Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Norris

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.48.221.23 (talk) at 04:24, 2 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

He's not just an actor, and a martial artist, he's also a USAF veteran and that should be clearly noted at the top of the page. That is in some ways more important than his acting or martial arts.


USMC

chuck noris was NEVER in the USMC. This information is incorrect as are a few other"marines" on your list.

Images

The picture was too weak, as a childhood Chuck Norris fan I had to change it - this "Invasion USA" was a great mindless comedy from 80s. :) --Tigry 05:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess, there's enough space to include two images, so I re-added the original photo and moved the movie poster to the filmography section. --fschoenm 22:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Band

There is also a punk/thrash band called chuck norris based in Vancouver Canada.. They have a s/t 7" put out by distorted riffs in vancouver

References?

I love Mr. Norris as much as the next guy, but this article is in need of some references. Did he really teach martial arts to Bob Barker? Bburton

Bruce Lee humiliating Chuck Norris

I wonder if this story is true? Here's what I've found at imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000045/board/nest/24415793 --RockyMM 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The story is true. If anyone wants a source, go pay a visit to Dan Inosanto, Chuck Norris wrote an apologetic letter to Bruce Lee and the original letter is currently in the care of Lee's student, Dan Inosanto.
Please see the section below, dated 19 December 2005, for further discussion. Shawnc 04:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following story is Completely True:

At a demonstration in Long Beach, Norris met the soon to be famous Bruce Lee, who would ingrain Norris in martial arts history forever with his portrayal as Bruce Lee's nemesis in the Way of the Dragon. [1] But while the two were publicly friendly, contrary to what many (including Norris himself) state, they were not close friends. Lee had repeatedly humiliated Norris during a mock sparring session in the hotel hallway at the Long Beach International Karate Championships in 1964. And Norris had offended Lee when he publicly claimed to be a better fighter than Lee. When word got back to Lee, he called Norris and openly challenged him, threatening to drive to his school to fight (Norris was teaching his black belt class at that time). According to eye witnesses, Lee made Norris hold the phone receiver up and shout in front of his black belts, "Bruce Lee is a better fighter than me!" Later, Norris wrote an Apologetic Letter to Lee; the original letter is currently in the care of Lee's student, Dan Inosanto. Dan Inosanto currently still owns the Letter of Apology that Chuck Norris wrote to Bruce Lee, which is in a Long Beach Dojo. Yet despite these conflicts, the two managed to set aside any differences in pursuit of their mutual film aspirations and develop a friendly public persona toward one another. [2]

If you proof that the story is true, then read ALL These SITES: Sources:

4 of those websites mirror this entry -- so, no, you can't photocopy a story and verify the details with the duplication. The fifth link, a forum post, is intended as a joke: "Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried." The last link doesn't say anything about the outlandish story you defend. I suspect you are only carrying out this revert war to disrupt Wikipedia. Get lost then. Lotsofissues 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources for the Lee/Norris info are NOT a mirror of this article:

Replied in a section below. Shawnc 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be added that Chuck Norris was a student of Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do (Way of the Intercepting Fist) with Bruce Lee as the instructor.

plagiarism?

Could someone please explain to me why the info on http://www.cinema-resources.com/Chuck_Norris--2.html looks exactly like the bibliography on wikipedia? Is it a mirror? --Janto 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Vulturell 06:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Vulturell! --Janto 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

I can tell that I am going to have to revert a lot of people putting stuff from the Chuck Norris Random Fact generator into this article. If you're one of the people doing this, please don't.  :-) Alhutch 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, been going on for a while now.... hopefully it dies down, until then, its watchlist time. -Lanoitarus 20:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful Sidar 05:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
very doubtful.--Alhutch 05:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dont take away my hope, its all I have left =) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hope springs eternal!--Alhutch 06:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why don't we put a link to the Chuck Norris Random Fact generator under external links? It seems that Chuck Norris has most recently become much more famous because of the hilarity of those facts and it seems wrong to ignore the impact that this internet meme has. At the very least, it's existence should be mentioned in a biography of Chuck Norris. Kevin143 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Kevin143[reply]

I completely agree - in fact, a few days ago I expanded a stubby reference to the page to say:
Chuck Norris is the subject of a satirical random fact generator on the internet, which features comments contributed by readers. The "facts" provided therein tend towards absurdly exaggerated claims of Norris' toughness, attitude, and virility.
This was deleted, and I didn't argue it at the time, but since then a fellow attorney (quite out of the blue) sent me the link, which I take as a sign that it's getting around. BDAbramson T 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris acknowledges the facts and thinks they're funny himself. He acknowledges it on his personal website as well as on the Tony Danza show a couple of days ago. Here is a video: http://www.youtube.com/?v=QP1PuB1R-Xw

George Bush's Favorite Actor?

Is there any source for claiming Bush said chuck norris was his favorite actor? It sounds like a joke to me... TastyCakes 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that mentioned other places....but I can't provide a source.--Alhutch 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't provide a source either, however I have heard it multiple times in the past, so even if it is unfounded, i wouldnt call it vandalism. -Lanoitarus 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is also mentioned in the George W. Bush article.--Alhutch 06:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if we cite George W. Bush here and cite this there, we have our citations all taken care of! =D -Lanoitarus t .:. 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you're so resourceful!! :-)Alhutch 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
is that a joke about circular refferences or are you guys for real?
Circular references are a very important academic tools. I don't think anyone would joke about such things. TastyCakes 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing films

Quite a few films are missing, and need adding when this page is unprotected.

Citing Resources

Does anyone know of legitimate resources (books, autobiographies, etc) for these facts? The page should have refrences.

NOEDITSECTION added

Hall Monitor, I noticed that you added the NOEDITSECTION. I understand this supposedly helps deal with vandals, but I know it also makes it a bit harder for legitimate users to edit the article, especially those of us using Firefox, which cannot search in text boxes. Do you think the level of vandalism is really so bad as to require this extreme measure? --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to tell. Let's give it a chance for a week and see if it makes any difference. If you wish to be able to search within text boxes using Firefox, please refer to Wikipedia:Tools/Browser_Integration#Search_within_Textarea_Extension. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know much as I'm sure there'll be huge advances in what we know about Chuck Norris in the next few months, can't we just lock the article for a significant length of time until he melts back into obscurity again? This constant reverting is getting stupid. They should have a setting on Wikipedia to lock individual articles against anonymous contributors but not registered people... Or do they have one already I just don't know about? It'd be cool if there could be a setting to stop anonymous posters and registered posters with less than a certain number of edits on certain heavily vandalised pages. TastyCakes 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris is never going to melt into obscurity! And what recent events do you contend have made him such a popular target amongst vandals? As for your second question, please see Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 01:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well there has been a "chuck norris facts" email that is making the rounds, that's where they all come from that I've seen. I received the email last week. It originates here. Of course Conan O'Brian is doing his part too and that probably won't stop for a while... TastyCakes 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia vandalism - Chuck Norris wouldnt let that happen.

Positive contributions

Out of the last 250 edits to this article, how many of them were not vandalism or reverting vandalism? Hall Monitor 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the only non vandalism related edit that i can see in the last 100 is a bot adding links to other language wikipedias.--Alhutch 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say if something were mentioned in the article about the cult-like following these "facts" have and put a link to them people might stop messing with it here. Maybe it won't be so cool when everyone can see it's copied from a site made by people funnier than them. But it might just encourage them. TastyCakes 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard enough citation of the Fact Generator online and in everyday life that I was surprised to find no mention of it here; I actually read the article to see what Wikipedia would have to say about it. I definitely think the information should be included. Less noteworthy internet memes have had their mention here. --BDD 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a diff comparing the present article (as of 17:18 today) and 250 edits prior. Hall Monitor 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the World of Warcraft crowd has assiled the page eh. Chuck Norris along with Vin Diesel and others has become quite a cult following to reasons unknown to myself. Derktar 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that the article should make some mention of the fact generator. BDAbramson T 00:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unverified content about Bruce Lee

I have removed this content which I found difficult to verify:

But while the two were publicly friendly, contrary to what many (including Norris himself) state, they were not close friends. Lee had repeatedly humiliated Norris during a mock sparring session in the hotel hallway at the Long Beach International Karate Championships in 1964. And Norris had offended Lee when he publicly claimed to be a better fighter than Lee. When word got back to Lee, he called Norris and openly challenged him, threatening to drive to his school to fight (Norris was teaching his black belt class at that time). According to eye witnesses, Lee made Norris hold the phone receiver up and shout in front of his black belts, "Bruce Lee is a better fighter than me!" Later, Norris wrote an apologetic letter to Lee; the original letter is currently in the care of Lee's student, Dan Inosanto. Yet despite these conflicts, the two managed to set aside any differences in pursuit of their mutual film aspirations and develop a friendly public persona toward one another.

Interesting as it is, it is a bit surreal, and with no cited sources it shouldn't be in the article.

SpuriousQ 23:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It SHOULD be in the article because the Bruce Lee incident is VERY Important to Chuck Norris. This is the source. [3]. If anyone wants a source, go pay a visit to Dan Inosanto, Chuck Norris wrote an apologetic letter to Bruce Lee and the original letter is currently in the care of Bruce Lee's student, Dan Inosanto.
  • That imdb link brings up an empty page for me. Also, a post on an internet message board (which this appears to be trying to link to) is not a reliable source. Also, the wikipedia article you cite has no mention of the letter you mention. -- MisterHand 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The story is true. If you wants a source, go pay a visit to Dan Inosanto, he is currently teaching Jeet Kune Do classes and can be contacted. Chuck Norris wrote an apologetic letter to Bruce Lee and the original letter is currently in the care of Bruce Lee's student, Dan Inosanto.

As per official policy, WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed." We as editors must remove any unsourced information that is controversial. Shawnc 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since a credible publication has not been provided which states that Dan Inosanto has such a letter, I suggest that the disputed statements be removed after several days if no reference is provided by then. Shawnc 04:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following story is Completely True:

At a demonstration in Long Beach, Norris met the soon to be famous Bruce Lee, who would ingrain Norris in martial arts history forever with his portrayal as Bruce Lee's nemesis in the Way of the Dragon. [4] But while the two were publicly friendly, contrary to what many (including Norris himself) state, they were not close friends. Lee had repeatedly humiliated Norris during a mock sparring session in the hotel hallway at the Long Beach International Karate Championships in 1964. And Norris had offended Lee when he publicly claimed to be a better fighter than Lee. When word got back to Lee, he called Norris and openly challenged him, threatening to drive to his school to fight (Norris was teaching his black belt class at that time). According to eye witnesses, Lee made Norris hold the phone receiver up and shout in front of his black belts, "Bruce Lee is a better fighter than me!" Later, Norris wrote an Apologetic Letter to Lee; the original letter is currently in the care of Lee's student, Dan Inosanto. Dan Inosanto currently still owns the Letter of Apology that Chuck Norris wrote to Bruce Lee, which is in a Long Beach Dojo. Yet despite these conflicts, the two managed to set aside any differences in pursuit of their mutual film aspirations and develop a friendly public persona toward one another. [5]

If you PROOF/EVIDENCE that the story is true, then read ALL These SITES: Sources:

The following sources for the Lee/Norris info are NOT a mirror of this article:

These were already posted by you (in sections above and below) and have been replied. Shawnc 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Fact Generator

There needs to be a section added about Chuck Norris, the Internet meme. We've all heard of the Chuck Norris facts.

I'm in favor of keeping the link (which was just recently removed), it's something of an internet meme, and speaks volumes about public perception regarding Chuck's celebrity status Elijya 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the Chuck-Norris-internet-fact-phenomenon should be noted somehow in this article. I created a separate article for Random Chuck Norris Fact and added a link to it from this article. I hope that this will be seen as an acceptable compromise to deleting the link. Mark.howison 05:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
note that someone speedy deleted that article.--Alhutch 15:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this internet meme has 4+ pages of YTMNDs dedicated to it. That, and the fact that I actually sought out this article after hearing about the fad.-LtNOWIS 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it legitimately in the article, don't just add a random humorous link to the external links section without an explanation. --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel the random "fact" generator is rather trivial and insignificant in the grand scheme of what is supposed to be a biography about Chuck Norris. A somewhat tangental discussion was recently held on the Louis Braille talk page regarding whether or not we should document in his biographical article that Google linked to his name on his birthday this week. Nonetheless, I am open to ideas — how does one propose this be noted? Hall Monitor 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Chuck Norris Fact Generator" isn't unique. I saw one just like it for Vin Diesel. No need to mention it on the page. -- MisterHand 04:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It's not even a real fact generator; it's just a list of silly sentences about Chuck Norris that are served up one at a time in random order. And most of them aren't even funny. Definitely not encyclopedic. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's not a real fact generator. Anyone who thinks any of those facts are real can't be anything other than a total moron. And your opinions on whether or not it's funny are POV and irrelevant. There are, in fact, three of these generators: Chuck Norris, Mr. T, and Vin Diesel, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a widespread internet meme and should be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.148.118 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that it is a widespread meme and "should be noted" is also a matter of opinion, one which not everyone agrees with. What we are now discussing is how to accomplishing giving this trivial piece of information note, if at all. Hall Monitor 20:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing that this heated discussion was occuring, and being relatively new to editing articles, I went ahead and took the intiative to add a small section about the memes in the trivia section. I think that just the mention that there is a meme about Mr. Norris is not a matter of opinion and is factual. It may be useless, but that's why it's in the trivia section. noah 06:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris addresses the random facts on his website. http://www.chucknorris.com/html/events.aspx Kevin143 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris thinks they are humorous: http://www.youtube.com/?v=QP1PuB1R-Xw

It's a cultural phenomenon. I say it is definetly fit for inclusion.

External links: which "fact generator" should be linked?

Hello there. I own and operate www.4q.cc, which is the original Chuck Norris Fact Generator (www.4q.cc/chuck). Since the article is locked, I kindly request an administrator or whoever that the link to www.chucknorrisfacts.com be removed as they have simply stolen my content and are promoting it without my permission. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.27.148 (talk • contribs)

From the "facts" article: Chuck Norris Facts were originally seen on IRC, and on websites like the Something Awful forums, in Spring 2005. While your site might be the original random fact generator, I don't think that the facts themselves are "owned" by anyone; it appears that they were a collaborative effort by anonymous and disparate individuals. OhnoitsJamieTalk 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OhnoitsJamieTalk. 4q.cc is just a bunch of quotes collected from other places. From this interview with Ian Spector of 4q, about his "generator" websites: "Although Ian Spector maintains the site, approximately 90% of the "facts" are contributed by visitors – most of whom are either college students or stuck in a cubicle ... The website was spawned from a discussion thread on the massively popular internet forum, SomethingAwful.com" [6] Tomservo3000 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Ohnoitsjamie, however what site should be linked? Apparently the whois records of the sites show that 4q.cc was the original, so should it then be linked over the newer chucknorrisfacts.com? Still if it's essentially quotes copied from the somethingawful forums, then it probably just comes down to a matter of what site's easier and more helpful to the reader- probably what's listed right now, chucknorrisfacts.com. Ian's left me a message on my talk page and I told him we should keep the discussion here. Mrtea (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mrtea. It appears that the WHOIS "created date" of chucknorrisfacts.com may not be accurate. It is possible the chucknorrisfacts.com address was transferred from another domain registrar and the date was "reset". If you check the WHOIS of a "copycat" site (chucknorrisfacts.net), it shows a created date several weeks "earlier" than chucknorrisfacts.com. It doesn't seem logical that someone would register the .net over the .com address. There's discussion of this subject here [7] Hamilton burr 08:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: Lotsofissues CITE YOUR SOURCE Before Reverting

Lotsofissues , Prove These Points first before Writing ANYTHING. Try harder to counter the sources listed below. Cite your sources.

Sources about Bruce Lee humiliating Chuck Norris The following story is Completely True: At a demonstration in Long Beach, Norris met the soon to be famous Bruce Lee, who would ingrain Norris in martial arts history forever with his portrayal as Bruce Lee's nemesis in the Way of the Dragon.

Sources for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Beach_International_Karate_Championships

[8] But while the two were publicly friendly, contrary to what many (including Norris himself) state, they were not close friends. Lee had repeatedly humiliated Norris during a mock sparring session in the hotel hallway at the Long Beach International Karate Championships in 1964. And Norris had offended Lee when he publicly claimed to be a better fighter than Lee. When word got back to Lee, he called Norris and openly challenged him, threatening to drive to his school to fight (Norris was teaching his black belt class at that time). According to eye witnesses, Lee made Norris hold the phone receiver up and shout in front of his black belts, "Bruce Lee is a better fighter than me!" Later, Norris wrote an Apologetic Letter to Lee; the original letter is currently in the care of Lee's student, Dan Inosanto. Dan Inosanto currently still owns the Letter of Apology that Chuck Norris wrote to Bruce Lee, which is in a Long Beach Dojo. Yet despite these conflicts, the two managed to set aside any differences in pursuit of their mutual film aspirations and develop a friendly public persona toward one another. [9]

If you PROOF that the story is true, then read ALL These SITES: Sources:

The following sources for the Lee/Norris info are NOT a mirror of this article:

All of these are dubious sources, which you already posted above. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. Shawnc 19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection requested

This page is being vandalized 10 times a day. Lotsofissues 21:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Haha! Chuck Norris! You see, it's funny because CHUCK NORRIS! Hey, I hear Chuck Norris drove a car into a wall and it exploded but he jumped out at the last second and drop kicked a thug on his way out because he's CHUCK FUCKING NORRIS HAHAHAHA!! Someone hurry up and make a website about Chuck Norris facts because this is never going to get old! NEVER!!!" [10]
-- MacAddct1984 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conan O'Brien

Conan O'Brien has been doing a very funny Walker, Texas Ranger segment on his show. This deserves a mention.

http://www.youtube.com/?v=nOZYNZsZnfs

http://www.youtube.com/?v=Zna9LJybR9w

http://www.youtube.com/?v=aZbBpr2wOlQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.204.131 (talk • contribs)

Parody?

The random fact generator isn't a really a parody. I'd call it more of a homage. Chuck Norris is freakin' awesome.

I suspect WPost article got minor detail wrong because of us

Read

"Steve McQueen (a former Norris martial-arts student)?"

The son of McQueen attended Norris's classes but that was left uncorrected in this article until Jan 8.

Lotsofissues 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

serves em right for not checking facts!--Alhutch 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otheruses

The thing most people are looking for when coming here is certainly Chuck Norris Facts. If it is prominently linked, the readers will get what they want, and there will be less vandalism of this page. Please do not remove the link, at least for the next few weeks. Taw 15:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole-heartedly. I personally know several people who have gotten several IP addresses at my school banned through repeated vandalism of this page, and editing Chuck into other articles as well. Ok, so I was one of them. But we have been collectively appeased by the acknowledgement of the the facts in the Popular Culture section, or whatever that is. My vote is keep it the way it is right now; if anything, give more recognition to it, but certainly not less. As noted above, this will probably do a lot to prevent vandalism.

protection

the vandalism was getting crazy so i semi-protected.--Alhutch 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't intend to leave it on too long.--Alhutch 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
protection is off.--Alhutch 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the site that has been responsible for the recent vandalism:http://boards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=108216959&brd=5296&start=108245640
wow, unbelievable. I did notice a great surge in anon vandalism today, and I was wondering if it was a coordinated effort from an outside website. Still, this is rather surprising.--Alhutch 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-semi-protected. This "Chuck Norris Facts" stuff is getting a bit out of hand. -R. fiend 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good decision. It's been a big blip on the radar today. PJM 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab header

I don't agree with the disambiguation header, as they're meant only for things with the same or confusingly very similar titles. Having it for Chuck Norris Facts is like having a dab header at Manhattan for Manhattan Murder Mystery. If more prominent link to the "facts" article is needed we should look at an elegant way of moving it up towards the beginning of the article. Dab headers liek this are a real stretch and a bad precedent. -R. fiend 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't anywhere near prominent enough.

  • Most people look for the jokes
  • Most people have no idea where the article about the jokes is, so check Chuck Norris

So if not in the otheruses, it should be in the intro paragraph. Taw 10:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intro paragraph might be okay, if it can be worked into the prose elegantly, rather than haphazardly chucked in there (no pun intended). It is, however, not ideal. I'm not sure why you assume most people are looking for the facts. Most vandals clearly are, but that's a different thing entirely. We should keep in mind that we have a repected (I guess) actor who's been in movies and TV shows for decades (mostly bad, but still), and who has been honored with various awards. The "Facts" is a recent fad that will likely soon fade. I think we run the danger of stressing them too much, as an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 18:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not agree more. The "facts" might deserve mention in passing here, but in the grand scheme of things, they are largely irrelevant to Chuck Norris as a person (and his biographical article). The granular details of the meme should be worked out in Chuck Norris Facts, not here. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-re-semi-protection

I've once again semi-protected this, as the "Chuck Norris Facts" keep coming. Sorry Splash, but your claim that it's been protected long enough to deter simple vandalism just doesn't seem to be the case. I'm suspecting this will have to remain semi-protected until the Chuck Norris Facts fad dies down. -R. fiend 22:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two incidences of vandalism in the three hours after Splash unprotected. That's nothing compared to the way it was before. I think we should unprotect, since protection is supposed to be used sparingly. This is hardly anything we can't deal with by reverting and blocking right now.--Alhutch 22:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two in three hours is still quite a bit, and I didn't see any indication that it was about to improve. Established users can still edit the article, in fact, if you only need an account for 4 days, probably quite a few vandals can too. -R. fiend 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the protection policy, if you would. It's only supposed to be used for persisent vandalism. Two in three hours is really not that persistent. Especially after this page was targeted by IGN people earlier. sorry, i don't think there's a real need for protection.--Alhutch 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll remove the sprotection, if only as an experiment to see how many times the page is vandalized. If the vandalism is heavy, I will resprotect it. -R. fiend 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
good good.--Alhutch 00:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to jinx it, but things look good on the vandalism front so far.--Alhutch 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count 4 since unprotection, which isn't tons, but it's far more than most articles get. How many in 24 hours constitutes "persistent"? -R. fiend 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours later, it's over ten more. Time to re-sprotect? -R. fiend 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't keep score when IGN ws hammering away, but that sounds like a pretty persistent rate of vandalism. A tag is probably justified, at least for a while to let things simmer. ZZ 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also agree with the protection, but I don't think things are going to simmer down any time soon. Mrtea (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been what in my mind amounts to unacceptable levels of vandalism here. Any objections to more semi-protection? -R. fiend 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been reprotected (semi). Please remove protection after a reasonable period of time. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no objections here. vandals don't deserve the privilege of editing wikipedia.--Alhutch 18:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuck_Norris&oldid=37794311"