Generally a very good editor who cleans up articles and is good at finding sources for articles in AfD due to the lack. TKD appears to be a blind/sore spot and he has refused to compromise despite multiple attempts to include his views. Some of the editors who oppose his view have also not behaved at their best which has only fuelled the problem. However the initial response to JJL was (to paraphrase) "Hang on a minute, that's a bit strong, the article is not perfect at the moment but that's too far the other way! Can we talk about it first?" see here this then became more heated, partly due to JJL, though use of 'abrasive' phrasing that irritated people producing a vicious circle of unconstructive comments with perceived edit warring in the back ground.

This has set the tone for the current problem where a compromises version has been produced what has some level of consensus including JJL, and although it needs work it is usable. JJL has however continued the problem because while he has followed 'official' procedures it appears he has just solidified his mind set as he refuses to hear other opinions or accept their validity and thereby produce a true consensus. The Mediation and other attempts to get more input have failed and largely left both sides more deeply entrenched, informal mediation produced the current version after a rough start of edit warring but now both sides added things. This was a over a month ago and the arguments (note not discussions) are still going.

Now JJL is again stating that only his sources are good enough, and due to his focused mind set he seems to feel victimised when others dissagree. The discussion is now producing more heat than light, in that accusation of who did what abound. I don't want JJL blocked, he's largely a good editor, but unless he accepts that he can't have it all his own way on this article.

He has been subject to personal attacks (such as " JJL is POV pushing troll") and this has not helped in the processes, but was escalation not initiation of poor behaviour by those who were angered at his action and responded badly and this was not by those trying to form a consensus at the time which seems to be they key point. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed through the article's current talk page. Do I understand correctly that the sources that JJL disputes include an encyclopedia and a major newspaper (Donga)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary--I tried to add the newspaper ref. back in. [1] Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, I'm suggesting that the encyclopedia sources are less useful than the refereed journal articles, and that the latter should be given more weight. JJL (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the newspaper article was a bit on the weak side, since it's essentially an interview. But at any rate we're not talking about horrible sources, such as someone's MySpace page, or a website put up by a new organization that might well turn out to be someone's personal opinion, backed by a couple of his drinking buddies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We had been discussing this version [2], essentially; since then the article has been protected following an edit war by other editors than those involved here (but involving related issues). Refs. in this version that I find suspect to varying degrees include #9, 13, and 24, for example. References I find worthy of greater weight per the policy cited above include those by Capener, Henning, Burdick, and Dohrenwend (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Strong_sources for discussion of these sources; tThey're not the American Historical Review, but they're about the best one can hope for in English-language martial arts journals). JJL (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]