This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kung Fu (1972 TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to the special features on the Kung Fu DVD's, Bruce Lee did not come up with the original idea of the show, or even develop it. He was just one of the actors they looked at for casting Caine. It is also relevent to note that Bruce's name does not appear in the credits. One would think that if he came up with the original idea, he would be credited as such. Can anyone offer any evidence that the show was orginally Bruce Lee's idea?
-Mike Prosser, June 4, 2005
Quotes from Carradine and Thorpe don't in themselves make Lee's assertions any less plausible. It's basically a matter of his word against theirs. In any case, Vehgah is right about one thing: the article would be remiss to not give Lee's claim at least a mention. Because Lee's assertion was very public -- finding its way into his own memoirs, documentaries, and an autobiographical film -- the article would be incomplete without a mention of the fact that Lee claimed to create this series; mentioning Lee's claim does not qualify as rumor, as long as we refrain from speculation. Minaker ( talk) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't precise enough; I've read his widow's book, which does make the claim that Lee created the concept behind Kung Fu; I was under the impression that the book was based not just on her memories, but also on his unpublished memoirs, although I could be wrong about this. We already know which autobiographical film I was referring to, but if you say the movie's depiction of the event is irrelevant, I guess you have a point. I don't have a specific page citation; if my memory of the book making the claim counts as original research (honestly not sure if it does, I'll take your word for it either way) then you'd be right to remove the claim entirely. I thought it was important and interesting information, but if the encyclopedic or factual value is in question, I'm not opposed to its removal. My apology if I complicated things. Minaker ( talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I can't prove it, my step father was a friend of Bruce Lee's, and his brother, back in the '60's. He even has one of his custom made suits. A white suit, with purple velvet inlays to make the pant legs flare. He said that Bruce, his brother and he had discussed the Kung Fu show, and that Bruce had told him that he had written a rough script and pitched it to the two companies in question. He said that they turned him down due to the public's perception of Asian people in leading roles. He lost the script as he thought it was no use pursuing it. A year later, he saw an advertisement for the show, and got upset. this was the same show that he tried to pitch. He called Warner Bros. and they told him that he never copy righted the show, so there was nothing he could do about it. He was also told that he could never come out publicly and say that it was stolen from him without proof, or he'd be sued for defamation. Unfortunately, that's what happens when you don't protect yourself and your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.62.36 ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The link to Chris Potter is incorrect. The actor who played Peter Caine in Kung Fu: The Legend Continues was born in Canada in 1960, not a jazz saxophonist born in 1971. Check out IMDB for details: http://imdb.com/name/nm0693243/
-Sheri Herod, June 29, 2005
It should be mentioned that the reason Caine killed the nephew was that nephew shot Master PO.
digitalronin 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How is there no reference here to the lack of Asian-American actors in the cast (which would have been a little unusual for the time, but younger readers won't know that). Could someone who knows anything about the show add in a paragraph or two? This Guardian piece might be of a little assistance. — OwenBlacker 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion here? The recent additions of Judson Pratt and Don Keefer got me looking at this. It seems to be turning into a list of all guest stars. But that seems inevitable with no set criteria. Harrison Ford, Jodie Foster and Don Johnson certainly seem to qualify as 'famous' guest stars, but Season Hubley? Should we even have this section? I'm not sure there's anything remarkable or notable about a TV series having guest stars, a few of whom were or became famous. I admit I am no fan of lists. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that Hollywood screenwriters came up with the original story. There is so much detail and Taoist philosophy in the pilot movie. Was it based on a book? Was one of the screenwriters a monk? In the on-screen credits of the pilot movie, it says "Story by Ed Spielman". 114.161.79.57 ( talk) 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can't the Writer of the Show be the source for this type of information? Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources per Wikipedia:reliable sources. If this material comes from a published source, it can be cited and included. User:75.51.65.192, where did you get this material? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are Ed Spielman. Wikipedia would not be the proper venue for the initial publishing of this statement. Get interviewed by a trade magazine or newspaper, or publish an op-ed or a book. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. per Wikipedia:no original research. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I altered a few claims (one in an angle bracket note) about Bruce Lee. Was the idea his? Was he considered for the role? We can't settle these points, but can only include various verifiable reports. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"Barbary House," "Flight to Orion," "The Brothers Caine," and "Full Circle" are not the final four episodes, there are 3 more after them. 75.88.107.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
The series created a huge craze for all things kung fu related in the UK - may be worth someone writing something about that (probably re the series' general reception). Ben Finn ( talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Caine and Master Po.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article, Master Kan is quoted as saying, "Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious and cannot be replaced." The end of the quote is "for all life is precious nor can any be replaced." Dreese1210 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please improve this article. It is odd that it says so little about the importance of this TV show in US culture: the relationship with Chinese/Asian influences in general, martial arts etc. And very odd not to include anything about why the original show came to an end after only three seasons despite being very popular.- 71.174.185.30 ( talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
With the launch of the reboot Kung Fu (2021 TV series); it seems it is time to create a franchise article, instead of using this 1972 article as an ersatz franchise article. Kung Fu (media franchise) could be started with a partial copy partial split from this article and expansion. A shorter summary of the follow-ups and sequels would be left behind, that being for the franchise article. The dispute between production and plaigirism with Bruce Lee can be expanded on with content from Warrior (TV series). -- 65.93.183.33 ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the “In Popular Culture” section, which has this note: (rm WP:TRIVIA, most of it ill-sourced (WP:RS/IMDB etc) or unsourced – fortunately we no longer include this kind of stuff in our articles), my view is, it serves a purpose in the history of this series, and is related to the lack of contemporary reviews.
-Originally, the section had the same title, a few items, without order, and no sources.
-Regarding the sources for it, I am a real-life librarian. I have worked in historical bibliographic research, I have high respect for sources, but this is a 70s TV show. It isn’t the same as history, politics, physics or medicine, which require documentary or peer-reviewed sources. Regarding TV shows before the Internet, there aren’t any contemporary sources other than magazines and newspapers, which either aren’t online, or are behind a paywall. The UCLA Library, which has extensive resources about showbiz, only provides bibliographical service for its members. I can’t go to look for 70s American newspapers; I am a Chilean quarantining in Argentina.
A lesser source is better than no source at all; primary sources, like oral testimonies (and blogs nowadays, like Yoani Sánchez’ one), are increasingly used in the history field when authoritative documented or academically produced sources are absent, especially when just describing or dating events. And, no source is free of error: most of the academic sources used in other parts of this article contain mistakes about the series’ plot. Sometimes it seems that the professors or their research team simply did not watch the series before passing judgment on it.
-The IMDb is not an ill source. It is a professional information company in the entertainment field; its characteristics are described in its own Wikipedia article. Every article I have seen in Wikipedia regarding movies and actors has an IMDb link. If the problem is that IMDb is a collaborative effort by volunteers, Wikipedia is that too, and here we are. If there is a better source for TV shows' episodes' description and casts, please inform. There are uploads from the parodies in YouTube, which is a social network and essentially unstable, yet I have seen it used here and there in Wikipedia for illustration purposes. IMDb is much more permanent, hence, a decent source for a fleeting subject.
Why mention the parodies?
-This series had a great cultural impact in its time. Not every 70s TV series got picked by major comedy shows and satirical magazines for parodies internationally, nor got alluded to in the title and plot of a 21st-century play addressing the issue of anti-Asian racism. IMDb enlists dozens of mentions in many other shows and films, here there were only the most relevant.
I agree that having a section called “In Popular Culture” under a TV show, which is a popular culture subject, constitutes an Ouroboros. However, as explained, this isn’t mere trivia about the show, but a sign of its impact. It is a subject that should be mentioned, possibly after the Critical response. Any better sources you wish to inform? Maykiwi ( talk) 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have been writing to film review aggregator websites, libraries, UCLA’s social networks, the producing companies, asking for them. So far, no answers. A member of Metacritic says that if I find them, I have to send them to him as PDFs. So, I’ll write to the magazines and newspapers themselves. If anyone wants to collaborate with the search for reviews, please help by contacting the publications that the aggregators use, and ask the media to send the reviews to the aggregators. They won’t do it spontaneously.
https://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/publication/reviewed
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/sources
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/legacy_sources
Hopefully, some day the Critical reception section won’t be empty. Meanwhile, I’ll put what is available, which is popular reception. If you know of any online and for free source to find contemporary reviews about this show, please inform. Maykiwi ( talk) 22:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I am undoing the recent edit in the "Casting controversy" section, labeled as "excessive detail." Without the reference to the episodes in which racial and gender issues are treated (how many of them, which ones), the text appears as vague. It is not excessive detail, it is precision/accuracy, referencing the episodes with season and episode numbers only to make the whole the less cumbersome to read as possible.
As seen by the sources, this show has been studied in the fields of social and racial issues vs. the media and entertainment until present times. It is a service for anyone who is currently researching in those fields to refer to the specific episodes in which those subjects are mentioned, instead of just saying "some episodes" (How many? Which ones?) and forcing the researcher to watch all the episodes. Which he/she probably won't do, and the results can be biased. Several of the academic sources show mistakes due to that same difficulty.
Maykiwi (
talk)
21:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, direct quotes from sources shouldn't be edited, even if they have grammar or factual mistakes.
Maykiwi (
talk)
21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Audience scores are not allowed. Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION. WP:USERGENERATED content such as from other wikis or from user voted web polls are not allowed. Scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes have consistently been rejected as unreliable source. This means that almost the entirety of the "General response" section does not meet the standards normally required by Wikipedia Television articles. In general the best available indication of audience response to a TV show is the Neilsen ratings, again please see MOS:TVRECEPTION.
I see from the edit history that adding this section [3] was almost entirely the good faith work of Maykiwi ( talk · contribs) but most or all of this will all have to go. If you ask Wikipedia Project Television they might be able to explain if any of this can be salvaged, or if any exception can be made but I doubt it. -- 109.76.142.195 ( talk) 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Given that Bruce Lee wasn't really involved in the show Kung Fu, apart from maybe a casting consideration, the title of this section seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Crediblity aside, his involvement is only a rumor or an allegation, so perhaps "Question of Bruce Lee's Involvement" is more appropriate. 4.28.82.26 ( talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have read the main page of 'Kung Fu (1972 TV series)' before, someone changed all instances of Caine being referred to as a Shaolin Priest to Monk. Without regard to whether this is technically true or false in real life, Kwai Chang Caine has been repeatedly referred to explicitly as a Priest, and not a Monk. He even refers to himself as a Priest. In the interest of being as authentic and accurate as possible, in facts relating to the Series, I propose that this be changed back to how it was before; Kwai Chang Caine is a Shaolin Priest.
Regards
[5] https://imgur.com/a/g8RC8rq 2001:F40:98C:A16:E4BE:94AD:1EB8:6A72 ( talk) 17:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kung Fu (1972 TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
According to the special features on the Kung Fu DVD's, Bruce Lee did not come up with the original idea of the show, or even develop it. He was just one of the actors they looked at for casting Caine. It is also relevent to note that Bruce's name does not appear in the credits. One would think that if he came up with the original idea, he would be credited as such. Can anyone offer any evidence that the show was orginally Bruce Lee's idea?
-Mike Prosser, June 4, 2005
Quotes from Carradine and Thorpe don't in themselves make Lee's assertions any less plausible. It's basically a matter of his word against theirs. In any case, Vehgah is right about one thing: the article would be remiss to not give Lee's claim at least a mention. Because Lee's assertion was very public -- finding its way into his own memoirs, documentaries, and an autobiographical film -- the article would be incomplete without a mention of the fact that Lee claimed to create this series; mentioning Lee's claim does not qualify as rumor, as long as we refrain from speculation. Minaker ( talk) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't precise enough; I've read his widow's book, which does make the claim that Lee created the concept behind Kung Fu; I was under the impression that the book was based not just on her memories, but also on his unpublished memoirs, although I could be wrong about this. We already know which autobiographical film I was referring to, but if you say the movie's depiction of the event is irrelevant, I guess you have a point. I don't have a specific page citation; if my memory of the book making the claim counts as original research (honestly not sure if it does, I'll take your word for it either way) then you'd be right to remove the claim entirely. I thought it was important and interesting information, but if the encyclopedic or factual value is in question, I'm not opposed to its removal. My apology if I complicated things. Minaker ( talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Although I can't prove it, my step father was a friend of Bruce Lee's, and his brother, back in the '60's. He even has one of his custom made suits. A white suit, with purple velvet inlays to make the pant legs flare. He said that Bruce, his brother and he had discussed the Kung Fu show, and that Bruce had told him that he had written a rough script and pitched it to the two companies in question. He said that they turned him down due to the public's perception of Asian people in leading roles. He lost the script as he thought it was no use pursuing it. A year later, he saw an advertisement for the show, and got upset. this was the same show that he tried to pitch. He called Warner Bros. and they told him that he never copy righted the show, so there was nothing he could do about it. He was also told that he could never come out publicly and say that it was stolen from him without proof, or he'd be sued for defamation. Unfortunately, that's what happens when you don't protect yourself and your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.62.36 ( talk) 03:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The link to Chris Potter is incorrect. The actor who played Peter Caine in Kung Fu: The Legend Continues was born in Canada in 1960, not a jazz saxophonist born in 1971. Check out IMDB for details: http://imdb.com/name/nm0693243/
-Sheri Herod, June 29, 2005
It should be mentioned that the reason Caine killed the nephew was that nephew shot Master PO.
digitalronin 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
How is there no reference here to the lack of Asian-American actors in the cast (which would have been a little unusual for the time, but younger readers won't know that). Could someone who knows anything about the show add in a paragraph or two? This Guardian piece might be of a little assistance. — OwenBlacker 13:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion here? The recent additions of Judson Pratt and Don Keefer got me looking at this. It seems to be turning into a list of all guest stars. But that seems inevitable with no set criteria. Harrison Ford, Jodie Foster and Don Johnson certainly seem to qualify as 'famous' guest stars, but Season Hubley? Should we even have this section? I'm not sure there's anything remarkable or notable about a TV series having guest stars, a few of whom were or became famous. I admit I am no fan of lists. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that Hollywood screenwriters came up with the original story. There is so much detail and Taoist philosophy in the pilot movie. Was it based on a book? Was one of the screenwriters a monk? In the on-screen credits of the pilot movie, it says "Story by Ed Spielman". 114.161.79.57 ( talk) 07:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can't the Writer of the Show be the source for this type of information? Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources per Wikipedia:reliable sources. If this material comes from a published source, it can be cited and included. User:75.51.65.192, where did you get this material? Let's say for the sake of argument that you are Ed Spielman. Wikipedia would not be the proper venue for the initial publishing of this statement. Get interviewed by a trade magazine or newspaper, or publish an op-ed or a book. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. per Wikipedia:no original research. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I altered a few claims (one in an angle bracket note) about Bruce Lee. Was the idea his? Was he considered for the role? We can't settle these points, but can only include various verifiable reports. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
"Barbary House," "Flight to Orion," "The Brothers Caine," and "Full Circle" are not the final four episodes, there are 3 more after them. 75.88.107.54 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC).
The series created a huge craze for all things kung fu related in the UK - may be worth someone writing something about that (probably re the series' general reception). Ben Finn ( talk) 19:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Caine and Master Po.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article, Master Kan is quoted as saying, "Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious and cannot be replaced." The end of the quote is "for all life is precious nor can any be replaced." Dreese1210 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Please improve this article. It is odd that it says so little about the importance of this TV show in US culture: the relationship with Chinese/Asian influences in general, martial arts etc. And very odd not to include anything about why the original show came to an end after only three seasons despite being very popular.- 71.174.185.30 ( talk) 13:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
With the launch of the reboot Kung Fu (2021 TV series); it seems it is time to create a franchise article, instead of using this 1972 article as an ersatz franchise article. Kung Fu (media franchise) could be started with a partial copy partial split from this article and expansion. A shorter summary of the follow-ups and sequels would be left behind, that being for the franchise article. The dispute between production and plaigirism with Bruce Lee can be expanded on with content from Warrior (TV series). -- 65.93.183.33 ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of the “In Popular Culture” section, which has this note: (rm WP:TRIVIA, most of it ill-sourced (WP:RS/IMDB etc) or unsourced – fortunately we no longer include this kind of stuff in our articles), my view is, it serves a purpose in the history of this series, and is related to the lack of contemporary reviews.
-Originally, the section had the same title, a few items, without order, and no sources.
-Regarding the sources for it, I am a real-life librarian. I have worked in historical bibliographic research, I have high respect for sources, but this is a 70s TV show. It isn’t the same as history, politics, physics or medicine, which require documentary or peer-reviewed sources. Regarding TV shows before the Internet, there aren’t any contemporary sources other than magazines and newspapers, which either aren’t online, or are behind a paywall. The UCLA Library, which has extensive resources about showbiz, only provides bibliographical service for its members. I can’t go to look for 70s American newspapers; I am a Chilean quarantining in Argentina.
A lesser source is better than no source at all; primary sources, like oral testimonies (and blogs nowadays, like Yoani Sánchez’ one), are increasingly used in the history field when authoritative documented or academically produced sources are absent, especially when just describing or dating events. And, no source is free of error: most of the academic sources used in other parts of this article contain mistakes about the series’ plot. Sometimes it seems that the professors or their research team simply did not watch the series before passing judgment on it.
-The IMDb is not an ill source. It is a professional information company in the entertainment field; its characteristics are described in its own Wikipedia article. Every article I have seen in Wikipedia regarding movies and actors has an IMDb link. If the problem is that IMDb is a collaborative effort by volunteers, Wikipedia is that too, and here we are. If there is a better source for TV shows' episodes' description and casts, please inform. There are uploads from the parodies in YouTube, which is a social network and essentially unstable, yet I have seen it used here and there in Wikipedia for illustration purposes. IMDb is much more permanent, hence, a decent source for a fleeting subject.
Why mention the parodies?
-This series had a great cultural impact in its time. Not every 70s TV series got picked by major comedy shows and satirical magazines for parodies internationally, nor got alluded to in the title and plot of a 21st-century play addressing the issue of anti-Asian racism. IMDb enlists dozens of mentions in many other shows and films, here there were only the most relevant.
I agree that having a section called “In Popular Culture” under a TV show, which is a popular culture subject, constitutes an Ouroboros. However, as explained, this isn’t mere trivia about the show, but a sign of its impact. It is a subject that should be mentioned, possibly after the Critical response. Any better sources you wish to inform? Maykiwi ( talk) 22:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have been writing to film review aggregator websites, libraries, UCLA’s social networks, the producing companies, asking for them. So far, no answers. A member of Metacritic says that if I find them, I have to send them to him as PDFs. So, I’ll write to the magazines and newspapers themselves. If anyone wants to collaborate with the search for reviews, please help by contacting the publications that the aggregators use, and ask the media to send the reviews to the aggregators. They won’t do it spontaneously.
https://www.metacritic.com/browse/tv/publication/reviewed
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/sources
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critics/legacy_sources
Hopefully, some day the Critical reception section won’t be empty. Meanwhile, I’ll put what is available, which is popular reception. If you know of any online and for free source to find contemporary reviews about this show, please inform. Maykiwi ( talk) 22:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I am undoing the recent edit in the "Casting controversy" section, labeled as "excessive detail." Without the reference to the episodes in which racial and gender issues are treated (how many of them, which ones), the text appears as vague. It is not excessive detail, it is precision/accuracy, referencing the episodes with season and episode numbers only to make the whole the less cumbersome to read as possible.
As seen by the sources, this show has been studied in the fields of social and racial issues vs. the media and entertainment until present times. It is a service for anyone who is currently researching in those fields to refer to the specific episodes in which those subjects are mentioned, instead of just saying "some episodes" (How many? Which ones?) and forcing the researcher to watch all the episodes. Which he/she probably won't do, and the results can be biased. Several of the academic sources show mistakes due to that same difficulty.
Maykiwi (
talk)
21:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, direct quotes from sources shouldn't be edited, even if they have grammar or factual mistakes.
Maykiwi (
talk)
21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Audience scores are not allowed. Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION. WP:USERGENERATED content such as from other wikis or from user voted web polls are not allowed. Scores such as those from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes have consistently been rejected as unreliable source. This means that almost the entirety of the "General response" section does not meet the standards normally required by Wikipedia Television articles. In general the best available indication of audience response to a TV show is the Neilsen ratings, again please see MOS:TVRECEPTION.
I see from the edit history that adding this section [3] was almost entirely the good faith work of Maykiwi ( talk · contribs) but most or all of this will all have to go. If you ask Wikipedia Project Television they might be able to explain if any of this can be salvaged, or if any exception can be made but I doubt it. -- 109.76.142.195 ( talk) 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Given that Bruce Lee wasn't really involved in the show Kung Fu, apart from maybe a casting consideration, the title of this section seems inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Crediblity aside, his involvement is only a rumor or an allegation, so perhaps "Question of Bruce Lee's Involvement" is more appropriate. 4.28.82.26 ( talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have read the main page of 'Kung Fu (1972 TV series)' before, someone changed all instances of Caine being referred to as a Shaolin Priest to Monk. Without regard to whether this is technically true or false in real life, Kwai Chang Caine has been repeatedly referred to explicitly as a Priest, and not a Monk. He even refers to himself as a Priest. In the interest of being as authentic and accurate as possible, in facts relating to the Series, I propose that this be changed back to how it was before; Kwai Chang Caine is a Shaolin Priest.
Regards
[5] https://imgur.com/a/g8RC8rq 2001:F40:98C:A16:E4BE:94AD:1EB8:6A72 ( talk) 17:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)