Jump to content

Talk:Oom Yung Doe/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Death of Robert Ludden

Does anyone still contend that there's a good reason for the section on Robert Ludden to exist? I see some edit warring on it, but all that really has been said in favor of it so far is that it's "referenced material," which is certainly necessary but not sufficient to include it on Wikipedia. Reading the current text of the section, it seems pretty clear to me that this was something that critics of the school at the time liked to say to smear the school, but that there really wasn't anything behind it if you did the investigation. The only informative reason I can see for including it is to clear the air on that particular accusation, but I think the defamatory influence of talking about someone's violent death as if the school might have had something to do with it outweighs the informative influence that it has.

Why should this section exist, then? Subverdor (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many reliable third party sources. I am sorry that you are un-comfortable with this. jmcw (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient, for including information on Wikipedia. Again, why do you feel that this section needs to exist? What useful information is conveyed by telling WP's readers that twenty years ago, critics of the school made a particularly scurrilous accusation that didn't turn out to be at all true, and repeating that accusation along with some of its revolting details ("... partially decomposed body ...")? Subverdor (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC about this issue; as of this writing it's available here. Subverdor (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops -- it's been too long since I've posted an RFC; I've removed my summary of the situation from the RFC and replaced it with a brief and neutral statement. Here's the salient part of how I see the situation (copy-pasted from the old RFC):

This section's existence used to make sense; if the facts that were formerly summarized had been correct, then it would have made sense to include it in the article:

the schools were linked to the death of a student in 1991 ... Thirty-five year old Robert Ludden of Des Plaines, IL was reported missing in August of 1991. Ludden was a former assistant instructor of the Oom Yung Doe schools who had recently left the organization. Police began to investigate the link with the Oom Yung Doe schools when most of his partially decomposed body was discovered in the Cook County Forest Preserves in Spetember of 1991.

However, it's now evolved to the current, more factual version, which makes it pretty clear that the connection between the school and this person was very tenuous. I'm affiliated with the school, so I hesitate to accuse anyone of conflict of interest (and I recognize that my POV is not entirely neutral), but I don't see any possible reason for someone to want to include this other than for the fact that it makes the school look bad.

We've had some restoration of this section after it was removed, here and here. Can we have some accompanying discussion of why this section should be included?

Subverdor (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC has expired with no one offering input. I'd like to propose meditation on this issue. It's not reasonable to keep reverting edits to this section without offering any reason for it to exist other than "there are reliable sources." Again, that's necessary, but not sufficient. Subverdor (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

More silence... my edit removing this has been reverted with "Please see Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#Death_of_Robert_Ludden" even though I'm the only one who's said more than two sentences here. Please take a look at Edit_war. I'd like again to propose mediation on this issue. Subverdor (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

not sure if im responding properly,i think the "robert ludden" issue should be in the article. although it was not proven(or disproven). i believe it is as much a part of "oom yung do's"history as the tax evasion. i think the only way it doesnt belong is if the statements made are polarized (seeing as how it may or may not have happened the way some think.) my understanding is that this is why they changed their name(again).in point of fact, i came here for clarification on that point.

to me it would be like leaving child molestation allegations about michael jackson out of his article.

robert ludden should be in the article with both sides of the argument explained. 

"oom yung do" has plenty of verified bad press. robert ludden is not going to make a huge difference in public opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeradical25 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of John C. Kim vs Notability of Oom Yung Doe

John C. Kim has many reliable third party citations because of his criminal activity. A biographical article about him would be notably and well sourced. Oom Yung Doe is a recently established martial art with no martial art journal sources. Consider Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Notability_guidelines: Is Oom Yung Doe notable enough for a wiki article? jmcw (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll copy-paste what I wrote earlier when this came up:
What's the argument against notability? Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability I see these criteria supporting notability:
  • Subject of an independent article/documentary;- Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article of a TV program
  • Multiple wide spread sites;- an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point.
I don't see any criteria supporting deletion, unless you count "Single/few schools that teach the art", which only makes sense if the WP article was about the _art_ of Oom Yung Doe as distinct from the line of schools in the US under John C. Kim. I do think that there is a lack of verifiable information about the historical martial art of Oom Yung Doe, and that an article about it wouldn't make sense, but there's certainly enough information about the line of schools in the US to have an article. Subverdor (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not split this into two articles? The Oom Yung Doe article could be without the negative statements concerning Kim - just a reference to the bio article of John Kim. jmcw (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't see a good reason to do that either. Subverdor (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
<G> jmcw (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I thought things had been quiet for a while :-).

I'm reverting and amending a lot of Cjim63's recent edits. My logic is as follows:

  • Training in the school is rigorous; we've talked about this before. My citation for that is the City Pages article where Jennifer Vogel says, "Students' say-and even the school's critic's admit-the Chung Moo program is rigorous, and that it includes some valuable martial arts skills." I've added that citation to that specific statement in the article.
  • Students do describe substantial improvements, including in conditions such as asthma and diabetes. The citation for that is there; if there's a problem with the citation please discuss it here.
  • It's misleading to refer to the Illinois Attorney General's allegations without mentioning that they never really went anywhere (much like Pam Zekman's accusations, which if valid would have led to a major criminal trial). To me that's a key part of presenting this information completely, accurately, and with no POV -- in a lot of places on the internet, the accusations are presented, but not the investigation that followed (and lack of confirmation). I've edited the "Legal proceedings" section so that it looks NPOV to me, but this is really something that's going to take some discussion; I imagine that it now looks POV to you.
  • Similarly, it's misleading to list Pam Zekman's accusations and then finish up with "Controversies continued in this area continued with charges brought against Kim in 1989 by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and Kim's conviction in 1995, eventually leading to the shutdown of schools in that area (continuing to this day)." Any sensible reader would assume that the two are related, when they're totally separate issues (I'm not aware of most of Pam Zekman's accusations ever entering a courtroom, and certainly instructors were never convicted of beating money out of people or killing ex-instructors by pulling their arms off or whatever else Pam Zekman said they did.)

As I say, I imagine that this will take some discussion. Let's start with this:

  • Can we agree that presenting an accusation, but failing to present what verifiable information there is about what truth there was behind the accusation, is misleading?
  • What would you like to see happen to the article from here that would make it look NPOV to you? Discussing the changes will get us farther than just editing over each other's edits.

Thanks.

Subverdor (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The main purpose behind the new formatting was to provide for a more organized format to address the various legal issues. As I mentioned, I used the wikipedia article on Kevin Trudeau as a template. It seemed like a good article given the abundance of legal issues discussed there.
Good job improving the readability of the article. I think it looks great. While I obviously have different views than yourself with regard to each of the things you've mentioned (eg. what certain citations say, NPOV, etc.), I doubt a protracted discussion would have any substantial, beneficial effect on the article.Cjim63 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. What would be the point of discussing things with someone with differing views? Discussions go much better when everyone shares the same views. In fact, I advise not even answering simple yes-or-no questions from people whose views differ from your own -- they may be traps designed to mislead bystanders into believing that your wholesome, good-faith edits are in fact misleading or unfounded.  :-)
All sarcasm aside, discussion is important on Wikipedia. It seems like you're not arguing for keeping any of the more dubious edits you made (unrelated to "new formatting"), so I guess there's nothing to discuss, but if both sides approach contentious changes from an honest perspective, then discussion will absolutely have a "substantial, beneficial" effect on the article. Certainly much more so than each of us editing in opposite directions without any discussion. Subverdor (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Subverdor, I don't like going through protracted debates with you because I feel it results in lots of drama and less in the way of results. I believe you use wikipedia policy as much as possible to get your way and are willing to dedicate more time and effort to this sort of drama than I am interested in investing.
How about if I ask a few questions?
  • Why is the Robert Ludden material removed? I know your reasons that you stated before, but I don't think those reasons are any good. The material is well sourced. Many, many sources say that the schools were being investigated because of a possible link with his death. So why isn't it there?
  • I haven't had a problem with removing several items from the article that are negative that aren't sourced as well because I am OK with the negative aspects of OYD being held to the highest standard. So why is it OK for so many "non-primary source needed" sources on the article? What proof is there, for example, that OYD actually teaches Ju Jitsu, Hapkido, Kong Su, etc.? I suspect that many ju jitsu practitioners would not agree that the material being taught is very similar.
  • When I and other editors have reverted vandalism, why do you refer to it as "edit warring"? Note your own statement on SamIamOnFire's page here. There was no reason for either myself or Jmcw37 to view these edits as anything other than vandalism. Indeed, while I am sort of OK with the removal of this material since nothing came of it, it was very well sourced.
  • Why do you point to WP:PUSH when a brief look at your edit history suggests that barring a little dabbling in other pages that you are a prime example of that very issue?
  • Why do you go to wiki etiquette when I make well sourced edits? Note that most of the supposed POV edits that you had a problem with are material that you originally wrote yourself cut and pasted.
  • Why do we make authoritative statements like "students describe substantial benefits including self-defense skills, mental and physical health, and improvements in conditions such as asthma and diabetes." when only some students say that while others cite the damage it has done to their bodies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyzfckRW8Ck
  • Since when has an unnamed source, referenced by Jennifer Vogel saying the following: "Students' say-and even the school's critic's admit-the Chung Moo program is rigorous, and that it includes some valuable martial arts skills. "I'm paying $4,800 to get to black belt," says first-year student Chris Newcombe. "That's twice what other school charge. But what they teach there is 10 times more than what they teach at other schools." been an authoritative statement on the rigor of training?
  • Why did you assume that I was making edits in bad faith (ie making up information) with regard to court records and legal documents? I recall that you got after me quite a bit until I posted them on wikipedia but felt no obligation to obtain them yourself.
In summary, I am afraid that it is the wikidrama that makes me less interested in having these sorts of long discussions and not because I am not interested in discussing my views with others. I suggest that it is wikidrama because even though I have written this long piece, and read the newest wiki etiquette alert you put out, I don't think the article will be improved.Cjim63 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur. jmcw (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm signing each of my responses individually, so that you can respond to them individually. That'll make the flow of conversation easier to follow.
Re: Robert Ludden, I removed it because I see no reason to include it (and because my repeated requests for such a reason went unanswered except for "there are reliable sources"). If you want to start discussing this, you can start by scrolling up and answering the questions I ask in that section (crucially, "What useful information is conveyed by telling WP's readers that twenty years ago, critics of the school made a particularly scurrilous accusation that didn't turn out to be at all true, and repeating that accusation along with some of its revolting details ("... partially decomposed body ...")?"). Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My understanding of Wikipedia is that the purpose is to present all of the notable information. Much attention was brought to the schools at the time despite the fact that the charges did not resolve into anything. It doesn't have to be presented with a pro- or con kind of attitude - rather, as the historical facts. Later revisions of the section did indeed explain that nothing came of the accusations (which is the truth). Consider this: a simple search on Youtube will turn up plenty of news broadcasts of the event. We need to make wikipedia at least as complete as youtube. I don't see why the facts ought to be considered "revolting details."Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Robert Ludden's death was not related to the school. There were some news reports early on that reached the extremely premature conclusion that the school was probably responsible (including that goofiness about ripping his arm off with martial arts techniques), but that has no bearing on whether he should be in the article now. No legitimate controversy exists or has existed since a few days after the initial reporting when it turned out that the school didn't actually kill him.
If you disagree with something in the previous paragraph, then we can talk about sources and verifiable facts, but if you agree with all that and _still_ want to include him in the article, then I can't possibly escape the conclusion that you just want to use the article to spread this item of gossip about the school. Simply the fact that some past event was mistakenly viewed a certain way at a certain time is not worth putting in the article, because it doesn't inform the readers of anything useful.
How would you feel about listing the names and summaries of each of the people who's been on the news talking about how training has helped them (Jennifer Archer, Guy Riccatelli, Kay Harbach, Gerardo Gonzalez, etc.) and describing what they said? That's verifiable, it's on youtube, and it actually _is_ factual, related to the school, and informative to the reader. It passes all your criteria for including the Robert Ludden thing and then some. If you can explain why you wouldn't like for that to happen, then you can understand why I disagree with Robert Ludden being included. Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Primary sources, if you have a problem with "so many" of the sources in the article, please bring them up specifically. For the eight martial arts, if you have a reliable source pointing to the difference between what Oom Yung Doe teaches and whatever particular style, please bring it up and it can be placed in the article. If you have a problem with the way things are presented now, how do you think they should be presented? Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the whole section on "Moo doe techniques and movements" and "Uniforms and ranking" should be deleted. I realize that I was originally very involved in writing the "techniques and movement" section, but better sources have failed to come up, and in my view, the test of time has not proven them to not be notable.Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Stop saying "notable;" it has a specific meaning. You mean "verifiable."
Why do you think the uniforms section should be deleted? Do you not think the OYD handbook is a reliable source as to what OYD uniforms look like? "Techniques and movements" could be substantially improved, I agree, but I think the solution is to improve it, not delete it. An article about OYD should if possible talk some about the nature of OYD training. Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Edit warring, I'm not referring to reverting SamIAmOnFire's edits as edit warring. I'm referring to things like the Robert Ludden section -- where my discussion goes totally unanswered while my edits are repeatedly reverted -- as edit warring. I tend not to respond in kind, so it doesn't develop the back-and-forth nature that is classical edit warring, but that's exactly what it is. Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Civil POV pushing, if you think I've done something wrong then report me. Otherwise let's discuss content. Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Why do you go to wiki ettiquette", "well sourced edits" my ass. If your edits were well sourced this would be fine, but you're inserting things like "there had been communications between Ludden and Oom Yung Doe instructors just prior to his disappearance" and then refusing to answer when asked where you found that information. I'm going under the assumption that that means you just made it up. Also you seem to be making up sources (POWERLines Chicago). Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why did you not go to wiki ettiquette at that time? That occured perhaps a year ago. I suspect you may have gone to them now because of the recent litigations against Kim, et al, that I added. Regardless, if at the time you had felt the portion on Ludden could have been more accurately written to better reflect the sourcing, it would have been perfectly OK to make those changes. It is interesting to not that you are "going under the assumption that...you just made it up."Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If I went to a noticeboard every time I was unhappy about something you did, I wouldn't get much done :-). I think you've shown a pattern of slanting the article negatively without backing; I think your most recent edit is an example, so I complained about it, and I included examples of other similar behavior in the past. I think you want this article to be an attack page like it used to be, and I think most of your edits take it in the direction of being one, and I think you don't care much for WP policy or honesty in presenting things to make it so.
Can you really not see that attaching a source to a statement, then clamming up when someone brings up indications that that source doesn't actually exist, is going to make people think you're just lying? Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Authoritative statements, do you have a second example of a reliably-sourced student who claims to have been injured during his/her training? Or is it just one in the forty years the school has been in the US (and apparently from an instructor deliberately punishing him, not as part of his practice regimen)? Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Training in the school is rigorous (citation)" makes it sound authoritative. Here a student is claiming he was injured @ 1:30. You suggest that certain circumstances, that are not verifiable, somehow make this actual event irrelevant; however, I believe since it did happen, and was cited it needs to be addressed.Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Get your complaining straight -- this one is a complaint about "substantial benefits," not rigorousness. Rigorousness is next up :-). Anyway, this is all beside the point of whether the statement about how students report their training is true. There are a lot of students (I list some of the names up above) who have been on TV talking about how good the training has been for them. How in the world is that not an indication that students say that? Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Rigorousness, I don't know how to explain that when a source that you seem to consider reliable says something, then that thing that it says is a thing that is said by a reliable source. I know it's difficult to wrap your head around, but the reliable sources (and honest, experienced people) who criticize the school do admit that the training is valuable. Even Pam Zekman didn't try to say that the training wasn't worthwhile (instead, she claimed it was effective and evil -- that Chung Moo Quan students went around beating everyone up. She claimed that with secret magic techniques we pulled Robert Ludden's arm off and beat him with it). That may not be something you like, and you may have some sort of feeling that it's all a grand conspiracy by newspapers and TV stations to erase the truth about the worthless training (as revealed by oomyungdoe_discuss), but as long as that's what's in the reliable sources that's how it needs to be presented.
Hell, even "Herding the Moo" talks about a big fight with another martial arts school, talking about breaking the other instructor's collarbone with a sudo, "their kicks seemed to bounce off us," and suchlike. I've said this before: the allegation that Oom Yung Doe training is not rigorous or effective is mind-boggling to me, and I think only in a really weird environment like oomyungdoe_discuss could it ever gain any kind of traction. Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I consider the source to be reliably able to report events and what people say - that is what reporters actually are supposed to do. I think we could cite what Vogel says "students say and even critics admit...", but not turn it into the authoritative statement it is now. What other sources or "honest, experienced people" say anything about the training? I would honestly (not sarcasm) like to see what they have to say (even if it is not wikipedia-worthy I would like to read about that). I am not aware of any "magic techniques" or a "grand conspiracy" so I don't have anything to say about that.Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You haven't actually trained in this school yourself, have you?
I'll post some random examples. Really the best place to read is on the national site, but I know you won't pay any attention to that because you think it's all lies (some of those people are known to me personally, but you'll think that's lies also, or something). Two random examples from places as biased against the school as you'll be able to find:
  • As I said, in chapter 4 of "Herding the Moo" there's an account of basically a gang fight between a Chung Moo school and a Tae Kwon Doe School. The invading TKD students and instructor(s) are savagely defeated. "The first invader had collapsed in a heap, his collar bone broken from a three-quarter side arm sudo attack (striking with the bone at the base of the hand)..." "Their moves had no real effect, they made a lot of noise but their kicks literally bounced off us."
  • Jeff Arbeit had a leg almost severed by a boat (basically just attached by a strip of muscle); on instructions from John C. Kim he requested that the leg not be amputated, although the doctors all advised him that keeping it would be useless. It was reattached, and he practiced Chung Moo movement designed to heal his near-useless leg, eventually recovering to the point where he could run again, though I believe he kept a noticable limp. At one point the screws that were originally holding his bones together actually reemerged through his flesh one by one and he collected them in a little plastic bag. The members of oomyungdoe_discuss actually report this story honestly (some of them appear to remember it firsthand), but most seem to regard it as nothing unusual, or say it's coincidence or something that he was training in the school when this happened, as if the screws holding people's bones together tend to reemerge from the skin from time to time as part of the normal course of physical therapy. [1]
Then there are the students who've said good things about training as part of a reliable source discussing some criticism of the school unrelated to the training, most of which are in the article now under "Quality of training." There are also all the people who have gone on TV talking about how good the training is, who I haven't put into the article as of now, but who you can watch at [2] if you're interested. Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: The court records, are you bloody kidding me? You attached a citation that couldn't possibly support the statement that bore the citation. Then when I complained you changed the citation to indicate the court case as a whole, not any particular document (which makes about as much sense as citing "The Battle of Hastings" or "July 12th, 1978"). Then when I objected you entered radio silence, with occasional mumblings about trouble uploading documents, to the point where Jmcw had to explain that he really didn't understand either why it was so troublesome for you to have to identify your sources. Then you uploaded the documents, _without_ fixing the citations, at which point I fixed the citations for you and stopped complaining completely. And now somehow you're complaining that _I_ did something wrong? (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't recall the events in the same way, but that doesn't matter. I believe that I did upload the files in a timely manner, perhaps within two weeks or so. I did my best to upload it in the correct manner. I have indeed made several mistakes over the course of uploading documents and images to wikipedia/wikicommons. I was being honest when I said I was getting used to the whole process. This is turning into more drama.Cjim63 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It was only ever in your mind that anyone cared about uploading the documents. What I cared about and asked for repeatedly was for you to identify the sources of your statements accurately with citations, whether or not the documents that were being cited had been uploaded to wikipedia. I would go back over my summary and apply a link to a diff for every item, so that you can see that that's exactly how it happened (whatever you may recall), but in truth you're right, it doesn't matter. Better we argue about something slightly more productive to argue about :-). Subverdor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth I've been trying to get more court documents; it's a bit troublesome without being physically in Chicago, it seems. Subverdor (talk)
Re: Wikidrama, yes, it does seem unlikely that this all will improve the article. (I may stop my end of the conversation soon where it doesn't pertain to specific proposed or objected-to edits.) Specific content discussions do improve the article, though. Please, let's have more of those. Subverdor (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


This getting very long. To hit the high points, "Thank you," subverdor, for including the stories. I am aware of the testimonials on the national sites as well as those stories. Long story short, while I am personally familiar with Oom Yung Doe training, I am also familiar with other forms of training. Obviously my interpretation of those events, and the testimonials on the national site, diverges from your own. To hit the crux of the other high point, I am sorry you don't like me and view me with mistrust, but I am glad that the article has steadily improved since its initial creation.Cjim63 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
You say I don't like you... well, you've essentially accused me of participating in a fraudulent, criminal cult which extorts substantial sums of money from people in exchange for poisoning their minds, teaching them fabricated martial arts, and injuring them, sometimes permanently. That's fine; I've got a thick skin. You also refuse to answer direct questions pertaining to content and references, attach references to things which don't support the cited statements (or sometimes don't apparently exist), ignore requests for mediation on difficult issues, abandon discussion with "well, this is a waste of time, it won't improve the article" when things aren't going your way, and so on. All that -- much more than the accusations about the school -- makes it frustrating for me to interact with you. If it makes you feel bad that I "don't like" you or take a cynical tone when I'm talking to you, then the simple solution is to stop doing those things.
I'm not bringing this up to browbeat you; as long as the current content of the article is reasonable, it really doesn't make a lot of difference to me what you've done in past edits or what you believe about the school. As I see it, the way your mind works is this: You watch someone on the news talking about how his instructor put him in the hospital and think, "Yes, that training is harmful," and then watch a bunch of students on the news talking about how they've been taking less medication and feel much better since starting training, and you think, "No, they are mistaken." If I'm right about those reactions, you're making a mistake. Everyone needs to use their own judgement, but to refuse to even entertain evidence unless it matches your existing conclusions is a very foolish practice. That's your mistake to make and your own business, but constantly making the leap from making that mistake to writing your own unexamined biases into the article -- and pointedly refusing to reexamine your biases or your sources, even when I try to make it easy by asking simple questions that obviously have specific answers -- is toxic to Wikipedia, because it's toxic to honest inquiry and discussion. That's why this stuff is against WP policy; I'm not some genius of policy knowledge to "bludgeon" you with, I'm just trying to apply a simple moral compass and periodically looking for policy documents to back me up.
To get back to your other point, I had a feeling you wouldn't want to continue the conversation about the quality of the training. I am also, very genuinely, (not sarcasm :-) ) curious what your interpretation of those "stories" is (particularly Jeff Arbeit). It seems to me that you refuse to answer certain questions or address certain issues because you don't like to examine (or explain) your own attitudes to them. You're welcome to prove me wrong by explaining what your "interpretation" of all those stories is (the national site can obviously be interpreted as lies or exaggerations, the other stuff I'm much more interested in hearing about). You're also, of course, welcome to ignore all of this and just go on periodically adding "Some students allege that" to statements in the article that you don't like... but in that case I am going to keep talking to you as if you're not really participating in the discussion, but just trying to weasel the article into as negative a state as you can get away with.
Subverdor (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Moo doe techniques and movements" and "Uniforms and ranking"

These sections have been around for some time now and are based solely on primary sources. I believe it may be time to remove them.

Comments please!Cjim63 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Training in the school is rigorous"

I believe this statement inaccurately reflects the sourced item, and gives an authoritative tone to something not established in an authoritative fashion. I propose changing it to say some to paraphrase the following: "In 1992, Jennifer Vogel said "Students' say-and even the school's critic's admit-the Chung Moo program is rigorous, and that it includes some valuable martial arts skills. 'I'm paying $4,800 to get to black belt,' says first-year student Chris Newcombe. 'That's twice what other school charge. But what they teach there is 10 times more than what they teach at other schools.'"

Comments please!Cjim63 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to put in the intro paragraph? I can't figure out a smooth way to paraphrase that. I actually agree that there's not a terribly great reason to think that Jennifer Vogel knows what she's talking about in general, but she does seem to be a reliable source, and I don't see a burning need to add "In 1992, Jennifer Vogel said" to this statement of hers any more than any of the other seven or eight times she's used as a source in this article. Subverdor (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Than I'll do my best to paraphrase.Cjim63 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your paraphrase makes things odd and awkward to my reading. I'm going to heed WP:LETITGO and just delete the bit about rigorousness -- it's not a critical statement to include IMO. I think we're running up against the basic impossibility of NPOV in dealing with the question "is the training good?" in a martial arts article.
Including that business about students being injured is absurd. We discussed this some above; I dropped it because it wasn't related to specific content changes at the time, but if we're going to discuss including this in the article, then there are two relevant points to me:
  • One student who was seriously injured, out of a nationwide school, over a span of forty years, does not add up to much of anything (and makes what you added factually incorrect, since you use the plural). Do you have additional reliable examples, or is it just that one? I've asked this already.
  • This student claims to have been injured because his instructor made him do an absurd number of push-ups to "punish" him for doing something wrong, not as part of his practice. You seemed to deny that above, but I'm not sure why; that's exactly how it's described in your sources. That does imply that his instructor was seriously off-base, and if this kind of story were widespread it would imply something negative that was worth reporting about the school. It doesn't imply much of anything about the effects of practicing forms and foundation in Oom Yung Doe -- OYD practice is substantially different from push-ups. If you want to include this story in the article, then you should argue for presenting it honestly within the article. If you want to claim in the article that OYD training injures practitioners (which, I know, is another common oomyungdoe_discuss belief), then you should come up with some reliable sources which indicate negative results from the training (as opposed to students who were very positive about their training but then were injured because their instructor treated them harshly).
Subverdor (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Ludden

I believe this is a notable event in the history of the schools, and constitutes important context necessary to better understanding many of the news articles available about the schools. I believe that we came close to something pretty NPOV towards the end of its life cycle, and I would like to see it moved back into the article.

Comments please!Cjim63 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to subverdor's comments above here. He essentially suggests that the Ludden portion was essentially a distraction from the main article with little relevance to the school and that if he were included, that other people who've appeared on television programs giving positive testimonials about the schools ought to be included as well.
My response is that the Ludden portion probably is a bit of a distraction from the actual article. I do not think it is similar or equivalent to what amounts to the televised testimonials of students that are also found on youtube. Those might be included in the "quality of training" section saying something like "some students have said XYZ". That being said, Subverdor does make a good point; the Ludden portion probably is a distraction from the article. Since I agree with that point, and since there isn't much more information other than the original reports, I agree that it would be better to keep that section out.Cjim63 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. So there's no confusion, I was _not_ arguing that specific students who've said good things about the training should be identified and described in the article -- I was making the point that something being stated on the news does not automatically mean that it should be included in the article (in response to "We need to make wikipedia at least as complete as youtube."). Subverdor (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP policy (and some about Robert Ludden)

I've asked at WP:BLP about the reasonableness of including the Vivien Francis section. Subverdor (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer was to remove the section on Vivien -- now I've asked about the validity of including the Pam Zekman report. Subverdor (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

not sure if im responding properly,i think the "robert ludden" issue should be in the article. although it was not proven(or disproven). i believe it is as much a part of "oom yung do's"history as the tax evasion. i think the only way it doesnt belong is if the statements made are polarized (seeing as how it may or may not have happened the way some think.) my understanding is that this is why they changed their name(again).in point of fact, i came here for clarification on that point.

to me it would be like leaving child molestation allegations about michael jackson out of his article.

robert ludden should be in the article with both sides of the argument explained. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeradical25 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this is a moot point, but policy (particularly BLP policy) is very explicit that it's not appropriate to present "both sides" of an issue like this. An accusation of murder committed by still-living persons is a very serious thing to include; it can only be included if there's some shred of an indication that it's a reasonable thing to suspect. FWIW, the last word on the subject I was able to dig up was that Robert Ludden probably died of natural causes. From the article "Foul play not likely in death of area man," Daily Herald, October 19 1991:

"Police investigating Robert A. Ludden's death are saying that the 35-year-old Mount Prospect man was probably not a victim of murder or foul play. Gerald Palacios, chief of detectives for the Cook County Forest Preserve Police, said Friday Ludden probably died of accidental or natural causes. ... Pat Ludden, Robert Ludden's widow, could not be reached for comment Friday. But since the start of the investigation, Pat Ludden has questioned whether police were ignoring more mundane explanations for her husband's death than his involvement in martial arts."

Yes, I'm aware that this is at odds with Pam Zekman's report, which suggested (immediately when his body was found) that because he had once had some affilation with the school, it was reasonable to assume that the school killed him, using a martial arts technique involving ripping someone's arm off and beating them with it. To me that says quite a bit more about Zekman's reporting than it does about the school. Subverdor (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

primary source

All the templates are just pointy, simple claims from the primary are fine, unless it is disputed the template is undue and spoils the readability for the reader, such as the group claims t teach 8 in one cited to itself is fine. We have that it is their claim and it is their claim so what is the need for the template, if objections and rebuttals are there we can add them also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Cost and quality of training

I'm planning to merge the "cost of training" and "quality of training" sections and make some edits to them; right now there's some overlap, and a lot of both sections is kind of haphazard with different sometimes-not-really-well-chosen quotes ("bone-crushing self defense") being strung together.

The reason I'm bringing this up on the talk page is that my judgement is that the verifiable information about the quality of training in the school is pretty overwhelmingly positive. We've talked about this before; there's the back pain study, the news reports with interviews with students, and even a lot of the news reports that say it's a cult - all of those indicate that whatever the cost or other controversial aspects, the training itself is generally regarded as effective (and many sources describe it as remarkably effective). The only verifiable source that questions the quality that I'm aware of is that single quote from Keith Griffin, which I'm regarding as a tiny minority viewpoint in comparison to all the rest of it.

So I'm planning to follow WP policy and summarize my understanding of the majority view of the reliable sources, which is going to match my own positive POV about the school, which I can understand people objecting to. We can talk about it :-). If anything I write looks like a slanted summary of the reliable sources, or otherwise like a departure from NPOV, let me know. If anyone knows of more reliable sources that question the effectiveness of the training, definitely let me know.

I still maintain, BTW, that a "Quality of training" section is a ridiculous thing to include in a martial arts article, because it's such a magnet for irreconcilable NPOV problems. We seem to gave one, though (and I do feel that discussing the value of the training is necessary if we're going to discuss the very real cost controversy), so we might as well make it match the sources and read decently well.

Subverdor (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph and Cost of Training sections

I've made two changes to the opening paragraph and one to the Cost of Training section.

In the opening paragraph, I've added John Kim's official school title, because that is how his name is written on all school literature and materials, and also it is how the school is named ("Oom Yung Doe, the Grandmaster "Iron" Kim Style" is the complete name of the school. I also added two more health conditions that have been addressed by the training in the school. I will add these to the medical benefits setion as well. I apologize that this caused the renumbering of the references. It took me a few tries to get the format for citations to work (and the punctuation correct for that section), and as a result the references have been auto-renumbered and auto-reordered. However, none have been added or removed.

I also removed the first sentence from the Cost of Training section because it was a very PoV statement and because the sentence that came after it said the same thing but in a more NPOV format.

HTML75 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

4th Amended Complaint allegations (about the All Asia Championship)

So my change removing the citation to the 4th amended complaint's allegation that the All Asia Championship never happened has been reverted. We've been through this a few times before: A verifiable source is necessary, but not sufficient, to include something on WP. Things also need to be presented neutrally. A claim from the prosecution's court filings in a trial is almost by definition a non-neutral statement (and likewise for the defense, of course). That doesn't mean there's no useful place for it on WP (primary sources like this _can_ be used, just carefully), but to me the way it's currently presented makes it sound sort of authoritative when it's nothing of the kind. This is another place where we're presenting an allegation but not presenting the eventual outcome of investigating the allegation, which is misleading (particularly since there have been so many allegations about the school which were not borne by the ensuing investigation).

I actually have my doubts about the neutrality of Pam Zekman and Nam Tae Hi, but I can see a clear argument for including them. This claim from the prosecution's argument in a trial that was never ruled upon seems blatantly non-neutral, though. Subverdor (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you misunderstand Wikipedia neutrality: we the editors must strive for neutrality: our references have no requirement of neutrality, just reliablity and verifiability. jmcw (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a strawman. I specifically said that even sources like this can be used (carefully), and that the issue is that _we_ need to present things neutrally. Can you please respond to what I actually said? I'm not trying to be rude by saying that; I just don't feel it's useful for me to copy and paste or to restate it another time. Subverdor (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
To establish a NPOV for a controversial point, several POVs may be presented. A complaint by an Attorney General is reliable and verifiable: the AG has a POV that the person charged is guilty. I would suggest that you add a second POV to achieve neutrality. jmcw (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, the AG may or may not even have a personal POV that the person is guilty. It's just his job to combine as many plausible accusations as he can find into a formal complaint so that the actual truth (hopefully) can shake of out an adversarial process. My understanding is that the process is generally that the prosecution begins by alleging everything under the sun, the defense begins by denying almost all of it, and they go from there. That's why I don't think it communicates anything informative to indicate that something was formally alleged in court if the case never went to trial.
Even without the citation to the complaint, we're already doing what you suggest: we're indicating that some controversy about this claim exists, and presenting verifiable information about both sides. In my view the complaint is being used to _support_ one side of the disagreement, and I don't think that's an appropriate use, again because it doesn't communicate anything informative about the truth of a disagreement to say that one side of a court battle claimed that the truth of the disagreement was a certain way. Subverdor (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jmcw indicated on his talk page that he wasn't planning to continue the above conversation... leaving that aside for the moment, has anyone actually seen the 4th amended complaint (or a reliable source that says that it actually does say this), or are people just operating on what they've heard is in it? Subverdor (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, no synthesis: I said I find the above discussion clear and complete. I am aware that you don't like it. Have you ever come in contact with WP:TLDR? jmcw (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't. I just read it, and it advises me to be concise when writing articles but not overly dismissive when deleting other people's overwordy content. I don't think it applies to anything here. Now that I've answered a question of yours, will you answer my question? Have you a copy of the 4th amended complaint? Subverdor (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoops - I read the essay too hastily; it does specifically mention comments on talk pages too. You're saying I talk too much :-). Subverdor (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'm going to assume from the silence that no one participating in the discussion has seen the 4th amended complaint. This citation was added by Cjim63 (diff), who also added some other statements which bore citations that turned out to be problematic. In all honesty, my chief complaint is still the POV issue, not the sourcing; I don't really doubt that the 4th amended complaint actually says this. This lack of concern for sourcing is indicative of the POV issue, though. If someone's insisting that a negative (or positive) statement about the school must remain in the article, but that person's not concerned with the statement's accuracy or where it came from, then that's an indication that that person's primary motive is to bring a certain POV to the article instead of to improve its accuracy.

In any case I'm going to remove this statement again; you can't use a source if you haven't seen it (and if you've seen something else that claims that that's what it says, then that other thing should be cited instead). If someone can present an actual reliable source we can start talking about the POV issue again. Subverdor (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"you can't use a source if you haven't seen it" Not true, please AGF. jmcw (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to AGF on Cjim63's behalf as far as sourcing. More than once he cited a particular statement to a particular source, and when I pointed out that that source couldn't possibly support that statement (or didn't seem to exist) he refused to explain himself, eventually leading to the statement being quietly removed. At one point he claimed that the fourth amended complaint accused the school of Oom Yung Doe of violating the fourth amendment to the US constitution (source, search for "amendment"). That leads me to believe he never had it in his possession and was basing his ideas of what was in it on hearsay or guessing. You might not reach the same conclusion, but to suggest that we need to assume that he was honest about applying sources to statements is ridiculous, because we know that he wasn't. Do you disagree? Subverdor (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Long silence... I'm removing this again. It's not reasonable to leave a citation in place when the only person who vouches for it showed a history of falsifying their sources and disappeared over a year ago, after displaying an obvious lack of knowledge about what was in that specific source. It's likewise not reasonable to refuse to discuss POV issues in this way, but the carelessness with sourcing is a more solid reason to remove it. Think of it as natural consequences: If we learn you're dishonest with some of your sources, your "punishment" after you've silently removed the ones we found out about is that all the other ones need to be independently verified. Subverdor (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Section blanking

Hi everyone. Just to clarify how I feel about the recent edits removing some of the negative information about the school: Personally I think the current article overstates the controversial nature of the school, but I do think it's a more or less balanced picture of the currently verifiable information about the school. I'm not in agreement with people blanking sections of the article, but I think most of that comes from them just being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works (we had that for a while before I started editing the article, with people trying to totally rewrite it to match their more positive view of the school).

I'll try to talk to the other people who are currently editing the article; they should be talking about their edits here before making them, obviously. Subverdor (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision to the opening paragraph

Hi, I would like to revise the opening paragraph to create a more NPOV in that paragraph. The reason for this is that the paragraph is inherently biased towards negative POV. This can be seen if the POV of each sentence is examined. They break down as follows: NPOV. NPOV. Positive POV. Negative POV. Negative POV. Negative POV. This effect this has on readers can be seen by polling people who know nothing about the OYD schools. I asked several such people to read the article and tell me what they thought. They unanimously stated that the first paragraph left them with a negative image of the schools that stuck with them for the rest of the article, and was further reinforced by the final "Other Controversies" section. This definitely needs to be addressed. To balance the POV of the first paragraph, I propose the following edit:

"Oom Yung Doe (음양도; 陰陽道) is a line of martial arts schools founded by John C. Kim (Grandmaster "Iron" Kim). In addition to teaching physical movements and self-defense, the training also incorporates meditation, philosophy, and the use of herbal formulas and equipment. Students describe substantial benefits including self-defense skills, mental and physical health, and improvements in conditions such as asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis,[1] and blood pressure.[2] [3][4][5] Critics, however, accuse the school's founder and instructors of unethical behavior, charging large fees, and pressuring students to commit to long-term contracts. Beginning in the late 1980s, several TV and newspaper reports publicized these accusations, and described the school as a "cult."[5][6][7][8] Since that time, there have also been several news reports publicizing some of the benefits described by the students.[1][2][4][15][19][20]"

This way, the paragraph has attained a balanced POV, which can be seen in the breakdown of the sentences as follows: NPOV. NPOV. Positive POV. Negative POV. Negative POV. Positive POV. This also leaves the reader with a more NPOV to carry into the rest of the article, and readers will still be able to read about the legal issues that the schools faced in the past.

I am not proposing edits to any other section at this time.

HTML75 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The notability of OYD is due to the legal actions. Removing mention of them from the lead is misleading. jmcw (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarise the content of the article; given that around a quarter of the article relates to Oom Yung Doe's legal issues, this information should be mentioned in the opening section. HTML75 may also have misunderstood WP:NPOV, which is primarily a policy on tone, not content. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oom Yung Doe has some very vocal critics who've said all sorts of things about the school. Among their main accusations are that the school is a cult, charges far too much money, manipulates students, and doesn't teach anything worthwhile. A lot of that view of the school used to be in the article until we had some extended discussion here and found it mostly unsupported and based on innuendo. That's why it's mostly not in the article anymore, but it is still in the lead.
Myself I don't really have much problem with presenting the tax case information, because it is factual and certainly interesting to the reader. As I said before, I actually think the article itself is roughly balanced in its current form, but to me the way the lead is constructed still follows that same dishonest pattern: "Criticisms include X, Y, and Z. Some people call the school a cult. As a matter of fact, there was a tax trial, and many instructors went to jail." It makes the criticisms sound like they're confirmed in court. In fact the opposite is true; the original fraud case in Chicago was settled for a pittance, and Vivian Francis's case making some similar accusations was just dismissed (I don't know too many of the details of that; I am trying to find out more). To me that sort of slanting effect is the main problem with including the tax information in the lead. You guys can try HTML75's experiment of presenting the lead to people unfamiliar with the school and seeing if they come away with the impression that the school has some documented fraudulent element.
I don't have much of an idea of how to "fix" the negativity of the lead without whitewashing the controversy surrounding the school, which is of course real. That's why I haven't tried to do anything to change the intro even though it bothers me. I do agree with HTML75 in wanting to make the lead more balanced than it currently is. How about this: Can you guys who like the current lead summarize in a few sentences how you see the controversy surrounding the school, based on your understanding of the reliable sources? Subverdor (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the point. There is a sentence in the lead that references allegations of fraud and being mean to students, followed immediately by the statement that several instructors went to prison; even though the sentence says "tax fraud," this nonetheless reasonably implies that the student fraud allegations were also upheld in court, which is not true. So it is necessary to change this paragraph in a way that makes those things distinct.
I second Subverdor's request for those who like the opening to summarize how they see the controversy, and to provide some suggestions for how to modify the opening paragraph to make it more balanced. I'll be glad to provide some suggestions as well.
Also, if it is true that the lead should summarize the content of the article, then it should definitely also contain a reference about the proven medical benefits as described in the Training section. I'll include such a reference in my suggestions for lead modification. Thank you. HTML75 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Before you select your sources, could I constructively suggest that you review Wikipedia:RSMED#Definitions? Medical references are held to higher standards in Wikipedia. jmcw (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but can we just have a civil conversation about this? We're talking about NPOV in the lead and we both asked a specific question about it which you're ignoring. If you suddenly have a problem with medical sources in the article that's a totally separate issue (sort of vaguely related to something HTML75 said beside his main point). Are you planning to respond any further about the things that we're talking about? Subverdor (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
We are having a civil conversation. I think John Kim is notable. I think OYD is not. I have been involved in many WOT discussions on this talk page. I plan to follow up on Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#Notability_of_John_C._Kim_vs_Notability_of_Oom_Yung_Doe. jmcw (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Um, okay, you can do that. Or you can just look in that section to see what I said about that the last time you changed the subject to notability. In any case it doesn't move this conversation forward at all.
Really what I'm trying to do is build a consensus between us about what the facts are concerning the controversial nature of Oom Yung Doe. There may be certain things that we always disagree about, but at least if we understand each other's positions, we'll be able to find common ground and talk about the parts where we disagree. That's why I'd like to know what you think a totally honest summary of the controversial nature of Oom Yung Doe would say -- it might be that you think that the school *is* a cult and the more extreme critics of the school are right, or it might be that you think the current intro is balanced, or it might be that you can see an argument that the current intro is misleading because it implies that the more extreme criticisms of the school have been demonstrated in court. Without knowing how you see the situation it's not possible to build consensus or compromise between differing viewpoints.
I guess if you don't want to substantively take part in the conversation that's okay -- HTML75 and I can construct the lead without your input, but that won't be a very balanced way to do it. That's why I'm trying to talk to you about what your viewpoint is. Are you willing to talk about how you see the controversy surrounding the school and what you think the facts are? So far you've changed the subject every time I've asked you, but I can't imagine a good reason why you wouldn't be willing to explain your opinion. Subverdor (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I will work on a John Kim article with the goal of removing all negativity from the OYD article. Feel free to be as positive as you like about OYD. jmcw (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting approach. While I personally like the idea of removing all negativity from the OYD article, I think that might violate WP:NPOV, so we probably should keep it balanced. With respect to having a separate article on John Kim, if it can be done without violating the POV forking rule, it might be a good idea. There is precedent for this approach, with such articles as Microsoft and Bill Gates being separate. I welcome additional comments on this approach.
With respect to a revised lead paragraph, here is an updated suggestion:
"Oom Yung Doe (음양도; 陰陽道) is a line of martial arts schools founded by John C. Kim (Grandmaster "Iron" Kim). In addition to teaching a broad range of physical movements and self-defense, the training also incorporates meditation, philosophy, and the use of herbal formulas and equipment. Students describe substantial benefits including self-defense skills, mental and physical health, and improvements in conditions such as asthma, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis,[1] and blood pressure.[2][3][4][5] Critics, however, accuse the school's founder and instructors of unethical behavior, charging large fees, and pressuring students to commit to long-term contracts. Beginning in the late 1980s, several TV and newspaper reports publicized these accusations, and described the school as a "cult."[5][6][7][8] While none of these accusations were ever proven, Kim and eleven of the organization's instructors were found guilty of conspiracy to commit tax fraud in 1995.[9][10][11] Despite those issues, certain benefits of the training such as increased lung capacity and the healing of treatment-resistant back pain have been demonstrated to be effective in clinical settings;[19][20] and there have also been several news reports publicizing some of the benefits described by the students.[1][2][4][15]"
The sentence about OYD instructors serving time can be moved to the Legal Proceedings section where the other results of the case are discussed (since the part about Kim serving time is already there). This lead then accomplishes several things: it incorporates the main elements of the article, which are the founding of the schools, the training itself, the documented benefits, the legal issues, and the controversy; it softens the hammer blow of the tax case so that a reader can finish the article without being prejudiced against the schools; and it still preserves the mention of the tax case. HTML75 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as I have not seen any responses to this suggestion, I will make the change today. Thank you. HTML75 (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I think one other adjustment is needed to the lead, adding one clause from the Legal Proceedings section: "While none of these accusations were ever proven, Kim and four of the organization's instructors were found guilty of conspiracy to commit tax fraud in 1996. In contrast to the crime of tax fraud (which requires an "overt act" of fraud), the charge of conspiracy requires only that defendants had discussed or planned activities which, if carried out, would have been fraudulent." Again, this is a necessary distinction that may escape readers who do not read all the way down to the Legal Proceedings section. I won't make this change until everyone has had a chance to look at it. Thank you. HTML75 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't heard any comments on this, so I'll make the change today. Thank you. HTML75 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe/Archive_2&oldid=485280495"