Talk:COL program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

This entire article violates the WP:NOR policy. Quoted from the policy:

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Note the prohibition against "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas." None of this information exists in any published sources, therefore it is original research, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Please follow the WP:NOL policy.

MThomas333 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The remaining info on this page is well cited.

It is not 'original research' which applies to things like, I was studying physics with my dad in the backyard when i was 10 vs research at Stanford. This article is well cited, and full of fact. If you see information which is not bolstered by evidence please feel free to cherry pick it.

Jmhunter (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was reviewed by wiki admin. all un verifiable info was removed, the remaining data has been left in tact. Please respect the authoritative referencing that I have worked on for this article.

You are welcome to add to it. (obviously)

Jmhunter (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost none of the statements made on this page are verifiable. Please include references to reliable 3rd party sources for this information or remove them.

From WP:NOR:

  • Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences.
  • Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

From the section on Sources:

  • However, care should be taken not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the source. (Emphasis from WP:NOR page, not added ).
  • Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source.

Every statement that's been tagged is being challenged. They must each be supported by a reliable source.

  • The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.
  • However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research; see below. (Emphasis from WP:NOR page, not added).
  • Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.

Legal settlements are not made by one party to another party - they are made by both parties. Any wording which implies something else is drawing conclusions, which is opinion.

  • It is important that references be cited in context and on topic
  • In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Note that tabloid newspapers are not mentioned - the Star and National Enquirer are not considered reliable sources. Tabloid television programs are equally questionable.

From WP:SYN:

  • Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources.
  • Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. (Emphasis included on the WP:SYN page - not added).
  • If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
  • Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

This is not a forum to present your personal opinions or experiences. Please follow WP:NOR, including WP:SYN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MThomas333 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we harping on a relatively positive sentence? We need to somehow assimilate COL's existence. Jmhunter (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Asking for information which is verifiable from reliable sources is not harping - it's core WP content policy. You haven't even attempted to show that any of this information exists in other sources. Repeated removal of tags requesting citations is inappropriate. Please read and follow WP:NOR.

[edit] Martial Arts Project

Note: I removed the tag on this discussion page with reference to the WP Martial Arts project. This article wouldn't belong as part of the WP Martial Arts project even if all the unverifiable statements were verifiable. MThomas333 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag dose no harm but having a bit of extra visibility on an article that has been teh subject of a dispute won't hurt, after it calms down it can be removed if it's not relevant.--Nate1481(t/c) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this can help introduce third party editors.

Jmhunter (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to jmhunter

I have reverted most of your last three edits:

  1. last warning: stop removing the notability tag. You are confusing notability with being fully cited. Being fully cited does not imply notable. In any case, the article is not full cited.
  2. Your link to http://www.jungsuwon.com/ did not support the statement in the article.
  3. Please take care with spelling and other aspects of writing.

Thank you. --David from Downunder (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo rights

Jmhunter, can you get permission from the copyright owner to add the photo at http://www.jungsuwon.com/training-ins.html into Wikipedia commons so we can use it in this article? --David from Downunder (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Mthomas, that is very doubtful. Jmhunter (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)