Talk:Scott Shaw/Archive 1

Filmography

The Filmography here seems misleading. For example, what was his capacity on Altman's The Player? Listing it this way, one could think Shaw, not Altman, was the director! Clearly the filmography should indicate his relationships to these films. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict

User:Alex West reverts my attempts to trim the article, with the edit summary: "The Re-Writer of this article continues to remove essential facts about this individual and provide an incorrect link to Thich Thien-An. Thus, this article is being reverted." I certainly do not agree that any "essential facts" are being removed. In fact, the essential facts are what I aim to keep, and I am removing what seems to be more along the lines of "patent fluff". Furthermore, the link to Thich Thien-An was not so much wrong as that article was in the wrong place; but I fixed that problem (see Talk:Nhat Hanh). - Nat Krause 07:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit Conflict Comment

As the old saying goes, "Opinions vary." My belief is that the new Nat Krause edit removes important facts about this individual from the original posting. In fact, the subject of your edit was discussed on a martial art newsgroup, which is what brought my attention to the fact of your re-edit.

One of the most notebale facts you removed is that Scott Shaw is one of the world's leading proponets of the Korean martial art of Taekwondo as well as Hapkido. Not only does he have an extensive list of published articles on the subject, in some of the most respected martial art magazines, but he has authored two books specifically on the subject of Taekwondo, as well. These books are published by Tuttle Publications, one of the largest publishers of martial art books in the world. Yet, you removed any mention of Taekwondo from the posting.

Though your edit may seem subtle, you did remove essential facts and added words that are grammerical incorrect, (at least in American English). This is the problem I find with Wikipedia, many times people, like yourself, go around editing pages when they have no real knowledge about a specific subject or a specific person -- just for the sake of editing. And, then they become dogmatic about it like you have.

Just because you think you are right does not mean that you are right. And, the same goes for me. This is simply a subject I know more about than you do.

But, to put an end to this on going back and forth of reverting your edit to the original posting, I will let your posting stand for now -- except for the minor corrections I added to your English punctuation.