Jump to content

Talk:Bruce Lee

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 206.112.75.238 (talk) at 19:44, 19 September 2013 (→Edit request on 19 September 2013: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:V0.5


Bruce Lee's Feats

The books which these feats are taken from do not source where they got the information. The authors of these books did not know Bruce Lee. So for the information in the books to be valid, the authors would have had to source where they got the information from. Yet they do not. The authors of the books could have simply made up the information, as there is no other record of these feats.

Furthermore, if these feats have numbers, like a kick being "0.8" seconds, then that is information that should be documented in writing, like how 100 meter dash times for sprinters are documented.

If there is no legitimate documentation, how can these things be put on this encyclopedic article as fact just because somebody wrote a book, even when that book does not give any sources of it's own?

I think these things should be removed until somebody can provide legitimate documentation.  Gamezero05  talk  22:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally look at sources that way. The question isn't whether or not the source cites its sources (after all, where would those sources have gotten their info from? Turtles all the way down...). Instead, we determine whether it is a reliable source. If it is, we use it. If not, we don't. Do you feel the source meets our guidelines? Why or why not? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOTRELIABLE, the sources are no good. Here is what it says: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[7] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." Also, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion , it says "information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article..." These "feats" are not verifiable other than the single source which makes these claims. And finally, WP:REDFLAG states that "exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources". The source used is where these claims came from, and none of them can be verified in any way. The author of the book that made these claims has never even seen Bruce Lee in person. This isn't a "first-hand account" from a witness. It is a random author making extraordinary claims and no other sources can be found. It's a bad source.  Gamezero05  talk  00:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "not verifiable other than the single source" and "no other sources can be found", but some of the claims have multiple references. You also say that "This isn't a first-hand account" from a witness. Well, not only is that not a criterion for reliability, but note that the Glover sourced entry is a first-hand account. — Myasuda (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some have multiple sources, but they all come from the same original source that cannot be verified.  Gamezero05  talk  01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "they all come from the same original source" which is wrong. Glover is independent of Little and Little does not rely on solely on Glover (e.g., for the pull-ups, he relies on George Lee, who has made the same statement for Black Belt Magazine). So let's see . . . not only were you wrong here, but you were wrong in your blanket statement earlier that the "authors of these books did not know Bruce Lee" (Glover was a student), and I showed that you were wrong in your earlier thread Talk:Bruce Lee/Archive 6#This article is filled with a bunch of bull when you claimed "There is no proof that any of that is true. None of it is documented anywhere" (the two-finger push-ups, you later admitted were legitimate, and should not have been summarily deleted by you from the article). So you talk about verifiability, but it's clear that you are the one with a penchant for making unreliable statements. — Myasuda (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was speaking in generalities, and mainly talking about Little's book. But I will go through each "feat" one by one to clear up any confusion.

1. Land a punch in around five hundredths (0.05) of a second from 3 ft. (glover p. 53-54)(Little p. 21). Jesse Glover was one of Bruce Lee's students, and thus is a conflict of interest according to WP:REDFLAG for unreliable sources. In Little's book, he simply quotes Glover. So this all goes back to Glover, the lone source. And it is not a reliable source.

2. Hold a 75 lb (34 kg) barbell elbows locked, arms outstretched, for several seconds. (Little p. 12 and p. 22). There is nothing on page 12 talking about this. So that is a fake source. But on page 22, Little makes the claim, but gives nothing supporting this claim. He didn't know Bruce Lee, and he never quoted anybody who did know him or see him perform this feat. It is no different than if I make some claim. It is not a reliable source.

3. In a speed demonstration, he could snatch a dime off a person's open palm before they could close it, and leave a penny behind. (Little p. 71). Guess what? There is nothing about this on page 71. This is a fake source 100%. It's not in Little's book. Somebody on Wikipedia just made it up and added a fake source to make it look credible.

4. Perform one-hand push-ups using only the thumb and index finger. (Little p. 22) (Steve Webb documentary). This one is legit. There is actual video of him doing this. And not surprisingly, this is the most "human" of his feats. A feat which many people can do.

5. Perform 50 reps of one-arm chin-ups. (Little p. 108). Little actually provides a source for this claim. However, his source is Bruce Lee's friend and workout partner, George Lee. The problem with this is that this creates a conflict of interest according to WP:REDFLAG. It is not a reliable source. Also, considering the Guiness world record holder for most one-arm chin-ups in one minute, George Gaydardzhiev, can only do 10 in a row before having to stop and collect himself, it's fantasy to think Bruce Lee could do 50.

6. Side kick 300 lb (140 kg) bags so that they hit the ceiling. (Little p. 22). Once again, he gives no source for this claim. And he never knew Bruce Lee, so he has never seen him do this. So where did he get the information? Not a legitimate source at all.

7. Hold an elevated v-sit position for 30 minutes or longer. (The Intercepting Fist dvd). I have not seen this dvd. But considering I know gymnasts and they laugh at this notion, I have no doubt it is another very exaggerated claim. But I would have to see the dvd to really say anything about the source.  Gamezero05  talk  15:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Glover and George Lee knew Bruce Lee does not establish a conflict of interest per WP:COI. The itemized claims could be rewritten to make it clear that this is anecdotal information and have the reader determine what to believe. But they certainly don't qualify for deletion.
Also, you failed to establish that Little's source does not meet WP:RS. Little has conducted numerous interviews with persons with first-hand knowledge of Lee. What evidence do you have that he's being dishonest? So what if Little did not actually know Lee personally? If he did, you would whine about "conflict of interest".
And just a little searching would show you that the "feats" Little has written about have also been written about elsewhere. Inosanto writes about the kicking of the heavy bag in the January 1994 issue of Black Belt Magazine and Wallly Jay writes about it the January 1997 issue of the same publication. The dime story is a well known one, and can be found in "Words of the Dragon: Interviews, 1958-1973" by Little, for example. — Myasuda (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI has do do with behavior of editors... not sources. WP:REDFLAG is specifically about sources. So citing WP:COI is irrelevant to our discussion.  Gamezero05  talk  15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is PROOF that the sources are exaggerated and are not reliable. Let's take Jesse Glover's claim that Bruce Lee could "land a punch in five hundredths of a second from 3 feet", according to his book from 1976 called "Bruce Lee Between Win Chun and Jeet Kune Do", which is sourced on this Wiki page. Yet in an interview with Black Belt Magazine in 1994, Glover states, "Let me tell you something, we timed his closing speed back in the early '60's. When the light flashed, Bruce closed from a distance of three feet away from the pad - with his hands at his hips - and hit the pad in one three-hundredth of a second!" So the very source that you are saying is so credible, is caught red-handed exaggerating his already exaggerated claims. Here is the link to the Black Belt Magazine article (his quote is on the right column): http://books.google.com/books?id=EdIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA24&dq=joe+lewis+bruce+lee+black+belt+magazine&source=bl&ots=W-r_6iiAfz&sig=P6GwRv0zpkrQMbsqczHMjzWhwzI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k1WaUei1NMPvqQG2m4HADw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=joe%20lewis%20bruce%20lee%20black%20belt%20magazine&f=false  Gamezero05  talk  17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, are there any wikipedians out there who has a copy of Glover's book and can say exactly what he wrote down? At any rate, I would suspect that the book, written more than 18 years before the interview, would contain the more accurate recollection. — Myasuda (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book. I will post exactly what he said in a little while. I have both Glover and Little's books. That is how I was able to go feat by feat above and check the page numbers. And to your second point, you are just guessing. The "source" has given two different accounts... and not surprisingly the legend has grown as time has passed. It is what happens with friends of people who get turned into a mythical-type figure. They feed the fire and grow the legend and exaggerate the stories the more they tell them. And some "witnesses" just straight-up lie for various reasons.  Gamezero05  talk  02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are scanned in images of the paragraphs from Glover's book: http://oi41.tinypic.com/2032id.jpg  Gamezero05  talk  04:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then the article accurately reflects the cited source. And in spite of what you think, your "bombshell discovery" does not invalidate the book as a source. Are there any other persons who would like to weigh in on this discussion? — Myasuda (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a liar. And I already showed the source is not reliable based on WP:REDFLAG. This is an encyclopedia which is based in fact... not exaggerated stories from Bruce's own hype men. Bruce's friends would be acceptable sources if talking about Bruce personally. But they are not proper sources when extraordinary claims are made. There needs to be many sources with no conflicts of interest.  Gamezero05  talk  15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one inch punch does exist. There is video. But what is fake is when people say when he does the one inch punch the guy he punched flies 15 feet through the air. The one inch punch is a little trick more than a feat. He has a guy stand with both feet shoulder width apart and he uses his body and his locked-out arm to push the guy in his chest which makes him fall down. He doesn't fly 15 feet through the air, and you or me could do the exact same thing.  Gamezero05  talk  20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific question asked. This will make it very hard for you to get outside input. Due to this I'm just making one preliminary comment. The wp:rs criteria (that some are referring to above) just sets a "floor". In order to determine whether a source is actually reliable you will need to explore whether or not the source is objective and knowledgeable with respect to the items with cited it. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim - To North's point, above, I noted that these two books with source contentions are not the only ones used for this article. The Bruce Thomas book, for one. A quick search brought up two different NYT articles on Lee's legacy. My take? Trim out the drilled-down specifics that don't have an additional cite and broaden the scope of the article to reflect what reliable sources like NYT say about Lee's life & notability. -- EBY (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the general consensus here is that parts of this article like the "physical feats" section should be removed because it is overly-detailed and is only supported by a single source? And to broaden the article, rely on more reliable sources like the NYT for information about Lee's life and legacy? Is that correct?  Gamezero05  talk  02:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section should stay. This sort of thing is one of the types of things he is known for. It's of encyclopedic interest to readers, and very closely related to his principal notability. If he were know, say, primarily as a poet, they might be irrelevant, but he's primarily a performer of physical feats in a variety of athletic and artistic settings, and they details of what he can physically accomplish,or even is widely reported as being able to be physically accomplish, is appropriate content. We'renot responsible for reporting them accurately;l we're responsible for reporting accurately what the sources say about them. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They're being deleted under a spurious rationale and I question if the person deleting them understands what Wikipedia is? Saying "they belong in an autobiography and not Wikipedia" is nonsensical. If he suspects the sources don't satisfy WP:RS then he should query the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There's no reason whatsoever to delete that info, in fact doing so makes the article much worse. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feat Nr. 2 was confiremd by the late Karate Legend Joe Lewis (martial artist). Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R5CoqaIhhs&#t=2m59s (3:00 - 3:45) --Niten Doraku (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts Lineage

This section does not show Bruce Lee's martial arts lineage. I'm going to update it all the way back to the founders of Wing Chun... as it should be.  Gamezero05  talk  17:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 21 July 2013

The Chinese name of Bruce Lee is "little small dragon". The phonetic pronunciation of that is "xiu long". His name is Lee Xiu Long, not Lee Jun Fan 98.223.133.100 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 July 2013

Please add that Bruce Lee attended Garfield High School in Seattle. My source is from the Seattle Times. The web address is: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030527&slug=spotlight27 Thank you!

Ireneobien (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. However, it would be nice to know how long Lee attended Garfield; if it was only for a short time, it may not be noteworthy. The wording in that section is a bit awkward, and a rewrite with more sources is indicated. Rivertorch (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 August 2013

"Lee's erudition expanded in any field that required pure human expression." This sentence is meaningless puffery and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 September 2013

In order to link to the appropriate page, please change the link for "Capitol Hill" in the "New Life In America" section to Capitol Hill (Seattle). It currently links to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. 206.112.75.238 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Lee&oldid=573688450"