User talk:Djma12/Archive 1

Elections
I don't quite understand how "premature posting of election results can actually taint the democratic process"; do you mean that by posting information about a vote while it's in progress, you can influence that vote? That's technically true but it isn't really our concern; rather, our concern is accurate coverage of what has happened. Regardless of the background or purpose, everything on Wikipedia should be NPOV, election articles are not an exception. Likewise, if speculation is added to such an article (or indeed, any article) it needs to be sourced; unsourced information can be removed. HTH. ( Radiant ) 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Article
I haven't come across his name and can't say anything good or bad about the guy. But my general take is that korean martial arts existed as folk art and not as a formalized system. Check out soobak and taekyon. This forms the basis of all Korean martial arts. Japanese and Chinese influences at the turn of the century causes Korean martial artists to formalize their own versions the way Chinese and Japanese were doing while borrowing things about other marital arts that they saw as being good. This guy is probably old enough that he was around during that post WWII period when korean martial arts were being formalized. The guys that he went to Saigon with are the founding members of Oh Do Kwan which is one of the earlier schools that were formed post WWII. There's no mention of Bok Man Kim in that wiki article though.Melonbarmonster 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try looking at the links that support the Oh Do Kwan article the [TKD Hall of Fame http://www.lacancha.com/greatest.html] speaks about him quite a lot.Saboem 02:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bok Man
I'm from the Philippines and am a personal experienced the development of Taekwondo. I guarantee that two of the earliest Taekwondo pioneers were Kim Bok Man and Young Man Park, but this was in the 70s! So long ago. The current 'father' or sort of director, Sun Chun Hong is still around, so I do not need to speak for him. If you push to have this article deleted, I assure you this will be a great lost for the Wikipedia Taekwondo community.--Jondel 12:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jondel. I am not pushing for the deletion of the Bok Man article. I am merely stating that none of the current citations included for his article are on par with WP:BIO standards. As stated before, if someone can provide 3rd party, verifiable (see WP:V) citations on his notability, I will happily withdraw my deletion request. Though I am sure you are well-respected in the Taekwando community, WP:NOR forbids us to use personal testimony to vouch for articles. Best regards, and Happy New Year. Djma12 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why you pushed so hard to have two well known TKD pioneers deleted from Wikipedia, Bok Man Kim and Jhoon Rhee. But you were successfull and unwaivering in your pursute, no matter what facts were presented, and for that I say good for you, stay the course, you're doin a heck of a job. But please tell me what is it that bothers you so much about these men?Saboem 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I have no financial gain from the sale of the Chun Kuhn Do book I only reply to e-mails (GM Kim does not speak or read english very well) and direct people to where they can buy a book in their area. If they want a signed copy I direct them to GM Kim. I have no financial gain just helping someone read and respond to inquiries. I also am listed as owner and administrator on the chunkuhndo.com website for the same reasons. Yes I own a school that teaches Chun Kuhn Do and Tae Kwon Do but the article would not be advertisement for my school. And by the way The TKD Hall of fame website is only advertising their awards dinner as far as I can see,they list the goal of their organization as "providing recognition and incentives by the way of awards to demonstrate excellence in the field of Taekwondo which is also referred to as "Tae Kwon Do", and "Taekwon-Do". The Bristol paper article was just that an article not an advertisement. I am waiting to hear back from the St Louis dispatch the articles written about GM Kim during the the 80's and early 90's are archived.Saboem 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed Parkers article should be added to your crusade for all the same reasonsSaboem 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In any event
Reworded and the image gone. Freedom skies 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would not favour any POV involved. Two articles both well cited and providing links to each other is the best way. Both the pro and the anti versions are too fraught with minor details. Freedom skies 20:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My friend
1. Since it would be impractical to merge the articles, we can insert a "See also" link at the top of the article along with a synopsis of relevant points from the second article within a "Disputes" section. 2. I know Freedom Skies has some issue with the citations used in the second article, so why doesn't he add criticisms towards its scholarship within a "Criticisms" section he will create in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article. If the original authors of that article give you trouble on adding a Criticisms section, let me know on my discussion page and I'll back you up.


 * You have seen the quality and the tone of the Yi Jin Jing and the "Bodhidharma, .." article. Yet you chose to persecute only this article.
 * The link is already there, in both the articles in question. Very strategically located and directs the reader to a very formidable "Bodhidharma..." article. Ditto for that article, they have a link to the "Foreign influence"
 * The critisisms section exists only in the "Foreign influence ." article, the other article convieniently overlooks the conflicts present in the views of a minority of "armchair" historians. (You'll also see that these historians have a history of being "pariahs").
 * Two articles existing in all their strength. Both providing links to each other. That was the solution I concieved a long time ago with those who wrote the other article, my friend.
 * The other article is accused of the same actions as well. Not accomadating the other POV, not even mentioning what the officials of the Shaolin and the BBC have to say on this, Overlooking points completely .......Two POVs, without interference from the other. Like the Aryan Invasion Theory and the Out of India theory.
 * I won't touch the "Bodhidharma and the connection" article .. Let them present their version. The opposing point of view is provided to balance the other side in the "Foreign influence " article. The reader will essentially read the both of them, and will have two very strong articles to form his opinion on.

Forgive my spelling and grammer errors. I'm writing this in extreme haste. Happy New Year. Freedom skies 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I request you to remove the tags from both the articles or allow me to. The articles accomadate the other POV by providing a prominent link to the other article. Freedom skies 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I'll welcome any change you have to make in the language and the tone of this article. This article (unfortunately) had me, a 23 year old boxer, to provide for the encyclopedic language and I may not have done such a good job. I also welcome the addition of the "See Also" tags to the begining of the article.

If your involvement results in the article being bolstered by encyclopedic language then it would be most welcome.

Out of sheer, genuine goodwill, I would suggest otherwise. The editors who contributed to the article in question may not accomadate you, my friend. See what they did to Bodhidharma before my involvement here (for details, see the talk page archives of the article in question). I can provide many more similar examples. You're alone and relatively unfamiliar, the edit war that they may impose is not worth either your time or your peace of mind. Trust me, I know. Best leave their articles alone and let them have their say; as long as the "Foreign influence..." article represents the other POV, people will hear what Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit has to say about this in any event.

Extending best regards,

Freedom skies 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would welcome your scrutiny of Yi Jin Jing or Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts.

As for Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts, I offer the same advice that I do to a prospective administrator:


 * 1) Examine the nature of the sources - Do they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources?
 * 2) Check the text of the cited sources to make sure they support the corresponding material in the article

What you are doing is very valuable. You are scrutinizing these articles for those Wikipedia readers who may not have the time or the inclination.

Best of luck, JFD 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand.

Since leaving university and entering the working world, I now have much less time for Wikipedia than I used to. It used to be how I took breaks from academic work while in the university library.

In any case, once you get to Yi Jin Jing and Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts, just give me a holler if you have trouble getting hold of sources to verify. JFD 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection adding material that


 * 1) cites reliable sources
 * 2) does not misrepresent those sources

Currently, the "Opposing theories" section of Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts fails to meet the latter. The "conflicts" and "inconsistencies" between Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan only arise if one takes things out of context.

Matsuda Ryuchi does not date the Yi Jin Jing to 1827; he is only willing to date the Yi Jin Jing to 1827 because that is the year that the oldest extant copy was published. Lin Boyuan's date of 1624 is the result of research.

As for the conflict between Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan, Ling Tingkan characterizes the author of the Yi Jin Jing as an "ignorant village master" because it is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

As for Paul Pelliot, his position is that Bodhidharma is purely legendary and has no basis in historical fact. Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan and Ling Tingkan are more concerned with the authenticity of the Yi Jin Jing than with the historicity of Bodhidharma, so I don't see how Paul Pelliot's work "conflicts" with the results of their research.

What the "Opposing theories" section of Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts needs is an academic source that examines the Yi Jin Jing, concludes that it is authentic, and satisfactorily deals with the issues raised by Matsuda Ryuchi, Lin Boyuan, Ling Tingkan and other historians.

For the record I am open to the idea of foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. I happen to think that Mongolian wrestling influenced Chinese martial arts greatly. But the case for Indian influence of the extent and nature that Freedom skies describes is not well-supported.

JFD 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, the "Opposing theories" section shouldn't distort or misrepresent as it currently does. JFD 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I was initially hostile to you and for that I extend my apologies. Your AfD in the Jhoon Rhee article, another martial arts legend who supports the foreign Influence theory, made me apprehensive about your intentions, which I mistook as ones directed to erase every mention of the official and the majority held version. Your contributions to the article have been valuable and for that I send this note. Freedom skies 16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about this. Please see the discussion page. I won't edit anything for now until I get an answer back about the foreign influences in martial arts page. Kennethtennyson 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again
Again, JFD. Not quite.

I loved the effort you try to put in it though.

Irrespective of who wrote the article, my intentions were to convey that Tang Hao has been arrested for being a communist. JFD, no doubt attempting to discredit that very line mentions the author of the article. The author is not under highlight here, his work is not mentioned in either articles; the purpose of the article was to highlight the nature and intentions of the authors in JFD's article.

As for Stanley Hennig, the second citation might say a thing or two about him being a pariah.

I suggest that in your free time you relax (after watching the insides of a human being, I'd like to). I'll bring the bios of the authors involved in my article to you myself. Surprisingly enough, I stated that I'll refrain from slapping an AfD on his article and having to do anything to change the incorrect information, mailcious language, misrepresentation of the sources and other incosistensies in his article. I even asked you to stay away when you yourself felt that the language was very POV. I guess JFD likes to keep the pot boiling for some reason. Anyways, more work for me, it seems.

The figures involved in the "Foreign influence.." article :-


 * Master Hidetaka Nishiyama
 * George A. Kirby
 * George Mattson - just see Uechi Ryū for him
 * Bruce Hains
 * Joyotpaul Chaudhari
 * Howard Reid
 * Howard W. French
 * NYT's Christopher Wren
 * Grandmaster Steve De Masco, certified Shaolin Grandmaster
 * Dr. William Durbin and also see here and here
 * Jhoon Rhee, you're already familiar with him.
 * Doshin So, the originator of Shorinji Kempo. He has drawn great inspiration from murals of Indian-Chinese monks sparring at the Shaolin, see the citations in the article.
 * Chojun Miyagi
 * Funakoshi Gichin
 * Wong Kiew Kit
 * Tadashi Nakamura
 * Carlos Machado
 * Rickson Gracie
 * British Broadcasting Corporation
 * The New York Times
 * The Hindu
 * Discovery Channel
 * Gracie Barra
 * International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation
 * Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
 * the Shaolin temple
 * American Oriental Society

I further commit myself to bringing more citations.

JFD's article is malice itself. Consider an excerpt from his article:-

What the ?? ?? ??

Is it me or have they chosen to lie ?

You'll find a whole list of people who're not in the "lay" public as JFD's article maiciously announces. Is it just me or is the Discovery channel and Howard Reid lay public ??

Also, this portion was uncited and could have been removed by me. I chose to stay away and even asked you to.

Kenny accepts orders, exchanges barnstars with JFD in order to fake credibility (barnstars exchanged within a difference of a day's period) and deletes and reverts for the red Han Chinese cabal.

About JFD, do not let his articulate tone fool you.

Anyways, best advice. Judge the language, content, intentions, representations in the Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article and know the truth.

Now, having said that I would urge you to stay away from Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection. The trouble is not worth your time. anyone who looks into it is probably going to realize the truth right away anyways.

A good editor with good intentions needs to be portected from the other kind.

Extending best regards as always,

Freedom skies 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Freedom skies regards Jarek Szymanski as a credible source on Tang Hao if he's willing to link to him as a source. And Jarek Szymanski clearly regards Tang Hao as a reliable source seeing as how he's one of the main sources for the same article which Freedom skies links to in his attempt to discredit Tang. Draw your own conclusions about how accurately Freedom skies represents his sources and how carefully he actually reads them.My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation. As it happens, I have long been an admirer of Jarek Szymanski's efforts to separate martial arts history from martial arts legend. And if Freedom skies were the slightest bit familiar with him or with the broader literature on martial arts history, he would have known that Jarek, Tang Hao and Stanley Henning are regarded as of a piece in their application of scholarly rigor to the study of martial arts history. In fact, the above excerpt about Stanley Henning is immediately preceded in the book by a profile of one Jarek Szymanski, which I will gladly supply on request.I am prepared—eager, in fact—to answer these accusations; however, I fear that it would take the discussion in a less productive direction. Nonetheless, I am more than willing to do so at your request. Otherwise I shall assume that you consider Freedom skies' personal attacks beneath response.Which is precisely why I urge you to scrutinize both articles and their sources. One action that would require little time and effort on your part would be to contact Jarek Szymanski yourself and ask for his opinion of Tang Hao's credibility as a martial arts historian. After all, Freedom skies and I have both expressed high opinions of Jarek's credibility. (See, I told you I'd do what I could to make this as easy as possible for you.) JFD 13:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet Again
Yet again, Not quite.

I provided a complete link to access the full biography of Tang Hao.

This was before the copy and paste job from the link.

So does providing a link which gives access to a complete biography amount to misrepresentation ? Does copying and pasting the text from the link for some bizzare reason validate the chest thumping claim of "My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation." ?

Does grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit have a criminal background ? Does the Discovery channel pertain to communist ideology ? Does Tang Hao have a criminal background ? Was Tang Hao percieved to be a communist to the extent of being arrested ?

Djma12, editors have tried to claim that "My intention was to make it convenient for Djma12 to read biographies of Tang Hao and Stanley Henning in full without distortion or misrepresentation." when the link I provided actually does enable one to "read in full." Arrive at your own conclusions.

JFD is "eager" to "answer these accusations" even though they were meant for Kenny. He is "more than willing" to do so at Djma12's request.

Now, since Djma12 has yet to reply to JFD and his time is precious I'll take the liberty to effectively "end this" right now. Here goes:-


 * JFD dictates to Kenny
 * 22:11, 30 August 2006 Kenney offers JFD a barnstar. JFD returns the favour on 14:10, 1 September 2006. They exchange barnstars in order to fake credibility.
 * Kenny and JFD. Notice the similarities in their contributions. Kenny just follows JFD and reverts to his version without any explainations. He's good and you know how good backup helps in trolling.

I'll take your silence as you having taken a look into this. No ned to reply now that the citations exist for everyone to see.

Did I "express high opinions" of Jarek or did I use his html document to point towards Tang Hao's criminal background ? Did I not say "The author is not under highlight here, his work is not mentioned in either articles; the purpose of the article was to highlight the nature and intentions of the authors in JFD's article"? JFD attempting misrepresentation ?

---

Now, Djma12, for some inexplicable reason JFD has resorted to distasteful attempts of online bullying. In his monstrosity of a post he attempted to link me with someone whose very bizzare post I promptly deleted and did not have anything to do with the actions he wanted me to take. He links a welcoming post to "my alleged allies" and a disruptive user. More misrepresentation?

Being a boxer my response to any kind of bullying is bound to be severe, but in this case I'll make an exception. This is over, just because editors who like to clutter talk pages after their actions fail to produce desired result are here does'nt mean that I have to be as well.

From now, I leave the actions of repeating themselves, posting incesseantly and turning this into some underground forum to those with a taste for the demeaning. Talk after everything is done is of no good. If you have to talk to me (or need clarification) just leave a specific message. This discussion forum thing is getting disgraceful.

See the articles. See the citations. I'll bring more when you'd like me to.

This "discussion" is over. Time to live with it.

Freedom skies 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this discussion took over your talk page. By now you've had enough dealings with both Freedom skies and myself to make up your own mind about each of us. Just as close examination of sources will give you the information necessary to make up your own mind about the articles. Best regards, JFD 20:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Djma12, I have a concern about the early history section in the article Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. Could you please provide some feedback in its talk page? Thanks. Shawnc 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Influence on Chinese Martial Arts
'''Thank you all for your requests for mediation and input on this article. I would love to contribute to the mediation of both this article and its sister article further. However, I am currently tied up on a surgery rotation and will be unable to provide substantial input until mid Feb. Thanks.''' Djma12 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's a good time to ask if you're less busy now. —JFD 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What issues are still in contention? I haven't kept up with the thread for a month. Djma12 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The same issues that were in contention before. So, as far as I'm concerned, Freedom skies' poor sources (children's books and the like) and his extremely misleading descriptions of them (his descriptions as "academic authors" writers who hold no academic chair at all, etc.) JFD 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Please feel free to edit both the articles when you feel the need to. The academic authors include those who had their work published by the Univ of Hawaii, NYT Tokyo bureau chief + Shanghai bureau chief, a professor of political science+ a former associate dean and an instructor of kung-fu at Arizona State University, a British documentary film maker and anthropologist who has a PhD from Cambridge University and has made films for the BBC and Channel 4, NYT foreign correspondent etc. The books are additional refs stacked up in addition to the other refs.

My advice is that both articles retain their current form as they represent their POV in formidable strength, let's leave the whole thing alone. Thanks for your edits, by the way, They elevated the article from start class to class B. I would be unavailable in the coming days as I'm going to be tied up with my exams, which I'm sitting presently.

I have just one topic to attend to and one discussion on Zen and I might leave Wp for good as soon as it's done as well. The pressure of the coming year is already begining to mount.

Many regards and I hope you're not working too hard,

Freedom skies 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)