Talk:Chuck Norris

Source: "Chuck Norris is plagiarizing his conservative columns"

• Chuck Norris is plagiarizing his conservative columns- The martial artist and unlikely right-wing celebrity seems to be borrowing paragraphs without attribution, salon.com, Apr 26, 2011.--87.178.115.98 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Internet Meme

Isn't Chuck Norris known as an internet meme? On the internet, he is fictionally claimed as the strongest person on earth. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest reading the entire article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Norris facts were NOT a bi product of vin diesel online facts!!!

Vin Diesel was omonoia not even an actor when Chuck Norris fact started circulating! I can remember atleast 12 years ago saying Chuck Norris facts with my brother and friends. Chuck Norris must just want us all to think that it started with Vin... Not sure why, I mean everyone knows that Chuck Norris created Vin Diesel in a lab... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.3.122 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

oogle quirk

As of today's date if you type "WHERE IS" into Google the first suggestion it gives you is CHUCK NORRIS. I wonder: does Norris have some deal with Google or is this another example of subtle wit by the search engine? SmokeyTheCat 11:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

film Expendables II

you list this upcoming film in filmography but don't mention it in film career para etc - expected to be hit as Exp I was ... etc reel bruce li, 19th dan wongduktoe 69.121.221.97 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

co u ps spk n com sen??! s hard ndst u.

Or: Could you please speak in complete sentences with complete words, instead of abbreviating everything? It's hard to understand you. If you are unable to manage complete sentences with complete words, you should consider seeking education and practice elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Product Endorsements

Let us not forget "Action Jeans" here! Chuck Norris Action Jeans — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs) 13:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Or his endorsement of WOW in their most recent tv spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.238.74 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Political views/proposition 8

The link to reference 42 is incorrect. This one is correct: http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy/page/full/

Also, the sentence below states that Norris chided the gay community in the above article: "On November 18, 2008, Norris became one of the first members of show business to express support for the California Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and he chided the gay community for "interfering" with the democratic process and the double standard he perceived in criticizing the LDS Church without criticizing African Americans, who had voted for the measure by a wide margin.[42]"

It is clear from Norris' article that he is NOT chiding the gay community whatsoever. He is chiding "protestors of Proposition 8 in California"/"the pro-gay community", in particular those people who threatened or physically harmed pro-Prop 8 people. Ahenobarbus (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• You're right, but we'd also be treading on OR if we inferred the difference. Instead, I've changed it to "activists", which shouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2012

It is occasionally cited that Norris made history in 1990 when he was the first Westerner in the documented history of Tae Kwon Do to be given the rank of 8th Degree Black Belt Grand Master. On July 1, 2000, Norris was presented the Golden Lifetime Achievement Award by the World Karate Union Hall of Fame.

Dwce (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Note: Presumably you are requesting that the intermittent sentence ("However, Norris appears to have been misled about this as there were at least two other U.S. Black Belts (Charles 'Chuck' Sereff and Edward Sell[13][14]) awarded TKD 8th Dan several years prior.") be removed because the citation links are dead? Mato (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I have updated the links with cached versions. Mato (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich endorsement

Politico tells that he is now endorsing Newt Gingrich.[1] Original column here.[2] This should probably be added. --89.27.8.236 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why should it be added? In the big picture of his life and career, how significant is it that he is supporting a candidate early in the primaries, long before he has become the party nominee (if he ever is)? This looks like WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Because the current version of the article says: "During the 2012 presidential election, Norris endorsed the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul" (that was in summer), and with the new endorsement that information is outdated. Why do you want to present outdated information? --89.27.8.236 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• IT doesn't any longer. That didn't belong there either for the same reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 20 January 2012

Under "Early life" the statement "Other children taunted him about his mixed ethnicity, and Norris daydreamed about beating up his tormentors." needs a corroborating outside source, or else should be preceded by "According to Norris". There is little to suggest from the information available that anyone would assume from his name or his physical appearance that he was of mixed ethnicity; from this entry the only evidence offered is "Norris has said that he has Irish and Cherokee Native American ancestry.[2][6]" On the other hand there is much to suggest from his conservative politics that he might try to use such a statement to deflect charges of racism in his views on minorities. G.jexter (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)g.jexterG.jexter (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you've never read his autobiography. Published before he ever became politically active, he said similar things in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point here: such statements need to be referenced. It could be external verification, e.g. "Childhood friends recount Norris being taunted about his mixed ethnicity,..." with a citation to material that a biographer may have discovered in interviews of old acquaintances of Norris. If the statement comes from Norris himself, then it should say "In his autobiography, Norris states that other children taunted him about his his mixed ethnicity,...", followed by a citation referencing either his earlier 1987 autobiography The Secret of Inner Strength; My Story or his later post 9/11 autobiography published in 2004, Against All Odds: My Story. At the very least, the unaltered statement in question should be followed by the appropriate citation. The point is to provide the most complete and accurate information possible. G.jexter (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Then if that is your point, why are you talking about "On the other hand there is much to suggest from his conservative politics that he might try to use such a statement to deflect charges of racism in his views on minorities"? That smells like purely your opinion and it is disproven by the fact that he was writing the same thing back in 1988. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion, formed in part because the statement wasn't sourced and which allowed me to use my imagination and think the worst. If I had initially read that this was a statement from his autobiography published in 1987 (not 1988), I'd like to think I would have formed a less cynical opinion. By supplying that information, you get a clearer and more complete picture of who Chuck Norris is. Do you get it now?

I thank you for telling me where the statement came from, but I'm still not sure why you seem to be against this; I never suggested adding my opinion to the Wiki page. G.jexter (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Now you want to quibble about dates? The hardcover was in Dec. 1987 while the paperback was in Feb 1989. Saying 1988 splits the difference. You muddied the waters with the statement I quoted (and the pointing out that his second book was "post 9/11", as if that mattered). Had you not put that (those) in there, you would have looked more objective and less agenda seeking. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I freely admit that I don't love Chuck Norris, but like many people his politics was affected by the the attacks of 9/11. I don't agree with some of the things he's said since he's been more vocal in expressing his opinions, but does that mean I'm trying to sabotage his Wikipedia entry? You've already changed my mind by informing me that he wrote this pre-9/11 yet you seem unwilling to share this fact with anyone else. I don't get it. Also too: go ahead and call it quibbling if you want, but if a book's first printing is in 1987, then you cite 1987. It doesn't matter that the paperback came out in 1989, or the comic book version came out in 1993, or the interpretive dance version debuted on Broadway in 1995 - THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN 1987. It's just a fact. You don't ever "split the difference." G.jexter (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it is quibbling. My first edition copy of the book has a 1988 copyright. And here is a picture of the page:[3] The 1988 copyright is a FACT. So go tell the publisher how it was 1987 and that they are wrong too. This isn't about "loving" Chuck Norris. This is about you coming up with some hypothesis on you own, trying to act like there was validity to it and then, when it is refuted, trying to divert the discussion. Had you read the book, you'd know that Norris talked about being picked on and different because he was one of the few that wasn't pure Indian in his school. He was different because he had light hair and light skin. I suspect you made the incorrect assumption that he was trying to claim some sort of "minority" status that he wasn't part of, without thinking that his "minority" was being "the white kid". That's in the first chapter......of the 1988 version. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36, that you're trying to correct G.jexter over him pointing out that the book was published in 1987 with the honestly ridiculous argument that it "splits the difference" before doing a 180 and claiming that the first edition was from 1988 makes me think you need to read WP:BITE and quit arguing just to argue. While you may disagree with his views, he is on point that we should attribute statements in this article. Those who want to question Norris will do so regardless, but those who accept his word will accept those statements more than outside biographers, and both groups will be able to make informed decisions on how to judge when we properly attribute.

Looking at the article, that section is not properly sourced. The paragraph in question lacks any citation after the first sentence. In other words, it is not supported by any source right now (if you decide to help, please be sure to include the page number, I'm seeing a lot of citations without page numbers, which is almost pointless), and I could argue that under WP:BLP, we should remove the statement.

Also, Amazon says the first edition was published in 1987, as does Goodreads, as does this newspaper. Per WP:V, if we have to give a date for the book, it's 1987. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have the first edition. I took a picture of the copyyright page of the first edition. Since I am the one who entered the book as a ref in the first place, I know which one was used. It was 1988. The copyright is 1988. That is fact. Period. I made the off handed split the difference comment while I was away from home. Once I got home and checked my copy, I affirmed that I had correctly entered 1988 (the copyright date for the FIRST EDITION) when I put the source in. I reverted your change. I am holding the book in my hand, can read and am using it as the source material for the entry. The publisher is a WP:RS for when they copyrighted their own book.

Your comment about needing to ad page numbers is just being dickish. Show me any book source that I've added that I did not include a page number. Anywhere on Wikipedia.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Niiteshift36, I'm not fighting with you! Listen to yourself: "Had you read the book, you'd know that Norris talked about being picked on and different because he was one of the few that wasn't pure Indian in his school. He was different because he had light hair and light skin. I suspect you made the incorrect assumption that he was trying to claim some sort of "minority" status that he wasn't part of, without thinking that his "minority" was being "the white kid". That's in the first chapter......of the 1988 version."

The point of Wikipedia is to assume I haven't read the book. You have the book in your hands. You're giving me a more complete picture of who Chuck Norris is. I believe you. You're right that I assumed he was being picked on for being Cherokee, not for being white. And I made those assumptions BECAUSE THE WIKI PAGE IS MISSING THOSE DETAILS! Say it's from the 1988 printing of the book if you think you need to make that distinction (and call me an asshole here if it makes you feel better), but please, just put those details in the wiki page and say where they came from! G.jexter (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• It came from the first edition which was copyrighted in 1988. That is it the first edition and that it was copyrighted in 1988 has been in the source citation for a long time. I posted the picture of it for you. At this point, you are either going to have to say that the publisher got it wrong or that I manipulated the photo. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to WQA. Also, you only provided page numbers for the birthday. Look at any other good article, written by competent editors, and you'll see that (in line with works which hope to have any respect from the academic community), new information is cited to the section of the book it comes from.

The entire paragraph in question lacks a citation after the first line, which is not the book in question but a newspaper article that does not support anything beyond the first sentence. Is that information really all covered in just page 6 of the book? That book is not being used to properly cite anything except for the birthday, and that's it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I only used the page number for the birthdate? Um, yeah........that's the only time I have added the book as a citation. If someone else used the book for something else and didn't add a page number, that isn't my problem. I added the book as a source for TWO uses, both being the birthdate. Don't blame other people's errors on me. If you have a diff showing my use of the book as a source and failing to use the page number, produce it. Otherwise, you can apologize. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• When you search by ISBN, Google books lists the book as 1988 [4], as does World Cat [5], Ottobib [6], Open Library [7] (which interstingly states clearly "first published in 1988). Since these are all tools provided by Wikipedia on the page about using book sources, I'd say it is safe to say that they have passed WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

fake last photo "Chuck Norris in Poland on September 16, 2007"

description in photo :Sobowtór Chucka Norrisa.JPG -> double of chuck noris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.15.38.122 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)