Talk:Jeet Kune Do: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:53, 17 January 2007

China B‑class Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Martial arts B‑class

	Martial arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jeet Kune Do article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

till December 21, 2006

References

Is there a way to cite references so they are not redundant yet will give specific page numbers? I understand the need for not repeating the same reference yet citing the specific page number seem to also be important for those wishing to verify. FrankWilliams 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out let me know but the usual practice it to site the publication alone - if someone has the source they should be able to find it. One possible way it to give a list of page ranges within the text.Peter Rehse 02:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; and thanks for your contributions. I have found that giving specific references and pages numbers eliminates if not "cuts down" on any potential disputes or contraversies; as long as the references are legitimate of course. FrankWilliams 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at how its done here Ernest Emerson.Peter Rehse 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate Instructors

Instructors listed in this article should should be:

A. Direct students of Bruce Lee (verifyable: IE Dan Inosanto, Larry Hartsell etc.)
B. Student promoted to instructors by A. above. (Also verifyable

As far as point B is concerned, to include Second Generation students is reaching quite a bit. There are tons and tons of second gen students and I can't fathom they are at all pertinent to the JKD article. If the inclusion is needed then maybe a secondary page should be set up for these student/teachers. It seems more like people are advertising than adding info to the article. - ShuckyDucky 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, I only included "B" above as there maybe some proteges out there that work closely with the 1st Gen Instructors and thus would carry on the mantel. Also, some like Larry Hartsell who worked with Lee but carried on with Inosanto so he's kind of a 1st/2nd Gen. 206.125.176.3 12:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hartsell learned directly from Lee, I would consider him first generation and don't see a problem mentioning him within context of the article. Carter Hargrave OTOH is someone I've never heard of. Did he learn directly from Lee? Does his name need to be mentioned in the article within context of the article? As far as I can tell Hargrave has a bunch of websites that claim he is the World Leader of JKD, whatever that means. If this is such a big deal I would just suggest a seperate section for lineage, and once it balloons(as it surely will) create a seperate page.ShuckyDucky 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Applicable JKD Instructors

This is a dispute about what instructors should be mentioned in the Jeet Kune Do article.18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Mr. Williams!!!!! You wanted attention with your libelous comments. You now have our attention. Please sir, send us your contact information to info@leejkd.com or you can post it here. We look forward to discussing your defamation at great length. WORLDJKD

Why is an article for a martal art need anything other than info about the martial art? Why is there a need for students/teachers beyond the original students of Lee even mentioned? And furthermore the students of Lee that are mentioned are in context of what/how they teach. I see no reason for non-origianl students to be mentioned.ShuckyDucky 04:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The reason that current instructors should be listed is that JKD is still alive and not just a history lesson. It is still taught just as Lee did, and those that lead it today should be listed. Personal attacks have no place here and only show inmaturity. JKD is not dead and those who are currently infulencing it have a legitimate place. I am not saying list everyone who ever was certified, just the leaders if you will..Bruceleeman

I agree with ShuckyDucky a martial arts article like Jeet Kune Do really doesn't need instructors mentioned above and beyond the original students of Lee; and doesn't seem to offer any advantages except promotion of those folks which is not the goal of Wiki articles. FrankWilliams 14:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Quotes

I think it is funny that that there are legitimate quotes from Bruce Lee stating that the name of "Jeet Kune Do" is not that important. At the same time, in this Wiki article, you have various groups fighting over what the exact name of "Bruce's new art" [sic] should be, which totally contradicts both Bruce's stated intent and JKD. 207.105.30.44

Glover

I am deleting Jesse Glover from the article as he has stated many times that he does not do JKD nor is he a proponent of JFJKD. If there is a disagreement with this I would suggest Googling his name and read any interview he has done, many people ask him about a comparison. If you really need to know I believe he simply calls his style Non-Classical Gung Fu. When he asked Lee if he could teach on his own, Lee said sure as long as he doesn't call it Jun Fan.ShuckyDucky 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This article has undergone edit warring so I am protecting it for a while. Please, discuss the changes on the talk page rather than in the article itself. --Tone 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should undergo editor warning. Editors posting libelous statements that have no place in JKD or on Wikipedia. A good lawsuit is what is needed I think. Anti constitutional editors. Stalin would be proud.Jeetman

I find it interesting that you make implied comments about editors not being democratic, and yet this is the first time you have posted to the discussion page. Perhaps a refresher course on Democracy or maybe even Teamwork might help clarify things for you. I think maybe the best article for you to read would be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. ShuckyDucky 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here here, So far I have seen Frank remove names that are not cited. A simple citation proving the said fact or not would take care of it. Till then the names should be removed till proven otherwise. Then if they are, with a grain of salt and a plate of crow Frank should allow them. Till then it should be discussed here. So far seems as if he is keeping the article concise and uncited things out. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?--Xiahou 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring continues. Therefore I have fully protected the article and I invite all interested to reach an agreement here. --Tone 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JKD Vandal

After doing reverse DNS lookups it appears a single user with the following alias's is continusously attempting to either support/promote certain instructors while there is a discussion going on. The users alias appear to be: Bruceleeman, Martiallaws, Jeetman, and 70.128.117.245 . This user has been warned many times and refuses to use standard Wiki mechanisms for proper discussions of context within articles. FrankWilliams 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: After looking back at the edits the user/users only contribution has been the attempted inclusion of certain instructors. It seems the only goal of this user/users is to promote such instructors without really contributing much of anything else. I seriously question the motivation behind this.

Legal Threats

The Wikimedia Foundation offices have been contacted about legal threats pertaining to the editing behavior of people on this page. Please work this out and concentrate on what is best for the encyclopedic nature of the article. Martial arts articles generally are highly controversial when it comes to the question of who is "legitimate" as an instructor of the discipline, and the issue of "truth" in credentials and the like is a distraction at best and a fertile ground for personal libel at worst. I implore all concerned to focus on the purpose of the article itself and not be cajoled into a fight over levels of proof for acceptable statements concerning instructors. This is an encyclopedia, not the martial arts yellow pages.--Brad Patrick 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the people who have threatened this course of action has not worked through legitimate wiki methodologies; namely discussions to have clear dialogue on what should included in articles. This process is easy to use unless they have no valid arguments or support in which case their only course of action is to just cry foul. There is nothing wrong with open free debate which has not occurred yet because of non participation. FrankWilliams 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 This is a dispute about what instructors should be mentioned in the [[Jeet Kune Do]] article.18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
+Congratulations Mr. Williams!!!!!
-*Only legitimate instructors should be mentioned being affiliated with known groups. As wiki edtors we have the responsibility to ensure accurate information. This is done through reseach and citing references. Adding someone like Carter Hargrave in the same league as Dan Inosanto and Larry Hartsell is outrageous. There is much documentation on both Mr. Inosanto and Mr. Hartsell both having studied directly under Bruce Lee. Mr. Hargrave's credentials on the other hand are seriously in question. Mr. Hargraves claims on the number of systems he has supposedly mastered for his age is nothing less then spellbounding. When adding information to articles the burden of proof should be on the person adding information. Wikipedia is NOT a Rumor Mill and non verifyable information or information nor correct should not be included.[[User:FrankWilliams|FrankWilliams]] 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
+You wanted attention with your libelous comments. You now have our attention. Please sir, send us your contact information to info@leejkd.com or you can post it here. We look forward to discussing your defamation at great length. [[User:WORLDJKD|WORLDJKD]]