This is an archive of past discussions about Bruce Lee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

german ancestry?

The article has Lee with 1/8 German attributing to a maternal grandfather who was 1/2 German and 1/2 Chinese while other sources cited in the article such as [1] cite Lee's maternal grandfather as being of wholly German ancestry. Can someone double check on this? Abstrakt 00:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to specify a precise number such as 1/4 or 1/8. Merely mentioning names of ethnicities would suffice. Shawnc 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Lee's maternal grandfather was German. I can cite the exact reference when I get back to my library. The implication is that he was full German as anything other then full is usually cited. FrankWilliams 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

The column header in the filmography table says Chinese (Cantonese) title. But someone change all the movie titles into Mandarin pinyin. Since all these movies were originally released in Cantonese, it does not make sense to list their Mandarin titles. Kowloonese 18:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says they all "were originally released in Cantonese"? I have frequently and consistently read the chop-socky flicks referred to as Mandarin films, and, more specifically, a consequence of this was that the Cantonese-speaking Lee's only starring film in which his own voice was on the dialogue track was the English-language Enter the Dragon. Ted Watson 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the documentaries section, I'd like to suggest adding "Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey" (2002). It includes an excellent profile and a detailed reconstruction of the unfinished "Game of Death." Ukenuke 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations for quotations

There are a lot of quotations for Bruce Lee on the page. Few of them have any references. It would be nice to get some citations for the quotations. I'm especially interested in where the statement "Use only that which works, and take it from any place you can find it" comes from. Anyone know?

did a quick google [[2]] on it quite a few sources.--Xiahou 03:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are lots of internet sites using the quotation. I was looking for a more reliable source, such as a book by Bruce Lee, etc.

The Tao of Jeet Kune (which was amongst the links) has that exact quote by him, written by him.--Xiahou 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a source for the quotation: p.44, Bruce Lee: fighting spirit, by Bruce Thomas, Frog, Ltd. (1994) 70.189.105.221 20:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations with unknown sources should not be used

The "feats" section uses information from bruceleedivinewind.com, a fan site, some of which does not state who the speaker or provider of information is. If the source is unknown, the source would fail Wikipedia:Verifiability and may not be used on Wikipedia. Shawnc 07:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to re-add previous deleted information, it must be accompanied by a proper source or else it will be reverted. Shawnc 06:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

properly sourced information is being deleted without reason. Information such as his one-inch punch, thumbs only pushups, elevated v-sits. Deletion of valid sourced material should be reverted immediately.--WalAloe 08:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are fine but when adding sourced information please also ensure that poorly sourced information or incorrect statements (eg. "striking speed from 3 feet away") are not re-added at the same time. Shawnc 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the documentaries are being removed as sources even though they are valid. They are officially approved by the Lee Estate and Shannon Lee even narrates in one of the videos. Attempts to remove the sources and feats they support are to be reverted. Every feat in the section is now supported by a valid book, documentary, or website. I've removed the BLDW citation for the striking speed feat, and replaced it with John Little's book, which states "landing a punch that was initiated from over three feet away in five-hundreths of a second. --WalAloe 10:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While the BLDW site contains unreliable statements, it contained explicit description by Jesse Glover which differs from John Little's statement, with Glover being a witness. Did Little specify the source of his information? Shawnc 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Little has a long 3 page list of sources in his book, and he is backed by a large publisher(previously won Publisher of the Year) with reputation for strong editorial oversight. --WalAloe 07:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"widely regarded as the most influential martial artist of the 20th century"

A statement such as this calls for not just one, but numerous reliable, NPOV citations, due to the language used. Shawnc 10:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for the "Many see Lee as a model blueprint" claim. Shawnc 10:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The language is NPOV, "widely" and "many" allow for some dissent. Statements in the lead that explain why the subject is interesting or notable are allowed, see Wikipedia:Lead section. --WalAloe 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is about sources. Wikipedia:Lead section does not presume to allow unsourced statements. I've found some sources. The question is whether citations should be used in the lead. The discussion on Wikipedia:Lead section is back and forth on the issue. Since there's already a citation for the "Chinese nationalism" comment in the lead, I'm adding the sources to the lead. Shawnc 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So How did he Die?

The article states that chuck norris kicked him in his chin causing his immediate death from heart failure. Later on it says he died from taking medicines, Can someone with more knowledge on this give some concrete facts on how Lee really died other than giving bogus conspiriacies that are unecyclopediatic?

Right now its becoming a mess, and people keep editing it and reverting left and right. I'd like to see a fully cited version laying down the facts, followed by the official verdict of the inquest (hypersensitivity to equagesic), and finally any scientifically/logically supported theories, such as the cannabis theory which has support from Bruce's doctors and is aligned with some of the facts.

To answer your question uh, I guess most people agree with the following facts of the events: Bruce had a collapse on May 10th of a cerebral edema but because he was rushed to the hospital his life was saved. After suffering from migraines at Betty Ting Pei's house on July 20th, Bruce took an aspirin, never woke up. After a circus in trying to get Bruce to the hospital (which took well over half an hour I think) after he was already unresponsive, Bruce was declared dead at Queen Elizabeth hospital from a cerebral edema. The inquest into his death found only equagesic (essentially a form of aspirin) and cannabis. The verdict was he died from a hypersensitivity to equagesic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.36.88 (talk)

on wikipedia it never stated that he died from the tablet Ting pei gave him.... ive read the article from one of his official or unnoficial websites and it states that he had the hypersensitive reaction to equagesic. and also it saying that the Asprin given to lee from ting pei was ONLY prescribed to her from her own doctor. so could it be that it is an accidental death? maybe he could of postponed his death if it wasnt for her action ? Eeiko321 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the page semi-protected?

Is the article semi-protected currently? I see a lock image on the front, but if I click edit without logging it, I'm able to edit. --RisingSunWiki 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since IP addresses are editing the article, I guess it's not protected; so I deleted the lock icon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RisingSunWiki (talk • contribs) 02:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Image

Pleare insert this picture HK Star Bruce Lee 16.jpg this is orginal :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalgo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is the photo? User5802 05:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wally Jay

There is zero mention of Wally Jay in the article. Wally Jay taught Bruce jujitsu, and wrote the introduction to Bruce's first book. I'd like to add this to the article but not sure where. Any advice is appreciated. User5802 05:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to include some information about Bruce's Training with Professor Jay. This discussion is HUGE, so feel free to let me know your thoughts as I'm not going to read through the entire discussion to see if anyone's talked about something similar.User5802 15:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Martial Arts Training and Development

"Bruce was also trained in Western boxing and won the 1958 Boxing Championship match against 3-time champion Gary Elms" This sentence requires some sort of clarification. What championship was that, high school, inter scholar, junior? If this Gary Elms had been 3-times champion of HK (as the sentence might be interpreted), his name would show up at least in some boxing databases. It seems though there is no mention of him other than being defeated once by Bruce Lee. I'm not trying to take away anything from BL, but as it is now the sentence might lead some to believe he was the boxing champion of HK. 12.28.109.82 05:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I comply agree with this assement, there exist no verifiable independent sources which show that Lee has participated in any combat sport let alone boxing. I fear that this article lacks neutrality and overly romanticizes Bruce Lee's legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.117 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee spin-off films

I removed the previous edit to the main page in which "The Thower of Death (1981)" (The Tower of Death) was added. This was a spin off, compiled with scenes from his previous movies and not a film on which he himself was working. This is debatable (hence why I'm adding the discussion) because both "Game of Death" and Tower were released by the same studio, but I fear of adding to Bruce's filmography every film where they pasted Bruce's face over Bruce Li or some other impersonator's body. "Game of Death," surely, as it includes the scenes he was filming before his death. "Tower of Death" is merely a Bruce Lee exploitation film clipping old scenes out of Enter the Dragon. Anyone have alternate opinions? WDavis1911 19:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This reasoning is pretty much why I haven't given any thought to adding The Real Bruce Lee, which opens with a collection of clips from Bruce's juvenile acting career, but soon gives way to a typical Lee--lookalike chop--socky flick. BTW, is The Man and the Legend on the documentaries list the same as Bruce Lee---The Legend, produced by Golden Harvest and released in USA on the Fox video label, individually and boxed with his three legitimate GH films as well as their version of Game of Death? Whether it is or isn't, the article needs to be adjusted. Ted Watson 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Outcome pending" after FORTY-THREE YEARS?!?

The concept that the outcome of Lee's bout with Wong Jackman is pending (at this writing) all of forty-three years after the event is absurd, and the claim simply begs for further explanation. Would somebody please oblige? Ted Watson 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request Protection

I would like an administrator to protect this article because of persistent vandalism, particularly by this user. Bruce Lee is famous, but lots of people would like to diminish people's notoriety by adding vandalism, and that's not right. I hope you honor my request by semi-protecting this article. Thanks. User:Goodshoped35110s/Welcome Signature 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What are the unsourced statements did he/she added? They may be worth investigating... 88.105.77.219 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When's this Semi-Protection going to expire? Shin-chan01 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? It may expire next Wednesday. And it's semi-protected, so you can edit it. -Go od sh op ed 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's protected again. I wonder why? Do they hate Chuck Noris's chin that much?

Shin-chan01 (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dressed as girl?

Was he dressed as a girl for a while as a child by superstitious parents? This and this both mention it.Malick78 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NO,that is just a silly rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.78.56 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 February 2008

Robert Denerstein. "Fate stirs the dragon once more: Bruce Lee's legacy fuels larger-than-life movie," Rocky Mountain News (CO), May 7, 1993, page 3C: "In Dragon, Mr. Lee stages a fight with an inner demon, with dreamy sequences presented as visions. Mr. Cohen says the approach derived from something real. ... 'I read that his parents really believed a demon had taken their oldest son, who had died in childbirth. When Bruce was born in San Francisco in 1940, his parents told everyone in Hong Kong they had a little girl. There are pictures of Bruce in these little crocheted bonnets. They did it to hide him from the demon.' " (reprinted as "Enter the director - Rob Cohen tried to make the movie biography that he feels Bruce Lee deserves," The Dallas Morning News, May 20, 1993)

Another Cohen quote: ""Bruce's life is bookended by references to demons. When he was born, his parents dressed him in dresses and told their friends that they had a baby girl, because they believe that a demon had taken their firstborn child, who had died in childbirth. He had the demon when he was a child." (John Scalzi. "Dragon Master: Bruce Lee story is two films in one," The Fresno Bee, May 2, 1993, page H3)

So while Cohen saying it doesn't prove it, (a) it does give something specific to quote as to the story and (b) he does appear not just to have heard it or read it, but to have seen pictures (granted, sometimes such pictures are interpreted one way by an outside culture -- e.g., United States -- but have a different meaning in the home culture). Lawikitejana (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

In the section 'Education and family' under Early life, it says "At age 12, Lee entered the College of Lake County in Grayslake, Illinois. Then, he attended St Francis Xavier's College. In 1959, at the age of 18, Lee got into a fight and had badly beaten a feared Triad gang member's son.[10]His father became concerned about young Bruce's safety, and as a result, he and his wife decided to send Bruce to the United States to live with an old friend of his father's." ... I'm guessing there's meant to be a sentence in between about Lee going back to Hong Kong? Otherwise it doesn't make sense. I don't want to add something speculative, so can someone have a look please? 211.31.40.5 11:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

His children

Does the late Mr. Lee have any more children, he has fathered, currently [alive]? Or is the late Brandon Lee his only kid?

(Maybe Wikipedia didn't mentioned much about them because of the fear of the curse? =s I do not intend to cast death upon them if that's the case.) 88.105.77.219 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

he also has.....or had... a daughter Eeiko321 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying...she's...*gulp*? Shin-chan01 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Lee had two children, Brandon and Shannon. Brandon Lee was an actor in several different things before he was shot and killed accidentally on the set of The Crow. Shannon Lee is still alive, and she has recently become more active in the Bruce Lee Foundation and martial arts arenas. If you don't know enough about Bruce Lee to know that he had two kids, you don't know enough to be editing his page. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Extra pictures/links taken out of wikipedia

Also, i recall on wikipedia having a link at the bottom ..showing a link to his post morgue pictures and pictures before burial/funeral.

this seems to be removed. perhaps due to people being upset & thinking this is disrespectful to him or to the dead?

but those pictures are historical, something precious & could never be recovered if lost, it was a one off...

so i suggest that wikipedia should link it back up.

would anyone agree with me?

Eeiko321 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Partially, yes to the public knowledge...and no...for the respect to his families and friends... It is well worth taking into account for the "faint-hearted" and "open-minded" users reading these articles. You may need one of his next-of-kin's expressive permission before that action happens. Unless you want Wikipedia to be sued. Shin-chan01 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Illness and Death?

What happened to an extract that was explaining late Mr. Lee's unfortunate circumstances? All I'm seeing is a blank!

Shin-chan01 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointless quote marks

Who the hell added quotes on several phrases in the physical feats section... Could someone remove them? I registered recently so I can't do it.

--Crescendooo (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to tell us to remove "several phrases" in the physical feats section, you're going to tell us exactly what phrases you are talking about. Or do we just assume we know which phrases you're talking about? Neal (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

Looks pretty obvious to me. First feat: "five hundredths"; Seventh: "catch them in mid-flight"; Next-to-last: "thrust"; Last: "dramatic". Now talk about them, guys. I've been just observing the "Bruce Lee Physical Feats" discussion, to which this seems to me to be related. Ted Watson (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, I didn't know he meant the quotation marks (") - thought he meant which quotes were added that needed to be removed. Quotes as in sentences. I guess that's already taken care of. Neal (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Links

This is a cool link that should be added to the main page. [http://howtobelike.com/?n=BruceLee It's a site that show you how to be like people. This one is about Bruce Lee]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banananose3 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That site should be shut down as it violates copyrights. Mister ricochet (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Books about Bruce Lee and/or JKD

Here's a book that's missing from the list: The Legend of Bruce Lee by Alex Ben Block, 1974. Here's a link to an Amazon.com entry for the book: http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Bruce-Lee-Alex-Block/dp/0440148111/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197258514&sr=1-5

Jdmaloney (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Offical Fights

Does the name "Offical Fights" seem kind of tacky to anyone else. I assume when one hears "'Offical' Fights" they are assuming it has some sort of tournament merit to it. But when things are listed like Oppenent: Unknown, street fight KO round 1. It makes the whole article look kind of silly. One would assume for a fight to be deemed offical there would be some more information than that. I'm not discounting these fights happening, because I know there is evidence of most if not all of them happening. I just think "Offical" should be changed to something like "Notable".Tsurettejr (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The title is not just tacky but inappropriate: there were no official competitions or tournaments. Most of the section is not cited at all. Shawnc (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008

Time of birth

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

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

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

New cause of death

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

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

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

When

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

Human Weapon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drama Major?

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

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

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

As a proud UW grad it is my duty to put these rumors to rest: [3] Lee was a DRAMA MAJOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.32.90 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Awards and Honors

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

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

New footage in Madison Square Garden

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

Tommy Carruthers

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

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

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

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

Fights section

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

Education error

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

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

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

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

Opening passage

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

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

Instruction verification

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

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

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

Another one

Sorry to come up with more:

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

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

Fanboy article

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

Nunchaku

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

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

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

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

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

Series stolen by Warner Bros

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hatnote issues

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

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

Death

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

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

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

Physical feats needs revising

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

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

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

Kato/Robin fight scene & Batman set conflict

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

"Controversy over Jeet Kune Do" & "Jujitsu"

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

Books authored

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

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

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

Reads like a book, not neutral

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

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

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

'The Warrior' to 'Kung Fu'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MONSTERS AND CRITICS

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

THE GRINDHOUSE DATA BASE

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

KUNG FU MAGAZINE

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

THE BRUCE LEE FOUNDATION

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

LOVE HONG KONG FILM

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

THE MARTIAL ARTS INSTITUTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opening thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19th century philosopher?

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

Lee Bruce

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

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

chinese symbols

The Jeet Kune Do Emblem. The Chinese characters around the Taijitu symbol indicate: "*Using no way as way*" & "*Having no limitation as limitation*" The arrows represent the endless interaction between yang and yin.^[1]

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

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

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

Template:Chinese name

The template should be removed, or alternatively, the policy on its use specified. See here: Template talk:Chinese name#Bruce Lee a Chinese name? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The template "the family name is Lee" needs to go.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Gun Powder Ma, please keep the dispute here nicely.

Almost every "Hong Konger" has a Chinese birth name as well as an English name (optional), and follows the Western convention of the surname being last in the English Wikipedia. But their surnames were Chinese, has a specific meaning and historical background. See Jackie Chan for example. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to signal the reader that the name coming first in Chinese is actually the family name. However, since "Bruce" comes first in "Bruce Lee" and his family name is where every reader expects him to be anyway, namely in second position, the template is as superfluous as a refrigator on the Mount Everest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

GunPowderMa is correct. The template really serves no purpose here, it would if the article was titled:"Lee Jun Fan", but as it follows the Western naming convention it is not needed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the surname came first or in the second position.

The purpose of the template is to guide the readers to learn about Lee's historical background and the specific meaning of the surname.

As I've mentioned above: "take a look at Jackie Chan and other Hong Kong actors".

They all follows the Western convention of the surname being last in the English Wikipedia, but they have all got a template. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, maybe I am misunderstanding something. Which template are we talking about? I see no such template in the same location on the Jacky Chan page?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Gun Powder Ma suddenly removed from Jackie Chan's article. (Check History).

I don't understand why he keeps on doing these unnecessary removals from the Chinese ancestral actor’s articles.

I insist that he/she is an "anti-Chinese" editor, and he should be blocked to prevent this racist behavior. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I see it now on both articles. I don't understand the need for it, either. Is it possible to place it lower down? It's bad enough people have to see the "arsonist warning" at the top. I find links like that tend to clutter up the page. If it must go at the top and can be mentioned no where else, my preference would be to remove it alltogether. Calling another editor "anti-Chinese" or racist is bordering on a personal attack. Let's try to work this out peacefully, please.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not personal attack, because he/she keeps on doing these kind of unreasonable removals, it's so annoying.

Nevertheless, the link was actually instructed Lee's historical background and the specific meaning of his surname, therefore, it is absolutely relevant to this article.

If it appeared in other Chinese surnames articles, as well as here long time ago, why suddenly remove it? Undefeatedcooler (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing can be frustrating, but we all must be mindful how we treat other editors. If the two of you keep going back and forth and edit war over this, we will never make any progress on this article. Comment on content, not on other contributors. His reasons for removal seem sound, as a compromise, can we put the information in the article as a link from the family name somewhere? I can agree with the need for such a link, but I do not feel the template in question is appropriate. This is based on discussions on that template's talk page regarding this article and others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you agreed with the need for such a link, but want to move the link to somewhere else in the article.

Please do so, rather than being removed by Gun Powder Ma. Thanks. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I put a link to it in the names section under Early Life. Please advise if this is acceptable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

^ Bishop 2004, p. 23

[1] Bishop 2004, p. 23

[1]