Talk:Choi Hong-hi

message: This lunar calender thing should be deleted from this page, and made into a new page. I also celerbrate my birth day according to the lunar calender. It would be the case for many Koreans or asians.
This page displays nothing about Choi Hong Hi's life or death, and is very bias against him.  I think this page needs alot of work.--Tkdbee 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have started working to try to improve this article. Choi is a controversial figure in a martial art plagued by political issues, so writing about him in a neutral way could be difficult, but hopefully we can end up with a solid Wikipedia article despite the controversies. Being neither ITF- nor WTF-affiliated, my perception is that Choi is less important than the ITF make him out to be, but also more important than the WTF make him out to be. Janggeom 14:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: Taekwondo founder was unclear. many form of TKD based on Song Duk-ki's Taek Kyon. some korean newspaper said, He was not a founder. He just 'taekwondo' name maker. He did not exclusive work for TKD. He was a korea army general.Manacpowers (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the situation about the founding of taekwondo is not clear. The article does not say that Choi was undisputedly the Founder of Taekwondo, but that many people regard him as such—and that is a fact. One only needs to look up any ITF source to verify that. I agree that Choi appears to have been responsible (in large part, at least) for bringing forth the name 'taekwondo,' and in that context might be called 'name maker' (although this is an unusual phrase in English). I am not clear what you are trying to say when you write, "He did not exclusive work for TKD." Please specify exactly what you mean. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I forgot to mention: if you are going to be working on this article, please take the time to ensure that your contributions are grammatically correct and free of spelling errors. Please also ensure that you provide references for your additions. You have given Choi the title of 'name maker' but have not provided a reference in this article for that claim. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choi is not regarded as founder 

message: There are various sources in the Wikipedia article  that briefly discuss involvement of Choi Hong Hi in the 1961 Korea coup (Guardian Obituary) and the nytimes obituary also has a brief section on the political the reasons why Choi Hon Hi decided to move the ITF headquarters to Canada.  Are there more reliable sources on these subjects? If so should these be included? What other factual aspects of his life should be included? Chaotixnz (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the opening paragraphs declare that SK/WTF are often critical of Choi, would it not be an idea to say why? Choi IS considered the founder of TKD by many (he was the one who thought up the name!), rightly or wrongly. However the3 page says little, if anything about his introduction of ITF TKD to North Korea in later years (the reason why many SK/WTF sources criticise him) and his son's arrest for allegedly being involved in a plot to kill the SK president. It might also mention the subsequent break-up of ITF following his death 88.156.42.247 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poltical life of Choi Hong Hi and Taekwondo 

message: Due to the subject's controversial nature, this article is the target of significant abuse or, in good faith, enthusiastic but uninformed editing. I believe that this article should be protected, at some level, if any consistent improvement is to occur. As a starting point, I am making this recommendation informally here for discussion. Janggeom (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, a third of a year has now passed with no expressions of interest in serious, consistent improvement of this article. Janggeom (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thirds of a year have now passed with no expressions of interest in serious, consistent improvement of this article. I have been monitoring this article, and although the vandalism appears to have decreased, the article is still subject to people adding material that is likely to be inflammatory, such as the recent emphasis on Korea having been under Japanese rule when Choi was born. Janggeom (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for article protection - July 2009 

message: I understand that there were several issues with the lack of neutrality of the article.  However, the current state of the article is also not acceptable.  The reader is left wondering, why was Choi Hong Hi exiled from Souch Korea? What did he do in his years in Canada? Was he living in North Korea afterwards? etc.
I know that neutrality is important and difficult, but leaving the articles lacking after stripping them of all controversy is also not good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.100.11 (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel welcome to contribute to the article by adding appropriately-written material and, of course, providing reliable references for what you have added. Janggeom (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was coming here to say the exact same thing. This article is utterly unacceptable in its current state. It is a biographical article about a person's life, yet says absolutely nothing about one of the most important events in his life, namely his exile! A brief passing mention that he moved after exile is completely insufficient. It doesn't answer the obvious question as to why he was exiled, and who imposed that upon him. If anything, the article fails NPOV completely by sweeping under the rug those facts. And to respond to a request about just that with a "feel free to add it" is obnoxious. If the person came here to ask the question, clearly they are seeking that knowledge, so telling them to add it is insulting. If you have any knowledge about these facts and are leaving it out for whatever reason, then it is you who should feel free to add it, not the person making the reasonable request. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikipedia contributors are encouraged to contribute appropriately. Personal attacks are not allowed. If, in your view, the article is "utterly unacceptable in its current state," please feel welcome to edit it yourself (following Wikipedia guidelines and policies) or take this issue up with any of the three Wikipedia project groups in which this article (through the work of several contributors) is currently rated C class. You might wish to study the subject, the editing history of this article, and everything posted on the article's talk page before commenting further. Janggeom (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Exactly the response I expected. Don't lecture me about Wikipedia procedures, I've been around here for almost ten years. The point remains that this article is is in clear need of additional information, but I don't know the answers to the questions the article leaves unanswered. There is nothing wrong with asking on the talk page for a knowledgable editor to add that information (indeed, that's part of what they're for; for editors to make requests for additional information and compile a to do list). To just respond with "why don't you add it" is dismissive and rude.There is no other word for it. I have looked through the edit history and this talk page, and all I can conclude is that it is contentious as to the reasons, and that some may be embarrassed be them. Which is exactly why omitting them fails NPOV; it serves to hide negative information. Not within Wikipedia policy at all. So as it stands, the article should be downgraded in assessment to start class at best, and tagged for lacking neutrality. oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article so neutral that almost nothing is left 

message: From all the sources Choi reached the rank of Major-General (ie a 2-star general). Although in spoken address, a 2-star general may be addressed as general, in written address (at least in English) he should always be titled Major-General, because the term General is reserved only for a full general (ie 4-stars or above) in writing. Koreans like to think of themselves as courteous and modest, so why did Choi and his followers exaggerate his army rank in writing? There is an astronomical difference in the responsibilities and powers of a Major-General (a divisional commander) and a full General (an army commander). Choi had never attained the rank of General and should not be titled as such. 86.178.163.150 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is he titled General? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Choi Hong Hi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140210001759/http://itfline.org/about-us/ to http://itfline.org/about-us/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123142222/http://msplhs02.bon.at/~admin190/index.php?id=12 to http://msplhs02.bon.at/~admin190/index.php?id=12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121201044/http://www.itfnz.org.nz/what/profile.html to http://www.itfnz.org.nz/what/profile.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703232101/http://www.sjkim-taekwondo.com/History.html to http://www.sjkim-taekwondo.com/History.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Choi Hong Hi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218111013/http://www.tkdnews.com/news/quickViewArticleView.html?idxno=3991 to http://www.tkdnews.com/news/quickViewArticleView.html?idxno=3991
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone verify this book? Park, S. H. (1993): About the author. In H. H. Choi: Taekwon-Do: The Korean art of self-defence, 3rd ed. (Vol. 1, pp. 241–274). Mississauga: International Taekwon-Do Federation. Is there really such mention of Hong Hi Choi learning Taekkyeon?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearberserk (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Hi Choi learned Taekkyeon?