Talk:Jeet Kune Do/Archive 1

message: Many of the influences on Bruce Lee were Zen specific rather than Chan in general.  Zen being the Japanese interpretation of Chinese Chan.  This is a curiosity since Bruce Lee was of course Chinese.  SOURCE: The Unbeatable Bruce Lee: A Manual of the Master in Action [Collector's Edition] Author: Editors of Kung-Fu Monthly. & Many of the actual book titles in Bruce Lee's private library.
FrankWilliams 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, Lee being fluent in English, he was using the word most familiar in the 1960s to Americans? He himself would have been very familiar with Chan, as HK had a large community of Buddhist monk exiles from the mainland at the time. --Fire Star 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen and Chan in JKD 

message: We need to keep the arrow definition in the emblem box because Bruce Lee very purposely put those arrows there.  He wanted to show that the "Fighting Universe" of which the emblem is representative was very dynamic and ALWAYS changing.
FrankWilliams 15:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrows of the JKD Emblem 

message: I think there is some misconception going on between Jeet Kune Do proper and Bruce Lee's personal JKD.  This is how to understand this:
*A. There is a JKD framework that incorporates certain principles and provides building blocks.  This JKD is a PROCESS.
*B. There are personal JKD "Systems" that Utilize A. (Above - the JKD Framwork).  These building blocks are utilized to construct a personal system.   This type of JKD is a PRODUCT.
The article should revolve around A.  NOT B.  Listing the styles that Bruce Lee utilized to make up his "PERSONAL" system should NOT occur.  JKD as a FRAMEWORK is NOT bound or confined by any styles or systems.  To list them is pointless and missess the the very nature of what JKD is.  Bruce Lee recognized the problem with labeling such a thing and regretted ever giving the system/approach a name.
Also many of the systems that Bruce Lee studied were not just to develop his "Personal JKD" but used to gather the "principles" utilized in the JKD Framework approach.  Not sure how beneficial it is to list what styles he looked at because we CANNOT extrapolate which principles came from which styles except for but a few. 
This difference is the very core of JKD; which many individuals including students of JKD miss.  Traditional styles and system are essentially a product that is given to a student.  Bruce Lee recognized the inherit problems with this approach and established a "Process" which a student could than utilize to make a "Tailored" "Personal" Product of their own.  
The last paragraph of the (Last style) section below is quite correct.
FrankWilliams 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Styles 

message: I've rolled back the edits by 169.145.3.13 because they were too subjective and opinionated as far as assuming what Lee intended JKD to be, and presented those opinions packaged as Lee's discovery of underlying fact, not Lee's opinions. It is OK to cite Lee's opinions of martial arts here, but we can't present those opinions as fact, or imply that they are some sort of "eternal truths" Lee discovered to the detriment of the reputations of all other styles of martial art. Wikipedia's npov policy requires a more neutral, dispassionate reporting of the issues surrounding JKD's founding and subsequent development. Fire Star 01:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your user page:
:
Shawnc 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marial arts category for Wikipedians 

message: I removed the controversial tag, as I see no controversy here.  --Xyzzyplugh 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I would say this article is highly controversial. --ShuckyDucky 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't agree more. Nothing to add except the controversy not only surrounds, but also sadly exists within JKD. 71.231.184.103 01:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Controversial 

message: In a sense, considering that Jeet Kune Do is a process rather than a product; and that everyone has their own style that fits them (their body type and skills); isn't Jeet Kune Do the same as Mixed Martial Arts? Both attempt to assimilate different martial arts; in an effort to create the "best fight style"; or at least; the best for a specific person and/or body type. And, also, considering that it has been a great deal of time since Bruce Lee's death, and if viewing MMA and JKD as products; couldn't you say that MMA is more "advanced" than JKD now, since MMA has been worked on and perfected more for the human body? For instance, if two fighters were paired up in a ring, one using the JKD style, while the other using the MMA style of fighting; and if both were the same body type and even the exact same person; (and assuming JKD and MMA were viewed as products rather than a process), would it be fair to say that the fighter utilizing the MMA style most likely would beat the fighter using the JKD style?
: Some of the ideas (the process) sound similar, but the term "JKD" is slightly self-contradictory because it literally means "the way of the intercepting fist", but its ideal is "using no way as way".  It is ironic to have a "JKD style".  It's also a Cantonese/Chinese term, which signifies a particular origin.  The main article on Bruce Lee states that he abandoned the term before he died and didn't want it to be used anymore.  In contrast, the term MMA is neutral, does not emphasize any style or culture, and can be translated into any language.  MMA shouldn't really be refered to as a style because it can include any style.  As far as the "products" go, many MMA competitors are skilled in all areas of fighting.  They also make their living by winning fights on a regular basis, and not by discussing theoretical philosophy. Shawnc 09:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that strikes me reading over this and the Bruce Lee article is that there are several contradictions in what Lee said about what he was doing. I'm sure some of them were intentional imitation of the sometimes obscure metaphors of Taoist and Buddhist philosophy, others the result of his opinions evolving over time. Another part of it was his attempt to legitimise his break with his Wing Chun school, insulting the routine he thought to be unsuited to him while expressing at least a psychic nostalgia for it in his own training and keeping a big part of the teaching structure. None of this belongs in the article of course, but that is the impression I get from reading Bruce's words. MMA in contrast seems much more straightforward: "Train your *** off and go fight." ;-) --Fire Star 15:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JKD = MMA 

message: I have noticed that a while back someone added a Pop Culture section, which was quickly removed by someone else, then just the other day, someone aded a section about fictional practitioners of JKD. Again, someone deleted it. I don't understand why this article can't have a Pop culture or Fictional practitioner section. Many articles have similar sections, for example (just a few articles I found quickly to make my point):
*Muay Thai
*Chinese martial arts
*Boxing
*Taekwondo
*Smith & Wesson
All these articles have Pop-culture/fictional or similar sections, and yet every time someone adds such a section to this article, it is quickly deleted. It just doesn't make sense that this article dosn't have a section that lists Pop-Culture and fictional uses of JKD, when so many other articles do have such sections. This article could use a Pop culture/fictionial use section. I really can't understand why no one will allow such a section to be added to this article.
*It seems that any time someone adds the section, it is quickly deleted without any discussion here... that doesn't seem fair. All of the aticles above have sections that mention pop culture and fictional uses of the topics those aricles cover. Muay Thai, for example, lists video game characters who use Muay Thai. It doesn't seem right that that this article isn't allowed to have a section like that. It seems unfair to delete what appears to be a legitimate section without any discussion about it. especially since many other articles have pop culture and fictional user sections (Muay Thai, for example). I honestly can't understand why this article can't have a pop culture section, while other articles can. 151.203.179.227 21:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not involved in this article much, but I see your point. Something that may be helpful is that there is already a Bruce Lee and popular culture article. --Fire Star 火星 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Practitioners/Pop Culture 

message: My JKD sources tell me this guy is a sham.  He broke away from Gary Dill a legitmate instructor and than tried to get others to promote him.  When he couldn't he started his own organization with all kinds of claims to being a Grand Master.  There is no history of this guy before 1992.  Any way the point is that we should be careful if citing anyone without the proper credentials.FrankWilliams 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter Hargrave 

message: I happened to be reading the section of Chinses martial arts the other day and discovered Jeet Kune Do was included in one of the Chinese martial art listings.  I must say that with all the training and techiniques Bruce Lee adopted from Savate, boxing and fencing that wouldn't it be prudent to catgorize this martial art as American or hybrid or whatever you may call a martial art which cosists of techniques from various styles?  Futhermore, would it be correct to say that Jeet Kune Do is an American style as it was created in the U.S. and first taught to U.S. citizens?
Thoughts?
157.80.33.202 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese or American martial art 

message: The External Links seem to be under question as what should be in there.  I think it's obvious that we don't need advertisements.  Also trying to link every (supposedly legitamate)(also see Carter Hargrave above) JKD school would be ridiculous, but I believe that linking both Inosanto and Kimura would be appropiate as they were both instuctors under Lee.  Discussion? -- ShuckyDucky 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I would like to discuss the following addition, that was recently made to the Jeet Kune Do entry:
"Recently, in 2004, the Bruce Lee Foundation decided on using an all encompassing name of Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do. This name refers to the art itself as taught by Bruce Lee and as intended by Bruce Lee in his lifetime. "Jun Fan" being Lee's Chinese given name, therefore the literal translation is "Bruce Lee's Way of the Intercepting Fist."
My comments: 
Bruce called his approach to combat simply "Jeet Kune Do", but at the same time, he stated that he was sorry he used that term, because he was afraid people would get too "caught up" in the name (that appears to have happened, too, over the years !). He stated "it is just a name", and "don't make too much of it". 
Jun Fan is Bruce's (Cantonese) Chinese name. Jun Fan Gung Fu was Bruce's version of wing chun (which Bruce did up to 1966), which is more or less an art with a set number of techniques, and that can be taught as a product, and handed down. 
Jeet Kune Do (what Bruce did from 1966-1973), on the other hand, is not an art, it is an approach to combat, based on Bruce's and his students' exploration into over 30 martial arts (wing chun, kung fu, boxing, fencing, savate, etc.). It does not have a set number of techniques. It is a personal process of discovery, not an art. That is why Bruce stated "my Jeet Kune Do is not your Jeet Kune Do". He also stated that JKD is to "contain everything, and be bound by nothing". To me, that suggests that JKD is not an art, but an open-ended approach to combat, and a personal path of discovery.
We can view JKD as a progression and experimentation by Bruce Lee.  Wing Chun was the nucleus for this was the art that Lee had originally studied.  Throughout Lee's experiences he found that Wing Chun was too restrictive (for whatever reasons, to be argued later for it really doesn't matter).  Jun Fan was the modified Wing Chun system that evolved under the premise of Wing Chun (and other traditional systems for that matter) being too restrictive in Lee's opionion.   During this development Lee further modified Jun Fan Kung so that it became Jeet Kune Do as he felt that Jun Fan was also still too restrictive.  It is my understanding that JKD the Process and JKD Lee's personal product of that process were done hand in hand.  This distinction for Lee was always there.  There were many (are still are today) that do not understand this distinction and believe that to imitate Lee or even to use the techniques that he used is to practise JKD.  In fact it is really only a fascimile.  In order to really practise JKD one has to absorb martial arts to the degree that you are expressing yourself uniquely.  Only then are you practising JKD.  Of course there maybe similarities between JKD practioners because many of the principals overlap.  But, there will also be many more differences as we are all individuals with many diverse abilities and attributes.FrankWilliams 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JKD: name, and essence 

message: Recently there have been some edits that have removed certain explanations of what the quotes mean.  I propose discussing such edits prior to removing these important portions of the explanations.  Also I propose that the explanations be as simple and concise as possible.  The more verbiage that is added will only add complexity and controversy FrankWilliams 13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes Section 

message: Is there a way to cite references so they are not redundant yet will give specific page numbers?  I understand the need for not repeating the same reference yet citing the specific page number seem to also be important for those wishing to verify. FrankWilliams 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Instructors listed in this article should should be:
*A.  Direct students of Bruce Lee (verifyable: IE Dan Inosanto, Larry Hartsell etc.)
*B.  Student promoted to instructors by A. above.  (Also verifyable
 
:As far as point B is concerned, to include Second Generation students is reaching quite a bit.  There are tons and tons of second gen students and I can't fathom they are at all pertinent to the JKD article.  If the inclusion is needed then maybe a secondary page should be set up for these student/teachers.  It seems more like people are advertising than adding info to the article. - ShuckyDucky 04:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry Hartsell learned directly from Lee, I would consider him first generation and don't see a problem mentioning him within context of the article.  Carter Hargrave OTOH is someone I've never heard of.  Did he learn directly from Lee?  Does his name need to be mentioned in the article within context of the article?  As far as I can tell Hargrave has a bunch of websites that claim he is the World Leader of JKD, whatever that means.  If this is such a big deal I would just suggest a seperate section for lineage, and once it balloons(as it surely will) create a seperate page.ShuckyDucky 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate Instructors 

message: This is a dispute about what instructors should be mentioned in the Jeet Kune Do article.18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Applicable JKD Instructors 

message: I am deleting Jesse Glover from the article as he has stated many times that he does not do JKD nor is he a proponent of JFJKD.  If there is a disagreement with this I would suggest Googling his name and read any interview he has done, many people ask him about a comparison.  If you really need to know I believe he simply calls his style Non-Classical Gung Fu.  When he asked Lee if he could teach on his own, Lee said sure as long as he doesn't call it Jun Fan.ShuckyDucky 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glover 

message: This article has undergone edit warring so I am protecting it for a while. Please, discuss the changes on the talk page rather than in the article itself. --Tone 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it interesting that you make implied comments about editors not being democratic, and yet this is the first time you have posted to the discussion page. Perhaps a refresher course on Democracy or maybe even Teamwork might help clarify things for you.  I think maybe the best article for you to read would be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. ShuckyDucky 18:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: here here, So far I have seen Frank remove names that are not cited. A simple citation proving the said fact or not would take care of it. Till then the names should be removed till proven otherwise. Then if they are, with a grain of salt and a plate of crow Frank should allow them. Till then it should be discussed here. So far seems as if he is keeping the article concise and uncited things out. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?--Xiahou 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The edit warring continues. Therefore I have fully protected the article and I invite all interested to reach an agreement here. --Tone 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: After doing reverse DNS lookups it appears a single user with the following alias's is continusously attempting to either support/promote certain instructors while there is a discussion going on.  The users alias appear to be:  Bruceleeman, Martiallaws, Jeetman, and  70.128.117.245 .  This user has been warned many times and refuses to use standard Wiki mechanisms for proper discussions of context within articles.  FrankWilliams 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JKD Vandal 

message: The Wikimedia Foundation offices have been contacted about legal threats pertaining to the editing behavior of people on this page.  Please work this out and concentrate on what is best for the encyclopedic nature of the article.  Martial arts articles generally are highly controversial when it comes to the question of who is "legitimate" as an instructor of the discipline, and the issue of "truth" in credentials and the like is a distraction at best and a fertile ground for personal libel at worst.  I implore all concerned to focus on the purpose of the article itself and not be cajoled into a fight over levels of proof for acceptable statements concerning instructors.  This is an encyclopedia, not the martial arts yellow pages.--Brad Patrick 18:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does User:WorldJKD think that this is libelous anyway? Discussions on talk pages hardly constitute libel. Do these legal threats hold any water? Asarelah 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No they don't, and even if they manage to find their way to court, the charges would drop --Dark Dragon Flame 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notified the administrators on the noticeboards about this, and hopefully they can block WorldJKD and his sockpuppets. Asarelah 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr.WORLDJKD please don't forget to sue every forum user that makes negative comments about the JKD "intructors" or aganist anything that you or your attourneys think, thank you. --Dark Dragon Flame 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Threats 

message: Is the opening header as it sets the tone for the article and flows directly into the Bruce Lee quote.  It also stresses the importance of reading the quote first as the article should give the details and strengthen what Lee says in his quote.  FrankWilliams 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section title should pertain to the material that is specifically in that section.  Wikipedia does not stress to the reader which part of the article they should read first.  That is up to the reader to decide, which is why each section is linked to in the Table of Contents at the top of the article.  As for the References section, that some references have yet to be incorporated into the new format does not mean that the article needs a section called "References 2", which makes the article look less organized and neat.  Nightscream 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and Foremost 

message: The notes in "Tao of Jeet Kune do" edited by Gilbert L. Johnson and Linda Lee and "JKD" edited by John Little essentially say the same thing because their source material was exactly the same; Lee's notes during his convalences in 1970.  The ranges were refined after 1970 to incorporate the 4 rather than the original three.  This is part of JKD flexibility and adaptability.  The 4 ranges are more refined and more descriptive then the previous three.  The problem with those previous 3 was in defining what is a middle range? or what constitutes a short range?. The latter 4 leaves less ambiguation.  This is not a an Original JKD vs. Concept JKD differentiation.  Readers need to be careful when reading Bruce Lee source material as there were many changes occurring after Lee essentially stopped teaching and was concentrating on his movie career when he gave Inosanto the reins of continuing JKD.  Also, remember that Inosanto is the ONLY person authorized to certify individuals in JKD.FrankWilliams 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that we don't even know if Lee intended anything for JKD.  The reality is, once he taught the knowledge to others it was out of his hands anyway.The questions you pose are leading but my answer would be a rhetorical ... who cares.ShuckyDucky 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Ranges 

message: *
--Dan Inosanto lashes out at Jeet Kune Do pretenders in exclusive interview.
(See reference for details) FrankWilliams 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that we don't even know if Lee intended anything for JKD.  The reality is, once he taught the knowledge to others it was out of his hands anyway.The questions you pose are leading but my answer would be a rhetorical ... who cares.ShuckyDucky 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inosanto's Position

message: I have noticed alot of debate over this subject as to what is JKD or who is or isnt JKD.
No-one is certified in JKD. JKD is not a system that has set techniques or forms, therefore 
their can be no clear division of certified or uncertified instructors of JKD Regardless of pedigree.
I also noticed that someone made a section called "system" under the JKD topic.... 
"Nothingness cannot be defined, the softest thing cannot be snapped" Bruce Lee 
"To be great is to be misunderstood" Ralph Waldo Emerson—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.127.94 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedigree/Jkd 

message: I have noticed several innaccuracys and in this article such as "jkd being the genesis to mixed martial arts" Mixed martial arts were around long before jkd. I also notice many items in this article that were simply opinion and some worded incorrectly, however when I went thru and changed them they were reverted back. I do not believe it is in the best interest of wikipedia to allow a few certain people to control a subject to make it into what they want it to be.
Yalegolas 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An answer to your fist point is the article fits with the formatting for Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts, as for your second point I believe it is already as you say. I would suggest reading thoroughly through the article and then make possible suggestions.  They are always welcome.ShuckyDucky 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ...Well then I'm glad Wikipedia articles are not about random biased opinions such as yours.ShuckyDucky 23:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innaccurate 

message: or a website for finding well respected locations to learn ? or world and national headquarters for various styles ?
Hello,
I'm looking for a place to practice in L.A.  Where would I figure out how to find something?  While I don't think the article or talk page should directly advertise specific locations to learn, I think it should be more helpful in directing someone who is interested in the right direction.  Thanks. Tkjazzer 21:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to learn in L.A. ? 

message: The problem with JKD is that it has helped to commercialise martial arts to the detriment of the student who seeks genuine guidance. The direction of JKD schools in the 70's , and 80's was to obfuscate and sifle development of students to secure continued fees to the schools (and the instructors). The vague teaching standards of JKD has bred a lot of poorly trained students who are not capable of dealing with genuine violence. An example of this is the continued promotion of esrima drills and weapons drills which wont help in a gang beating or being shot by a mugger. In this context no two JKD have the same grading system. So the ability to compare potential teachers and their effectiveness is very limited. JKD has merely become a business that beguiles new students to ensure they will continue to make money for the schools.--Redblossom 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find the article McDojo of interest on this subject. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree entirely, sometimes your better off training in boxing/kickboxing etc. as you learn to use stuff not just practice it. You may also want to look @ Bullshido article and Bullshido.net a site about that sort of thing, I'd read the article before you post if I were you, can be 'lively' over there. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialisation to the detriment of consistent teaching? 

message: I'm sorry if the cleanup tags were a problem for you - I've been trying to go through all of the B-class martial arts articles to let people know where they can be improved (WP:WPMA currently has only 7 GA or better classed articles).  So here's my rationale for each tag, and I'll leave to the regular editors of this article to decide if they are warranted.  On the other hand, if the article is perfect the way it is, why don't you submit it for GA, and see what they think of it over there?
*: To pass GA, it is usually required by reviewers that at least every block of related material be referenced (not necessarily every sentence, but usually at least every paragraph). Here are the problems broken down by section
**The System - no references
**The Principles - 11 or so paragraphs; 3 references
**The Branches - no references
**Bruce Lee - 2 paragraphs; 1 reference
**Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do Quotes - properly referenced
* Lists of works cited need to be incorporated as footnotes.  Footnotes need to be formatted to a consistent citaton style (Chicago manual of style, etc...) or use citation templates.
* (which is the tag for "unencyclopedic lists"): See generally, WP:EMBED. Lists are generally disfavored anytime it is at all possible to discuss or present the contents of the list in prose. I believe this is the case with most of the "Principles" section. The section should be rewritten so each of the categories of principles, as well as individual principles is named and discussed in paragraph form.  You may also consider breaking this section up into proper wiki-coded subsections. Consider also converting the lists to tables, which are acceptable. The lists in the "Branches" section would be especially easy to break up into paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. The Quotes section, as well, would be better if the context of the quotes was provided, and the meaning of the quotes was discussed with references. Lists are criticized very frequently on GA reviews, and considered by many reviewers to be inherently unencyclopedic. 
* Really just referring to the quotes section, and overlaps with the previous comment. Having so many quotes is especially problematic when they are presented in a bulleted list.
A few additional comments:
*Most of the section headings are contrary to the guidelines at WP:HEAD.
*The System section especially, but the rest of the article as well, could probably use some subsections.
*The Principles section could probably be expanded to include more detailed explanation of the individual subparts, particularly IV and V.
*The material in the section Bruce Lee should probably appear up front in a "History" section that details his inspirations experiences that led him to create the art, and that immediately precedes the more detailed description of the system itself.
I hope all of this has been helpful, it would be wonderful to see more martial arts articles make it to GA and above. Bradford44 20:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tags 

message: I'm sorry if the cleanup tags were a problem for you - I've been trying to go through all of the B-class martial arts articles to let people know where they can be improved (WP:WPMA currently has only 7 GA or better classed articles).  So here's my rationale for each tag, and I'll leave to the regular editors of this article to decide if they are warranted.  On the other hand, if the article is perfect the way it is, why don't you submit it for GA, and see what they think of it over there?
*Response: The tags are less of a problem now that you have them in a collapsed format; you initially had so many that you could barley see the article when came upon it.
===Referencing===
*: To pass GA, it is usually required by reviewers that at least every block of related material be referenced (not necessarily every sentence, but usually at least every paragraph). Here are the problems broken down by section
**The System - no references
*Response: Agreed
**The Principles - 11 or so paragraphs; 3 references
*Response: Having written the Principles section the 3 references covers all that is written.
**The Branches - no references
*Response: Agreed
**Bruce Lee - 2 paragraphs; 1 reference
*Response: The second paragraph is a truism and self explanatory as the reference is a tv episode.
**Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do Quotes - properly referenced
*Response: Agreed
::We appear to be in agreement here.  One note, however, is that if the three references in the Principles section cover all the material, then repetitive inline citations (again, just one per paragraph is sufficient at this level) should be used to indicate this.  Otherwise, it appears to readers that some material is referenced, and other material is not. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITE#HOW.  I prefer citation templates, but they are not required (I just think they are easier to use). See WP:CIT for a list of all the templates and how to use them. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right that it is a stylistic issue, I'm just letting you know what I believe reviewers' preferences are at GA review. I think it is a shame that there are currently only 6 or so GA-class martial arts articles, and all of them are about Japanese people or arts. I'd like to see more diverse articles get polished and promoted. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cleaned up to meet WP:MOS, 'the' and the name of the article should not be in most headings. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As a general response to the above, I simply believe that the article's presentation and organization is too informal. Having bolded subject headings instead of wiki markup sections and subsections is an example of how. I'm not too worried about the guidelines, they are just a tool to increase uniformity and encourage a professional presentation. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Cleanup tags 

message: *: To pass GA, it is usually required by reviewers that at least every block of related material be referenced (not necessarily every sentence, but usually at least every paragraph). Here are the problems broken down by section
**The System - no references
*Response: Agreed
**The Principles - 11 or so paragraphs; 3 references
*Response: Having written the Principles section the 3 references covers all that is written.
**The Branches - no references
*Response: Agreed
**Bruce Lee - 2 paragraphs; 1 reference
*Response: The second paragraph is a truism and self explanatory as the reference is a tv episode.
**Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do Quotes - properly referenced
*Response: Agreed
::We appear to be in agreement here.  One note, however, is that if the three references in the Principles section cover all the material, then repetitive inline citations (again, just one per paragraph is sufficient at this level) should be used to indicate this.  Otherwise, it appears to readers that some material is referenced, and other material is not. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: * Lists of works cited need to be incorporated as footnotes.  Footnotes need to be formatted to a consistent citaton style (Chicago manual of style, etc...) or use citation templates.
*Response: Please help with this.  What is the Chicago manual of style?  Many of the references in other articles I've written use this same style.  What is different about this one?
::See WP:CITE#HOW.  I prefer citation templates, but they are not required (I just think they are easier to use). See WP:CIT for a list of all the templates and how to use them. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation style

message: * (which is the tag for "unencyclopedic lists"): See generally, WP:EMBED. Lists are generally disfavored anytime it is at all possible to discuss or present the contents of the list in prose. I believe this is the case with most of the "Principles" section. The section should be rewritten so each of the categories of principles, as well as individual principles is named and discussed in paragraph form.  You may also consider breaking this section up into proper wiki-coded subsections. Consider also converting the lists to tables, which are acceptable. The lists in the "Branches" section would be especially easy to break up into paragraphs instead of bulleted lists. The Quotes section, as well, would be better if the context of the quotes was provided, and the meaning of the quotes was discussed with references. Lists are criticized very frequently on GA reviews, and considered by many reviewers to be inherently unencyclopedic. 
*Response: I think this is a stylistic issue and one open to interpretation and opinion.  I happen to think the bullets are appropriately and useful.
::You're quite right that it is a stylistic issue, I'm just letting you know what I believe reviewers' preferences are at GA review. I think it is a shame that there are currently only 6 or so GA-class martial arts articles, and all of them are about Japanese people or arts. I'd like to see more diverse articles get polished and promoted. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedded lists

message: A few additional comments:
*Most of the section headings are contrary to the guidelines at WP:HEAD.
*Response: Maybe the guidelines need to be revised.  What is specifically wrong with the headings.  They appear to be supportive of each of the sections.
::Cleaned up to meet WP:MOS, 'the' and the name of the article should not be in most headings. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general response to the above, I simply believe that the article's presentation and organization is too informal. Having bolded subject headings instead of wiki markup sections and subsections is an example of how. I'm not too worried about the guidelines, they are just a tool to increase uniformity and encourage a professional presentation. Bradford44 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional (minor) comments

message: I have lately seen some editors changing the country of origin of JKD from U.S. to China or adding China in addition to.  It is well established that:
*A. Bruce Lee was born in the U.S. & chose U.S. citizenship
*B. Bruce Lee resided in the U.S. while developing JKD
*C. JKD was developed and refined in the U.S.
It is thus not a Chinese system, martial art, or style. 
FrankWilliams 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree, but given the Chinese name and heavy Wing Chun influence I'm not sure it's quite that simple. It's certainly based in kung fu to a large extent, despite the admixture of boxing, fencing, etc. This isn't an either/or thing. JJL 13:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is heavily influenced by Chinese MA especially Wing Chun, but as it was created in the US by a US citizen, claiming it's chines is as incorrect as it would be to ignore the chines influence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 13:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
JKD is no more influenced by Wing Chun then any other of the sytems Bruce Lee incoporated into it.  Western Boxing and Fencing are also heavily influenced to ignore this is just as incorrect. 206.125.176.3 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruce Lee and his art certainly pose a difficulty when it comes to placing its geographical-cultural identity.  To offer a simple one or the other type of answer does not do justice to its complexity.  Possibly our modern day language doesn't really have the vocabulary to capture this complexity.  I would say that it is precisely this point which should be made when describing where his art came from. --Baumgaertner (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country of Origin 

message: SAA stands for Single Angular Attack NOT SIMPLE ANGULAR ATTACK.  This has never been disputed so I don't know where this is coming from.  I suggest editors seek more knowledge before changing these articles. 206.125.176.3 13:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you also take more care with your edits as you broke a reference with part of it, I didn't see the second part of the edits. You may also want to seek the knowledge of WP:CIVIL --Nate1481( t/c) 15:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAA 

message: All or most of this article appears to be a direct copy of the following article which shows a copyright notice (unless this article was here first?): http://www.boxist.com/2008/01/18/jeet-kune-do-secrets-and-methods/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonicSphere (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement? 

message: Why are people claiming that JKD is a system? Bruce Lee clearly intended it to be a conceptual approach rather than a system. In fact, when he saw students interpreting it as a system, he shut down all of his schools. JKD was created in opposition to system. If you interpret JKD as a system, you have missed the boat. In order for the article to be NPOV, it should portray JKD as a conceptual approach. The two primary founders of JKD, Dan Inosanto (who is still alive and teaching) and Bruce Lee, taught that it was a conceptual approach to martial arts and life in general. Claiming that JKD is a system is a POV. --RisingSunWiki 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're failing to distinguish between what he intended it to be and what it currently is. Look in your local Yellow Pages and see if it's just a concept or if it's marketed as a system. JJL (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a section on "Branches" where this difference is discussed and can be discussed further. As I mentioned earlier Dan Inosanto is still teaching and as far as I know, he still teaches it as a conceptual approach to martial arts and life in general. If there are some schools today teaching JKD as a system, then that can be discussed in the "Branches" section. Even if their ads appear in the yellow pages, they should still be teaching Original JKD or JKD Concepts. If not, then they are teaching a significant departure from the fundamental ideas of JKD. Again, this can and should be discussed in the "Branches" section. But the fact remains that at the heart of JKD, as it was founded and is still taught by many today, is total and complete rejection of system coupled with an eclectic approach to martial arts and life in general. All articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be NPOV. To claim that JKD is a concept is NPOV. To claim that JKD is a system is POV. So the article should be changed. --RisingSunWiki 22:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a POV issue. That Bruce Lee stated that he intended it as a concept is certainly accurate. However, it's treated as a system nowadays. A web search quickly verifies that it's more widely taught as a style/system than a set of concepts. JJL (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is JKD a system or a concept? 

message: I have created a page of JKD userboxes, both philosophical and MA, if anyone is interested and would like to put any on their user page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RisingSunWiki/JKDuserboxes/
--RisingSunWiki 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JKD userboxes 

message: The current article focuses primarily on JKD as a martial art. I would like to see a new section that discusses JKD as a philosophy (after all, Bruce Lee did intend for JKD to be both). The current Quotes section seems to be the most philosophical, so I propose merging that into a 'JKD as a philosophy' section that will be devoted to the philosophical angle. This new section can list basic principles of the philosophy using quotations or non-quotations, and then briefly discussing each one. --RisingSunWiki 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this has been done. Please help improve the section and add to it, if you have some good things to add. --RisingSunWiki 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see that you did post on the discussion page. I didn't see that earlier. You want references? Okay. On p. xv of Bruce Lee: Fighting Spirit, Linda Lee states of her late husband, "He studied all the traditional philosophies, but then he began to form his own philosophy...." Dan Inosanto on pg. 97 of Jeet Kune Do: The Art and Philosophy of Bruce Lee states that, "Bruce stressed time and again that JKD was really intended as a means of self-discovery or enlightenment." The introduction to Bruce Lee: Artist of Life states on pg. xiv, "Finding a truth in one discipline and then applying that truth to an entirely unrelated discipline is a hallmark of Lee's genius." So clearly the evidence shows that Bruce Lee was a philosopher who intended JKD to be a philosophy. This is a NPOV fact of JKD. If the section on philosophy becomes large enough, we can split the article into two; I don't think the section is long enough yet. If the article has inaccuracies, those inaccuracies should be changed. You claim there are "no references". There are 16 reference books and 21 footnotes in the edition I defend. In the edition you are suggesting, there are 5 reference books, and 13 footnotes. Based on everything that I have stated here, I think the newer edition is better, as a whole, than the older; so I have reverted. I guess this starts an edit war; not sure how to resolve it. --RisingSunWiki 11:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At Wikipedia:Edit war, it states "Our neutral point of view requires that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally." This Wikipedia policy would suggest that both views of JKD (philosophy and martial art) can and should exist harmoniously with each other in the same article (yin and yang). --RisingSunWiki 11:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new section: JKD as a philosophy 

message: This section seems to have some obvious POV currently. It no longer has a good NPOV discussion of the differences between Original and Concepts. To bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards, the section needs to be modified. If there are no objections, I am going to change it to make it NPOV.--RisingSunWiki 03:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this video of Ted Wong, there are still differences between OJKD and JKDC. So the claim in the current section that there are no longer divisions between the two branches must be false. If no one else changes this section, I will change it when I get time. --RisingSunWiki 02:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branches section