Talk:Chuck Norris Facts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was previously nominated for deletion.

Please see prior discussions before even considering re-nomination:

Keep, 2007-03-10, see discussion.
Keep, 2006-08-17, see discussion.
No consensus, 2006-03-02, see discussion.

Do not add Chuck Norris Facts to this talk page or its article. The Chuck Norris Facts web site is already linked from the main article.

[edit] Top 10 Facts

err there are 11 arent there...? Jds10912 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out the website cited. It's a subtle joke that "Chuck Norris always gives 110%", I fugure.
Actually, now it's the top 100. Toad King 11:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnet

This page is a magnet for all kinds of nonsense. I'm not going to bother editing through the various examples of Chuck Norris "facts". As long as they're doing it here, they're not doing it on Chuck Norris, I suppose. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's about the Internet Phenomenon, not about actual facts. Get it straight, this article is correct. - Mystalic

There is a certain modicum of irony in the number of Wikipedia members who have no concept of internet humor and its related phenomena. Bobak 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris

Seems like a nice guy! Great response to "Chuck Norris Facts". - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Great marketing repsonses. He knows this popularity will help his books sales and does well to point out his new novel and autobiography.
- Yeah, I noticed that, too. To be honest, I imagine Chuck Norris' true response to the majority of the facts (many of which are ostensibly sacriligious, depicting Norris to be as great as or greater than God [example: "Chuck Norris has never missed a question on Jeopardy!. Jesus has missed two."]) was more deeply offended, but to alienate his new-found "fanbase" would be bad for publicity, so instead he uses it as an opportunity to plug his books.
  Then again, maybe all the stuff about him being an all-powerful being is true, and he is a Christian merely to gain Jesus' trust before he delivers a stern round house kick. You can never tell with Chuck Norris. Jeff Silvers 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm going to guess that the number of Chuck Norris Facts fans who actually buy his book is going to be roughly equivalent to the number of South Park fans who were convinced that Brian Boitano is a badass.

[edit] "Examples"

I've reverted an anon's edits saying: "Just paste any more examples you find onto the end, regardless of formatting". I have no idea where he/she copied these "examples" from, but the page was at least a couple megs and probably a copyvio. (I couldn't actually finish loading the page as I'm on dialup, ha.) Mrtea (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe at the least there could be a few examples to show what they're like... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.238.57 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Chuck Norris facts sites

Put any sites you find here

@duckshit.com

@chucknorrisfacts.com

@CubeSlacker.com

@norris.kicks-ass.net

@4q.cc

mike.wordpress.com

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.222.245 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 January 2006.

I don't understandd why they are being placed here. If they are qualifying external links then they belong on the article page under External Links. Pattersonc 02:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be under the impression that these sites qualify as external links. They should not be added to the main article. I'm not sure why this anonymous user thought they'd be helpful. Mrtea (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the site owners above claim to have the original/best facts website. Maybe that's why. Ashibaka tock 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah right. This has come up on Talk:Chuck Norris as well. I think Ohnoitsjamie handled it well: "Chuck Norris Facts were originally seen on IRC, and on websites like the Something Awful forums, in Spring 2005. While your site might be the original random fact generator, I don't think that the facts themselves are "owned" by anyone; it appears that they were a collaborative effort by anonymous and disparate individuals." Mrtea (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish we had a different term for 'random fact generator' as they don't generate anything, they're just random fact databases. Seadragon 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNL skit

I noticed someone added a link to the SNL skit in this article. Someone should put a brief description of it in the article. mbecker 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Hi. A few people have been reverting my edits to the external links section of this article. I would just like to point out that I discussed this pretty thoroughly with Pattersonc (who as far as I can tell is a major contributor to this article) before doing this. The discussion is here. Just to summarize here are some points:

The Washington Post article only mentions the 4q.cc site and not the chucknorrisfacts.com site
The 4q.cc site itself claims to be the origin of the Chuck Norris facts in this news post.
The chucknorrisfacts.com site does not appear to even be accessible (at least to me - I get a HTTP 403 error)
It is pretty biased to call one site "Chuck Norris Facts Site" and the other one "Random Chuck Norris Fact Generator", I think it is more fair to call one a list and one a database because that's what they technically are. "Random Generator" makes it seem like the 4q.cc site is fake or a ripoff of the other.
On Talk:Chuck Norris, it has been noted that the original source of the Chuck Norris facts was the SomethingAwful forums. So neither site is "the original". Still since the main site that was originally linked to in this article is down, I think there at least needs to be some acknowledgment of the other site (4q.cc).
All the Chuck Norris facts found on chucknorrisfacts.com are also found on 4q.cc, along with many others, which leads me to believe that the former site copied from the latter site (though they both copied from SomethingAwful, no doubt).

Anyway please don't just revert my edits without taking a look at them. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was offering no explanation, so I just posted my explanation here. Please discuss. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all your points except for chucknorrisfacts.com not being accessible. Anyway, because there was some "controversy" with the links, then the web site that has actual sources should be references. I don't think there's any need to add both sites. Mrtea (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sites have media references, look here Link Just because one site has been going to the Washington Post and claiming that they started something, doesn't mean they did. A better way to show originality is both sites show up at the top when you search in Google, which means they have the same number of sites linking to them. Other knockoff sites like chucknorrisisgod.com and hardaschuck.com don't even show up anywhere near the first 10 pages. I think it's fair to list both 4q and chucknorrisfacts.com sites. Samantha17 16:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Something to note: This Yahoo news article gives a detailed history of the 4q.cc's Chuck Norris facts list o.o Dunno how accurate it is though. It's true that there are also Vin Diesel and Mr. T "facts" on 4q.cc. — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did it start?

I see this frequently occur across most Internet meme entries, that typically SomethingAwful will attain credit, simply due to the fact they are the largest and most well-known internet community. This article was recently found by the LUElinks community, who actually intially created and started this meme, and yet they do not appear anywhere in the actual article. Can this be addressed and can the blatant bias against LUElinks end? --162.83.134.171 02:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the site was already planned to be made before LUElinks had any involvement. Also, pretty much all of the LL "community"'s involvement was from the user Toad King, who wrote the script and got it hosted on 4q.cc, along with most of the facts from his first fact generator transfered over to the Chuck Norris one to give it a start. Toad King 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, atleast we're getting somewhere. I'd like to see you atleast credited over IRC or SomethingAwful. --162.83.134.171 02:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Even 4q.cc admits the original facts come from SomethingAwful. Hamilton burr 20:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 4q.cc admits that the VIN DIESEL facts started on SomethingAwful, not the Chuck Norris ones. Toad King 18:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole "fact" phenomenon started at SomethingAwful. Going back, there were "Vin Diesel" facts, and some of the original Vin Diesel Facts had Mr T in them. Some had Chuck Norris in them. (i.e. "Vin Diesel, Mr T, and Chuck Norris walked into a bar. The bar instantly exploded, as it is not physically possible to contain that much awesome in one building.") There's no dispute about where the "facts" meme started. The credit for this goes to the SA forum goons, and rightly so. Hamilton burr 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying they didn't start the random facts meme, but the Chuck Norris facts are a spin-off of the Vin Diesel facts, don't you think so? Vin Diesel came first, then Chuck Norris and Mr. T came after. The SomethingAwful forums are credited in the section about the facts in the Vin Diesel article, and I don't think it should be mentioned here also, since SomethingAwful didn't have a _direct_ relationship with the creation of Chuck Norris facts. Toad King 17:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to mention in the article that the Chuck fad was inspired by the Vin fad, and that a lot of the most popular facts were originally written as Vin facts. --64.9.10.166 20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reposted discussion of this topic that's been covered a while ago:

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

From the "facts" article: Chuck Norris Facts were originally seen on IRC, and on websites like the Something Awful forums, in Spring 2005. While your site might be the original random fact generator, I don't think that the facts themselves are "owned" by anyone; it appears that they were a collaborative effort by anonymous and disparate individuals. Oh no itsJamie^Talk 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Oh no itsJamie^Talk. 4q.cc is just a bunch of quotes collected from other places. From this interview with Ian Spector of 4q, about his "generator" websites: "Although Ian Spector maintains the site, approximately 90% of the "facts" are contributed by visitors – most of whom are either college students or stuck in a cubicle ... The website was spawned from a discussion thread on the massively popular internet forum, SomethingAwful.com" [1] Tomservo3000 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It started with Real Ultimate Power. 71.132.1.92

[edit] Somethingawful references

Adbrite page, crediting SomethingAwful for the origin [2]

Interview with Ian from 4q.cc, crediting SomethingAwful [3]

Chronology of CNF on shinyplasticbag [4]

Everyone seems to agree this started on Somethingawful.

Toad King, please have your discussion here, not on the history page. You might also skim the DPOV page. Please note, writing about oneself in wiki articles is considered undesirable, at best, on Wikipedia. Hamilton burr 20:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't it be "Chuck Norris facts"? why is the F capitalized? --Borisblue 06:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The name of the original websites were "Chuck Norris Fact Generator" and "Chuck Norris Facts". --Cyde Weys 18:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Trivia" and Chuck's lawyers

I'm going to remove our little trivia section because there's no reputable source saying Chuck Norris' lawyers are sending out cease and desist letters. The link given as a source is a website where anyone can register and post questions. We "should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." Mrtea (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concerns with WP:V, but this is totally reasonable. The lawyer sent a C&D to someone making a shirt that said "What would Chuck Norris do?" with Chuck's face on it. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect a lawyer to do in this kind of situation, because if Chuck doesn't protect his own likeness then he loses exclusive rights to it. Still, I don't see that it is entirely relevant to Chuck Norris Facts. --Cyde Weys 18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of assumed that the shirts had "facts" on them as well. If they don't you're right.. it wouldn't really belong in this article in the first place. It does make sense for the lawyers to begin sending out letters, but we don't know if they have actually done so. Mrtea (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Whoops-- when I created the "See also" section I didn't notice the existing link to Bill Brasky. It's redundant (including Chuck Norris), so I'll delete it. Melchoir 20:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4q.cc info link

I don't think the 4q.cc "real story" info link belongs here. For one, it's not verifiable, and two, it's downright silly. They claimed they were approached by NASA to develop a Mr. T Fact Generator. Uh huh. Yeah whatever. --Cyde Weys 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We weren't approached by NASA, we were approached by two people who work at NASA (Or we're assuming that, with NASA email accounts they use to contact us and all). Toad King 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LUElinks users, please stop editing the article to include me

I don't feel that my mention is necessary in the article, and I'm starting to think you're just looking for a reason to put LUElinks inside an article that will not be considered vandalism. Toad King 21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that some of the anon editors seem to have forgotten here ... verifiability. As it is this article is pretty non-verifiable already (such is the nature of web memes), but adding even more unfounded information is not helping. --Cyde Weys 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Fact: There are no steroids in baseball. Only players Chuck Norris has breathed on.

Chernicky 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice! I made a couple edits to it and made a template for it. (If you want to use it, just put {{User Chuck Norris}} where you want it.) Toad King 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

updated userbox with new location after move per Wikipedia:Userbox migration --Bisco 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WWCND

What Would Chuck Norris Do?

Here's another.—MJCdetroit 16:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

updated userbox with new location after move per Wikipedia:Userbox migration --Bisco 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page up for deletion?

Perhaps it should be marked for cleanup, or protected from vandalism, but it's a valid topic to have an article about. I actually came looking for this page, as opposed to seeing it on the recent changes page. -- Meatmanek

[edit] Change name of article?

How anout changing the name of the article to "internet celebrity facts" or something, because they're not just Chuck norris There's also Mr T, Vin Diesel and Jack Baeur for example.--Richy 12:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

What is the reason for having the Law of Physics example rather than one that is more representative of what most of the Chuck Norris Facts are like? Most of the Chuck Norris Facts are relatively simple statements that are one or two sentences whereas the Law of Physics example is long, has convolutions, and has a different kind of humor than most of the Chuck Norris Facts. See [5] and [6]. - Centrx 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Law of Physics example is gives a better idea of the typical "absurdly exaggerated claims of Norris' toughness, attitude, virility, and masculinity stated in an absurdly serious tone". I'm not sure if the length is that important. Mrtea (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is the best example of the given description, then the description is inaccurate. This Fact is totally unlike nearly every other, and it is utterly unlike all of the most popular. It is not simply the length, but also the kind of joke, and what the length represents, that is the complexity and the number of turns dependent on previous turns. Many of the facts are one clause, a simple assertion like "The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain". All but a few others are two simple statements, the latter being a small twist or explanation with the first statement as its premise, like "Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried." A couple of other canonical examples: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live." and "Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits." The humor is different as well. Where the Law of Physics Fact has Chuck Norris shattering unbreakable rules to make himself immensely more powerful, which is not really a one-liner, clever joke but more of a story that is humorous only because it is an absurdly exaggerated claim, the other Facts instead make a single absurd assertion and leave it at that or qualify it with a clever twist, and that is where the humor comes in.

"The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain" is funny because a chief export is a property of a country (a subtle exaggeration of Chuck Norris in place of a country), and then what is the chief export? It is not oil or timber, it is the effect of those classic Chuck Norris acts, pain. If this Fact were changed to be more like the Law of Physics Fact, it would read more like "Chuck Norris hurts people a lot, so much that it is his chief activity.", which loses all of the double meanings and has no humor. Another: Tears, oftentimes a literary magic, in Chuck Norris cure cancer. That's great! the reader thinks, look how absurdly powerful Chuck Norris is, but it is not just that: the sad thing is he never cries, because of course he is Chuck Norris. If this were rewritten to be like the Physics Fact, it would read simply "Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer", or possibly simply "Chuck Norris cures cancer". That's not funny at all; it does not lead the reader to expect one thing and then wrench the reader away from that expectation; it is only a simple, straightforward exaggeration. Briefly, "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.", instead of its charms, would be rewritten "All the animals alive today are alive because Chuck Norris allows them to live."

So, why is the Physics one a good representative of the Chuck Norris facts? In terms of absurd exaggerations, why is tears curing cancer or being the cause of evolution any less absurd and exaggerated than changing the law of physics, practically. If exaggeration be the only qualification, would we change the Physics Fact immediately to one which has Chuck Norris destroying the universe except for him and his virgin brides? For what reason ought this single Physics Fact not be replaced by one of the many other representative Facts? - Centrx 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] um, guys, what's with this "2005" stuff?

these "facts" have been around since, at the very least, 1999, if not earlier

What evidence is there of this? - Centrx 03:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts quake in fear of Chuck Norris! (sorry, couldn't resist :P)--Kross ^Talk 05:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the facts are true (as they would have us believe), then they would have been around since Norris' birth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wavy G (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

According to www.4q.cc, the facts began with Vin Diesel after the movie "The Pacifier" came out- in 2005. After a series of other fact generators, the Chuck Norris Fact Generator came into existence. Diwen 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

go ahead and believe everything you read on random sites. it's fucked that whoever did it back in the day hasn't spoken up, it was far more funny and original back then.

Yes, why would he believe a site which actually spawned the entire phenomenon? They even have references to articles about them on their info page. Toad King 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, from June 19, 2003, two years before this blew up. [7]. Admitidly this is more of an Angela Lansbury joke than a Chuck Norris one, but the phrasing is quite similar to many Chuck Norris jokes

[edit] My favorite part

My favorite part about the jokes is how they aren't funny. PrettyMuchBryce 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed move

These are not simply facts about "Chuck Norris", they are "Chuck Norris Facts" and are not actual facts. Naming the article "Chuck Norris facts" is not appropriate. —Centrx→talk 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but thats the title of the "facts" which makes the title of this article most appropriate 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)User:Drew1369

The "facts" are Chuck Norris Facts, not actual facts. —Centrx→talk • 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] come on

Ok, what the hell. I tried to edit this page twice with a useful fact referencing how Chuck Norris facts are often heard in the Barrens in World of Warcraft, properly linked it, referenced it, and everything. I had a reference to another page on Wikipedia, and WoWwiki as well. And twice it gets deleted by the same guy for "removing spam". I admit, I did call WoW popular, but only because it has what, like 8 million subscriptions? Or I guess I might be trying to promote some hidden agenda by calling it that.

Wikipedia is growing old from the constant xenophobia, and how you have to log in to have any clout. I don't really care about Wikipedia, but I'll change things when I see them. But oh, hey, I'm not registered, so I guess I'm not smart enough, or I'm unclean. It's not like "i type lik edis" or anything, and as far as I can see, there's no reason why what I added should be considered spam at all.

And you all wonder why people vandalize sites like this? It's because people take it upon themselves to act high and mighty, and oh so righteous, because you're adding to the giant ball of chewed gum that is Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.85.35 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, it is not spam. However, it still does not belong on the page because Chuck Norris Facts were common in many online forums and chat channels, and this instance in popular culture is nothing close to having the notoriety of Time Magazine or Saturday Night Live, which is what this section is about. —Centrx→talk • 17:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinedine Zidane facts

In light of Zinedine Zidane's headbutt during the final of the 2006 World Cup, I've created a spinoff known as Zinedine Zidane facts. Here is an example of one:

Never go on The Weakest Link. Anne Robinson might be Zinedine Zidane in disguise.

I've posted a few more on Talk:The Zidane headbutt. Scott Gall 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant joke?

Are the Chuck Norris Facts related to the elephant jokes? This is more of a cultural than a chronological question, of course.

In my experience the Chuck Norris Facts are funniest when read (or delivered) in rapid succession. Most of the simple one-liners don't work too well on their own, though the absurdity is usually considered as "kinda funny". My assumption (read: POV) is that they rely heavily on the massive amounts of these "facts", which would be reflected by the way they were "originally" presented (i.e. multiple "facts" in one forum post, thus to be read in sequence rather than as jokes of their own). — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viral marketing for film/tv series

There seems to be some sort of viral marketing push for a new movie and/or TV series based on the Chuck Norris facts. There is a YouTube video as well as a MySpace profile. I believe these are proof that this is more than just a rumor or film buzz.

Samuraispy 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris' views on science and politics?

Is there some reason for having Chuck Norris plugging creationism on this page? It doesn't seem relevant. I see no reason to include Chuck's view on this particular issue but no others. I suggest that it be removed. 128.250.50.92 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/u/Talk%7EChuck_Norris_Facts_238b.html"