Talk:Rhee Taekwon-Do/Archive 1

Main discussion: 10 August 2007

I wrote this article partly from various regional websites for Rhee Taekwon-Do, and partly from my own experience in the school BryanJones

This looks like an advertisement for the school. Could someone with expertise in TKD fix it? ZacharyS 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say because it doesnt give a link to a school it isnt really an advertisement for a single school but a history of one master and the changes he has made to the art thoughout his life. I am very tempted to write something similar for several other masters of this art. Mels0n 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it does seem like an advertisement. I study Rhee Taekwon-Do (have for 3 years), and one of the things that gets me about this is the constant reference to Master Rhee by his super long title. Now, that's acceptable in the grading hall when we address him with full respect, but I think for the purposes of this article it is unnescessary clutter, so I'm going to remove it. Everything else is true, even if it might slightly overstep the boundary of Neutrality in terms of POV, it's nothing serious really... Calum Smith 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Rhee TKD "forbids" its students from entering ITF-like competition? I can't find any such rule in my Blue Book.

^^ Yes, it is true, ask your branch instructor. Perhaps forbids is a bit tough, he doesnt allow students studying Rhee Taekwondo to participate in these events. Don't ask me why, I'm just a lowly 1st kup... Calum Smith 11:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree with the statement at the bottom. it makes sence to me that if you want to defend yourself then you need to learne hands on.

I have corrected some grammatical errors in the article and added some information (including several links). There are many different ways to spell 'Tae Kwon Do' in English and this is a much-disputed topic, but for now I have changed usage in the article to 'Taekwon-Do' for consistency with the article's title, except for one instance referring to 'sport style taekwondo' (as that seems to be the usual WTF spelling). Janggeom 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have revised this article significantly to make it more neutral, and have moved all of the membership booklet text to a discrete section near the end of the article. Janggeom 15:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the Criticisms section of this article. Due to the subjective nature of such a topic, balancing positive and negative aspects will take some effort and revision, so bear in mind that this is a work in progress. In writing this section, I think it is important to remember that we are writing about real people (Master Rhee, his brothers, and Rhee Taekwon-Do instructors, as well as ex-Rhee Taekwon-Do instructors) and so anything negative needs to be worded carefully to avoid libel issues. Likewise, anything positive should be worded carefully to avoid becoming hagiographic, as noted by an anonymous contributor below. I am planning to check on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding quoting large portions of a copyright work (in this case, the Rhee Taekwon-Do membership booklet); it might be that this section should be deleted from this article, but in any case, my opinion is that quoting a large portion of another work adds little—better to take the facts and summarise them for the reader. Janggeom 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed large sections of the article (mostly from my own additions) to help make the article more neutral in tone, and also to remove most of the information that might be considered unverifiable (or unverified) or contestable. Thanks to those contributors who have provided feedback recently in the form of tags. Janggeom 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added references to several ex-Rhee Taekwon-Do members or instructors who are now either heads of their own martial art schools (the majority) or instructors in other martial art schools. Janggeom 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have finished a complete overhaul of the article. It should now be in a neutral, yet informative and authoritative, state. I have added more than 20 independent (non-Rhee Taekwon-Do source) references in doing so. Janggeom 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Great work Janggeom, very well & factually written. Appreciate your in depth research. Rtkdyudanja 10 August 2007

Neutral point of view: 13 July 2007

The article's content seems to have stabilised after major revisions (June 2007), and—as far as I can see—there are no remaining NPOV issues. Assuming no major content changes, I will be removing the NPOV tag in due course. Janggeom 06:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article because the content has stabilised and I do not see anything remaining that was an earlier source of contention. Janggeom 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References and POV: 24 June 2007

I'm tempted to tag the article with {{tl:PrimarySources}} due to the fact that all the references are either for Australasian TKD (a very special-interest publication), or regional websites for Rhee TKD which whilst they are good link aren't great references. An anon editor mentions a "Blue Book" here, is this a published "rulebook" or "syllabus" for the art?

A more specific point... Rhee Taekwon-Do is widely publicised as Australia's first and biggest Taekwon-Do school has three references, all of which are adverts placed by RTKD. Either it is the first and biggest (which needs better references than adverts by the school) or it is not - this phrase in the lead suggests that this is true, whilst it is disputed.

Essentially, this article needs going over with a consistent NPOV hat on (many of the "not a sport" phrases are anti-sport POV), pruning material that doesn't add to the readers understanding of RTKD (I'd cut the entire ex-members section for example) - I may do this myself if I find the time. -- Medains 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added template & will look @ sources when I get time. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Medains. To address them in turn:
(1) I agree, Australasian Taekwondo is a special interest publication, but I do not see how that influences its value as an independent source of information. If it is accurate and reliable, then it is a valid source of information, regardless of its scope. (For example, could one reasonably criticise references to astronomy journals in an article on, or related to, astronomy on the grounds that they are too specific?) Would it be preferable to have references to a more general source (such as a newspaper)? Certainly, but this still does not render the specialist references invalid. Of the 32 references, three refer to Rhee Taekwon-Do regional websites. While it is not so desirable to include these, I agree, they still constitute sources that may be independently challenged. Incidentally, the first reference is a secondary reference to an Australasian Fighting Arts article. I do not have a copy of this myself, unfortunately, otherwise I would provide a direct reference to it. Does anyone reading this have a copy that they would be able to update this reference with?
(2) Rhee Taekwon-Do membership booklets have been blue for much of the time of this school's existence, and I believe that this is the 'blue book' referred to. As these would be printed by Rhee Taekwon-Do, and not easily open to challenge (as compared to a website or advertising, which are released to the general public and could be challenged on legal grounds for inaccuracy, if nothing else), I doubt that most would consider them a reasonable source of information from a neutrality point of view.
(3) The references might be better placed after "widely publicised"; I wrote this sentence, and intended the point to be that it is objectively verifiable that Rhee Taekwon-Do's two main claims (age and size) are widely publicised. I was not trying to comment on the veracity of the claims. I will change the placing of references to clarify this; thank you for noting this point.
(4) Performing a 'find' search for 'sport' in this article revealed three references to martial/combat sports, of which only one could be construed as anti-sport, so I do not agree with the accuracy of your claim. I do agree, however, that the one instance of an 'anti-sport' view is, indeed, such. (I did not write that sentence, incidentally—as heavily as I have revised it, there are actually still parts of it that survived from much earlier versions.) I will remove the anti-sport sentence. If you are reviewing this article again and agree with the revision, I invite you to remove the NPOV tag (assuming that this was your only point of objection, of course).
(5) Why would you want to delete the entire "Ex-Rhee members" section? To me, that is one of the very points that demonstrates the significance of Rhee Taekwon-Do to the history of this martial art in Australia. Hypothetically speaking, if the Smith school of English cookery gave rise to several other schools of English cookery, surely that is going to be a reason that it is noteworthy, and surely independent information to support the fact (that it gave rise to several other schools) would be of value?
Thank you again for your comments. Janggeom 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infer that Australasian TKD is not a good reference - but a reference in (for example) black belt magazine, or an interview in mainstream media would be easier for a reader to access when looking for further info. The "blue book" would probably be a good reference for the training practice. Sources don't need to be neutral, but they do need some independance from the subject.

My inclination to remove the ex-members section is more about the fact that of the eighteen entries, none have links to articles about the person or their notability - or much that would lead the reader to further information. The section would be replaced by some text that used the references to note that many students have gone on to found their own schools (keeping the establishment of notability without needing to list a whole bunch of names, which readers will tend to skip over).

Other things I'd do - cut down the ranking section noting mainly the difference between the ranking system from ITF grading (mainly the use of brown instead of red as I read the two articles). I'm confused by the last sentence in ex-members when taken alongside this section too (it suggests that 3rd Dan is higher ranked). The example of rank being different in armed forces is unnecessary to the point also.

It's great to have editors working on improving the MA articles, keep it up ;) Medains 18:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that references in mainstream (non-martial arts) media would be good, and also that references in internationally-distributed martial arts media would be good, but to date my experience is that the former is hard to come by and the latter tends to focus on North America and Europe. I suspect that the history and current state of martial arts in Australia, from an independent point of view, is of little concern to those outside Australia.
Regarding the notability of the people listed in the "Ex-Rhee members" section, I agree that more references would be better. I have provided ones that I possess copies of (articles) or know of (URLs), and will add more as I find them—and indeed, I hope that others will as well. Should the section be condensed into a paragraph? Possibly, but for now I am inclined to leave the list more or less as it stands. Perhaps others knowledgeable on the history or current state of Australian Taekwon-Do could add their comments (and references)?
I agree with your comments on the "Ranks" section; most of this was from an earlier version of the article and could probably be summarised as you have suggested.
Thank you for your comments. Janggeom 23:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Titles: 21 June 2007

The reason for the rimoval of the titles can be found in the manual of style here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Hope that clarifies things. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Your changes do still seem haphazard to me, however. The first three people in the "Ex-Rhee members" section have had their titles deleted, then the next two have kept their titles, then the next nine have had their titles deleted, and the last four have kept their titles. Examples of inconsistent deletion of titles include people having the same rank/title. For example, Sabum Graham Moulden (5th Dan ITF) had his title deleted, yet Sabum Steve Weston (also 5th Dan ITF) kept his title. All of the people mentioned in this section have not previously been mentioned in the article, incidentally, thus adding to the impression that your editing was haphazard. I will look into the style information you have noted; thank you for pointing me to this. Janggeom 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I missed some, was doing with find & replace & trying not to remove the word 'master' where it was used as a description. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; in conjunction with a brief look at the style information you referred to, I can now see what you were trying to do. As I seem to be the main person working on this article recently, I will try and fix other issues whenever I see them, whilst revising this article. (And I should say that it is nice to see some other people taking a serious interest in this article, whether it be to improve the content or simply to help make it a better Wikipedia-style article.) Janggeom 16:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

how is that fun? c. May 2007

If you can not compete or really spar or make contact how is that training you to defend youself. tae kwon do is a martial art nontheless but it is also defined as a sport not just an art.Tang soo do is the art form of Tae Kwon Do. The contact you receive and give in tae kwon do helps you realize your true power, speed and skill. if there was a real situation where you were attacked you would be confident that you could survive but with out knowing your strength you are just as vulnerable as the next guy. if you have no contact sparring then you lose the point of tae kwon do.

RITKD: c. May 2007

Master Rhee doesnt let his students participate in tournaments beacuse he does not want it to become a sport he wants it to stay a martial art. By wearing pads you become soft. Striking a pad is different to striking a person in a real situation there is no pads and no points are awarded.

Yeah Im a black tip and I can see where yous are at but me mate does a different tae kwon do and I wouldn't mind versing him in a comp. [www.myspace.com/patzbak add me]

The issues discussed so far here are the sort you find every day in martial arts chatrooms. The issue of neutrality is what's actually disputed and rightly so. When one reads any other article on Taekwondo in Wikipedia it contains a chronology of dates and facts which are open to verification. All we have here is the chapter and verse definition of Rhee Taekwondo by Rhee Taekwondo. Some suggested ideas might be Rhee Taekwondo's origins in the ITF, the differing versions offered by RTKD and ITF as to Mr Rhee Chong Chul's departure from the ITF, a chronology of the expansion of the art across Australia, it's differences from other styles (i.e. Belts, Patterns, uniforms, lack of sine wave, non-competitive) and the splits away from RTKD which occurred in parts of Australia and NZ by former Rhee TKD instructors. Profiles of Master Rhee, not just before his time in Australia, but during and also of his two brothers who run different parts of the Rhee organisation in Australia. This would see the way to forming a comprehensive article on this undoubtedly very successful style, and not merely a hagiographical account of it.

The description is basically verse for verse from the membership book, it could be said that the neutrality is an issue, but does that also apply for the Coca-Cola entry, with logos everywhere? What is stated is factual, that is what RheeTKD is about. It does not give out contact numbers or websites. As to using the "super long" title of World Master Chong Chul Rhee, that is his correct title, as a Professor or Doctor is their correct title. World Master Chong Chul Rhee is one of the original Masters sent out to teach Tae Kwon Do to the World. He is the Father of Australian Tae Kwon Do as Jhoon Rhee is the Father of American Tae Kwon Do. Sa Bum

The Coca Cola entry, does indeed have plenty of examples of the Coke logo and thus could be said to be a form of advertising for the drink. The article in it's entirety does contain sections on criticisms of Coke, and also makes mention of local Cola companies which Coke has bought out (in true corporate style) presumably to eliminate their competition where threatened in small localities. The Rhee Tae Kwon-Do entry, I would have to say is by somebody on the inside with no reference to the larger contest from which Rhee Tae Kwon-Do emerged. When you read the ITF entry it makes some considerable reference to the internal strife of recent times which has plagued ITF since the death of General Choi and yet which ITF are quite happy to be transparent about. The Rhee entry, has no reference to any of it's origins beyond that which are known anyway. If people want to know what really makes Rhee any different from garden variety Tae Kwon-Do. If this is to be more than a stub, then Wiki-readers have a certain right to know more than just the sales pitch which the style uses on it's prospective members. If there is nobody who knows a deeper version of the Rhee story, and who would be ready, willing and able to provide it for posterity, then arguably there is no place for Rhee in Wikipedia. Agree or not...

Every one knows Tae Kwon do was created in america and you cant take that away!!!

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rhee Taekwon-Do/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Nominated for Good Article status by Nate1481 on 24 August 2007. Passed for Good Article status by VanTucky on 12 September 2007. Janggeom 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)