Talk:Combat Hapkido

Clean Up

I edited the article a bit. The original text is largely in tact, but I did some cleaning and retooling. Hopefully, it flows a bit better now. Let me know if you disagree. Mrmb6b02 21:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. Someone did not like my work and revised the article further. Now it sounds like an ad and lacks structure. Thats too bad. It was a good entry. Mrmb6b02 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Combat Hapkido is the result of over 3 decades of study, research and development. This system is now taught in hundreds of Martial Art Schools,[citation needed] Police Departments,[citation needed] Military Bases[citation needed] and over 15 foreign Countries.[citation needed]" This is the only part of the article that appears "preachy". The rest appears unbiased, but perhaps to someone ignorant of martial arts, it does seem like an ad.

I think the article needs another overhaul, no offense intended. The style is rather new, so there won't be many sources to cite, so it's best just to keep the article simple: Combat Hapkido is a style that was created in 1990 by Grand Master blahblah, it focuses on self-defense and utilizes a wide breadth of moves from several styles (listing the styles and, perhaps some of the techniques taken from them). It is officially recognized as a modern branching of Hapkido and is used sometimes in military and police training. Anubite01 02:31, 23 October 2007

One user wrote:

The rest appears unbiased, but perhaps to someone ignorant of martial arts, it does seem like an ad.

This sounds like a personal attack on me, and I will remind the author of the comment that a personal attack is grounds for a ban from wikipedia. Also, I cannot tell if that comment is seperate from, or a part of, Anubite's comment. If it is not a part of it, then I will also remind the author that he/she must end his/her entries with four tildes to sign them. If you do not sign them, that does not mean we cannot see who you are, as your IP is freely available to anyone who wants it. I will also inform the author that this wikipedian is a practitioner of martial arts and certainly not ignorant. Now, all this said, remember that wikipedia is a dynamic entity and it changes every day. When I left the comment suggesting that the article sounded like an ad, it did. Revisions have been made since then, probably in an effort to shake this. I still think it lacks structure and is poorly written, but that is beside my present point. Mrmb6b02 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a personal attack on me, and I will remind the author of the comment that a personal attack is grounds for a ban from wikipedia.

No, it is apart of my post, sorry for the confusion. No, I was not personally attacking you. I am a noob to wikipedia, so I assumed that articles were flagged by the admins (who couldn't posibly know everything about the articles they flag). My comment was generalized. But even so... that comment could be considered for ban? I'm amazed wikipedia has any people to write their articles! People talk like that on the internet all the time... but anyway; no, my comment was not intended to insult you. I apologize for my ignorance; I suppose I'll have to steer from commenting here, since I clealy have no idea what I'm doing. Anubite01 01:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no. Feel free to comment. I was unaware that you are new to this (I'm still learning myself). Anyway, I think the article actually was flagged by wikipedia admins. I suppose I should have taken that into consideration when replying to your post on here. I'm also sorry for the confusion on my part. No hard feelings, I hope. Mrmb6b02 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Somebody completely erased the 'controversy'-part of the article. This article is not here to either promote or defame Combat Hapkido. It is a given fact that there is some controversy in the hapkido community, wether you like it or not, so the article just states that there is controversy. It doesn't give any value (either in a negative or positive) way to the critics. When you want to delete large parts of an article, first take it to this place, where we can discus. Kbarends 12:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I practice this art myself and I didn't find the controversy portion offensive or off-putting at all. Mrmb6b02 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The controversy section has been removed. The Combat Hapkido Wikipedia entry is not about the Founder of Combat Hapkido but just about the Self-Defense system of Combat Hapkido itself. Any controversy of the founder should be entered into a separate Wikipedia entry about the founder. When stating and referencing controversy it isn't sufficient enough to just state the controversy without also entering a retort, otherwise the entry just sounds bias. The deleted controversy section also contained sourced material from discussion boards that the creator of the controversy section was also a contributing member on the discussion board, which is a conflict of interest. Also Discussion boards aren't a valid form of quoting, anyone can say anything on a discussion board, and then try to quote it as fact. MagnusRBHunter 18:25, 16 February 2009

An additional controversy surrounding Grand Master Peligrinni and the ICHF is the use undercover Viral marketing strategies within several prominent martial arts blogging communities and forums where key moderators of the blogs are ICHF members and can control a blog at anytime. There is also some controversy about the collusion between ICHF members who are moderators and direct communication channels to Grand Master Peligrinni in aiding this brand campaign. Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.19.200.3 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an anonymous (I won't publish name) user is trying to inject their personal opinions into this document without providing fair and balanced information into a controversy section. There's nothing wrong with a controversy section as long as it gives both sides and just doesn't state unfounded opinion, and also one that is so obvious opinionated and bias. The user trying to inject their personal opinion into a controversy section from their previous entry above seems to have "conspiracy theory" on the mind, and due to their bias feelings against the ICHF prefers to spread lies and rumors not facts, thinking it will hurt the ICHF instead on concentrating on improving his own So.California Organization. The more someone speak against something the more other are drawn to it. MagnusRBHunter 01:25, 03 March 2009

I was not trying to remain anonymous and I certainly did not mean to make the article appear so negatively. I am not new to Wikipedia but I am new to editing. However this subject is definitely do a reference to at least some of its extensive controversy. It has been noted several times in the past that the overall article was very bias, and anyone continually deleting the article is trying to keep it entirely bias in the subjects favor. If the section itself seems too negative or controversial itself then perhaps the section needs an edit, or a second portion discussing both sides of things. 76.93.58.14 (talk)

User's controversy section continues to be politically motivated and incredibly bias, and continues to include no legitimate references from legitimate magazine, or news articles. This Wikipedia entry is just about Combat Hapkido, and not John Pellegrini. If a user wants to contribute a controversy section that isn't politically motivated and incredibly bias, and contains legitimate references, then they can included that in a separate Wikipedia entry just about John Pellegrini. User has been identified as Traditional Hapkido User from Southern California that's message board entries have been politically anti- Combat Hapkido. MagnusRBHunter 21:43, 04 March 2009

I have made no forum posts of any kind on the subject of Combat Hapkido, and made no references to any such forums. I have posted a section that eliminates some of the bias that the entire article has towards the subject. Combat Hapkido, because of the actions of its founder John Peligrinni, has extensive controversy and the article should in fact be much longer. Wikipedia is not a web site for free add space but for facts. Facts are that several martial arts masters and practitioners believe certain things about Combat Hapkido, its founder and governing organization. If the article is only about the style of Combat Hapkido then there is no reason to make all of the specifications about John Peligrinni, the ICHF and the Korea Kido Hae that exist strongly throughout the beginning of the article. I will at this time make a post with a reference to a credible and unbiased forum. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.58.14 (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There were some blatant POV issues in the controversies sections, and forum post are not reliable sources, I have removed the last version and could not a sourced version to include --Nate1481 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Having a "non credible" source is not grounds for overall deletion of the section, but of the source only. The POV issues you point out are illegitimate. The section previously stated that these were the views of certain outside individuals, which is a fact - they see it that way, and that is a major focal point of the entire controversy. I have added another small controversy section that clearly and simply states that there are individuals with beliefs and opinions about how Pelligrini was promoted. There is no reference but one for every section is not required - i.e. weapons sections. This should be edited, not deleted.

Edit of the continual deletion of the controversy section states that section is "politically motivated" and "incredibly bias". After reading the entire article over it appears that the article itself is incredibly politically motivated and bias toward the subject, rather than being neutral as an encyclopedia article should be. Combat Hapkido has very clear controversy and that is a notable part of its existence and its fact base. This almost rapid deletion itself is obviously political, and after reading previous statements in the discussion section, possibly colluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.241.34 (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Name Withheld" continues to vandalize the Combat Hapkido Wikipedia selection. "Name Withheld" is from the city of "City Withheld" in southern California, outside of Los Angeles. (Name Withheld) has been tracked to a Martial Arts school "School Name Withheld" that has different views from Combat Hapkido, and is purposely trying to vandalize this Wikipedia selection by placing a “Controversy” entry into this Wikipedia selection without providing the proper documented references. Wikipedia official moderators have already previously removed "Name Withheld" “Controversy” entry for not meeting “blatent POV. cite requests.” (Name Withheld) has an obvious personal vendetta against Combat Hapkido, their actions show continued hatred and malice. MagnusRBHunter 02:07, 11 March 2009

For the direct record, I could not have been tracked to any school with any specific views on Hapkido. I have not "vandalized" the article in any way. This article has been purposely set up to boast Combat Hapkido and very apparently not be honest about it's highly notable controversy. The section has been revised again and again to the point that it is now just a blatant statement about the fact that some Hapkido masters and practitioners feel there are issues with the way it's founder was promoted. The weapons section has no refferences, so if that is your reason for deleting the controversy section, you should delete the weapons section. I have no "hatred and malice" towards Combat Hapkido, but as this is an encyclopedia, and not a glorified version of craigs list, it is do a controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.58.14 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia’s rules, the “Controversy” entry that one user continues to vandalize the “Combat Hapkido” Wikipedia Topic with, was removed for not meeting “Neutral Point of View (POV),” “Verifiability, “ and “No Original Research,” which are the three core content policies of Wikipedia. These policies are complementary and cannot be interpreted individually without the others. As part of “Verifiability” the “Burden of evidence” section states “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations…” User malice and blatant disregard for Wikipedia’s rules are self evident. MagnusRBHunter 22:10, 11 March 2009

Well noted. But note also that in no way has the recent controversy section been formed in any way to make a damaging statement to Pelligrini as such living person - rather it's existence was to present realistic views of the well known apparent questionability of the said living persons background in the martial arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.241.34 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Controversy in Combat Hapkido clearly exists. If the controversies section has no reliable references, then the solution is not to remove it, but rather than to track down the references yourself. And an editor intent on removing controversy from Hapkido could be accused of POV just as easily as one intent on inserting it. just a little insignificant 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is incorrect per policy. The controversy section was not only negative information about Combat Hapkido, it was also negative information about it's founder. A living person. Wikipedias policy dealing with contentious material about living persons WP:BLP is very clear.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

Reliable sources here are not optional, they are mandatory.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a NEW controversy section with references, and as NPOV as I could make it. just a little insignificant 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing on that looks much better. At least personally I think that passes the bar of something that would need to be removed per WP:BLP. That's no guarantee that another editor may not want to discuss the section, but IMHO it'd be a content discussion as opposed to policy demanding removal.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

There are some problems generally in sourcing here, with forums and primary sources being used inappropriately, I would suggest editors read WP:Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY and review them. --Nate1481 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Perspective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.128.249 (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Too much of this article is not from a neutral perspective, in places it reads like an advertisment and is in places derogatory to other martial arts (eg traditonal hapkido). I have tried to remove the most obvious self-promting statments. For example while there may well be controversy regarding aspects of Combat Hapkido the current "contraversy' section is just another advatorial to imply how forward thinking Combat Hapkido's founder is compared to tradtional Hapkido etc etc I have removed this section totally203.9.128.110 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear intent for the editor requesting that Combat Hapkido be deleted has a affiliation with another Hapkido Organization. All comments regarding the illegitimacy of the sourcing is false and unprovable by this editor. Source #1 is a legitimate source and it's on the editor to prove that the writer is a student of Combat Hapkido, no prof was provided. Source #3 is a legitimate source from a internationally acclaimed magazine, that has paid writers on their workforce, it is on the editor to prove that the writer of this particular source is self-published. Source #4 is a legitimate source as they are describing their own thought process for naming their organization, as no one else can prove their thought process. Source #6 is a legitimate source which is not a Blog but a discussion board and per Wikipedia's own rules can be used as a source. Source #7 is a legitimate source from a internationally acclaimed magazine, that has paid writers on their workforce, it is on the editor to prove taht the writer of this source is self-published. I agree that this Combat Hapkido entry might need additional sources, but it is not grounds for deletion. There is a entity called Combat Hapkido that has characteristic and features that need to be described, which this article does well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagnusRBHunter (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Addition

I uploaded and placed in the infobox the ICHF logo under Non-free use I thought this would be a relevant edition to the article.Jdcollins13 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm continuing the process of enhancing the graphic elements to illustrate the main points of the article. I created a belt chart and inserted it into the rank section for visual reference. Also added a short stick to the weapons section, I have not as yet been able to find a suitable image of a cane that is justifiably usable. Any feedback would be appreciated. Jdcollins13 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Automated Peer Reviewer Comments

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• 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.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • 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.”
• 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.

From the toolserver Auto Peer Reviewer Jdcollins13 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)