Jump to content

Talk:Jackie Chan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 132.170.163.105 (talk) at 16:15, 22 April 2008 (→Jackie Chan Adventures: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleJackie Chan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 14, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

||||action1oldid=139244196 |||||action2oldid=150977971 || |

}}

Religion or belief system

There does not appear to be any mention of his religion or belief system. Considering his martial arts background and his philanthropy I would be very interested to know where he stands on this. Could a mention be made?--ManInStone 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources can be found discussing his religion or beliefs, and they don't appear to be trivial to him, then that's a perfectly appropriate topic for a biographical encyclopedic article. --Lquilter (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, find reliable sources. Bruce Lee was high profile about his philosophy (or whatnot). But I've never seen Jackie Chan talk about it.--Alasdair 10:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra

According to Chan's own auto-biography, he did not emigrate to Canberra with his parents as a child. He was brought to the China Drama Academy just prior to his father leaving Hong Kong for work in Australia (who later brought his wife there, but not Jackie, as he was contractually obligated to stay at the school). It is only later, after he left the school and had trouble finding work as a stuntman, that he went there.

Don't want to start any edit wars, but if there's no objections to the above statement by late tomorrow, I'm going to edit it. --Dymero 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest we wait until the FAC has passed before we make any major adjustments. Consider quoting what he said for now?--Kylohk 05:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's better to have what's accurate in the article, rather than just a quote from the book, which I think might look rather clunky and awkward. The fix can be sourced, of course (I own the auto-biography). But, especially if the article is to be a FA, it should be fully accurate. --Dymero 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, but what did his book say? Quote the paragraph here (on the talk page), if possible, please.--Kylohk 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I quote from page 30 of "I Am Jackie Chan": "My father spent time explaining to me that he had to go on a trip and might be away for a long time." And from page 33: "Your father is going to work in Australia, across the ocean, so that someday we will be able to give you all the things you like." So there you go. He was in Hong Kong before he went to the academy. I'm scratching my head here, trying to figure out why someone wrote what's there now. The quotes are also backed up by his own website: [1] --Dymero 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very well, but one more thing, did he attend that particular primary school and failed first grade twice?--Kylohk 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title of it is Nan Hua Primary Academy (which was definitely not in Canberra) according to the book. As for your second inquiry, it seems his parents were told he'd have to repeat the first grade. They knew he'd just fail again, so they pulled him out. --Dymero 09:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found out where the bad info came from. Reference 6 in the referrences, the biographychannel.co.uk one. They're way off, there. Given that not only the book and his website, but nearly ever other source I've read in the references so far have it right, I got bold and changed it. I'll have to read more of the article and see if there is any other bad info. --Dymero 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Now that the article has reached featured status, I say it's time to try and get it on the main page. I think before the director will accept however, some things need to be done. Personally, the personal life section is rather lacking. I think it'll be hard to get information, as Chan is rather more private than a lot of celebrities when it comes to his personal life, but I think some things could be mentioned, such as his long-lasting relationship with Willie Chan. I'll see what I can do, but I think that with a little more improvement, it would be prime material for the main page! --Dymero 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may take some patience, but I think we should look for a date on April 7, his birthday. bibliomaniac15 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an interview with his son Jaycee Chan on his personal opinions about his family (Jackie Chan incl.) a while back on the Hong Kong Cable TV Entertainment Channel, I guess someone just has to tape it.--Alasdair 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another risk of putting it up to "Today's featured article". Today's featured article often falls victim to rampant vandalism. Remember Wii, anyone?--Alasdair 02:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a temporary risk. Besides, "Today's featured article" usually has a ton of people watching it for vandalism. bibliomaniac15 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that. Things like vandalism can be corrected quickly. I was also thinking that April 7th would be an appropriate day. Up to the FA director on that, though. --Dymero 02:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I always wished WP:MPFAP would be accepted by the community. Right now, it's disputed.--Alasdair 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we nominating the article for Today's Featured Article or not? It's not a bad time to do so seeing that Rush Hour 3 has just been released. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and nominate. I'd be watching the page if it goes up for vandalism! Haha!--Alasdair 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[2] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you beat me to it. I was working on a draft of it. Here's my version:

Jackie Chan SBS, (born April 7, 1954 in Victoria Peak, Hong Kong), also known as Sing Lung (simplified Chinese: 成龙; traditional Chinese: 成龍; pinyin: Chéng Lóng), born Chan Kong Sang (simplified Chinese: 陈港生; traditional Chinese: 陳港生; pinyin: Chén Gǎngshēng), is a Chinese actor, director, martial artist, film producer, screenwriter, singer and stunt performer. Chan started training in martial arts and acrobatics in 1960 at the Chinese Drama Academy, a Peking Opera School under the tutelage of Master Yu Jim Yuen. Chan started his movie career at the age of 17 as a stunt performer for Bruce Lee in the films Fist of Fury and Enter the Dragon. While visiting his parents in Canberra, he earned the nickname "Jackie" at a construction site where he worked.

Chan is one of the best-known names in kung fu and action films worldwide for his acrobatic fighting style, comic timing, use of improvised weapons and innovative stunts. He has appeared in over 100 films and has received stars on the Hong Kong Avenue of Stars and the Hollywood Walk of Fame. A Cantopop star, he has released 20 albums since 1984 and sung many of the theme songs for the films in which he has starred. (more...)

bibliomaniac15 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought I would do away with all the different names and Chinese characters in the first sentence as it seems a little cluttered for a quick summary of the article. Also, Chinese characters may not show up for on a lot of readers' browsers. Simplifying all that may make it easier for the article to get queued to be featured. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some of Bibliomaniac's draft into mine to expand it a little. See if it needs any copy-editing.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaks Korean (a little)

I got curious about this since I failed to notice anything about this in one of his English biographies.. But Jackie Chan lived in Korea for about two years, according to what he said when he visited Korea to promote New Police Story in January 2005. He used Korean a bit to talk to his fans, and even to sing.

He also used Korean in some of his answers at a press conference at the Pusan International Film Festival in October 2005.

I don't remember when, but I've seen him appear on Korean national television and speak in Korean, and his TV host was well aware that he had lived in Korea, which surprised me at the time.

The info above (except for the singing and the TV bit) can be sourced to more-or-less reliable sources (movie magazines on the web, internet tabloid run by respectable newspaper) if you can search in Korean and know what you're searching for.

Is it not known outside Korea? --Kjoonlee 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He probably speaks "a little bit" of a number of languages. He was always promoting his movies to the rest of Asia outside Hong Kong during the 80s and 90s. I wouldn't be surprised if he speaks a bit of Japanese, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first two albums of Jackie Chan are entirely in Japanese, so he definitely is very fluent in Japanese.--Alasdair 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. Not necessarily. He could have just learnt to sound out the Japanese. That's not unusual for actors and singers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I could have sworn one of the sources in this article state that Jackie Chan is fluent in at least one other Asian language besides Chinese.--Alasdair 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if he is or not. But just because he sang in Japanese, doesn't mean he's actually fluent in it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He can sing in Japanese, but he's far from a fluent speaker. He is however rather fluent in Korean and is able to hold conversations in it, thats a fact.

Flag icon

Why in the infobox there is a Hong Kong flag that was used from 1959 to 1997 although Jackie Chan was born in 1954? --Mika1h 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually against using any flag but the current flag of HK. It's there to indicate geography, not history. Or better yet, remove the flag entirely per WP:FLAGCRUFT. It's not really that useful. If there're no objections, I'd like to remove it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just remove it. Clearly is not valuable to the article, the details of the flag are barely visible (on a reasonable screen resolution) to indicate the exact era of Hong Kong in which he was born. Luke! 18:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son

do we need to add his illegitimate daughter in the personal info section? I remember it was a pretty big news and sorta raised an uproar when he tried to free himself by saying that he made a "mistake made by every man in the world". Blueshirts 03:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's a son. And second, despite controversy, the field is meant to indicate if he has any or not. Luke! 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an illegitimate daughter, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I thought we were talking about Jaycee Chan. I guess we are talking about someone I don't know about. Luke! 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was a huge news in the chinese language media. Also, wtf is this? Has anyone heard about it? Blueshirts 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article (Hua Fei Man Cheng Chun) doesn't have any references, and has been tagged as lacking references since April. Prime candidate for AfD, I would think. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English sources on his daughter is hard to find. The personal life section can get some expansion from this info though. The porn/comedy movie is apparently real, called 花飛滿城春. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About his illegitimate daughter - normally information like this, I would personally disregard as celebrity gossip. I mean, if we are to include info from celebrity gossip sources, this article would be about 10 times larger. But Jackie has actually acknowledged the girl to be his daughter, so maybe it's something that deserves mention. Does Chinese WP have a source for this? Even if it's a Chinese source, I think it's fine. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the daughter require mention right up in the infobox? Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been acknowledged by Chan himself and there are multiple reliable sources to support his acknowledgement (English and/or Chinese) then I don't see why not. Luke! 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Time is a reliable source.--Alasdair 00:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the style the article was written, times also have the tendency to dabble into sensationalism. I wouldnt call what they written factual, though i am not denying that the daughter could be his, there was never any test or anything carried out to prove it, in fact, Elaine Ng refused to bring the subject any further, and on another pov it could be a ruse caused to bring personal gain to some other party, so it's certainly a subject that should be ommited as it borders on gossip.--DaliusButkus 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On another thought, this subject matter has once been included in the trivia section along with other allegations or rumors, that has since been removed, and we are moving towards improving this actical with absolute facts, so lets keep moving in this direction.--DaliusButkus 07:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's not a rumor or allegation. He admitted this in a press conference some years ago and said he was sorry (extramarital affair is still a big deal in chinese society). In the same conference he also said "I made the mistake that every man in the world would make"(我犯了全天下男人都會犯的錯), which drew a lot of ire from the public. I guess it's not covered as much in western media. Blueshirts 07:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HE did say that maybe, till someone post a transcript of that, then okay, otherwise, it was never proven that child was his, and till someone post the paternity test result then alright, till then keep searching, and if you cant find it then dont post it, contested point should be left out and if there's no proper sources backing it up, it stays a rumor. End of story.--DaliusButkus 08:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that even if you could get the transcript of that interview, it should be said that, he seems to imply.... rather then he admitted. --DaliusButkus 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it seems an edit war is brewing. You may risk violating the three revert rule if this goes on. --Alasdair 09:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • it wont be me since i wasnt the one to change the content by putting in rumors, i thought this article was suppose to have a tight control, so how come allegations without proper citations is allowed to remain?--DaliusButkus 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not feel TIME is a reliable reference, what do you think would be a better alternative? As for Chinese language sources, I haven't tried to find any, but I have a feeling that they'd mostly come from celebrity gossip columns that are really not as reliable as TIME. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, whatever Times has mentioned is nothing new from any of those *other articles i have read already, secondly, there was never any mention or confirmation apart from speculations that jackie chan fathered elaine ng's child. So as far as the truthful way to phrase it would be "it is rumored that jackie chan COULD BE the father of so and so" pertaining this information that has never actually been confirmed, and even so this should be excluded from the article, because it is considered unencyclopedic. I mean seriously would you mention Abraham Lincoln being possibly gay in an encycopedia, when it was never proven he was? This is a site where people come to learn and study about a person or an object or whatever, not other nook and crannies that belong anywhere else but here.--DaliusButkus 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let me just state that I personally don't care either way, whether or not we include that he has a daughter with Elaine Ng. However, if we are to include such information, I would prefer that we don't word it like it was a rumour, that he may or may not be the father, because we would be starting to go into celebrity gossip territory with that kind of content. Having said that, let me ask again, if you do not think that TIME is a reliable source, what kind of sources do you think is reliable for this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
成龍爆酒醉遭吳綺莉陷害 This article quotes Chan "我真的不曉得我要怎麼對這個女兒" (I really dont know how to deal with this daughter) To me he was basically "admitting silently" (默認) that he has a daughter. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dalius, can you type Chinese? If you type "Jackie Chan" and "illegitimate daughter" in Chinese into any search engine you'll find lots and lots of reports. He admitted this in a press conference (in Chinese) and then accused every man in the world of doing the same thing. I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about and I particularly don't like the way you treat this fact as an unencyclopedic allegation. Blueshirts 17:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that particular linked report is written by a reliable source, when I checked the company's webpage. The scandal regarding his daughter was well known those years ago in Hong Kong. Time is definitely a reliable source, since it has a long history of accurate and subjective reporting. (Don't know about any pro-US bias, though)--Alasdair 00:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again if we are to say it WAS his daughter, anything short of a paternity test or a public admission is equals to null. TIMES is known to be written in a tabloid form, how else do you expect it to attract readers? Sources that speculate on what may be, as what was written in that article, and all the article that i previously seen are as said treated as maybes. So nothing short of a paternity test result or conclusive evidence is admissible.DaliusButkus 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also as you have said, it's a scandal, then it should not be written as a fact. I for one do not feel it's alright to include scandals in the content, since they aren't enough of it to come around here, but tthat's not for me to decide. I will however contest any *allegations made without proper evidence, as i had said above.DaliusButkus 00:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that particular report was written by Sing Tao, a credible newspaper in Hong Kong. I'll translate the first paragraph for you: "International superstar Jackie Chan unexpectedly talked about the daughter he conceived with the former Miss Asia. Jackie Chan doesn't know how to express his paternal love for her. He states her pregnancy was instigated by the former, and he could not nothing but apologize to that four year old. Chan states that the incident taught him to love himself more, and realise the importance of his wife Lin Feng-Jiao."--Alasdair 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how bout we post a pic of her daughter as well, and submit it as prove, since scientific evidence is inconsequential to you guys, i just dont go by hearsay, it may be his daughter, but in actual fact was never proven, so there post a pic of his alledge daughter, nothing short of a jackie chan lookalike with wig on will do.DaliusButkus 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said ET is a creditable source should go back and read up their facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs) 02:40, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Oh i thought you meant E entertainment, well this taiwanese version of ET is definitely a very bad source, that goes with any sources from Sina or however you name those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs) 02:45, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Under the reliable sources policy of Wikipedia, Time Magazine is considered one of them. Also, any newspaper that is considered credible are considered. It's not a matter of whether you have to perform a scientic test to prove it. If Jackie Chan has admitted it, it could be taken that it did happen.--Alasdair 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the point, the point is it is rumored to be his daughter but hasnt actually been proven, thats the point. No credible sources has actually confirmed that it is his daughter, thats the point i am trying to get across.DaliusButkus 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i know what you are saying. Even if Jackie Chan believes that she's his daughter, no evidence is made publicly to prove it. But the contested sentence only points out that he acknowledges the paternity, and it is reflected by sources. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. He admitted it, especially in a press conference, and also said he made a mistake. What more proof do you want? It's not our place to decide whether a paternity test is required for this or whether the woman had a fling with some other dude(s) so the daughter may or may not be his even though he had acknowledged her already. Jackie Chan is not god and he makes mistakes (he said so himself). BTW, Sina and ET Today are reputable sources. They're not like 壹周刊 (yi zhou kan), which are tabloids. Blueshirts 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it, so i will make it simple for you, he admitted he had an affair yes, but he never said he had a daughter, thats a whole new issue.DaliusButkus 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who doesn't get it. Read the link provided by Ian, as it can't be any clearer. I have to ask this: do you read Chinese? Or are you just a kung-fu fan who idolizes Jackie Chan?Blueshirts 04:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am neutral as to whether or not we include information about his daughter - but come now, I don't think there was ever a paternity test for Jaycee Chan either. Should we remove that? There's also no paternity test for who Jackie's father is, should we remove that also? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again it's hard to argue with points that is self evident, Jaycee Chan has always been recognized as jackie's son hence the Chan sirname. I have never heard of an elaine chan, and till that is brought up then it isnt a certainty, and whatever that isnt a certainty should never be included. P.s: Dont even bring up the issue about my affliation with Chan, for your info i am neither, because if you go that way it would be perosnal, and i could throw out ridiculous comments like are you a chan hater, because ur from taiwan, which is natural for every taiwanese to hate chan? Gimme a break.DaliusButkus 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just because you haven't heard of it in your part of the world doesn't mean it's not a big news or verifiable fact. You think he would go on Jay Leno and talk about this and then issue an apology? I think not. And yes, lots of Taiwanese people dislikes Chan now because apparently he disapproves Taiwanese democracy and likes communism, even though I agree with him that the 3-19 shooting incident was a complete joke. Bet you didn't know Chan made that remark now did ya? Blueshirts 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to neither do i want to know whatever remarks he made about Taiwan, thats for you and your own emotional turmoil to sort out, but not to vent it on a publicly access page like wiki.DaliusButkus 06:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will not heard of "elaine chan" because this name is not mentioned in any sources related to this issue. Jaycee as Chan's son is undisputed because RS states specifically so, not because he "has always been recognized as jackie's son." And now there are also RS stating that he admits being the father of Elaine Wu's daughter, and thus the info ive added is only saying that Chan admits being the father of Elaine Wu's daughter. It doesnt claim anything else beyond that. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaliusButkus - It's basically common knowledge in Hong Kong that Jackie has an illegitimate daughter, and it's probably common knowledge to people who pay attention to Chinese celebrity news. There's no policy in WP that says we need scientific proof for every fact, only that information is backed up by reliable sources, meaning that we can trust that reliable sources are telling the truth. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing with someone who has a political agenda against Chan, the obvious reason that no one have even tried to refute is that, there wasnt any obvious prove that chan had a daughter, could be that daughter belongs to another man, there's so many reasoning into this and no one try to answer my reasoning but instead come back with the same old excuses on why it is valid. I think Blueshirts political agenda rule him out of this debate as what i have been suspecting for sometime since he brought this issue up.DaliusButkus 06:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing to refute though - as long as a piece of information comes from a reliable source, then it is acceptable to insert that information into an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if a political newspaper wrote about showbiz gossips, you take that as a reliable source? What we need are primary sources, and till then we should not conclude that chan had a daughter.DaliusButkus 06:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality, Wikipedia recommends the usage of reliable published secondary sources to cite things, not primary ones. (Sorry about the previous statement, didn't know the guideline's been changed.) As long as the newspaper is of repute and it provides easy grounds for fact checking, it is accepted. (See WP:NOR for details)--Alasdair 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but every sources must be backed up with a transcript of some sort, there was never any creditable sources confirming that he had a daughter, only asumptions, and if you read into it all they are asuming that he had a daugther.DaliusButkus 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the credibility of the source depends on the identity of the publisher. Time and Singtao are considered reliable due to their reputation over the years, as a result, they are reliable sources and what they say can be used, and sources don't require back up themselves on wikipedia, it's a matter of trust in them. Also, by personally admitting it himself in one of the interviews, it confirms he does have an illegitimate daughter.--Alasdair 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did he ever directly admitted that he had, or was it just in the heat of the moment i wonder? Either way he have never publicly admiited that he had a daughter, but perhaps admitted that out of guilt that he did had an affair with miss Elaine. DaliusButkus 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you read a source, you should not speculate the motivations of the people mentioned in the incident. Focus on what he did, rather what he was thinking at the moment.--Alasdair 06:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again it still sin't absolutely clear that he had a daughter, thats the point that i am bringing up and everyone is avoiding deebating.DaliusButkus 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that he had a daughter, because it's back up by reliable sources. If the sources are reliable, then he really does have one. This is why we are discussing whether the sources are reliable. If they are reliable, they confirm what has happened.--Alasdair 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of you refusing to acknowledge the fact that various secondary sources have stated that he has a daughter rather than us avoiding debating. In one of the sources posted he even said that he felt tricked by the woman into having the daughter and now he doesn't know how to be a father to her. I mean, what kind of proof do you want? Who are we to refute reputable sources and then demand a primary transcript or paternity tests? Especially when he admitted this in a press conference. Blueshirts 07:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it plausible that elaine ng would happened to deny a paternity test when she got the chance to do so? We need to look at both side of the story, and for the very reason that you had previosly implied that you had a political agenda to include this information, do you want be to assume politics have something to do with it, or you are just adding what you believe to be valuable information? In the same context that's how people choose to interpret or misinterpret what Jackie said in the first place. Bottomline is it has never been confirmed whether elaine Ng's daughter belongs to him.DaliusButkus 08:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says verifiability, not truth. Maybe there hasn't been a paternity test, but we don't have to mention that (mentioning that would be original research). I am new to this debate but I think it's best we simply copyedit a quote from Time (a reliable source) and leave it at that. And I am assuming this means that we mention that Jackie Chan admitted at a press conference that he may (?) have an illegitimate daughter. We don't have to interpret anything (which, again, would be original research) - just mention. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Wikipedia focuses on the way things can be verified. If it can be verified by a reliable source, it can be added into the content, even though you don't believe it. Although it is a scandal, it does not violate the policy of living persons, since it's recorded by reliable sources, and so is publicly known. Including it in the article would not cause harm to his career.--Alasdair 13:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the above thread I don't see any actual citation to TIME magazine regarding Chan's illegitimate daughter. Various people above refer to a news conference where Jackie Chan discussed the matter, and they say this was reported in the Chinese media. Does anyone know if this was reported anywhere in English? EdJohnston 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is this: [4] There is a paragraph that states he "acknowledged the paternity of an illegitimate daughter", it's a little past the paragraph about his exploits in the 1980s. Cheers.--Alasdair 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time is a reliable source, but their report is very cautiously worded. If we were to use that in the article, we would need to copy their cautious wording (or perhaps directly quote what they said):

He has been linked to everyone from the late Taiwanese singer Teresa Tang to sultry pop star and actress Anita Mui. In a 1999 scandal, he all but acknowledged paternity of a daughter by actress Elaine Ng; the press dubbed the child Little Dragon Girl.

Note that it doesn't say acknowledged, it says all but acknowledged. If we include this, and have to speak so carefully, it may seem that we were including rumors in the article. Is there any reason to believe this illegitimate daughter is important to his notabililty, or needs explaining to make a proper story of his life? Otherwise our inclination to not use rumors might tend to exclude it. EdJohnston 15:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fans desert Jackie Chan Although the article reads like gossip news, the article does read:

He is thought to have been sidelined this time - despite his long-standing popularity with film audiences - because he recently confessed to having fathered an illegitimate child. He admitted to having been unfaithful to his wife with former Miss Asia, Elaine Ng - who later bore him a daughter.

Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems the policy on BLPs is being disputed again. Let's consider not including that part until that dispute is settled.--Alasdair 00:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the second quotation, the one from the BBC, makes explicit that he fathered an illegitimate child. This makes it citable as a fact. On this basis it might be briefly included in the article. The claim made in the BBC article that it was causing him to fall in the popularity ratings, though, seems to be just speculation. EdJohnston 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jackie Chan's reputation in Hong Kong isn't tarnished, in fact, he's still seen as a very important figure of the Hong Kong entertainment industry (with TVB and other media calling him "Big Brother"), so that scandal has minimal effect on him. So, the assertion that he lost fans probably was an exaggeration.--Alasdair 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point in case, these articles always contain parts that are exaggerated, so it's a possibility that it was written according to rumors.DaliusButkus 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The source from Time Magazine may be exaggerating" is not a valid reason for excluding a referenced statement in the article, since the guideline on verifiability states that Wikipedia is "about verifiability, not truth". In fact, the article being from Time is already enough for it to be reliable.--Alasdair 00:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

I notice that the sentence has been removed again (by User:DaliusButkus). I would simply like to stress the following:
  • We do not have to explicitly say Jackie Chan had an illegitimate daughter. We simply say that he "all but acknoledged paternity of a daughter by actress Elaine Ng" - as the source says (TIME Asia, [5]).
  • Whether this child is Jackie Chan's or not is irrelevant. You said it yourself - you need a paternity test to prove it - and since there is none, we cannot say that it is definitely his, especially as, looking at this, she never said so. That said, this does not mean it "disproves" the point above. He said so in an interview - whether you take his word for it or not is up to the reader to decide. Making up their minds would be original research.
  • If TIME prints falsehoods, Wikipedia can still cite them (verifiability, not truth). Of course, if TIME can be contradicted, then we can contrast in the article, but even better if we can find a reliable source regarding TIME's "falsehoods".
I don't see how the sentence is misleading. I copyedited it to almost fit the quote exactly. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the end, do we include it or exclude it?--Alasdair 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will input a more cautious explaination in the article, check it out.--DaliusButkus 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, we are having a compromise. Good job, let's shake hands and move on.--Alasdair 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to spoil this love-in but it isn't good as it stands. The legitimacy or otherwise of a child is not something that people can agree or acknowledge arbitrarily - it is something that is set by law. If, as is suggested, Jackie Chan had a daughter by someone to whom he was not married then by definition that child is illegitimate. He might perhaps have acknowledged parentage.Paul Christensen 07:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I prefer "presence", which is closer to the source ("acknowledged paternity"). x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've looked at the source and it says "all but acknowledged". This is quite different from "acknowledged" (it implies that he used a form of words which might lead a reasonable person to believe that he was the father, but did not say so explicitly; "acknowledged" would be saying so explicitly) and I have edited the article to reflect that. I have also introduced the word "corroboration" which I feel may well be the word we have been looking for regarding other sources! (or at least the lack thereof). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christensen (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Scenes

Alasdair, why do you regard the addition of "or do sex scenes" as vandalism? It seems to me that this is equally as valid or notable as not using the word "fuck". In fact he would probably get a huge amount more money for a sex scene than for saying "fuck", and most actors/actresses do at some point succumb to the "temptation" to do them. Unless of course you are saying that the assertion is not true? Paul Christensen 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think not doing sex scenes is something that is unique to Chan, as many actors these days opt not to do any sex scenes. In fact, the term "sex scenes" may be easily misunderstood as "pornographic scenes", so I left that out. Of course, there may be a chance that he's referring to love scenes.--Alasdair 07:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All in the family

By the way, the film article mentioned earlier by users Blushirts and Hong Qi Gong - Hua Fei Man Cheng Chun - is the same film as was already discussed on this talk page - "All in the Family" (see Talk:Jackie Chan#Jackie Chan admits acting in porn movie). The plot synopsis on iMDB says "A family gathers to be with its dying father. The reunion brings to the surface old rivalries". I'll make a quick edit to the article in question to this effect, whether it will be AFD'd or not. Gram123 11:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Is it worth alternating or changing the positioning of some of the pics? The first image is on the left but all subsequent images are on the right. For balance, it may look better if we move one or more of the other images to the left too. Gram123 11:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gram i do not believe so, because i tried that already, and it's not uncommon for introductory pictures to be different, but do experiment with it and decide for yourself which is better.DaliusButkus 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason is a technical one. In fact, in many articles, the infobox tend to "seep" into the first chapter. If that happens, any image that aligns to the right there would be forced beneath the infobox. Any text that are supposed to be "level" with the image will be forced down as well, creating a large white space. Hence the first image is to the left to prevent the image from distorting the looks of the article.--Alasdair 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood about the first image, thanks Alasdair. When working on another featured article (Ran (film)), someone alternated the images, and I thought it looked ok, more balanced. So I've taken DaliusButkus' suggestion to "experiment" and alternated the JC pics here. Take a look, and see what y'all think. Gram123 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


After the stirling work done on this article, I wondered if anyone might be interested in improving some other Jackie Chan-related articles, help with the following articles would be appreciated:

Plus most of the Jackie Chan films need expanding, particularly those released prior to Shanghai Noon (i.e. most of them). I've tried to ensure there are articles with infoboxes etc on them all, but some are still stubs or need references, plots and various other bits of info.

To expand things even further, the Golden Harvest article could do with some input, and I think more of the key people from this industry need articles. I've worked on a couple of articles like Rosamund Kwan, Richard Ng and even Bey Logan. But people like Ng See-Yuen, Leonard Ho, James Tien, Fung Hark-on / Fung Hak-on, Willie Chan, Dean Shek, Dick Wei, Mang Hoi, Blacky Ko (aka Philip Ko), Sibelle Hu etc etc have no articles, yet are relatively well known in HK films.

Whatever you can muster. Cheers. Gram123 17:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put links in place for the above selection of HK film industry personnel. I figured I'd make a start on creating these articles, and add more later. I'm only going to do stubs at first, but figured if the articles exist, people may be more inclined to edit them. Gram123 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan's Personal Life

There has been some debate going on about whether information about Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter should be included in the personal life section. That statement has been mentioned by Time magazine and other Hong Kong newspapers. So, let's try to discuss whether it should be included, and how it should be presented.

This incident affects Jackie Chan in long term and has been widely being covered by media. If this important section is left out, the article would be in a big bias. — HenryLi (Talk) 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Photo says "Jackie Chan plays an anti-hero for the first time in Rob-B-Hood". This is wrong. Jackie was lead bad guy in the Police Woman (aka Rumble in Hong Kong) too. He was a thief in this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.133.144 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The film was released in 1974, before he ever got a starring role, and hence are not counted in his list of lead roles. Also, Jackie Chan, and the press himself seemed to have discounted that film, so it should not have counted in his filmography.--Alasdair 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Anti-hero" means something completely different to "bad guy". You don't want the bad guy to win. So it is not a mistake.
2) Regardless of the fact that Chan or anyone else "discounted" Police Woman, it should remain in the Jackie Chan filmography list, albeit with a proviso, because he was actually in the film. Gram123 10:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "copyright activists" category from this article. The only mention in the article of copyright is that he appeared in a PSA against "copyright piracy". (1) Appearance in a single PSA is not really "activism"; it's more endorsement of a cause. Moreover, appearance in PSAs might be out of sympathy with the cause, but it's not always -- it might be for hire, by court order, or simply a public relations issue. So "appearance in PSAs" is not a good general criteria for the Category:Activists tree. (2) A category is appropriate if it is a defining attribute per categorization policy. For example: When people think of Chan, do they think "copyright activist"? Or when people think of copyright activists, do they think "Jackie Chan"? If so then that would be defining. Activists are typically defined by full-time or significant work organizing or advocating (as private citizens, not as part of the government) a cause. To my knowledge this is not Jackie Chan, but if anybody has any suggestion to the contrary, please post and we can consider whether the category really does belong. (I note that any category has to have proper sourcing in the article -- so it has to be at least noteworthy enough to be in the article, and a category, like I already said, needs to be a defining attribute -- so it really shouldn't be a mere passing mention in a long article, but would merit a significant chunk of the article.) --Lquilter (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should serve as an outline of the entire article. It looks pretty generalized, and definitely needs more details. Please summarize the entire article into 2-3 paragraphs. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan and the Bears

When Chan was in Berlin, Germany filming "Around the World in 80 Days", he discovered the United Buddy Bears. At the time, there were Buddy Bears all over the city of Berlin. Jackie became curious about the colorful bears and did a little research. He found out that the bears were the brainchild of Berlin residents Klaus and Eva Herlitz. He learned that they were meant to carry an important message - a message that he too had been working hard to deliver: we must live together in harmony and peace. He also found out that the Buddy Bears raised money for charity. Chan became hooked on the Buddy Bears and so he got involved in bringing the United Circle of Buddy Bears to Hong Kong in 2004.

See: http://www.jackiechankids.com/files/Buddy_Bears.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.17.99 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds abit trivial to me, though i am not against it as long as it's sourced, but it does not warrant a section of it's own. --DaliusButkus (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I worked together with Jackie Chan on diverse film locations, I can fully confirm the statements. I advocate that the text should be taken over as it is. Mark W. JENNER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.238.41 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan e os ursos de Berlim: Put it in! I think it's okay! -- Tamboli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.10.131 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletion

Template:Jackie Chan films has been nominated for deletion. Please have your say over here before this Wednesday (I think). Esn (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuen Lo

In the article, it says: "Chan trained rigorously for the next decade, excelling in martial arts and acrobatics. He eventually joined the Seven Little Fortunes, a performance group made up of the school's best students, gaining the stage name Yuen Lo in homage to his master."

This probably needs rewording because: 1) It makes it sound like he was only given the name Yuen Lo once he became a member of the 7 Little Fortunes - I was always under the impression that all students gained their "Yuen" name upon joining the opera school. 2) It also sounds as though he was at the opera school for 10 years before becoming a member of the Fortunes, which I'm sure isn't true. Gram123 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Sections Needed?

Im not entirely sure if we need these two sections, Personal Life and Business Ventures. One reason because they are so small and hardy explain as of Jackie's personal life or all his business ventures. I think this info should either be integrated into the biog or made a lot bigger. What do u guys think? Nathan (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mislinking

The link to source #44 accidentally sends you to #34. 68.7.66.85 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan Adventures

Jackie Chan did NOT voice himself in Jackie Chan Adventures. James Sie performed the voice acting for the animated Jackie Chan. Jackie himself only appeared in the "Hey Jackie!" segments afterwards.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jackie_Chan&oldid=207386244"