is surprising and not widely known to the general public, because only a small sample of the public has read Little's book in detail. Further, information of this type has attracted criticism by some members of this community, as seeen in the comment "even the ones that have sources are obviously lies. A lot of these rumors that Bruce was extraordinary are exaggerated. Seeing is believing, and the fact that no one has seen him do all these feats prove there nothing more than rumors". If a claim fits one of the conditions, it may be considered an exceptional claim. The youtube video shows nothing about Lee knocking a guy "across the ring", but our intepretations are our own. It points outs, if nothing else, there is no widely available evidence for Little's "15 feet" comment.

While it is generally unnecessary to include the author's name when it exists in the citaiton, the same may not hold if a statement is subjective or controversial. In fact, the following sentence exists in the article: "A doctor who knew Lee once claimed that he was "Muscled as a squirrel, and spirited as a horse" and fitter than anyone he had ever seen." If what you claim is true, then we are to simply state "Lee was muscled as a squirrel, and spirited as a horse," just because a source exists (speaking of which, the URL provided for the citation is not correct as it does not contain the doctor's quote, but I am only referring to this example as a matter of principle, assuming that it had a proper source). To say "Bruce Lee punched someone and caused him to fly 15 feet across the room" is materially different from saying "Bruce Lee punched someone and caused him to fly 15 feet across the room, according to John Little". Why do you not object to using the phrase "A doctor claimed" when you object to using "according to John Little"?

Judging by your last edit and your comments, you appear driven to present Little's comment as something that resembles a matter of fact, by not mentioning Little's name in the article body. I trust that you will assert that the statement is non-controversial regardless of what I or other editors may subjectively claim.

Nonetheless, a suggestion about presentation: why not merge this section into physical fitness? Few seem to have problems with that section, which is presented in a paragraph format. It has suffered fewer cases of vandalism. In addition, information about training would serve to make some "feats" more believable.

At this point, I will not engage in frivolous reverts. I will seek input at a higher level so hopefully we can all be clear on what formats of presentation are desirable. Shawnc 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't know how you can turn my statement of you seeking some random editor to agree with you into a accusation of me implying that you wouldn't follow a consensus. I simply stated a consensus based on numbers isn't legit unless it is based on wiki policy, don't add more into it than there is. As for the list, it isn't difficult to navigate, it simply isn't long enough for that to be an issue. The policies of Wiki can change, but until they do editors are expected to stick by current standards.
As for Chuck Norris, someone making a parody on Norris really means nothing here. It would be like holding Jeopardy accountable for the parody of its show on SNL, which would be silly. Does SNL's frivolous questions reflect in anyway on the seriousness of the real show? No, and Norris's list doesn't reflect in anyway the serious and factual statements of Lee's feats.
I am repeating myself, but the one-inch punch statement doesn't fit the criteria for what a exceptional claim.
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
The feat in question is widely known among the Bruce Lee community. The John Little book that cites the feat is popular in the Martial Arts genre, and the feat is listed many websites, including one with 5 million visits. If we used your definition of "widely known" as the general public at large, the vast majority of the contents of Wikipedia could be challenged as "exceptional claims." I don't know the details of 95+% of what Wikipedia has indexed, but that doesn't give grounds to challenge if it is well known among that particular community and especially if there are no valid sources that dispute it as false. As for the rest of the criteria, I've already explained it in my previous message.
The you-tube video doesn't conflict with the statement from Little's book because his book doesn't specify the long-beach tournament as the place the punch took place. It would be like saying the statements of "Shaq once scored 50 points", and "Shaq scored 40 points at Boston" are in conflict, when they clearly are not, it would be a logical fallacy. Besides, the you-tube video is no longer being used a source.
I do have high regard for published sources from the top Bruce Lee biographer, don't try to paint that as a bad thing. If I don't regard the valid sources highly, what should I regard? Unsourced opinions from some here? I am pretty sure that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As for the statement of "Muscled as a squirrel, and spirited as a horse", you've answered your own question. Without the inclusion of "a doctor who knew lee", the statement would be taken literally rather than figuratively. Obviously Bruce doesn't have the literal muscular structure of a squirrel or the literal spirit of a horse, the statement is a figurative one. The feats on the other hand have no such conflict, they are supposed to be taken literally. When it states Bruce did 50 1-arm chinup or thrust his fingers into steel coke cans, it means he literally did those things.
The idea of controversy of a subject has to come from published sources. If you want to prove there is a controversy, produce a valid source that disputes the claim as false. Otherwise any editor could simply dispute a claim from any valid source and say it is controversial just because they don't want to believe it, which of course would lead to chaos. You have attacked the source, but offer no proof it is unreliable, and have produced no valid published sources that dispute the feat as false. A You-Tube comment and some random editor here are not valid sources btw.
And the quotation from the Wiki editor you cited is false, the feats were witnessed, if that editor bothered to look at the sources before he typed, he would of known that.--WalAloe 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added some wording to the list lead. " The following list are the physical feats that are documented and supported by a reliable source." It narrows the criteria of the list down to only those feats that have been documented with a good source. It should stop good intentioned editors from adding anything unless they have the source to back it up. --WalAloe 08:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
On civility: I merely stated "I await input by other editors on this issue," because asking for community feedback and consensus is an official policy, but you accused me of "fishing for random editors to agree with me". The tone of that phrase is hostile and implies that I am looking for anyone who will justify my presumably incorrect views, even though I "got no ground to stand on", another phrase that is not exactly civil. I am not enthusiastic about discussing lists at this moment as it's become relatively minor compared to issues with citation, but I do ask that we try our best to prevent incivility, which is required of us.
I recognize your position: you have no unease about accepting Little's statement as literal fact, as you trust the perceived quality and neutrality of Little's work, and you do not consider the statement to be an "exceptional" claim. You have put forth your own reasons as to why, to which I will simply re-assert the lack of community consensus at this point. I continue to consider the discrepancy of information to be self-evident from the video footages, which are also published sources (documentaries, not web videos), with additional considerations of bias. To use your "Shaq" analogy, Little's claim is more akin to the level of "Shaq once scored 400 points against other NBA players with one hand tied behind his back in an unrecorded private match." I put "NBA players" since Lee's opponent allegedly weighed 235 pounds, which means the opponent is not easy to handle, especially with Lee being a lightweight. So, your claim that Little's statement is not "exceptional" is not convincing to me, as no policy specifies exactly what "surprising" or "widely known" has to mean. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is itself a guideline, not a policy. Almost everything on Wikipedia is open for discussion, which certainly includes guidelines. To me, claims of superhuman-like feats are considered exceptional, especially when such feats are not recorded. This article has also been labeled "controversial", and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles contains the heading "Be careful with attribution", which is my primary concern. The part of the guide that says "Attribute assertions" does concur with my suggestion to specify Little explicitly: "A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately. Alternatively, a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. ...Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties)." While you consider Little to be neutral, we as editors have been encouraged to generally identify bias whenever possible, and to label the source when appropriate. Even though Little's work is not technically "a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group", he does cater to one specific group of people, namely fans of Bruce Lee.
Wikipedia:Consensus has a flow chart of what to do in discussions. One requirement for all editors is to "Find a reasonable (if temporary) compromise" when people differ on reverts. I do not see what reasonable means to you or others, but my compromise has been to allow claims in properly cited sources, without modification, even if neutrality is suspect, provided that we specify the source, as the guide suggests, for content which may be considered exceptional. I don't see how this violates Wikipedia:Citing sources either. So if you are not willing to compromise on this point, there is no need for further dialogue between us presently and I will, as stated, simply seek input from the community. I trust that this is reasonable, as I am making no reverts on this point without consensus. Shawnc 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The statement is simply a response to your resistance to valid sources. The fact you won't acknowledge verifiable and reliable sources is insulting to me, because that is the very thing you asked for. I provide it, the first thing you do is challenge the citation accuracy without even checking it yourself. You think that doesn't send a certain message? Afterwards, you went on to challenge the source itself, again, without bother checking. What would you have me think? It does send the message that the citation of valid and reliable sources wasn't the real issue after all because once I gave them, you would look for anyway not to accept them. Nevermind the source is from the top Lee biographer, and printed by a highly respected publisher(former publisher of the year) known for strong editorial and fact-checking oversight.
After trying to convince me to use valid sources(I did), you would than go on to support your theory that the statement is controversial by using a non-valid You-Tube statement and a citation from a editor on this talk page. I ask for a published source(newspaper, book, magazine, etc) that proves a controversy exists, and I don't get anything. If you were more consistent, I'd certainly would of taken many of what you said more seriously.
And you are right, John Little isn't writing about politics, but even if he was, a source would need to be produced to demonstrate the opposing view. Wikipedia is clear that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." Your view, my view, or any other editors view do not count as "reliable sources." The citation method is consistent with the rest of the article and the authors name is listed on the citation. So what is the problem? Anyone who wants to find out the details can just check the source. --WalAloe 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the original poster, who started the criticism of the section as well as the comparison with Chuck Norris Facts. I've stayed out of the argument until now, but I'd like to make a few things clear, in the interest resolving the issues.
The purpose of drawing the comparison with Chuck Norris Facts was to make a point regarding the tone of this section of the article. Including an unreferenced (or poorly referenced) list of superhuman feats, stated in such a way that fails to acknowledge the difficulty one might have believing in their truth or that they might just be legends, in an otherwise serious article about a person who lived in modern times, invites ridicule from readers. That is, the tone is not neutral, formal, or encyclopedic, and the section's title might as well have been "Bruce Lee Facts", or simply have shared the titled of the section of the BruceLeeDivineWine fansite from which the list appeared to originally have been drawn, "A Few of Bruce's Awesome Feats".
  1. A description of a physical feat, where the feat would be assumed to be physically impossible by most people, is exceptional. It would be interesting to post this question at the Physics WikiProject and see if someone could give us an idea of just how far into the realm of the superhuman this particular feat is.
  2. This physical feat does fall within the list at WP:REDFLAG (written out a few posts up), as descriptions, such as this one, of things that sound physically impossible are "surprising", and I don't believe that this particular version of the one inch punch is widely known (whereas the version that we have on video is widely known). Also, John Little's book is probably a primary source, where wikipedia requires citation to secondary sources (see WP:PSTS).
Please be aware that my purpose here was not to deprecate Bruce Lee or his fans, but in fact the exact opposite - Lee already has enough trouble being taken seriously by large segments of the competitive and traditional martial arts community, who already believe that his skills and feats were overrated and exaggerated. I have merely wanted to see this "extraordinary" material presented in a manner in which it will be taken seriously, rather than dismissed as fancruft. Please also be aware that embedded lists are widely regarded as inherently unencyclopedic, and it is unlikely that the article will pass GA until the list is rewritten in prose. Bradford44 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that my purpose here was not to deprecate Bruce Lee or his fans, but in fact the exact opposite - Lee already has enough trouble being taken seriously by large segments of the competitive and traditional martial arts community, who already believe that his skills and feats were overrated and exaggerated. I have merely wanted to see this "extraordinary" material presented in a manner in which it will be taken seriously, rather than dismissed as fancruft. Please also be aware that embedded lists are widely regarded as inherently unencyclopedic, and it is unlikely that the article will pass GA until the list is rewritten in prose. Bradford44 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
1. The fact Chuck Norris has a parody can't be even thought of as a serious argument here as it has nothing to do with Bruce's factually sourced list, if anything it is a cover for a weak case against the list. The feats section was at one time poorly referenced at the creation of this thread, it is now referenced with 8 valid sources and is now the most strongly sourced section in the entire article. The tone is now based off the wording of the sources themselves. The list itself is a "Physical Feats" section, a specific criteria. The lead section narrows it further by specifying only exceptional physical feats are a part of the list. Just like the physique section is the visual results of Bruce's physical fitness, "Physical Feats" are the exceptional results produced by his fitness.
2. I do agree it is exceptional in the traditional sense of the word, but that is a requirement of that section. The lead is even worded with use of "exceptional." It is however, not a "exceptional claim" by Wikipedia's definition Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. John little is a secondary source. I've already stated that he is simply the reporter of the feat. John Little himself has never met Bruce in his life, and he doesn't write the feat or the book as if he was the primary source. Also, the criteria is "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known." and not just "surprising" as you are trying to characterize the criteria. It is a widely known feat among the Bruce Lee community. It is published in a popular book and the feat is listed on many Bruce Lee websites including one with 5 million hits.
Lee has no problem being taken seriously by many of the martial arts community. No less than Dana White, the President of the UFC(and now Pride), has called him the "father of MMA" I've seen multiple UFC fighters label him as a hero. Tyson and Sugar Ray Leonard both cite him as influence. He also did have 3 karate world champions as his students who speak highly of him. He has world Judo, Jujitsu, and other national champions speak highly of him(Hayward Nishioka). He has the Father of American Tae Kwon Do speak very highly of him(Rhee), the father of American Kenpo(Ed Parker) speak highly of him, as does Black Belt magazine instructors of the year/hall of fame members(Wally Jay). In fact, many of the feats were witnessed from those same people just mentioned above. Hayward Nishioka, a former US Judo national champion, Judo instructor of the year, and Black Belt Mag instructor of the year - has witnessed Bruce do the very feat in discussion in the very wording that is being contested.
And if you want to convince people you are not here to deprecate Lee, you certainly didn't help your case by trying to call it fancruft, which is highly insulting. Bruce's feats are not only mentioned in most of his books, but almost all of his biographies. Including A&E's biography, Linda Lee's book, and many others. --WalAloe 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You've really missed the point. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
  • I didn't say it was fancruft, I said that the informal tone in which the feats were described might inadvertantly lead a reader to believe it was fancruft.
Were you paying attention that time? Do you still think I called it fancruft?
  • Mentioning Chuck Norris Facts is a comparison. This is also known as making an argument by drawing an analogy. The comparison is relevant, not for the purpose of deprecating the article, but for the purpose of warning the editors of how the informal tone present in a section about incredible physical feats may naturally cause a reader to recall a list of humorous, fictional feats, performed by another famous martial artist-turned film star. Presumably, that is an undesirable outcome.
Did I lose you yet? Here's an example. Imagine that one of his feats was that he once jumped across the roof of a house. Let's also say that this feat was included in one of John Little's books; heck, lets even say it's on videotape. If the exact quote from John Little's book was "Bruce once lept a building in a single bound," I would have posted something like, "hey guys, are we talking about Superman here, or what?" Then I would have suggested that the section be edited to have a tone more befitting an encyclopedia. Can you simply not grasp how Superman becomes relevant, despite the fact that the article is not about Superman?
  • Finally, and I want you to sit down, because I know this is going to be very hard for you to accept, and I won't be surprised if you don't believe me, but what follows is a short list, you know, just off the top of my head, of people and things that a significant segment of the traditional martial arts community don't take seriously:
    1. Dana White
    2. MMA (and its champions)
    3. Jhoon Rhee
    4. Taekwondo
    5. Ed Parker
    6. Black Belt Magazine
    7. Documentaries that attempt to teach non-martial artists things about the martial arts
Ok, pop quiz. Did I say that I didn't take the people and things in that list seriously? Or did I state that other people don't take those things seriously? Did you learn anything about what I think of the that list? ... I can only pray that the answer is "no".
In the future, I trust you will be more careful before you assume the intentions of editors on this page. All of my posts on this page (with the exception, admittedly, of this one) have been for the dual purposes of ensuring an encyclopedic tone, and preventing the ridicule of the facts stated on the page. My posts began with a good-natured and humorous tone (which I can only sincerely apologize if you were offended by), and followed with a serious, direct, and respectful tone. Contrary to your assertions, I insulted no one, nor did I express my opinion on anything other than how the article should be phrased and cited. Did I suggest we remove the list? No. Did I say Bruce Lee sucks? No. As of this moment, do you have any idea what I think of Bruce Lee or his feats? No. I suggest you spend less time defending percieved slights to Bruce's honor, and more time trying to improve this article from the point of view of a neutral, and detached reader, or worse, the prejudiced reader who may come here and and conclude that his presuppositions about Bruce Lee fanatics propogating exaggerations confirmed when they read all about his Famous Fantastic Fhysical Feats. That is, let's write the article in such a way as to convince the non-believers, rather than confirm their skepticism. If I was unclear regarding my intentions for this article I'm sure you'll let me know. Bradford44 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Was that post supposed to be a joke or something? That is the most condescending thing written here by far. "did you get all that", "Did I lose you yet", "Were you paying attention that time?". You say you are not insulting, but that very post obviously betrays that. I am not going to even dignify that with a response. Not to mention, you didn't answer many of the main relevant points.--WalAloe 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that post was completely serious. I don't appreciate being accused of being insulting when I have made good faith suggestions for improving the article on the basis that its current form is informal and may invite ridicule. When I said that I was not being insulting, I specifically excepted the then-current post - another example of lazy reading on your part. The last post was deliberately insulting for the purpose of demonstrating the difference. I think you need to start paying attention to what other editors are actually saying, instead of assuming they are trying to insult Bruce Lee, his memory, or anything else. Now I've insulted you, I hope you'll notice that I still have not insulted anyone or anything else, and even if you will no longer take my suggestions seriously, which would be understandable, I hope that you will start listening to the well-reasoned suggestions of other editors, such as Shawnc, whom you have not been particularly polite to.
As for your "main points", they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether there are videotapes, or how reliable John Little is. The only relevant fact is that when readers come to the page and read this section, they will think it is silly and not true. Period. Bradford44 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You brought up unreasonable labels over and over again. "Chuck Norris", "Fancruft", and so on. If you didn't intend on being insulting, fine, but it certainly is going to be perceived that way. And you didn't restrain yourself from being insulting in your last post by any means which didn't help your point.
Don't try to lump all the feats together, when only one of them is being seriously contested right now. In Wikipedia, the reliable sources are what is relevant. Whether a small minority with no contesting reliable sources thinks it isn't true is what doesn't matter in Wikipedia. And it is a small minority, or else there would of been at least one source that contested the feat. And if they were "silly" as you say, they wouldn't of been published in very reputable sources(A&E, many highly rated biographies, magazines, etc), in very reputable publishing houses(former Publisher of the Year) with a excellent rep on fact-checking. I am sure a small minority don't want to believe it, but many in that small minority will go out of their way to dismiss anything Lee does, not to say you are anyone else here is. That is just the reality of it. --WalAloe 04:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I apologize for losing my patience with you. I'm going to remove myself from the discussion here, and leave you to it. Bradford44 12:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About Lee caused a 235lb opponent to fly 15 feet away with a one inch punch. is not possible. Ask anyone who knows the laws of physics. The only way to make 235lb fly 15 feet with the impact of a human fist is to make it fly down not across. Creating that much momentum with impact force using a human hand exceeds its fracture toughness. On the other hand a strong man can throw 235 lb 15 feet, so it is possible he used his fist over a distance of a few feet (follow through on the "punch") to push the guy hard enough that he fell back and it looked like he flew 15 feet. WAS 4.250 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many definitions of fly: "To pass by swiftly", "To hasten; spring","To move with great speed","To undergo an explosive reaction; burst". We've all heard of a statement like "John was running and he just flew past me" I could argue that statement is impossible and false because it isn't possible for a man to just go airborne while running. It would be a silly argument of course, because I would be using the incorrect definition of fly. All those definitions of fly I've listed have nothing to do with being airborne like a bird, and the one inch punch use of the word "fly" can reasonably be interpreted that way. You are right however to state it is possible that Lee's force of punch caused the man to "burst(one of the definitions of fly)" or "spring(another definition of fly)" back 15 feet. To be honest, it is silly to assume it means his opponents literally flew like birds through the air. I've already made this point previous in fact, but it was ignored. The one inch punch uses the same principles of a fundamental punch, and one of them was a strong follow through the target. You hit through the target, not at it. --WalAloe 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So, it's silly to interpret "fly" as literally "flying", but you earlier stated "The feats on the other hand have no such conflict, they are supposed to be taken literally. When it states Bruce did 50 1-arm chinup or thrust his fingers into steel coke cans, it means he literally did those things." So, if I am reading this correctly, "fly 15 feet away" does literally mean the opponent did "fly 15 feet away", yet simultaneously we would be "silly" to interpret it as "literally flying like a bird", even though that very interpretation has been the literal one that most editors here have assumed and considered to be impossible or dubious. It therefore follows that many of us, according to you, have merely been silly with our interpretation. That's cool; if a sentence is perfectly non-misleading and neutral, it doesn't matter if the reader can't read well, right? Now, while it's irrelevant whether I am silly, since that alone is not an issue for this article as long as I don't make any silly edits, a relevant problem is that there may be a lot of so-called silly editors around, who may not grasp the intended meaning of this statement. What can you compromise (remember: this is an official obligation in case of editorial disagreements) to present the statement differently, to help everyone read the article with more clarity and less ambiguity? Shawnc 07:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I did mention this a few days ago Shawn. Previously I had questioned the definition of fly that was used by you and pointed out that "Fly can refer to being "passed swiftly", "To hasten; spring", or "To move suddenly, or with violence". I didn't get a response from you for that specific statement though.
In any case, I am willing to compromise for clarity. If you want to put "spring", "burst", or"hurl" in parenthesis to let the reader know which definition of "fly" is being used, I wouldn't have a problem with it. "Lee caused a 235lb opponent to fly(spring) 15 feet away with a one inch punch." Or you can just use the word's by themselves and delete fly, since they denote the same meaning in this context, "Lee sprung a 235lb opponent 15 feet away with a one inch punch."--WalAloe 08:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the willingness to improve the sentence further. I don't mind the wording as long as it's not just "fly" alone. As always, other editors' feedback is welcome.
What did Little really mean anyway? Actually, the original wording was not "fly 15 feet" as it had been recently, but "fly and crash 15 feet", wasn't it? Now that I think about it, the dramatic choice of words aside, I suspect that the key word is not "fly" at all but "crash", implying falling to the floor in the process and not actually airborne throughout, meaning that it could've referred to a basic case of someone scrambling across the floor after a good shove, trying to regain balance. To me this interpretation would be far easier to accept. Still, the wording is not the best. Just my two cents. Shawnc 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a blemish, among other things, it needs to delete the physical feats that appear supernatural. It's just not possible for a human being to propel a 300 pound bag into the ceiling. You could fire a howitzer into a 300 pound bag and it wouldn't lift it that far (FYI, this is also why superman's powers (assuming he was real) have to be telekenitic - you can't lift a building by its corner, beacuse the corner would just break off the building). 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bicep curl vs. chin-ups

The article used to say Bruce Lee could do 8 bicup curls with 80 pound dumbbells, which made a max of 110 pounds bicep curl. However, the article also says Lee performed 50 reps of one-arm chin-ups. Now, the article currently says at age 24, he could do 70-80 dumbbell bicep curls. How can that be his max if he could do 1-hand chin up, (50 times). Assuming Bruce Lee was not yet 165 pounds, he was certainly 135 or more. So saying 110 pounds is his max for bicep curls doesn't quite make sense. Neal (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

They are two completely different exercises. A proper chin-up will primarily work the lats, while bicep curls primarily work on the biceps. Lee had huge lats, as evidenced by the photo in the physical fitness section, which is the reason why he could perform 50 one arm chin-ups.--DavisD (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay. Wow. I guess I should look into that. I did those 2 workouts thinking they work the same muscle. I suppose there's another phenomenom that explains you can't do half of as many 1-handed push-ups as you can with 2-handed push-ups. Neal (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

There is no way the 50 one-arm chin-ups claim is accurate, and that is why the bicep-curls seem really low by comparison. The record for one-arm chins is closer to 16 if I remember correctly, and that is at least documented. I'm sure Bruce could have done quite a few - it's extremely rare to be able to do even one. Still, 50 is ridiculous, I don't care what book claims it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, in a Jet Li movie, Jet Li performed to do 10 1-handed pull-ups. It seemed he was getting tired. I doubt he could have done near 50. Neal (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

The sources for Bruce Lees physical feats are very unreliable. 41: The source claims: Lee could throw grains of rice up into the air and then catch them in mid-flight using chopsticks. From a standing position, Lee could hold a 125 lb (57 kg) barbell straight out. Well, the same source claims that he was: "Leaping eight feet in the air to kick out a light bulb". That is very impressive as the world record in high jump at the time was 7 feet 7 inches. The guy actually made a world record according to the source.

Another source claims: Lee could spring a 235 lb (107 kg) opponent 15 feet (4.6 metres) away with a 1 inch punch. Wow, if that was true he could have made a world record in shot put. If Bruce Lee could do such a physical feat, why didn't they use in his his movies?

A lot of the feats come from biographies (John Little) made on behalf of the estate after Bruce Lee. That is people who have a economic and emotional interest in making him more fantastic. Such books are NOT first hand sources, nor reliable.

Bruce Lee was fantastic, but he was NOT the world record holder in high jump as one of Wikipedias sources in fact claims. Clean it up and erase the ridiculous claims. Fightdane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightdane (talkcontribs) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several interviews I've seen on Youtube, one with Bob Bremer in particular, that talks about the one-inch punch (Bremer recounts how Lee performed this feat upon their first meeting, which inspired him to begin taking lessons). I don't know if you want to consider checking that out as a reference. Also in regards to leaping 8 feet into the air to kick a light bulb--high jumping and kicking a something at 8 feet are two completely different things. For one, how is it so unbelievable for someone to kick an 8-foot light? For one, his entire body is not required to clear 8 feet, only his foot, unlike with the high jump.User:Amnion (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Kung Fu TV show claims

The article does not presently mention that according to various sources (including, but not limited to, Lee's widow), Lee claimed to have come up with the concept behind the TV show Kung Fu and to have worked long hours on its development. The producers, for their part, have claimed in recent years that he only was briefly considered for the part and that they scarcely remember his audition. With citations, it's a notable controversy that should be included in the article; presently, the only mention of the show is that it was part of a wave of popularization of martial arts in the U.S. Lawikitejana 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that Lee developed a martial arts-oriented proposal/format for a potential US TV series to have starred himself, equating it with the actual Kung Fu program seems to have begun with the 1993 Lee bio-flick, which depicted "Green Hornet" executive producer William Dozier (though they changed his last name) as being involved in the project. It was to have been called The Warrior (Bruce mentioned it in the Pierre Berton Show interview). I just don't find the claim plausible enough to be worth noting here. Ted Watson 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


On what grounds does the article use Template:Infobox Chinese-languaOge singer and actor? Why is not Template:Infobox actor employed as for all other US American actors? I have yet to see an English language infobox for a singer of Chinese nationality... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Lee was a Hong Kong actor, He was no different from other Hong Kong actors. That’s why.

You always intent to conceal Lee’s Chinese/Hong Kong status, give a reason for that please. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler, can you please use ":"s to indent you posts, I think that was mentioned before. Can you also please try to assume good faith, ie difference of opinion rather than ulterative motives...Gun Powder, I haven't looked at the info box template, but I would agree that an actor info box would be more appropriate than a "singer and actor" one...anyways...--Tom (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Assuming good faith" in the presence of evidence to the contrary is counter-productive to resolving the dispute on its own terms, one of which being the lack thereof. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Err what evidence? This seems to be a difference of opinion on what info box to use. As Lee largely acted in english the general (non-national specific) {{Infobox actor}} would seem sensible. On a side note Lee was initially raised in Hong Kong, but born in the US and was a US citizen. --Natet/c 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Concerning Nate's request for evidence to a lack of good faith on Gun Powder Ma's part (despite Tom's statement, I used the term "ulterior motive," not Undefeatedcooler), it is summarized in my post of 7 March under "Lead sentence" and can be seen in his/her posts on this page. Furthermore, this is about a great deal more than infobox choice (I have no idea of there being multiple and legitimate options for film actors). If you can't be bothered to read everything here, you've got no right to post. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I read a section that wasn't obviously linked to any previous discussion, demanding people read an entire talk page before asking a question is a little over the top. I was passing and joined a discussion, you said there was evidence so I asked where (not an unreasonable request) the stament: You always intent to conceal Lee’s Chinese/Hong Kong status, give a reason for that please clearly implies an ulterior motive, Gun powder's tone was also abrasive, Tom was attempting to calm both sides down and mentioned that @ first glance the general actor template seemed more appropriate as Lee did not act most notably in Chinese. --Natet/c 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that all the Hong Kong actors are using the same info box in the English wikipedia. Also American-born Hong Kong actors Daniel Wu, Jaycee Chan, Kevin Cheng etc. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On a second look I can see the logic as it has the extra fields to cope with Chinese names. --Natet/c 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)