Talk:Chuck Norris

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chuck Norris article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

HEY HEY, YOU YOU, I DON'T LIKE YOUR CHUCK FACTS

HEY YOU, YEAH YOU, THINK YOU NEED TO MOVE 'EM HERE

Chuck Norris got PWNED by the almighty Bruce Lee, maybe you should mention that in this article.[edit]

Yes, we get it. Chuck Norris is a demigod who can destroy humanity with one flex of his bad leg, and who can impregnate all females and cause gold to fall from the skies with a flex of his good leg. Now go copy that verbatim and put it in a repository that's suitable for it, because here at Uncyclopedia, the articles that are considered good aren't just rehashes of the same old shit. Hell, even AAAAAAAAA! was original once. But in the meantime, if you're uninterested in the subtleties of satire, then please leave to somewhere that will accept your tired old one-liners, because we're uninterested in your tired old memes. Also, Rick Astley. Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Here's the thing. A funny, genuinely entertaining, fitting article can be made on Chuck Norris without referencing the "Chuck facts". His film career combined with his karate career can create a mythos that is entertaining enough. I intend to work on this by referencing his acts in his movies, as well as his real life, into a makeshift persona. Here's a line from Missing In Action 3, from Chuck: "I don't step on toes... I step on necks". That sounds like it could be a Chuck fact, but the glory is... it's real. Anyways, I find that type of thing to be much appropriate than the current article. It's much more fun to look at action superstars from their movie persona than their dull real life persona. This isn't wikipedia, it's uncyclopedia. PsychoGoatee 07:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just fine, all I ask is that you make it humorous. But what else I ask is this. Ask for some approval before moving a full rewrite in. This is for the reason that this article, in its previous state, has already been featured. And it's been written by a well-respected writer around here. Now, that doesn't mean it can't be rewritten, and it also doesn't mean that I particularly like it. I voted against its feature myself, I didn't laugh enough times while reading it, but it was better than the meme-infested shit deposit we had beforehand. But anyways, tampering with this article is really touchy with a lot of us around here because we finally had something well-written filling this space, and we know people like to fuck it up. I would consult with Ljlego, this article's author who is also an administrator here, and ask him about your rewrite. Not just for permission, but maybe there's a chance that he too likes your ideas. Who knows? I sure don't. But my point is, that while this is in fact an openly editable wiki, an author did spend a lot of time fine-tuning this into an original piece of his own work. I think it best that you at least honor this author's work by consulting with him on it. I can't force it on you though, and I'm also not reverting this article anymore, as I said in last night's edit summary. It's between you and Ljlego from here. -RA HB 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All I want to know is why in fuck's name every article on this site has to have an absurd "mythos" as you call it around it. Not everything in an encyclopedia has a ridiculously outlandish history. Not everything in the world is anything beyond a mundane B-list actor. Hell, some of the joke of this article is that Chuck Norris is a completely normal guy. Now, what you put there isn't bad. Reading over it, I'm certainly glad it didn't resort (entirely) to the same old cliche. Is this article the most hilarious thing I've ever written? Probably not. I've laughed aloud at more of my articles than I've laughed at this one. Is it still a good article? Absolutely. Is it a good satire (which, by the way, is what Uncyclopedia's primary goal is)? Absolutely. Attempting in vain to glorify Chuck's dull real-life as this article does serves as a counterpoint to the meme-spewing bellends that infest this vast Internet.

Replacing a featured article is OK, sure. I'm not as anal-retentive as you might think. However, you have to be a lot more careful about doing so. You'd better make it feature quality from the get-go. Replacing it with something that needs to be "fixed" in thirty days or it gets the axe just isn't going to cut it. However, I have a suggestion for you. I did this very same thing when I was getting reverted on the Dane Cook page. Make your article into the Chuck Norris autobiography, or authorized biography. UnBooks:The Man, The Myth, The Merchandise: The Chuck Norris Story, using a line cribbed from your article that I particularly liked, should serve as a good place if you choose to go that route. No matter what, though, nice to meet you. I'm Ljlego.~~ S i r Ljlego , GUN [talk] 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

People who take shit seriously go here[edit]

This article isn't funny. At all. I understand that there are those that, lacking a sense of humor, do not laugh at Chuck Facts, and actually have the gall to condemn the people who come up with them as "unfunny". But even the sabotagers of this article could not have possibly found any of this to be funny. Especially not the addendum where it is asserted that Chuck Norris is a normal human being.

I suggest a re-write from the ground up. Not for fear that Chuck will come to your house and kill your dissing Walker, Texas Ranger, but because this article has too many real facts in it to be funny. When I think Uncyclopedia I think "absurdist humor", and this article is neither absurd nor humorous. Were it filled with "Chuck Facts" like it once was (and even that article is far less funny than it used to do to the sabotage of juvenile Chuck Haters) it would at least appeal to the people who laugh at those sorts of jokes (they are the same ones who find the absurdist humor that Uncyclopedia---for the better or for worse--is compromised of funny).

The Nuck Chorris and the Chuck Norris (computer analyst) articles are both articles that, in my humble opinion, are up to the standards of humor that most people have come to expect from Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia is and has never been for the sophisticated, and claiming that the other, more absurd Chuck Norris articles are juvenile is juvenile in and of itself.

That's the whole point of the re-write, man. We are trying to do away with and ignore those who continue to support and spam those terrifically unfunny "facts". This website is intended to be a spoof on Wikipedia, and this article, in my eyes, does a fine job at spoofing Norris. And clearly, others find it excellent, since it was even featured. And no, none of us have a "fear" of Chuck coming down to murder us, or something. Get this, the man isn't super powerful, he hasn't been around for ages, and he isn't a God. He's a person just like you and me, except that he knows martial arts and is an ACTOR. Not an A-List type, of course, I don't even know what, and don't care. Plus, the man's in his SIXTIES, and probably has a family. I doubt he wastes his time searching around the internet looking for people who have insulted him, looking to extract revenge or some shit. He is not a God, he is a human being. These Chuck Norris facts need to die, NOW. You and so many others need to get over this idiotic fascination that you seem to seriously have with him. I don't even know why this specific man, of all people. And another thing, if it were just filled with the various facts, to please so many of your kind (for lack of a better term...), it would be plagiarism. We here at Uncyclopedia try to write ORIGINAL MATERIAL, that tries to make some sense in most cases, not just copy and paste stupid, made up, shit that you can find instantly via Google, or something. Ah, but I've typed to much. Just go here if you miss your precious "facts" so much. If I had my way, though, that would be deleted as well. --

Hi, hey! I'M A MOTERFUCKING NIGGER BITCH LOVER

16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we have the "Facts" subpage is for containment. I also support it being gotten rid of. Chuck Norris couldn't even help Mike Huckabee beat John McCain. If anything, he RUINED Huckabee's campaign by making it just another joke. Seriously. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put both of you, although, I did get a kick out of Mr. IP's line: Uncyclopedia is and has never been for the sophisticated, and claiming that the other, more absurd Chuck Norris articles are juvenile is juvenile in and of itself. What can you even say to that? Does he think we are *GASP* Encyclopedia Dramatica or something? The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 16:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He has a fairly decent point, though. When I think Uncyclopedia, I think no holding back (unless unfunny, as this current rendition of the article), outrageousness and hilarity. I just don't get that from this article. Just because a few people don't think the Chuck Norris "facts" are hilarious, doesn't mean they have to rewrite it all into what would eventually become a watered-down version of something that mildly resembles humor's|humour's second cousin from Louisiana. While yes, the blatant amount of Chuck Norris "facts" may not have been funny, we could watch the page and seperate the quality from the crap. What it is now is just relentlessly boring. It used to be a fairly balanced mix of fact and "story" of his life, but now it's all of one, and all of that one is very unfunny. fin.Chocolate Rain 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I get what you are saying, but many people here feel differently. This page has been a featured article, so there are many people here who believe that this article does have comedy in it, is well done, and is better than the "facts" that we are so used to seeing. If you like the facts, thats fine. That is why there is a page dedicated just to those, Chuck Norris/Facts. I don't see why we can't have both. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason we like this article so much is because it manages to be funny (if marginally) without referring to Chuck Norris as some form of legend. And frankly, I'm damn tired of it. I don't like Chuck Norris. I have never seen Walker: Texas Ranger, nor am I inclined to do so. This meme may have been funny among cult fans of the show, or when people had a modicum of originality with them, but now it's just ridiculous. ("Sometimes corn needs to lie the fuck down"? What the hell?)

Also. The aim of Uncyclopedia is not to write articles that are pure acid trips. You see these articles a lot, usually on the VFD page. The articles that make it to featured status, however, are those with subtlety, satire, and finesse, because the aim of Uncyclopedia is to produce satirical works. This is all in HTBFANJS. If you want to make articles that have no form of coherency to them whatsoever, going to Illogicopedia might be a better idea. I wrote an article there once, Croissant. Took me the better part of ten minutes. Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

redirected Reziarfg to Chuck Norris. Reziarfg comes from the diablo page thing 72.138.216.89 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

--- I agree with those that say this current Chuck article is completely unfunny, and really not what it should be. I'm working on an article that will create an elaborate history of his life, in which the events of all his films are true. So, he will be a villain who fights Bruce Lee, and later a mafia boss, like in those early films. Then he'll be drafted in Veitnam and become a prisoner of war, which gives him time to re-evaluate his life. He will escape, and return to save others, and such, like in his Missing in Action movies. And of course, he'll fight a zombie serial killer in the 80s, like in Silent Rage. And he'll fight ninjas, like in The Octagon. He'll fight a demon like in Hellbound. He'll be a cop who's partner is a dog, like in Top Dog. Then, he'll settle down, become a Texas Ranger. After he's done with that, he wanders the land... righting what is wrong. A stern hand, with his own sense of justice. I encourage people to add to it and edit it with further hilarity. Now, this has nothing to do with the "chuck facts", but I find the movies are in a similar vein from time to time. All in all, epic and funny is the key here. PsychoGoatee 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But...Chuck Norris Facts originate from people pretending that his larger-than-life screen personae were real. Chuck Norris' characters, much like the characters in Asian martial arts films, seem to be able to beat anything up, defeat any number of seemingly limitless expendable foes, save the world from certain doom, preach morals, and find love all while continuing to be badass. Those are the characteristics which make up Chuck Norris facts.

You say your goal is to be epic and funny. I think the flaw in your plan is that very goal. Why does it have to be epic? Why can't it just be? Just as not all songs can be epic like Achilles' Last Stand or Tarkus and still can be quite good (Sultans of Swing comes to mind), not all articles exist for the purposes of reinventing the wheel. It's all about variety.~~ S i r Ljlego , GUN [talk] 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK this article, it sucks balls, i mean jesus christ, chuck norris facts are hella funny, and this article is still to real, chuck never was BORN he punched his way out of his mothers womb, second after his beard grew over his chin fist and the doctor who wanted to slab him died, NOONE slabs chuck norris. then god said there be light and chuck said say please. then jesus walked over water while chuck walked over him. then chuck roundhouse kicked the air so hard and fast that it went back in time to kill hitler but rather killed kennedy because he was distracted by a woman he didn't bang three times already.

You disgust me. --Roman Dog Bird 23:44, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

This seriously better just be a fucking joke, I mean holy shit. How can you have a sense of humor THAT bad? --Roman Dog Bird 21:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Facts/New Chuck Article[edit]

Hi. Mr. IP here. Judging by the still quite massive popularity of Chuck Facts.....I think you guys who either don't get it or don't think it's funny are in the minority. Why destroy something just because you don't get it, or because it annoys you? Honestly, Woodburninator....if you think the presence of Chuck Facts somehow "cheapens" Uncyclopedia, what do you think of the Tina Fey article:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Tina_Fey

The Bill Cosby article:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby

or, dear God, the Kitten Huffing article:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kitten_huffing

Are these articles tasteful and sophisticated enough for you?

Or how about This Guy:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/This_Guy

I mean seriously, WoodBurninator. These are the kinds of articles that make up Uncyclopedia. And the fact that this page was featured doesn't really impress me because it was likely nominated by people who simply aren't fans of Chuck Norris. So you're not a fan of Chuck Norris. I'm not a fan of Billy Joel, so why don't I vandalize the Billy Joel article?! You need to get your head out of your ass and realize that it's not all about what YOU think is funny. Clearly there are a lot of people that still find Chuck Facts funny. And yeah, there's still a Chuck Facts section but even THAT gets vandalized by losers like you.

Simply put, this article is unfunny. With or without Chuck Facts, it could stand be a hell of a lot funnier, and the whole bit at the end stressing that he is a normal human being could be left out...if only for the fact that Uncyclopedia is not about reporting the actual state of things, but the bizarre, hyper-exaggerated state of things! I think the four articles I linked to proves that point rather nicely.

I eagerly await the new article that the commenter above me claims to be writing.

The problem is this. 1) Uncyclopedia is for articles. Not lists of facts. 2) Uncyclopedia is for original material. Not Jokes that are already all over the internet. We're not an internet meme deposit, we are a website that tries our best to feature original humor, satire, and parody. WoodBurninator is not the only one who disliked Chuck facts, most of our active members simply can't stand the meme. Whether we think it's funny or not, it isn't original. It isn't new, it isn't different, it isn't interesting to read. And pointless lists are just lists. The purpose of this site is to feature articles. Not lists. Also, for those who do like Chuck facts, we have an article for it: Chuck Norris/Facts. Knock yourself out. -RA HB 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all articles on Uncyclopedia represent the kind of quality Uncyclopedia is striving for. We can only delete so fast. If you think you can do better than this present article, feel free to get an account and write it in your userspace. The community thought this was good enough to be featured, and your opinion is of a minority. Feel free to prove us wrong by writing this yourself. Otherwise, please fuck off and die. Also, fu edit conflict – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:31 Jul 24, 2008

Also, I must point out something. This is a SATIRICAL website. This article is satire. To the IP above this last IP, of course it would stress he's just a normal person, it's supposed to be funny because he obviously isn't. If you don't understand satire, please leave our site, or as Skullthumper says, fuck off and die. -RA HB 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Except I look sexier when I say it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:39 Jul 24, 2008

Yeah, but I sound sexier. -RA HB 04:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I'm gone for one day, and I miss this!? Ugh. Hey man, I didn't mean to insult you at all, sorry if I did. I will call you Mr. ________ if you get yourself a username. As to your problem with the ChuckNorris/Facts page getting vandalized and whatnot, just edit it yourself. I personally don't know anyone who reverts edits on that page, unless its shock images, or some clear vandalism. And by the way, the Bill Cosby article is under my articles to rewrite, so I agree with you there. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 14:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

RAHB, Skullhumper....how, pray you tell, does one "fuck off"? Please, elaborate. Also, do you really want another human being to die simply because you got annoyed after voluntarily reading what he had to say? That's incredibly shallow and the fact that you would even say such a thing to someone you don't know speaks volumes about your level of maturity and your decency as a fellow human being.

Woodburninator, I did not feel insulted by you in any way, but your apology is appreciated anyway. At any rate, I think it's the absurdity, the "4chan-ness" of this place that attracts so many people here (not that everything that originates from 4chan is good; see "epic fail"). If you re-write the Cosby article, you and others will have to rewrite many other articles. If that sort of humor is going to be frowned upon from now on, then there needs to be a massive reinforcement of standards across all of Uncylopedia. Stuff like the Beatles articles, the Nintendo articles, the Arnold Schwarzenegger articles...as a casual viewer of this site, these things make me Laugh Out Loud. If you strip this website of such absurdities then I think you'll find it very hard to replace it with more serious, "legitimate" humor. Sadly, not every article can be as clever and tongue-in-cheek as the J.D. Salinger article. I think we need Kitten Huffing and Your Mom articles, and those are, in my humble opinion, just as insane as Chuck Facts... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.62.194.218 (talk • contribs)

I think the main problem with Chuck Facts here is they are not original at all. In fact they are the epitomy of unoriginal humor on the internet today. This site is not about enhancing huge internet memes. We are mainly trying to come up with original, smart humor. Many people agree that the facts are neither original nor smart. Also, many people enjoy the article we have up now. It is satirical of Norris, the Norris facts, and gives you a much different article than what you would expect. I happen to find it funny. If you don't, that's fine too. That is the reason there is a Chuck Norris Facts section. Two differing opions, both can have what they want. The Kitten Huffing article is insane, yes, but it is still original. We do not necessarrily want 4chan, or YTMND injokes on this site. Those sites are already popular, and why come here to get what you can already get elsewhere? Original humor is what we try to support here, and the Chuck Norris facts are just not it for many of us. For everyone who thinks they are funny and original, please, enjoy Chuck Norris/Facts. They are here for your reading pleasure. The rest of us will happily read along to what we have here. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 19:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Originality is the major problem with Chuck Facts, despite the fact that a lot of us don't like them for whatever reason, the huge reason is that somebody else came up with the concept, somebody else came up with nearly every joke that will get posted, and you can read the exact same stuff somewhere else on the internet. If Uncyclopedia was going to just copy every other site and every meme on the internet, there would be no point of its existence. It would just be a big storage for things you can find anywhere. This doesn't apply only to Chuck Facts, as I've seen all throughout the site at times, people trying to steal jokes from TV shows, or write entire articles about characters with jokes from their respective show. That's frowned upon. In fact, it's technically plagiarism, though I'm not sure how far the protection by parody goes when talking about that.

You are correct in saying that there are a lot of other articles on the site that would need to be rewritten. While that's not an official part of our mission statement or anything, we are trying to increase the quality of a lot of our stuff. However, this is an openly editable wiki, and we all do this on a volunteer basis, juggling our real lives alongside it. There are about 23,000 articles, give or take on our site, and we simply don't have the ability to just wave a magic wand and make everything good. Good comedy takes a long time to write. Also, I don't know if you've checked out this list yet, but this page features what we think to be "the best" of what we have to offer. According to what you've said so far, some of the articles may not appeal to you, but we do enjoy absurd humor just as much as anyone. There are a few writers here who specialize in that kind of thing, namely Cajek from off the top of my head.

Dr. Skullthumper and I didn't really mean to "fuck off and die" when we said told you to "fuck off and die." I don't know how long you've been around the internet, but to all three of us it should be obvious that that is not a valid threat, it's not like we expect anything to come of it. It's just an expression. I don't want to step over the line of politeness with which I've conducted this message, but I must say that in my time, I've noticed something about maturity. Those who are always claiming that something their opposition said is such a great "sign of their maturity" usually end up being the ones who are the least "mature" as it were. I personally hate the word itself, because people seem to use it as a weapon nowadays, rather than an adjective that retains its full meaning in a conversation. It's like, if someone doesn't agree with your opinion (not you specifically, I'm speaking about the general "you" now), you can just play the "maturity" card and take one of their sentences out of context, allowing for them to be made to look the fool, because there was no other mode of defense for you, so you had to undermine their social capabilities in order to make a scar. At any rate, that's nether here nor there, as that's not what I'm accusing you of, but my points were mostly in the above paragraphs, as far as this article goes. Good day. -RA HB 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, yes. That thing that he done said.~~ S i r Ljlego , GUN [talk] 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, there are other sites that reference Grues as nearly impossible to beat, just like Uncyclopedia does. And the article about Domo-Kun refers to events in a Flash game on Newgrounds called "Domo-kun's angry smash fest". I find it funny, and see no reason for that to be taken off Uncyclopedia. Just like how I see no reason for Chuck facts to be taken down.

Little Blurb at the top[edit]

Hope you don't mind, I added a little blurb at the very top of the article. --Paramore vs. Hole 05:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't, but there are those of us who might... Chocolate Rain 17:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New idea for a rewrite[edit]

How about we make this article with the same context (i.e. "He's a regular guy"), but make it more along the lines also of the Swiftboat veterans for truth during the John Kerry election, where they questioned his miltary record? Or at least make a new article (like: "Swiftboat veterans for roundhouse kicks" or something like that...). Input? Chocolate Rain 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but...[edit]

There's a "TRUE FACT: Chuck Norris does not have any hair on his balls because hair can't grow on steel (with the possible exception on Bruce Wayne or Pierce Brosnan)." here. Maybe I'm missing something, a reference I don't get or whatever. That's why I didn't get rid of it. Just wanted to know what, if anything, it was doing there...--Sakrotac 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just one of our bi-daily reverts missing something. I fixed it. Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the page needs protection. Too many IPs seem to think it's a good idea to add Chuck Facts and things of the sort. Chocolate Rain 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Norris writes his version of the Bible[edit]

Black Belt Patriotism is basically "Rules you must abide by to avoid getting round-house kicked in the face" as written by Chuck Norris. Can we work that into this article somehow? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds pretty decent to me, but it'll take a skilled wordsmith to work it in there. Which most editors to the article are not. Ж Cake-eating Cave Monkey _{or was it a giant monster or a robot?} 16:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SirroN kcuhC[edit]

I just made an article at SirroN kcuhC, any idea sfor improvement. That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario! 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

He looks ...[edit]

Like Lionel Luthor from Smallville. Not that I've ever watched it of course. --FunnyMan 14:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, unlike super man, who is made of steel, Chuck norris is made of a strong alloy made from cadmium and several forms of titanium. This makes him completely impervious to radiation, he actually absorbs it for more energy, i know this seems stupid, knowing that chuck norris is already using unlimited energy. This alloy also gives him a slim appearance and allows him to be super lightweight and easy to throw.

      -Codi and Curtis, from idaho

Does popular belief hold that Chuck Norris is specifically not made from a strong alloy made from cadmium and several other type of titanium? Don't worry, it doesn't sound stupid at all that he is both impervious to radiation and absorbs it. mAttlobster. (hello) 19:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We appreciate your belief in our research on Chuck Norris, but you don't need to believe that this makes alot of sense, this has been proven in hundreds of labs over the country, just 7 cells found in a fight from one of his most recent movies on the blade of some random director showed the world the true composition of Chuck Norris, but thanks anyways for your input.

       -Codi and Curtis, from idaho

Glad to have been of help and it’s nice to see Idaho taking a lead in the competitive field of Norris science, though you were slightly lucky that random movie directors are now doing their stuff tooled-up. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news!!! Chuck Norris has just recently saved 43.5 kittens from a burning homeless starving dog shelter in the dead of night just North of South Dakota. The rescue took just under 14 minutes. All of the kittens needed blood transfusions, and there were no cats or kittens around for this, Chuck Norris then pricked his thumb to draw out 3 drops of blood. The transfusion was a success because recent studies from Idaho have showed that his blood is a universal type, so it can go into any animal or person, and is also 0+ and 0-, so it is technically neutral. This transfusion saved the kittens lives and helped nurse them back to full health, with only slight mutations from the overdose of power and energy. We are currently working on more information to help find more ways to save lives using the element of CNM3(Chuck Norris medical with a random 3).

       -Codi and Curtis, from idaho

You've got to be asking yourself what 43.5 kitten were doing at a homeless starving dog shelter in the dead of night. I don't want to throw libellous accusations around, but I believe the 0.5 of a kitten was seen with a can of petrol and a mischievous grin. Typical of cats to pick on on weak starving dogs rather than trying to chump buff collies. Norris mis-stepped here: Who needed the blood more, arsonist pussys or hungry hounds? Well done again to Idaho for the blood analysis. mAttlobster. (hello)

MORE BREAIKING NEWS:Recently Chuck Norris celebrated his 69th birthday! March 10 to be exact.

Screengrab!

: 24 hour rolling-news services are particually lax on breaking news of celebrities' birthdays so well done for getting that scoop. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for talking to our lower class news specialist Will, he appreciates the input from our favorite responder. Now back to our most recet studies. Chuck Norris is currently modifying his own self anatomy to make himself his own species, we have seen a disturbing video on some website made by the same director we got the cells from. The video shows us how Chuck Norris is highly skilled in his use of mashed potatoes and seven kinds of math books. This process involved him shoveing the potatoes through his pinky toe and using the math book to create a knowledgeable fortress of self control. This made his composition slightly different. We also found the complete composition the other day as we were looking through our old files and our new equipemnt. We found the last 3 cells of him that we had and we found a complete analyzer(yes it has a z in Idaho). We found the composition consists of approximately 50% cadmium, 43.2% natural and celestial titanium, .4% Idaho potatoes(meaning he has been working on this for awhile), 14.4% pure energy(currently increasing), and 48% other. Yes we know this means that he has a 156% composition, that means he is a lot more than YOU! But its Chuck Norris, so aything can happen.

       -Codi and Curtis, from idaho

(please also keep staying in contact with our other supporters and workers such as Will, who put the news about the birthday, and Kyle... who hasn't said anything yet... we need to lay him off with our horrible Idaho economy.)

       -Codi and Curtis, from idaho(again)

We're BACK :D thought we'd let you all know

       -Codi and KYLE, from idaho

About time: Chuck Norris is currently suffering from a mild throat infection. mAttlobster. (hello) 11:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, all medical progress on the element for CHM3 human care is currently at a hold until there is a stop to the impressive power of this throat disease, if it can take him on we're all screwed, all studies on Chuck Norris will be halted in Idaho until further notice..... FURTHER NOTICE: we have found a cure!!! But its for Mad Muffin Disease...

       -Codi and Kyle, from idaho

Thank you Idaho. Keep at it - Norris has gone an oddish yellow colour and sounds like a worried goat. mAttlobster. (hello) 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear once again, i think this has something to do with the implosion of food colouring in his lair... we currently have survalence on him now to watch for further use of potatoes

       -Codi and Kyle, from idaho (we need funding)

Chuck Norris is real[edit]

look [[1]] see the first result.--Killer 3.14 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

this article sucks. if chuck norris was a liberal, he woudl be written here as a badass.

You make a very salient point. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:26, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

chuck norris sucks. if this article was a liberal, it woudl be written here as a badass.

"Unfunny"[edit]

The writer of this article states that Chuck Norris facts are unfunny and unrealistic. Well, of course they are not. They are a joke, smart one. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia; perhaps you can find a better editing job there. It isn't that I have a personal dispute with this, but upholding the "funny standards" of Uncyclopedia I must say that this article is way too serious/flaming for the job. I agree with people below who say we need a rewrite of the article.

Mikario 00:15, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Even if you're right about Chuck Norris facts being smart and funny, don't you think it's better Uncyclopedia do something different from everybody else? Also - Chuck Norris facts make me cry. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:30, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

This article wasn't funny at all. It was actually a little depressing. I would have even preferred a list of chuck norris facts or something. The article on wikipedia about chuck norris facts is actually funnier.

Even though I've hung around Uncy for awhile, I've never looked at the Chuck Norris page. I have also never eaten a toad, nor will I. Aleister 17:08 30 10

Uh, hater much?[edit]

Nice job making Chuck Norris' legend apparent as infamous in your mind. Sure,reality is important; but there are those of us that like to escape it (hence: what the internet has become) and pretend Chuck really can do/has done this sweet stuff.

--69.205.151.134 21:47, May 15, 2011 (UTC)That One Guy

Son, we live in a world with walls, and these walls have got to be guarded by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? I can't see it. If most of the cinemas are showing the same film, isn't it good that one cinema's showing a different one? You can still watch that same film in...look I'm getting lost in an analogy that I haven't properly prepared. I'm going to conclude now, and my conclusion is this: The world is 5 billion years old in a 15 billion year old universe. Chuck Norris is already forgotten. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:33, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Fuck that this article sucks. Make a rewrite and actually make it funny. And make it better than those other "same films" because they AREN'T all the same.

It's been rewritten several times before, someone should be willing to do it again.

Rewrite Chuck Norris? Have you the brain worms?!

(talk) 23:38, 1 June 2011

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs fixin', please feel obligated to make whatever changes you feel are needed, (even though they'll probably be reverted 5 seconds later). Uncyclopedia is a wiki, so almost anyone can edit almost any article by almost simply following the edit link almost at the top. You don't even need to log in in most cases! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Uncyclopedia Cabal encourages you to be italic. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, and your 6 month ban will fly by faster than you think. If you're not sure how editing works, check out proper wiki formatting, or use the sandbox to try out your vandalizing skills. ~~ S i r Ljlego , GUN [talk] 01:51, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

There's a new sheriff in town, and he jumps hurdles. And dies.[edit]

It's been reported that Michael "Mickey the Kid King of Literary Punching the Critics with Beats by Dr. Dre Book Covers" Diamond has defeated Chuck Norris multiple times. At each battle, he was eating banana pancakes, and used the pancakes against Chuck's Jeet Kun Do (or some sort of alien power). Chuck Norris is also his house maid and makes sure Mickey's dog puts it's paw on everything in his house every day. Diamond was crowned king of flannel shirts by the czar of Chekoslovakia. After, he changed his name to " VON VAN LA DIAMOND formerly known as Christina".

Chuck Norris is a creationist[edit]

Es cierto. -- This has been an automated message by Cute Zekrom (talk) 19:31, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Can we link "uneventful birth" to a page for immaculate conception?[edit]

I noticed that "uneventful" has a hyperlink, but it just links to the page for "boring." This seems to be a good opportunity for a semi-hidden joke. Can "uneventful" instead link to "immaculate conception," since technically, NOT having sex is uneventful, but yet it also naturally implies that Norris is a Messiah. 173.2.67.8 10:52, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

It's a featured article so no point changing anything here unless there is a requirement to update it (i.e. if Norris dies). --

RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:45, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

Article didn't mention Chuck's proof of RH[edit]

Hi. Article failed to address Chuck's only true achievement: he proved the Riemann Hypothesis, as documented in Uncyclopedia here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Riemann_Hypothesis. Cheers! 89.201.189.73 05:54, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Battle Action Jesus (Chuck Norris)[edit]

This was from an old comment (by 71.228.61.40 Nov. 2006) on the Jesus talk page, which I am cleaning.

Anyway, here's the picture: Some un-Uhmerrican website The picture itself

When I get to my Linux machine I'll GIMP it and upload that, or someone else can do so. I'm not too interested in addings it, me selfs.

TheCan (talk) 17:49, November 4, 2014 (UTC)