Talk:Rhee Taekwon-Do

message: I promoted the article to B class and think it is well on its way to GA class.  In fact a few more references in the Traning and Ranks sections (usually at least one per paragraph) is the most glaring ommision.  Also I would not title a section Master Rhee mainly because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts guidelines on the use of Titles.    I suspect you already know all this but I'll say it anyway.  If you haven't already please take a look at those guidelines and also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) even though it is in Australia.  Since the vast majority of the work has been done by one author I would first submit the article to Peer Review followed by nomination for Good Article status.  A review of the Good Article criteria might also be in order.  Let me know if you need any help with any of this.Peter Rehse 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "Master Rhee" section title has stayed there because I have been focusing on the body text more than anything else. Thank you for the helpful feedback and, of course, for the article promotion; much appreciated. The "Training" and "Ranks" sections have yet to undergo significant revision. Janggeom 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be frank this is almost read for FA class. Put it in for GA to get a wider viewing & pick up any minor bits but I'm struggling to see any major flaws. Great work --Nate1481( t/c) 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believer in the step by step appoach.Peter Rehse 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your positive comments, Nate1481 (although I am inclined to agree with PRehse's last comment). I suppose this means I will have to revise the "Training" and "Ranks" sections sooner than I had planned. I also uncovered a note on Tang Soo Do (that I had missed earlier) in an interview with Rozinsky, and have amended parts of the article to reflect this. The amendments are fairly rough at the moment, but I aim to get around to revising them soon. Janggeom 13:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting we try & jump it just meant that it should pass quiet easily. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; I see what you meant. I hadn't been planning on submitting this article for any promotion, actually, but as you have nominated it, I suppose we'll see how it goes … Janggeom 15:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Promotion 

message: I've run the "auto peer review" on this - note that this uses FA criteria so some comments are related to things that you wouldn't necessarily want to address now.
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or [[Template:Infobox City]<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>].[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please provide citations for all of the s.[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Medains 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional -  is probably the right infobox, but the infobox itself needs work at the moment to make it look cleaner. -- Medains 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My major concern is the 'list of ex-Rhee members'; it is probably too long and either deserves it's own article or needs cropping to the most notable. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Another thought, the logo is not free use, don't know the rules on that will have a look round for an organisation FA on the plus side all the rest are.  --Nate1481( t/c) 13:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft article which is FA has similar image so probably ok. The rules are progresivley stricter for good and featured articles --Nate1481( t/c) 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ex-Rhee members: point taken; I will see what I can do. Logo: my understanding is that 'fair use' (which I believe it is, as noted on the discussion page for that image) is acceptable, but I defer to more experienced opinion on this. Janggeom 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be annoying, but as it stands now the list is less relevant. The info given was good, but I feel that not everyone listed needs to be there, they need to be have had some effect on the school to have a reason for listing why do they all need to be mentioned. As you know more about it, it would be better for you to remove some, notability isn't a restriction on content but it is a guide line. Possibly  the best way would be to re do it as prose rather than as a bulleted list (another thing discouraged, where possible, in higher quality articles) Just my two cents again ... --Nate1481( t/c) 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me start by saying I don't find your critique annoying at all (if my opinion should matter). To me, it's a question of balance. Citing a large number of ex-Rhee members who went on to establish their own schools is, in my opinion, an indicator of Rhee Taekwon-Do's influence on the Tae Kwon-Do scene in Australia as a whole. On the other hand, as you have argued, not everyone needs to be included. Where do we decide that the balance is 'right'? Although I have not yet deleted any ex-members from the section, I have been thinking about what criteria might apply to decide who stays and who goes. At present, to the best of my knowledge, all of the schools listed in this section are still operating (and some have been operating for more than 20 years); if any of the schools had become defunct, they would be prime candidates for deletion. I could also delete by founder's experience, but this becomes hard to try to quantify objectively since, to put it bluntly, reliable records are hard to find. Do you have any suggestions for criteria for inclusion/deletion? Thank you. Janggeom 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, let me think about this a bit more, but in the meantime I will replace all the information taken out. Janggeom 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reorganised the "Ex-Rhee members" section into three subsections (ITF, WTF/other, and non-TKD), with the three most notable ex-members in each subsection (in my judgement) included in the main text. I relocated all the other ex-members into footnotes, so that the information is still there for readers who are interested. The main text, however, is now much simpler. Janggeom 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Much improved, having it in prose with notes means it dosen't break up the article but keep the information, thanks! --Nate1481( t/c) 09:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just changed the layout of this section slightly to allow easier readability Fosnez 05:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief note that might help clarify: the Ex-Rhee members' section exists to show, briefly, the school's influence on Australian taekwondo history through ex-members who eventually founded their own martial art schools, which is why it is kept short (prose, not list, in contrast to the Father of Australian Taekwondo section) and only the three most notable ex-members in each category are in the main text (with the others in footnotes). Likewise, the names of schools of ex-members may be found in the references, but not in the main text (the article is about Rhee Taekwon-Do; other schools should be described in their own articles). After reverting your (Fosnez's) edit, I noticed that you had not actually deleted the information on Nasilowski, just that you had not given it a separate bullet point, so my comment in the article history is not completely accurate. Janggeom 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thats understandable. One small thing though, "Ex-members who founded non-ITF taekwondo schools include three of the more expansionist instructors in Australia:" sounds rather, angry... I know there is some, history, shall we say, between Rhee and Ivanov, but could we tone it down a notch? Perhaps replace "expansionist" with "successful" (although that is also not that neutral), but expansionist is too harsh I think. Perhaps something like "Three Ex-members who have founded non-ITF, Tae Kwon Do schools include:" Fosnez 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you are trying to say, and I could make two comments in giving a general response. First, the "expansionist" adjective is accurate. Ivanov, Frost, and Hicks have demonstrated expansionist policy in the operation of their taekwondo schools—this is independently observable through the advertising they have placed nationwide in Australia, amongst other, more detailed sources. Second, the article has undergone both informal review (Bradford44, Medains, Nate1481, and PRehse) and formal review (VanTucky) without anyone finding the "expansionist" adjective to be problematic. I believe all of these reviewers are experienced contributors, and well aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Using "successful" could be an option, but I would want to see objective evidence of success before I would use it in this context. I looked up a thesaurus just now, but was unable to find a more succinct adjective than "expansionist." Please feel welcome to suggest a better alternative if you can find one; I would be interested to see it (or them) for my own learning. Janggeom 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Improvements 

message: :My major concern is the 'list of ex-Rhee members'; it is probably too long and either deserves it's own article or needs cropping to the most notable. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thought, the logo is not free use, don't know the rules on that will have a look round for an organisation FA on the plus side all the rest are.  --Nate1481( t/c) 13:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft article which is FA has similar image so probably ok. The rules are progresivley stricter for good and featured articles --Nate1481( t/c) 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ex-Rhee members: point taken; I will see what I can do. Logo: my understanding is that 'fair use' (which I believe it is, as noted on the discussion page for that image) is acceptable, but I defer to more experienced opinion on this. Janggeom 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be annoying, but as it stands now the list is less relevant. The info given was good, but I feel that not everyone listed needs to be there, they need to be have had some effect on the school to have a reason for listing why do they all need to be mentioned. As you know more about it, it would be better for you to remove some, notability isn't a restriction on content but it is a guide line. Possibly  the best way would be to re do it as prose rather than as a bulleted list (another thing discouraged, where possible, in higher quality articles) Just my two cents again ... --Nate1481( t/c) 16:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me start by saying I don't find your critique annoying at all (if my opinion should matter). To me, it's a question of balance. Citing a large number of ex-Rhee members who went on to establish their own schools is, in my opinion, an indicator of Rhee Taekwon-Do's influence on the Tae Kwon-Do scene in Australia as a whole. On the other hand, as you have argued, not everyone needs to be included. Where do we decide that the balance is 'right'? Although I have not yet deleted any ex-members from the section, I have been thinking about what criteria might apply to decide who stays and who goes. At present, to the best of my knowledge, all of the schools listed in this section are still operating (and some have been operating for more than 20 years); if any of the schools had become defunct, they would be prime candidates for deletion. I could also delete by founder's experience, but this becomes hard to try to quantify objectively since, to put it bluntly, reliable records are hard to find. Do you have any suggestions for criteria for inclusion/deletion? Thank you. Janggeom 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, let me think about this a bit more, but in the meantime I will replace all the information taken out. Janggeom 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reorganised the "Ex-Rhee members" section into three subsections (ITF, WTF/other, and non-TKD), with the three most notable ex-members in each subsection (in my judgement) included in the main text. I relocated all the other ex-members into footnotes, so that the information is still there for readers who are interested. The main text, however, is now much simpler. Janggeom 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Much improved, having it in prose with notes means it dosen't break up the article but keep the information, thanks! --Nate1481( t/c) 09:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have just changed the layout of this section slightly to allow easier readability Fosnez 05:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief note that might help clarify: the Ex-Rhee members' section exists to show, briefly, the school's influence on Australian taekwondo history through ex-members who eventually founded their own martial art schools, which is why it is kept short (prose, not list, in contrast to the Father of Australian Taekwondo section) and only the three most notable ex-members in each category are in the main text (with the others in footnotes). Likewise, the names of schools of ex-members may be found in the references, but not in the main text (the article is about Rhee Taekwon-Do; other schools should be described in their own articles). After reverting your (Fosnez's) edit, I noticed that you had not actually deleted the information on Nasilowski, just that you had not given it a separate bullet point, so my comment in the article history is not completely accurate. Janggeom 15:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thats understandable. One small thing though, "Ex-members who founded non-ITF taekwondo schools include three of the more expansionist instructors in Australia:" sounds rather, angry... I know there is some, history, shall we say, between Rhee and Ivanov, but could we tone it down a notch? Perhaps replace "expansionist" with "successful" (although that is also not that neutral), but expansionist is too harsh I think. Perhaps something like "Three Ex-members who have founded non-ITF, Tae Kwon Do schools include:" Fosnez 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you are trying to say, and I could make two comments in giving a general response. First, the "expansionist" adjective is accurate. Ivanov, Frost, and Hicks have demonstrated expansionist policy in the operation of their taekwondo schools—this is independently observable through the advertising they have placed nationwide in Australia, amongst other, more detailed sources. Second, the article has undergone both informal review (Bradford44, Medains, Nate1481, and PRehse) and formal review (VanTucky) without anyone finding the "expansionist" adjective to be problematic. I believe all of these reviewers are experienced contributors, and well aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Using "successful" could be an option, but I would want to see objective evidence of success before I would use it in this context. I looked up a thesaurus just now, but was unable to find a more succinct adjective than "expansionist." Please feel welcome to suggest a better alternative if you can find one; I would be interested to see it (or them) for my own learning. Janggeom 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex-Rhee members

message: I have made various minor edits for grammar and style, and would like to comment on them (as well as some edits that I have not changed, but were the subject of debate in earlier discussion):
* Describing the art taught as "kicking and punching" seems redundant to me, as the art is well known as a striking art and we are talking about a school in that art, not an entire art in itself. Thus, "grappling" would be appropriate in the Judo article, but unnecessary in a judo school's article, in my opinion.
* An earlier viewpoint was that placing the synonyms of the school's name in boldface was too distracting (although this is what Wikipedia guidelines say should be done), hence the synonyms were italicised. I leave this open for further discussion.
* Rhee Taekwon-Do is a martial art school (it only teaches one art), not a martial arts school (it does not teach multiple arts), so I have reverted the relevant edit in the lead section.
* The placement of references in the sentence about Rhee Taekwon-Do being widely publicised as Australia's first and biggest taekwon-do school was the subject of earlier debate. The point being made by the author of the sentence (me) was that these claims are widely publicised. Evidence for evaluating these claims appears later on in the article. Originally, the reference links were at the end of the sentence (as in the most recent rounds of editing) but another view was that this was inappropriate since the references are in material put out by the school itself. I leave this open for further discussion.
* Use of ranks within this article is always in the 'Dan' format, not 'degree black belt,' so I have reverted the change made at the start of the biograghical section on Rhee.
* After reviewing various Wikipedia guidelines, I agree that generic instances of "taekwon-do" should be written as "taekwondo"; I will go through and change all the instances missed in recent edits.
Trust this helps. Janggeom 03:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to mention briefly that it is important to state the obvious, and a reader should not necessarily have to leave the page to have a complete understanding of this article's subject.  It is also important to introduce the meaning of foreign terms like dan (which should be italicized every time it appears, incidentally) before using them. Generally, I see no compelling reason why any deviations from wikipedia guidelines in this article.  Regardless of what a previous editor may have felt, the synonyms should remain bold, and citation that refer to a whole sentence go at the end of a whole sentence. You have done a wonderful job with this article, and I hope is passes GA. Bradford44 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind words and helpful feedback, Bradford44. As the GA reviewer, VanTucky, appears to be on holiday for the next few days, this would be a good opportunity for me to check the article again. Janggeom 05:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reviewing the article, VanTucky. I have been the main person working on this article for the last few months (although it was nominated for GA status by someone else—to my pleasant surprise, I must say). The changes I have commented on above are all minor stylistic issues rather than content-related issues. Probably the most contentious issue would be changing "taekwon-do" to "taekwondo" … and since I would be one of those most likely to object (on academic grounds), yet have agreed to the change (after reviewing Wikipedia guidelines), I believe the article should be stable enough for review. Trust this helps in your decision-making, and thank you again for your time; much appreciated. Janggeom 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stability guideline is more linked to, if not edit wars, large scale changes. Style changes and tidying edits are not a stability issued from my reading of the guide. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor grammar/style issues 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  VanTucky Talk
Thank you for reviewing this article; much appreciated. Janggeom 04:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contratulations! Bradford44 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind word; working on this article has been an interesting (and very educational) introduction to Wikipedia for me. Janggeom 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed "good article" nomination

message: A few notes on recent edits, some of which I have reverted or modified:
* http://rhee-tkd.blogspot.com/ is not the official Rhee Taekwon-Do website. The subtitle on that website reads "unofficial site from Victoria, Australia" in the heading. Thus, that website should not be listed as the official Rhee Taekwon-Do website in the infobox.
* Addition of information to this article should rely primarily on the provision of objective, independently-verifiable (e.g., published) information. Claiming to be related to someone prominent is of little or no value here because anyone can claim to be anyone on the Internet (even if the claim might be true). Even if such a claim were true, the article must still follow Wikipedia rules and policies, since it is a Wikipedia article, not a Rhee Taekwon-Do publication.
* Arbitrarily changing spellings in an inconsistent way (e.g., "dojang" to "doh-jang" and "Chong Chul Rhee" to "Chong-Chul Rhee") looks like sloppy editing, at best. If you are going to edit this article, please do it with careful attention to grammar and spelling, and with attention to consistency throughout the entire article. Thanks.
* The Founder of the school is C. C. Rhee. If C. H. Rhee arrived after C. C. Rhee had started the school, then it seems illogical that both should be considered joint Founders. Of course, if someone has objective information on this, that would be of great value and would justify listing of C. C. Rhee and C. H. Rhee as joint Founders in this article. Likewise, if both C. H. Rhee and C. Y. Rhee are to be listed as additional heads of the school, there needs to be sound evidence for this status (otherwise V. Low might well also be listed, and the list could continue). Since this is a potentially sensitive issue, I would recommend discussion on this page before further editing of the article on this point.
* Removing the biographical section on C. C. Rhee radically interrupts the flow of the article. The existence of a separate, longer article specifically on C. C. Rhee is not a reason for removing this section from this article (in case this was the reason).
I trust that these clarify the reasons behind my edits. Discussion is most welcome.
Janggeom (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on edits in March 2008 

message: This article is now approaching four years of age, and it has been two years since I rewrote it. While I have been making incremental improvements since then, I am going to try to improve the article further. I am not aiming to completely rewrite the article, but rather incorporate the things I have learned about Wikipedia since 2007. Janggeom (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 2009