User talk:Mx08

Oom Yung Doe edit

While I certainly appreciate your efforts to improve the Oom Yung Doe article by removing inappropriate citations, it would be more helpful if you left the written text there with a "citation needed" rather than deleting the accompanying text. A lot of work has been done to improve the text. It is important to remember that there are many articles available on Oom Yung Doe that say similar things, and many more that have not yet been tapped. It is entirely possible that several of these articles will be more than adequate as citations.

Thank you! Cjim63 (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While your concerns about are worth discussing, please stop deleting relevant information from the article. For example, you deleted the controversial citation; however, you also deleted the portion of the article saying that Oom Yung Doe is a "highly controversial style" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oom_Yung_Doe&oldid=232058525. If nothing else, Kim's incarceration and the multiple well-documented accusations about him and the Oom Yung Doe organization prove this. You delete the alternate Kim has used, even though those are documented at the freedom of mind site. You deleted the claim of winning the "All Asia Championship" which was also documented. And so it goes on. While it certainly is good to keep the article to a higher standard, it is difficult to understand how some of these alterations relate to the citations. The Freedom of Mind web site (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/c/chung/) documents many, many articles and publications about Oom Yung Doe that have not been used yet. I think we should just insert a "citation needed" rather than deleting sections of the text.

Thanks! Cjim63 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting well citated text...again

I know that it is hard to resist the urge to delete significant portions of well-citated text, but please don't do it like you did here: [1] Several of your edits and perspective have been useful and have contributed to the quality of the article. However; deleting large portions of text is not. If you think that some major section ought to be removed, please discuss it in the article's discussion page here: [2] as you have done before.

ThanksCjim63 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And again....

Dear Mx08,

I have reverted your edit again. While I don't particularly agree with how you've organized the page, (I support the notion stated by [User:Nate1481|Nate] that the discussion of lineages should be included in the training section) it is really due to the inclusion of unsourced statements that use an authoritative tone, and the deletion of sourced statements. Here it is:

The school teaches eight different styles of martial arts, including: Hap Ki Do / Ai Ki Do, Kong Su / Tae Kwon Do, Udo / Ju Jitsu, Kom Do / Samurai, Kung Fu, Tai Chi Chung, Bagwa Chung, Ship Pal Gae. The school uses different herbal formulas and equipment as part of it's training methods; according to practitioners this is to increase chi and develop skill and ability in movement. In addition to physical movements, the school also teaches meditation and traditional philosophies. These elements are said to be key to an individual's complete development. Many individuals have stated over the years that they have had many benefits from training in the school. Some have stated they have maintained their health and gained greater meaning out of life.

The last time I said this, you wrote back and indicated that you had just moved those statements. While you did move some statements, you deleted the following extremely well-cited statement (Which I am including for your benefit):

and because the school was linked to the death of a student in 1991.

I suspect there may be more, but I don't have the time to look that well. It is just that the sheer number of citations deleted made that an easy one to spot.

I am not entirely averse to altering the formating of the article, if other editors were to support the notion. I just hope you won't delete all the well-cited text. particularly since your efforts are part of the reason that such extensive citation has been procured.

Later,

Cjim63 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No deletions this time. Thanks!

I think that the latest edit [3] is better. However, there are a few items to consider.

First off, what Wikipedia policy are you mentioning when you say we shouldn't use the word "criticism", Mx08? I think it doesn't exist. After all here is a wikipedia article, about wikipedia of all things, that includes the word multiple times: [4].

Second, I think that the statements in the beginning must have at least some citations from the beginning, even if it occurs later on in the article. I will put in "citation needed" behind those parts. It should be fairly easy to move things around a bit.

Third, the tone of the added paragraph at the beginning sounds more like promotional literature than an encyclopedic article. For example: "In addition to physical movements, the school also teaches meditation and traditional philosophies. These elements are said to be key to an individual's complete development...Many individuals have stated over the years that they have had many benefits from training in the school. Some have stated they have maintained their health and gained greater meaning out of life."

These statements appear to be authoritative statements about what has been established about OYD, not just about internal OYD beliefs and practices. There must be independent sources. For example, who said "These elements are said to be key to an individual's complete development?" Whichever independent, verifiable source said this, he or she must be cited.

Fourth, while you correctly point out that compartmentalization is often used in academic literature, I believe - along with others - that consideration of the lineage is relevant and would be well compartmentalized in the training section. After all, lineage really is relevant to training most styles of martial arts.

Final, I believe it is important to rephrase how the beginning paragraph is worded. It indicates that OYD includes eight forms of martial arts. However, these are the "Iron" Kim variations of these martial arts. As discussed by myself and others in this discussion page, these styles actually appear to share little with the styles with the same names. This is something that could be confusing to readers and must be addressed.

Cjim63 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Wiki References

Wikipedia articles should have verifiable citation from peer-reviewed sources. For scholastic topics, this is not difficult. Japanese martial arts, for example, are well covered by academic references. Many other martial arts (particularly those without national support) are not well covered by academic review (kenpo, for example.)

There are McDojo martial arts that have no documentation at all, of any quality. There are martial arts who are documented only by oral tradition ( Chinese arts: Shaolin Temple and their library burned in the 1920s.) There are martial arts who are peer-reviewed in well-known forums ( bullshido, for example.) There are martial arts who are documented by personal but well-referenced web sites (often with POV.)

All of these sources are not acceptable under official Wikipedia policy. In the wiki martial arts community, we have accepted lesser standards in order to have more topics with some quality of documentation. The McDojos are not acceptable: the others are considered case by case (often in AFD.)

All of the changes and criticism you have made to the Oom Yung Doe are completely correct by wiki policy but are they useful to wiki readers? Wouldn't citation requests showing doubt about the quality of the reference be more useful to a reader? Talk page discussion?

Thank you for your enthusiasm! jmcw (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Mind

While blogs, forums, and self-published books, etc. are against wikipedia policy, there is no reason to suggest that the Freedom of Mind web site is not. This is particularly true since many of the citations are drawn from articles previously published in newspapers, for example here [5] and here [6]. Thanks for your time! Cjim63 (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that rickross.com is used in other articles in wikipedia. For example, the high-trafficked article on Scientology.[7] Cjim63 (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)