Talk:Bruce Lee

Template:V0.5

Notification

I have taken the issue to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you were trying to evade the above irrefutable explanations, and took the issue to somewhere else with your one sided comments. Also your comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I don’t know what’s your purpose here (apart from anti-Chinese), but please keep the dispute here nicely and try to controvert the explanations itself. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your most notable contribution to this 'discussion' which has yet to take off due to your refusal to provide sources for your expressed views has been to call other editors "racist" for not agreeing with you. In this view, your repeated references to talk page are a mockery of WP dispute resolution procedure, and nothing but a thinly disguised attempts at asserting yourself by an edit war. You are not seriously interested in solving the dispute by arguments. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were plenty of explanations to this dispute by other editors above, please try to controvert the explanations first before you edit this article. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Either you are unwilling or unable to understand that simply asserting things is not enough on WP. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability# Burden of evidence and provide evidence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Same to you, provide evidence to support your dispute. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler, regardless of how much you believe in your side of this dispute, you will not engage in personal attacks on other users again. You should have had several warnings by now having read your contributions. Secondly, previous content in the article, or any other Wikipedia article, is not a reliable source. You can't cite Wikipedia because, paradoxically, Wikipedia does not trust itself. If you can provide external, reliable sources to support your side of the argument then that is fine, but as of yet I can't see a single external link to such a source in your posts. Please do so. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 09:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler, shifting the burden of evidence does not work. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence explicitly states that

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

And I hereby challenge your material. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has been considered this article is different from other articles. Many other articles have inscribed ethnicity in categories, why suddenly disallow in this article?

I don't see any reason why Bruce Lee's surname being removed in this article? And why Hong Kong citizens of Chinese descent can not referring as Chinese?

Nobody can ever provide external, reliable sources stated that Bruce Lee did not renounce his US citizenship when he returned to HK in 1971. And no reliable sources stated he wasn't Chinese apart from American. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are heading ito Wikipedia:3RR territory. Bring this to the talk page and let's discuss it, but do so coherently so people can understand it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It already long here (Talk:Bruce Lee#Lead and categories), but we have made not one bit of progress due to Undefeatedcoller's refusal to play by WP guidelines. So, to repeat myself: For the categories I would like to see either a Wikipedia guideline which allows also entries on the basis of ethnicity, or, if the exclusive criteria is nationality, a reference to a solid source about Lee being a Chinese, that is PRCh citizen. You listed him as Chinese, you provide the proof. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a big mistake.

Gun Powder Ma is the one who wants to make any changes from a “long-term support version” of Bruce Lee’s article.

Gun Powder Ma should be the one needed to provide external, reliable sources and reasonably explanations to support his/her dispute. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Per WP:MOSBIO, can we please list sources here for Lee's nationality/citizenship? I am not talking about different laws, but specific citations for Lee in perticular. It seems this would be the first step towards consensus. This isn't about the "truth" or our opinions, this is about what reliable sources state as to his nationality/citizenship. His ethnicity, where he lived, his self identification, what categories he belongs in, how we discribe him as an actor, ect should go below the lead. Anyways, thank you, --Tom (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Second that. The discussion should move from merely putting forward opinions to also citing evidence for them. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This was done some time ago, under Talk:Bruce Lee#Arbitrary break. I imagine it would have been much easier to find had it not been for Undefeatedcooler's stubborn refusal to simply indent his responses. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shaolin Samurai, I read there, but obviously not as closely as needed. If appropriate, I will move them here after looking at them. Also, please try not to comment about other editors actions/motives if possible, thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like those sources refer to him as Asian-American, ect. Thats not what I am talking about. We need to find sources regarding his citizenship, period. Can we 1st source that he was an American citizen? Being born in the US usually does it for me, but if we are going to be "fair" about this and hold this to the highest standard, that is what would be required. Then we could look at British or Chinese or whatever other citizenship that would go in the lede. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. The terms "Asian American" and "Chinese American" refer to cultural identity as well as citizenship. That should be more than sufficient in establishing his citizenship. Shaolin Samurai (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the heart of the "problem" most likely here. Those "terms" do not establish citizenship at all, especially for an encyclopedia. Many folks, for example, are called "Irish-American" or "Italian-American" or "Whatever-American" without holding those other citizenships. Those terms usually convey ethnicity. The best thing would be for the source to say "Joe Blow is a citizen of x, y, or z, ect. That would be definitive. Anyways, I need to run but....--Tom (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see

• Lee, Linda (1989), The Bruce Lee Story, United States: Ohara Publications, p. 41, ISBN 0897501217

for a reliable reference's mention of Lee's American citizenship. Consult [1] if you do not have a hardcopy reference available. — Myasuda (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent to left) ...back :)...ok, very good, thank you Myasuda. Now, did lee hold any other citizenship?(sources of course please)....--Tom (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was ever claiming that he didn't have US citizenship at all. This refusal to acknowledge the fact that being born to Hong Kong-native parents who raised him in Hong Kong among his Hong Kong-native siblings means he had whatever citizenship they had just as automatically as being born on US soil means he had US citizenship (which he did not use in any way, shape or form until he reached adulthood) is indefensible, and reeks of some ulterior motive or hidden agenda. (Note to administrators: Thomas Jefferson's defense of referring to King George III as a tyrant in the Declaration of Independence was, "The King is a tyrant whether we say so or not; we might as well say so." The same principle applies here, and "might as well" was a gross understatement for Jefferson, and is here. This is not "a terrible thing for me to say," but is a terrible thing to be the situation at hand. The proper response to a terrible thing is to deal with it and make it cease to be terrible, not to commit cranial-rectal insertion, pretend that it doesn't exist, and fault a person who points it out for having done just that. That attitude is not only detrimental to the encyclopedia, it is irrational, literally lacking in rationality.) I admit that it would take sources to determine just which citizenship the Hong Kong-based one is, but Gun Powder Ma's repeated statement that Lee was "American only, as is well known" is absolutely WRONG. So was his/her demanding Undefeatedcooler present references when his/her own version was not sourced, and his/her PRC-citizenship-only based definition of Chinese in the category names. I repeat, it is extremely difficult to not suspect some hidden agenda at work here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

***This is a general civility notice, please keep your cool when editing and making comments. Lets not let this discussion spiral into accusations and overly forceful words. Thank you.***--Frank Fontaine (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I did keep my cool and said no more than what the situation required. Did you fail to read my parenthetical "Note to administrators"? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken that was a general notice for the discussion and not aimed at one particular editor. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, and my apologies for my self-centered assumption. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What’s the purpose of concealing Bruce Lee's Chinese/Hong Kong status by some of the editors here?

The world famous Jet Li has currently taken up Singapore citizenship. Shall we also conceal Jet Li's Chinese status in his article too?

Certainly, when Bruce Lee was living in Hong Kong, he was a HK citizen. (otherwise he wouldn't be able to live there for years).

Someone need to provide reliable sources stated that Bruce Lee was only US citizenship while he was living in Hong Kong. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

..back :)...guys, can we please try to find citations for citizenship? I can't speak for others, but for me, this isn't about "concealing" anything, or the truth, or whatever. It is about what reliable sources have to say about the matter, period. If a citation regarding citizenship, or maybe what passport(s) he held, ect, that we be very helpful towards cleaning up the LEAD sentence per MOSBIO....anyways, I will try to look for one...also, maybe the BLP noticeboard could also be of help?, thanks, --Tom (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a 1967 article about Bruce Lee that appeared in Black Belt Magazine, before his popularity exploded. Lee is referred to as "Cantonese" and "although born in the US was not eligible for his US Citizenship until he reached voting age"(age of 18), one would have to take that as between the ages of 4 months and when he emmigrated to America he held the same status as other residents of Hong Kong. He also refers to his own son in the article as a "Chinaman".[2]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I indented your comment, hope you don't mind. Do you have a suggestion for how the FIRST sentence should read? After more thought, the idea of including Hong Kong might, big MIGHT, work, but not sure. I had removed it, because what exactly is, or are we trying to say by calling him a "Hong Kong actor"? That he had HK citizenship, or that he worked primarily in HK? Anyways, more eyes here the better :) Also is Hong Kong the same as Chinese? Or could he be British? Again, that is why specific citations regarding citizenship are needed rather than a source "calling" him Cantonese, etc. Do we know what passport(s) he held, and would that be useful?...many questions :)...Cheers, --Tom (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)ps, Mike, also, is the part about him although born in the US was not eligible for his US Citizenship until he reached the age of 18 ("Voting age"), is that from the/a source, or is that your interpretation of how US citizenship law works?..just curious...tia, --Tom (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the term, "Hong Kong Actor", I would call him a Hong Kong Actor because that is where the bulk of his films were made. Not just the "Big Three": Chinese connection, Fists of Fury, and Way of the Dragon, but a good 15-20 films he made as a child in Hong Kong. Enter the Dragon was his only US Studio picture aside from Marlowe where he only had a brief role. Game of Death was the ultimate exploitation film, being cobbled together after his death with raw footage. He was on one US TV series that ran for a single season and guet-starred on at least 5 others. If I recall correctly, the Kung Fu pilot gives him credit as a fight coreographer. I believe Hong Kong and China are the same now regarding citizenship. However, there was a distinction in the past, not just PRC vs Crown Colony; but also language and martial arts. Mainland China refers to the art as Kung Fu, whereas Bruce always used the Hong Kong (Cantonese) term Gung Fu. This characterizes the "style" as being different as well, smaller close movements as opposed to longer more elaborate Northern styles. I do not know anything beyond what is out there in other sources regarding passports/citizenship.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are a US Citizen if you are born here. There may have been something in the past about citizenship not guaranteed if unclaimed by a certain age, I don't know for sure. Here is another source relating this:"He was part of a small gang that was big enough to cause his mother to ship him to America before his 18th birthday so he could claim his dual-citizenship and avoid winding up in jail."[3]. Now, dual-citizenship is only recognized by the US for two countries: Ireland and Israel; other countries may recognize it, but the US does not, it is possible HK may have. I know Greece and Iran go back 6 generations regardless of birth. I'll keep digging, here is another quote from a book: "On November 27, 1940, Lee was born to Mr. and Mrs. Lee Hoi Cheun in the year and the hour of the dragon. He would have dual American and Chinese Citizenship,"[4]. Here is another source, a book titled Monitored peril: Asian Americans and the politics of TV representation By Darrell Y. Hamamoto quoting Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's book Giant Steps:"He would have been perfect, a master working his art before the national audience, but whoever it was that decided such things made it clear to Bruce that they didn't think a Chinese man could be a hero in America. They passed over Bruce and gave the part, and the stardom to David Carradine."[5]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I "like" the middle or "4th" cite above. It talks about dual citizenship rather than "being Chinese", which is what I was looking for. I hate using "hypenated", ie, Chinese-American whatever in the lead, but that is what we are now facing I guess. Do you have a suggestion for how the lead sentence should be crafted? Thanks for your help....--Tom (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That would appear to be the most accurate. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the specifics of British/HK law to speak to whether "dual-citizenship" actually applies. My best guess is that he was a citizen of Hong Kong (or a Commonwealth Subject) based on what I've read here: British nationality law and Hong Kong and related articles. However that might be wandering into the Original Research minefield. If consensus agrees that the source material states Lee had dual citizenship, I would go in that direction; yet, this will come up again when some legal scholar challenges the validity of the term "dual-citizenship" as the US most likely did not recognize it. I'm not a legal expert or immigration expert at all, just a student of Martial Arts for 30+ years, studying Lee's methods and philosophy for close to 25 of those years.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lee's birth in the USA to Hong Kong natives did indeed give him dual citizenship, but only his parents (as his legal guardians) had the right to decide which one to use, and they raised him under whatever citizenship came with being a "Hong Konger." Bruce had no say in the matter (legally) until reaching his maturity; "eligibile" was a poor word choice. Mike Searson was misquoting the Black Belt article on this point (and, yes, Tom, he was clearly presenting that statement as a quote from the article); it actually reads: "In Hong Kong Bruce always kept in mind the fact that he was born in the United States and was therefore destined for American citizenship when he reached the voting age." This is a citable source (the article is an interview with him, just not presented in transcript form) that Bruce Lee did not consider himself an American citizen as he was growing up in the Lee home in Hong Kong. Period. I also must concede that this contradicts my own previous assertion that no thought was given to the option of utilizing this right until he needed to get out of Hong Kong and away from the street gangs there. I have that article (and its conclusion from the following issue of Black Belt) as reprinted in a 1974 one-off magazine, The Best of Bruce Lee, collecting articles, photo features, and other items about Lee from BB and two other magazines (Karate Illustrated and Fighting Stars) from the same publishers. It's easier (for me, at least) to read than the page Mike linked to, but with his we can get the specific citation for the original presentation of this. Thanks, Mike. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I may have misquoted that as I was reading another about Ang Lee talking about the same subject as I was typing that up, I thought I fixed it, but may have just thrown up quotes on the second edit. I have no agenda beyond writing a factual article. Please Assume Good Faith.  :) I'm still trying to think of a better way to phrase it, but the fact is he was an American citizen by birth. I would have no problem with Black Belt as a source. Or the "Best of" compilation, which I have stashed away somewhere along with a later version they did in the 90's.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this:"Bruce Lee (27 November 1940 – 20 July 1973) was an actor, martial artist, philosopher, film director, film producer, screenwriter, and founder of the Jeet Kune Do concept. He is considered by many as the most influential martial artist of the 20th century, and a cultural icon. Born in a San Francisco hospital to Chinese Hong Kong-native parents who were touring with the Chinese Opera, Lee was an American citizen by birth who was raised in Hong Kong."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that your misquote was deliberate, but was merely pointing out the fact that what you put in quotation marks did not match the actual text. After all, other than the use of the word "eligible" (which I labelled "a poor word choice," thereby assuming good faith), the meaning was exactly the same as in the original. You assume good faith. As for your suggestion, how about one slight change, "...to Hong Kong-native parents...." thereby eliminating the potential misinterpretation of PRC citizenship? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, I threw a smiley in to lighten the mood a bit. One thing about google books is you can't copy+paste...still not sure how I hosed it up as the other piece wasn't like that either. I know you're a good editor, I worked with you on something else not too long ago, can't remember what...anyway...Hong Kong parentage would definitely be more accurate. I think this is more "correct" than trying to encapsulate it in the first sentence as it is rather unique.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I can probably go with whatever you folks agree upon at this point. I was just trying to get some good citations included and a writing that doesn't go into original research. The above suggestion seems to cover the "facts" rather than "labeling" Lee's nationality. Anyways, this is not easy so good luck...--Tom (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

On what grounds does the article use Template:Infobox Chinese-languaOge singer and actor? Why is not Template:Infobox actor employed as for all other US American actors? I have yet to see an English language infobox for a singer of Chinese nationality... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Lee was a Hong Kong actor, He was no different from other Hong Kong actors. That’s why.

You always intent to conceal Lee’s Chinese/Hong Kong status, give a reason for that please. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Undefeatedcooler, can you please use ":"s to indent you posts, I think that was mentioned before. Can you also please try to assume good faith, ie difference of opinion rather than ulterative motives...Gun Powder, I haven't looked at the info box template, but I would agree that an actor info box would be more appropriate than a "singer and actor" one...anyways...--Tom (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Assuming good faith" in the presence of evidence to the contrary is counter-productive to resolving the dispute on its own terms, one of which being the lack thereof. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Err what evidence? This seems to be a difference of opinion on what info box to use. As Lee largely acted in english the general (non-national specific) {{Infobox actor}} would seem sensible. On a side note Lee was initially raised in Hong Kong, but born in the US and was a US citizen. --Nate^t/_c 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Nate's request for evidence to a lack of good faith on Gun Powder Ma's part (despite Tom's statement, I used the term "ulterior motive," not Undefeatedcooler), it is summarized in my post of 7 March under "Lead sentence" and can be seen in his/her posts on this page. Furthermore, this is about a great deal more than infobox choice (I have no idea of there being multiple and legitimate options for film actors). If you can't be bothered to read everything here, you've got no right to post. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I read a section that wasn't obviously linked to any previous discussion, demanding people read an entire talk page before asking a question is a little over the top. I was passing and joined a discussion, you said there was evidence so I asked where (not an unreasonable request) the stament: You always intent to conceal Lee’s Chinese/Hong Kong status, give a reason for that please clearly implies an ulterior motive, Gun powder's tone was also abrasive, Tom was attempting to calm both sides down and mentioned that @ first glance the general actor template seemed more appropriate as Lee did not act most notably in Chinese. --Nate^t/_c 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that all the Hong Kong actors are using the same info box in the English wikipedia. Also American-born Hong Kong actors Daniel Wu, Jaycee Chan, Kevin Cheng etc. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

On a second look I can see the logic as it has the extra fields to cope with Chinese names. --Nate^t/_c 15:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Chinese name

The template should be removed, or alternatively, the policy on its use specified. See here: Template talk:Chinese name#Bruce Lee a Chinese name? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The template "the family name is Lee" needs to go.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, Gun Powder Ma, please keep the dispute here nicely.

Almost every "Hong Konger" has a Chinese birth name as well as an English name (optional), and follows the Western convention of the surname being last in the English Wikipedia. But their surnames were Chinese, has a specific meaning and historical background. See Jackie Chan for example. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the template is to signal the reader that the name coming first in Chinese is actually the family name. However, since "Bruce" comes first in "Bruce Lee" and his family name is where every reader expects him to be anyway, namely in second position, the template is as superfluous as a refrigator on the Mount Everest. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

GunPowderMa is correct. The template really serves no purpose here, it would if the article was titled:"Lee Jun Fan", but as it follows the Western naming convention it is not needed.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the surname came first or in the second position.

The purpose of the template is to guide the readers to learn about Lee's historical background and the specific meaning of the surname.

As I've mentioned above: "take a look at Jackie Chan and other Hong Kong actors".

They all follows the Western convention of the surname being last in the English Wikipedia, but they have all got a template. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, maybe I am misunderstanding something. Which template are we talking about? I see no such template in the same location on the Jacky Chan page?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Gun Powder Ma suddenly removed from Jackie Chan's article. (Check History).

I don't understand why he keeps on doing these unnecessary removals from the Chinese ancestral actor’s articles.

I insist that he/she is an "anti-Chinese" editor, and he should be blocked to prevent this racist behavior. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK I see it now on both articles. I don't understand the need for it, either. Is it possible to place it lower down? It's bad enough people have to see the "arsonist warning" at the top. I find links like that tend to clutter up the page. If it must go at the top and can be mentioned no where else, my preference would be to remove it alltogether. Calling another editor "anti-Chinese" or racist is bordering on a personal attack. Let's try to work this out peacefully, please.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not personal attack, because he/she keeps on doing these kind of unreasonable removals, it's so annoying.

Nevertheless, the link was actually instructed Lee's historical background and the specific meaning of his surname, therefore, it is absolutely relevant to this article.

If it appeared in other Chinese surnames articles, as well as here long time ago, why suddenly remove it? Undefeatedcooler (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing can be frustrating, but we all must be mindful how we treat other editors. If the two of you keep going back and forth and edit war over this, we will never make any progress on this article. Comment on content, not on other contributors. His reasons for removal seem sound, as a compromise, can we put the information in the article as a link from the family name somewhere? I can agree with the need for such a link, but I do not feel the template in question is appropriate. This is based on discussions on that template's talk page regarding this article and others.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you agreed with the need for such a link, but want to move the link to somewhere else in the article.

Please do so, rather than being removed by Gun Powder Ma. Thanks. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)