Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:35, 26 November 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Korea High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:0.7 set nom

	Taekwondo was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 18, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 20, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

January 2003–December 2006 December 2006–July 2007 July 2007–September 2007 September 2007–April 2008 April 2008–July 01 2008 POV dispute July 2008–September 2008

Number of practitioners

The article says 70 million practitioners and 4 million black belts, but the source given contradicts this, saying only 30 million practitioners and 3 million black belts - http://www.boisestate.edu/tkd/what%20is%20tkd.html . Which is correct? 219.90.231.15 (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since all martial arts enthusiasts claim that their stule is the most popular, how about it is changed to "one of the most popular martial arts" since there is no way to verify and get a definitive answer. This should apply to any martial arts which makes claims that cant be confirmed (which is called an opinion, not a fact). Judo also has claims that it has 100 million participants but no way to back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.89.85 (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlock Article?

When will this article be unlocked? As I read it, I saw some poor grammar that I would like to correct, but I can't do that while it's locked. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is due to expire in 3 days, on the 29th. It can be unlocked sooner if there's general consensus that the back and forth which prompted the protection will be replaced by more discussion here on the talk page, etc. Feel free to discuss here. Also, if you notice particular errors, you can flag them here for later correction by yourself or others. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection has expired --Nate1481 09:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

remove unreliable source

When wikipedia suggest that Korean Martial Art or Taekwondo were influenced by Japanese Art are you 100 percent sure about this???? 1) Karate isn't Japanese. The origin is Tang Dynasty China it was flourished in island called Okinawa. 2) Uniform and Poomse/Kata were not based on Japanese Martial Art. It was based on Buddhism. Buddhism came from India through China via Korea into Japan. 3) 1910-1945 ( 36 years Japanese military occupation) does not give any strong impact on Korean Martial Art. Even though some Korean martial art practioners learned Karate in Okinawa or Japan. 4) Korean martial art existed before Japanese military occupation. 5) Japanese martial arts have origins from Korea/ Korean martial arts. 6) Kyokushinkai Karate is " Korean Root planted in Japan" like Okinawan Karate. 7) Korean history itself is alot longer then Japan or Okinawa combined. 8) Past and Present Japanese people and culture were infuenced by Koreans/ Korean culture. 9) Taekwondo is modern word for combined Korean kicking and punching art. 10) Taekwondo origin comes from " Soobakdo". Soobakdo orgin comes from Korguyro Korean Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Taekwondo (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit first inserted by Pabopa] who is a abusive sock & POV psughin troll.(now he indefinite banned). but this source recovered by Bentecbyewho is a "likey" sock of Pabopa. (See this prove ) and i already talk with phone call with mr. I already talk with interviewer by phone, He says, "I never allowed this interview public in magazine. also this interview are some exagerrated. writer forking from my testimony. after that, i never met anyone with interview." it is not a reliable source for tkd history reference. Manacpowers (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Henning

Stanley Henning has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal recently, in connection with the Olympics. In the 20 August 2008 copy of my issue is an article entitled "Crouching Tiger...Missing From Action Dragon" subtitled "Wushu Can't Kick Its Way Into Olympics; Fight of Body and Soul" by Ian Johnson. The following appears in it:

One reason for wushu's difficulties, says Stanley Henning, an academic who has written about Asian martial arts, is that Japan and Korea beat China to the punch.

I can't find an online version of this article, but there is considerable overlap with this online article which includes the following:

"Virtually nobody outside of China performs their form of wushu," says Stanley Henning, an independent academic who has written widely on Asian martial arts.

It may be that the online article is from a different edition (do they have local vs. national issues, like the NY Times?) of the paper than mine.

Apropos of nothing but speaking of the Times, they did a story on a judging in TKD recently that is reminiscent of previous work on the benefits of blue judogis. JJL (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo in North Korea

I found rare images of North Korean taekwondo demonstration in a performance of "Arirang Mass Game". But I don't know what section would be suitable for the image.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

the thing is, people don't like North Korea and it was created in South Korea

Which is relevant how? They're cool pictures; if nothing else, they can be used to illustrate that TKD is practiced in North as well as South Korea. --Gwern (contribs) 14:52 19 April 2009 (GMT)

I completly agree. Better yet: North Korea also considers it its national sport, and the North Korean army also uses it for its training. So however much TKD might have benn invented in the South, it might be worth rewriting the introduction to reflect this (using "both Koreas" instead of "South Korea"). As I am currently living in Pyongyang, I will have a look around to see what the official version for the history of TKD is around here. It might be interesting to include for historical reasons, if I can find printed documentation/propaganda. Alfy (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sine wave

The relatively new paragraph about the "sine wave" may be useful, but I have two concerns. First, I am not sure it needs to be the second paragraph in the section; perhaps it should be toward the end after the list of features. Second, if the sine wave is described, then presumably the alternative should also be described -- the practice, taught by some schools, of purposely avoiding the sine wave's up-and-down movement. Some minor rewriting may also be called for. Omnedon (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no comments on this, I've rewritten and repositioned that paragraph. Omnedon (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful that part even is. It is probably from the influences of the master more than anything; those with strong kung-fu influences will promote a stable centre of gravity for strong rooted stances, and those who have influences from karate promote power by movement of the centre (my master always told me that head bobbing was an identifier for karate...but I don't really know for sure). The paragraph is also unsourced and I'm not sure how valid it is in an encyclopedia sense. Annihilatron (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Offense versus defense

A sentence in the article states, "Traditional Taekwondo is typically not competition-oriented but stems from military roots with great emphasis on offense." We were always taught that Taekwondo should be used for defense and not offense. Martial arts may have had offensive military applications, but the name "Taekwondo" wasn't applied until the mid-20th century, and "traditional Taekwondo" is usually used in comparison with "sport Taekwondo" (which is quite competitive and does have a different focus). I just question the statement about a "great emphasis on offense". Omnedon (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not having received any input, here is a descriptive paragraph that I would suggest in place of the sentence I mention above; it would follow the lede paragraph about the organizations. "Separate from the various taekwondo organizations, there have been two general branches of taekwondo development: traditional and sport. The term "traditional taekwondo" typically refers to the martial art as it was established in the 1950s and 1960s; in particular, the names and symbolism of the traditional patterns often refer to elements of Korean history. Sport taekwondo has evolved in the decades since then and has a somewhat different focus, especially in terms of its emphasis on speed and competition (as in Olympic sparring), whereas traditional taekwondo tends to emphasize power and self-defense. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the distinctions between them are often blurred." Omnedon (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot more than two branches to taekwondo development; it is almost based on the personality of the mater than anything. It is true that you can divide them all down the lines of sport and art, although some attempt to bridge the gap. Some schools are technique schools (focusing highly on technique and less on speed and power) and some are pure speed schools (death by a thousand light blows) and some are pure power schools (single strike). And yet, all are valid sport techniques, as well as art techniques. Pure sport schools tend to ignore the art and the do, while ... eh... this is getting long, you get the picture. Annihilatron (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Now this looks like taekwondo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.10.110 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Good job you made taekwondo look a lot better but just please take out that sparring picture it makes taekwondo look like it only focuses on sparring and when you said it's focus is striking (Kicking). I know why you did it but look at the boxing article it just says it focuses on striking they never said it focuses on punching so change it please! THANK YOU And it's not that you didn't make a good article it's just everything can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtaekwondofederation (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove that taekwondo was influenced by karate. Keep it and taekwondo's parenthood is taekyon, subak and karate. And please remove the picture in the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldtaekwondofederation (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To Worldtaekwondofederation, please read Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Japanese_origins to the end of the page, Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 6 Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 7 for why I removed the statement as it was. 9 months of heated discussion produced the version which is tolerated (but not liked) by both sides. Nate1481

The issue of the Karate origin needs to be revised here, and I intend to do so when time permits. JJL (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

JJL, Please can we bring things one section at a time to the talk page, rather than mass edits which will anger people, and be reverted leading up the road to the wrong version of the page being protected again. --Nate1481 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That approach has failed repeatedly here, but I'm an open-minded person. JJL (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It failed because the initial edits were sweeping changes that annoyed those who didn't agree with them and so were in no mood to be reasonable afterwards. --Nate1481 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The initial edits weren't sweeping...and when did being in no mood to be reasonable become an excuse? (Have you noticed how many of those individuals have since been banned or suspended?) I responded to a poster who asked why content was removed. This disproportionate response is emblematic of the problems here. Even discussing the possibility of discussing it gets the pre-emptive defenses up. JJL (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it was IP 61.198.188.233 who inserted the originally a large chunk of contentious material, User:Melonbarmonster reverted this, the situation was not helped by this comment on the talk page and it started an edit war only ended when every on got tired of it & the mediation stalled. I did not say it was an excuse to be angry however it is what happened. All I am only asking is if we could try a slow approach not as it is 15 months after the initial edits mostly spent in creating a huge talk page, 2 stalled mediations, an RFC and lots of edit warring to the point I gave up trying to ask both sides to be reasonable and just went elsewhere. Put bluntly I would like not to have to remove the page from my watch list because there were so many reverts. I really don't care what the 'true' origins of TKD are, I just want the most likely, and the dissenting views and claims (however inaccurate) presented in a neat, fair and neutral manner that will be of interest and make sense to a general reader, not just to a social historian or practitioner. --Nate1481 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me! JJL (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of scholarship, I've scanned a few pages of Korean history User:Jmcw37/Draeger_Comprehensive_Asian_Fighting_Arts_Korea. I was surprised by a few things: for example, in the eighth century, the philosophical code 'hwarang-do' reached a peak of development and may have served as a model for Japanese 'bushido' development (page 72). jmcw (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Italics

User:FatalError recently removed the italics from some occurrences of the term "taekwondo" in the article. The reason for the italicization is specified in the Manual of Style, and this rule would certainly apply to terms like subak and taekkyeon which definitely are not part of everyday non-specialized English. On reflection, the rule may not apply to the term "taekwondo" itself; many native English speakers would probably be familiar with the term on a general basis, as they would with "karate". However, either it should be italicized as a foreign term all the time, or not at all. Omnedon (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't think it applied here because "Taekwondo" is not an obscure foreign term. Though not everyone knows what it is, it is the name of a form of martial art, and a fairly well-known one at that. Also, I always thought the rule didn't apply in the article about the foreign term, but looking back at the MoS I can't find anything on that. — Error 05:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WPMA/L. Bradford44 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Armor

Should there be a section explaining the technological differences in different brands of body armour (adidas, daedo etc) or should there be no endorsement of brands at all? C.U.T.K.D | T | C 09:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the article should not promote brands. --Quietmartialartist (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?

You call this a good article about taekwondo it's parenthood is not mentioned while almost everyone who does taekwondo knows that it's parenthood are karate, taekkyon, subak and hwarang do and in the beginning that picture just shows that taekwondo focuses on sparring which is not true you should show the art of taekwondo not the sport side. Any when say it a martial that focuses on striking yes but why add kicking I mean in taekwondo their are many punches, open hand strikes and a few throws and sweeps etc, so please make look like what taekwondo really is. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.11.243 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll find that the origins of Taekwondo are discussed. As for the picture, it is representative of one aspect of Taekwondo. Finally, since Taekwondo is more focused on kicks than anything else, it seems reasonable to mention kicking prominently. Omnedon (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the Talk archives for this article. The Japanese origins of TKD should certainly be detailed here but as it stands the history section states that it was at most "partially affected" by Karate, and the next section lists it (last) as one theory among others. Feel free to edit it. JJL (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything Omnedon and JJL said above. Quietmartialartist (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo does not have origin from Karate or Japan. Kyokushin Karate founder is Korean. Kyokushin Karate is Korean origin planted in Japan. Korean Martial Art has nothing to do with Japan or Karate. In reality it should be other way around Korean Martial Arts has influenced Japanese art such as Karate, Ninjutsu, Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Taekwondo (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Organizations

Hi I would like you to place an extra section in the page to list associations from different countries as I am part of the Global Tae kwon do United Kingdom could you add us please or if you want I can make my own article and add it in I am sure you will get back to me thank you Kyle25157 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that a list of national associations would be best as a seperate article. --ErinHowarth (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Points

Someone mistakenly wrote that body strikes were 1 point, back kicks to the body were 2, and head strikes were 3. This is incorrect.

All body kicks are worth 1 point, head kicks are worth 2, and additional points are given when the opponent is knocked down by a valid technique. Note the definition of knockdown in WTF rulebook includes being hit hard enough to be dazed, which is probably where this error came in.

Annihilatron (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As of 2009 the WTF rules on scoring are: 1 point for an attack to the body with foot or fist, 1 additional point if the attack is with the foot and involved a turning technique (fully turning the body during execution of the technique so that the attacker's back is to the opponent) and 3 points for a head attack (foot only). This rule was in the most recent changes which were passed in February 2009 and went into effect in June, 2009. (WTF Competition rules: Article 12, Section 3. Link to rules page at WTF site: http://www.wtf.org/wtf_eng/site/rules/competition.html) The main article already includes another change that went into effect at the same time: the elimination of the 7 point gap and 12 point ceiling for stopping a match.CharmsDad (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Registered Black Belts

How can one verify if an individual is a registered Black Belt in the Kukkiwon? I have a certificate, but wouldn't mind seeing who else is registered. I know Misplaced Pages has a listing of all BJJ Black Belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.24.161 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a listing of all BJJ black belts? Where? I can't find it. --ErinHowarth (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong date for olympics

tae kwon do has been introduced into the olympics in 1997, not 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philidalphia (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Summer (and winter) Olympicsa are always in even years. There were no olympics in 1997. Taekwondo was introduced at the Seoul Olympics in 1988 as a demonstration sport. It was a demonstration sport again in Barcelona in 1992. There were no demonstration sports in Atlanta in 1996. In 2000, taekwondo became a medal sport in Sydney. It has continued as a medal sport for the 2004 Olympics in Athens and the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Taekwondo will be a medal sport again at the 2012 Olympics in London.--ErinHowarth (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction Needed to One of the ITF External Links

The external link to the website for the ITF Organization is good if you leave off the final "/International," which causes the link to fail. The website is simply www.itf-administration.com, and I was able to get there easily by eliminating that last part from the link text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.205.6 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Place of origin

Shouldn't South Korea be replaced with simply Korea or North Korea added? Taekwondo originated before the North/south split.

WTF Rules change June 1, 2009

To make sparring more spectacular, new WTF regulations are in effect for all competitions starting after June 1, 2009. Most interesting changes: 1) competition area is now 8x8m; 2) scoring: 1 point for trunk protector attack, 2 points for turning kick (180 degrees or greater) to the trunk protector, 3 points for kicking head, extra points are left the same except one change: no extra point if referee counts; 3) both win by 7 point gap, and 12 point ceiling are removed.

The rule for out of bounds was also changed. While it seems minor it does compact the competition area even more. Previously both feet had to be past the boundry line to be out of bounds, not it is only one. In addition, the referee is now required to step in and instruct the athletes to "fight" after only 5 seconds of inactivity (previously 10 seconds.) Penalties for inactivity will be given much more frequently.CharmsDad (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplication article?

I ran across the article Taekwando (note spelling) today and applied a mergeto tag. This is not my forte, so I'm hoping someone here will ride honcho on the discussion/action there. LilHelpa (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, based on the history of the article, there is probably little or nothing from that article that needs to be merged into this one; it was a redirect for a long time, but about a month ago someone started adding actual material to it. It really just needs to be a redirect again, to this article. Glad you noticed the article. Omnedon (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Last month, from July 1 through July 3, User:LILNIZ began adding material from the Taekwondo article to the Taekwando article, but with many changes and additions (and problems). I've gone ahead and converted this article back into a redirect. Thanks for catching this situation, LilHelpa. Omnedon (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WTA?

What about the World Tae Kwon Do Association? Are they recognized as being part of taekwondo? http://www.wtahq.com/ 128.194.23.186 (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course -- why? Omnedon (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

copyvio references

I removed copyvio contents. The wrongly translated document translated from Shindonga magazine. But, It is copyvio content without copyright holder shindonga's permission. this references insereted by Reinosuke. maybe throwaway account of some Japanese.

Original article was shindonga magazine article.

• According to shindonga front website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."Template:Ko(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)

• Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations

"material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation."

Because this, I removed non-free English translated copyvio content. The English translation and publishing are NOT permitted by copyright holder. It is a "illegal" copyvio document. 660gd4qo (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, small quotes from copyrighted text are often quite valid. See Misplaced Pages:Quotations. You can't really claim that it is a copyright violation to use a single sentence or sentence fragment from a published work, as long as the source is clearly identified. Omnedon (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

first, native korean reference linking is not copyvio. but whole document reference itself is a "illegal" copyvio document. The English translation and publishing are NOT permitted by copyright holder. for exmaple, harry porter book translate to foreign language and publishing without permission of author&copyright holder. it is copyvio. second, small quote is not a big problem. but, 'forking specific quote by ediotr's convenience' is pov. third, i'm not sure translated to english as properly. fourth, kukkiwon officially state that it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo. --660gd4qo (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flip Flop Source

In main article, Capener, Steven D documents use as Karate-POV references. But, after 5 years, authour changed its point of view. Previous document and later documents contents are not same point of view.

• Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995). -- He claims it is nothing but a karate base. And Korean's traditional martial arts vanished in 1910~1945.
• Capener, Steven D. (2000). Taekwondo: The Spirit of Korea (portions of). - In this document, auhor state that taekwondio history trace back to subakhi.

"Korea has a long history of martial arts stretching well back into ancient times."

"The earliest unarmed Korean martial art which has been identified was call subakhi."

"Therefore, it is possible that Koreans were perhaps the first to systemize this kind of martial art into an early form of sport in Asia."

"In 1895, an American anthropologist named Stewart Culin visited Korea for the purpose of studying Korean games. In his book Korean Games he includes a picture of two children engaging in a taekkyon match."

"Taekkyon had become so popular as a folk sport"

"It was in the early 1960s that taekwondo began to systematically organize itself both in matters of administration and technique."

"In the early 1960s, however, some taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical new system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the traditional Korean game of taekkyon."

Flip Flop? Author changed its point of view. This author's document is proper references as Karate-POV reference? This author's reference really match to "almost entirely based upon karate"? Later document cleary admits taekwondo connect to Korean traditional martial arts. Is author still claims that taekwondo was entirely based upon karate? I heavily doubt it. --660gd4qo (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The later article doesn't contradict the earlier one--it just dances around the issue more politely. You're engaging in WP:OR. Please stop removing the factual material on the Japanese origins of the art from here. JJL (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You makes no sense. It is not proper answer this question. Author admits taekwondo connect to Korean traditional martial arts. btw, It is not WP:OR. Anyway, since WHEN karate was Japanese origin? --660gd4qo (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995) -- This document was school student report. If you see first page carefully, Its first paragraph title is... "STUDENT FORUM from Korea Journal, Winter, 1995.". ---660gd4qo (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This references have 2 problems.

1. Author changed its view
2. 1995 document was STUDNET report.

And Check List of Taekwondo techniques, List of shotokan techniques. If you think it is Japanese origin arts(Actually, China + Ryukyu Origin), How many techniques are smilar? please give your opinion. What do you think? Is it still WP:RS reference? please give your opinion.

I admits one of the early taekwondo froms borrowed karate fomrs, system and uniforms. However, Nowday taekwond is completely reformatted. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

POV quote

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view

Misplaced Pages:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Misplaced Pages's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." --660gd4qo (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1. these are controvercial POV quotes. because, these quote completely ignore taekwondo also connect to Korean traditional martial arts.
2. Karate is NOT a Japanese origin. It is a China + Ryukyu origin. numerous references support this. so "Karate is Japanese" is completely nonsense, and ignoring historical fact.
3. One of the controvercial reference author, Capener, Author changed its view later.
4. Mr. lee talk officialy denied by kukiwon. modern taekwondo is not wholly made by mr. lee. he was a one of the members. kukiwon state that it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo.
5. According to Madis, Eric document, his evidences are taekwondo founder learned karate, uniform is similar with karate. but, author's comment ignoring many facts that taekwondo also influenced by subahk, taekkyon, chinese kungfu and some taekwondo founder was NOT learned karate.

--660gd4qo (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Karate is a well-understood term, even though Karate originated in the Ryukyus when they were independent and drew overwhelmingly from Souther Chinese martial arts. What is now TKD is heavily modified Shotokan. There are sources in the article supporting both the histoical view of a Karate base and teh Korean revisionist view of a 5000 year old purely Korean martial art. It's not appropriate to simply delete sourced contrary views simply because they don't align with yours. There are clearly sources for the Japanese origin and while many would like to see them thoroughly redacted that isn't in accordance with Misplaced Pages customs. Frankly, it's shocking to me that the Korean-centric view remains, given that it's completely false. JJL (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

JJL: As you correctly point out elsewhere, the truth or falsehood of this (or any) position is not for us to determine. I definitely agree that material shouldn't be redacted merely because someone dislikes it or disagrees with it. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

1. JJL, You still gave not enough evidences and explanations. you just claims your POV only. btw, according to your behavior, you are likely Japanese or Japanese american. Karate originated from China, Ryukyus people developed it. Karate was orginally ryukyu people (adopted from Chinese martial arts) martial arts against to Japanese invasions. Originally it was not Japanese. Ryukyu people was not Japanese. Various old document, modern scholar documents support it. There are clearly sources for the Chinese + ryukyu origin. Frankly, it's shocking to me that the Japanese-centric view remains, given that it's completely false.
2. heavily modified shotokan? exactly how many skills are smiliar? show me %. heavily differences. they are independent and drew overwhelmingly from karate. though, some system adopted from karate. remaining karate influence are only 2~3 hyeongs, grade system, uniform. even if your POV pushing claims are true, almost every sources state that it connect to traditional korean martial arts. (no source denied it) At least, it is completely reformatted, much better than direct chinese+ryukyu copy martial arts, karate. Korean taekwond is a well-understood term.
3. It connect to purely Korean martial arts. (btw, it is not 5000 yrs, 1300 yrs martial arts)

--660gd4qo (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on my ethnicity is rude. It seems to me that we are in agreement on the origins of Karate in the Ryukyus except possibly for its actual value against the Japanese occupiers, so I don't understand what you're disagreeing with there. The article contains multiple sources (and there are more in the archives here) regarding the origins from Japanese Karate. It's true that it now has been heavily modified and is its own art. Please read the archives on this matter. JJL (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

your ansewr is very vague, and not enough. POV quotes are very questionable. Numerous counterpart references denied that statement. (connect to traditional korean) And, It's true that Karate is not Japanese, Chinese + Ryukyu origin, which heavily modified by Japanese. if you want know this, i can offers numerous evidences, but this article is not karate article. You can't answer many questions. also questionable pov quotes are completely ignore many facts. And your beloved Capener changed his view later. I think Capener reference should be removed. --660gd4qo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

660gd4qo: WP:POV states, "points of view are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." So the fact that the quote shows a particular POV is not a justification for removing it. That some might consider it controversial isn't reasonable grounds for removal either, nor is an outside organization's wishes that we avoid it. This source (and other better ones) favor a view that you don't agree with; please don't seek to undermine or remove it just because of that.

Thanks. I agree some parts. But, forking some quotes are POV problem. If should forking some quotes, it must forks from more 'neutral', 'most agreeable' quote. I don't denied some authors have different views. ---660gd4qo (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That said, the one semi-defensible reason I can see that might favor the deprecation of this particular source is that it just doesn't seem very scholarly. I can't read Korean, but what little of the tabloid I translated starts off with "Shocking Confessions!". Make of that what you will. :-) IMHO, though, and given that it doesn't have to stand alone, it's OK. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reference is very tabloid-like gossip article. Even kukkiwon and mr.lee denied it.--660gd4qo (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Karate was one of the element of early taekwondo. 'taekwondo' itself is not a single root. in 1950s, Korea martial arts associations merged various martial arts & kwans in korea, and named as single "taekwondo". and 'discovered','created' many techniques from traditonal korea martial arts. According to Kimmo Rauhala(Professor of University of Jyväskylä, Department of social sciences of sport, Finland), "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems". Again, Karate was not a single root of taekwondo. modern taekwondo is very distinctive from karate. --660gd4qo (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

According to one of the taewkondo founder lee won kuk interview,

"The step-by-step evolution is not known becaus Tae Kwon Do has been influenced by many masters as they taught their own special variations of the basic techniques to their students. --660gd4qo (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the questionable quote as follow :

Madis, Eric (2003). "The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate". in Green, Thomas A. and Joseph R. Svinth. Martial Arts in the Modern World. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275981533. " The following essay links the origins of taekwondo to twentieth-century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shitō-ryū karate... The use of belted white cotton martial arts uniforms... modern taekwondo uniforms are essentially identical to the once used in karate...(Note : Karate is Chinese, Ryukyu Origin. Author ignoring facts that taekwondo also influenced by subahk, taekkyon, chinese kungfu. and some taekwondo founder was not learned karate. I can prove numerous evidences also) ...shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism. (Note : evidence? this TOTALLY baseless assumption. Yes, baseless. this is biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material.) --13:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many sources cleary state taekwondo also connect to traditonal korean martial arts. "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems" this is undeniable fact. however, if early taekwondo influenced by karate, it mean revised history? really? this is biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material. I don't know who inserted this reference first. need more explain about this. if no explain, then this reference can classify into " biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material". --660gd4qo (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are sources (of varying reliability) stating all sorts of stuff. But you can't simply remove the ones that don't agree with your POV and leave the ones that do. Please read the archives where I've argued at interminable length that the superior sources point to a primarily, almost exclusively, Japanese origin. When there are conflicting mainstream POVs the appropriate thing to do is give all of them. JJL (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I already read numerous previous discuss at here. superior sources point to a primarily, almost exclusively, Korean origin. (btw, Karate is not a Japanese origin) And I already know your forked references are fringe theory, and Your pov is not a mainstream view.

And This article already moderated 2 years ago. Most editors disagree with JJL. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And you did not give enough answer of questionable pov quotes. The questionable pov quotes are directly denied by various evidences. IF you want quote it, you must prove first WHY THIS QUOTE IS TRUE. You need show more evidence. We need more discuss about this.

1. First, Show us clear evidence that taekwondo disconnet to traditional korean martial arts. (Note : even Karate POV Capener's document directly denied this)
2. Second, Show us clear evidence that it connect to South Korean nationalism. (Note : it just doesn't seem very scholarly)

--660gd4qo (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Numerous counterpart evidences show that it connect to tradional korean martial arts. many taekwondo arts 'discovered' from Muye Dobo Tongji, taekkyon, subahk.

Development of Taekwondo, By Yeon Hwan Park, Thomas Seabourne

Title : Taekwondo techniques & tactics, Martial arts series

Author : Yeon Hwan Park, Thomas Seabourne

ISBN 0880116447, 9780880116442

"When Japan freed Korea in 1945, Korea's ownm martial arts had a chance to grow.

"Many differnet kwans focusing on different style of taekkyon, subahk, tang soo, kwon bop..."

"Lee Duk Mu wrote Muye Dobo Tongji, the first Korean martial arts textbook with an entire chapter devoted to taekwondo."

According to Kimmo Rauhala(Professor of University of Jyväskylä, Finland), "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems" --660gd4qo (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

660gd4qo, it seems initially that your intent was to question a quote from the "shocking confessions" source (which, given its tabloid nature, is not unreasonable), but it seems to be widening into a general questioning of the entire Japanese-origin position and the articles supporting it on grounds of bias, quality, truth, etc. I won't say if I agree or disagree with the Japanese view, because that's irrelevant and not up for debate. All that matters is whether it's an accepted view supported by appropriate sources. Verifiable evidence says that it is.

As has happened in years past, both here and elsewhere, opposition to a particular view often seems to manifest itself through attempts to undermine supporting sources. If one tries hard enough, one can find fault with any source, but that's a mug's game. If you've read the archives you'll see evidence of how over-reliance on this approach provokes endless, intractable debate. Instead, please try to accept that there are indeed multiple significant views on the matter of the art's origins, and that those you disagree with (and sources supporting them) are necessary to present in order for the article to fairly treat the subject.

I don't mean to pontificate or stifle debate; this is just an encouragement to avoid arguing about things that aren't likely to be productive or that are outside WP guidelines. For instance, you assert that "if you want to quote it, you must prove first why this quote is true". This is not so. Truth doesn't matter in this context. That may sound strange, but that's Misplaced Pages. Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Historically Koreans thought hand was too precious to use?

"Historically, the Koreans thought that the hands were too valuable to be used in combat." what is the source for this? --Tonsdon (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lee's talk in 2002

"it could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later..."

According to kukkiwon notice no.30,

"About ex-vice president Mr. Lee's talk in 2002"

"Kukkiwon informs that the report of Mr. Lee Jong Woo(ex-vice president of Kukkiwon) interviewed with Shindonga magazine in 2002 was not official of Kukkiwon but just individual point of view talk. Therefore it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo."660gd4qo (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Mr. Lee was Jidokwan's person. Jidokwan is a one of the kwans. It is not only root of Taekwondo. Jidokwan is only kwan which heavily adopted Karate.(also kungfu) His personal claim is not represent to all taekwondo society. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether his comment is official of Kukkiwon or not, it is fact that his comment is one of the sources of the description "Others state (...) that it was partially affected by karate during the Japanese occupation." And Kukkiwon doesn't have the right to decide what the 'proper' history of taekwondo is.--Reinosuke (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee doesn't have the right to decide what the 'proper' history of taekwondo. And Lee was one of the member of taekwondo orginization(and taekwondo orignizations is not only 1). he is not represent to taekwondo itself. since Kukkiwon is a 1 of the official orginization of taekwondo, it is proper reason that lee's interview is not proper reference of the history of Taekwondo.(because kukkiwon officaily denied it) 660gd4qo (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And logically, his interview is not true. Mr. Lee said he was a key role of Taekwondo forms. half truth and half lie. Taekwondo forms made by various taekwondo masters. ITF+WTF forms are almost 45. Karate influenced forms are only 2. It is only 4% of taekwondo forms influenced by karate. other 96% forms are 'created' by koreans. And, they discovered their skills from traditional korean martial arts techniques. He ignored other taekwondo staffs made forms. And modern taekwondo is a 100% distinctive from karate. early taekwondo was influenced by karate. early taekwond adopted karate system. but, "almost entirely based upon karate" is nonsense. because, those taekwondo founders also studied more kungfu, tachi, taekyon, subahk.660gd4qo (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're now engaging WP:OR. Furthermore, early TKD was indeed "almost entirely based upon karate" and hence it is not surprising that there are sources to indicate that. Intentionally misstating that this is a WP:COPYVIO is inappropriate. JJL (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to shindonga website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."(Korean)(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)

since its document "illegally" translated to english, publishing without copyright holder's permission, it is cleary WP:COPYVIO. and i'm not sure its document translated as properly. "almost entirely based upon karate" this sentence is WP:OR. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In this incidnet, Mr.Lee denied his interview.

According to famous Korean taekwondo club, Template:Ko, 그글이 신동아에 나온 뒤로 본래 인터뷰 내용과 차이가 있다는 이종우 원로의 항의도 있었듯이 뭔가 충격적인 것을 써야 하는 언론의 특징을 감안하면서 읽어야 하는(Mr. Lee said Shindonga interview was "distorted", The magazine always want finding "shocking" gossip.")

Mr.Lee does not permit translate & publishg his interview. Again, Mr. Lee later denied shindonga article, and he did not permit publishing & translating. --660gd4qo (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shindonda "magazine" is not a dongailbo newspaper. It is a gossip magazine article. it is not a reliable or academic source. The article writer, 육성철(Yuk sung chul) 기자 (reporter) already dismissed from shindonga magazine. So, can't confirm its true factor. so, "shocking" titles article is not proven reliable source. --660gd4qo (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Interview of Mr. Lee

Later, Mr'lee said, Shindonga magazine interview is "distorted".

And shindonga article is HEAVILY doubted. It was a gossip magazine, and it is not a reliable souce.

Here is the another interview of Mr. Lee.

According to Ohmynews Interview,

이종우 세계태권도연맹 부총재와의 만남 (Meet with Mr. Lee jong woo)Template:Ko,

Mr. Lee : "태권도는 부분적이나마 가라데에서 유래해 왔다.(taekwondo partly influenced by karate. ※Note: He state that "partly".) 그러나 일본의 가라데가 어디에서부터 나왔냐가 중요하다.(however, we must know that where is the Japanese Karate came from...) 일본의 가라데가 일본이 독창적으로 만든 것도 아니다.(Karate is not made by Japanese) 말하자면 동양 문화권은 중국으로부터 많이 나왔다.(it came from China) 중국의 영향을 많이 받았다.(Karate was heavily influenced by China)

중국의 우슈가 나오기 이전에 우리나라에도 고유의 무술이 많이 있었다.(before Chinese wushu, Korean have their own marital arts)

--660gd4qo (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jhun Rhee says Tae Kwon Do was influenced by Karate

According to Jhoon Rhee, "early" Tae Kwon Do was influenced by Karate, while the kicks developed later on, which made Tae Kwon Do superior in fighting techniques to Karate and Kung Fu. -- Tonsdon

초창기 태권도는 사실 일본의 가라테를 그대로 본뜬 것 아닙니까. 본뜨다 = make 《a thing》 after a pattern

청도관 초대 관장인 이원국 선생이 일본에서 대학 다닐 때 배운 가라테를 귀국해서 보급했으니, 맞는 말이에요. 역사는 거짓말하면 안 되죠.” [Since Chung Do Kwan's first master Lee Won Guk spread Karate that he learned from Japan while attending college, it's true. History shouldn't lie.

주먹을 허리춤에 댔다가 지르는 것도 가라테 동작이죠?

맞아요. 그래서 내가 독특한 동작을 만든 거예요. 준리 태권도에서는 주먹이 가슴에서 나가죠. 우리가 하는 게 좀더 과학적이라 할 수 있죠.... [Right. That's why I made an original unique move. (Unlike other taekwondo) My Jhoon Rhee TKD the fist shoots from the chest. what we do can be seen as more scientific

광복 직후 서울에는 태권도장이라는 게 없었다. 청도관을 비롯한 무술도장의 대부분은 가라테를 가르치는 곳이었다. 이들은 가라테의 한자어 표기인 당수(唐手), 혹은 공수(空手)도장으로 불렸다.

발차기에서 차이가 없었나요.

태권도의 발차기 기술이 가라테보다 더 발전했지. 일본은 전통을 따지기 때문에 지금도 옛날 것 거의 그대로 가르쳐요. 그런데 한국은 그런 의식이 없어 뒤돌려차기니 뭐니 해서 제멋대로 만들어냈어요. 그게 뒷날 다 복이 된 거요.” [Indeed, TKD kick techniques are more advanced than Karate. Japan likes tradition, so they teach almost exactly same as olden times. But Korea doesn't have that, so they created back spin kick and so on. All that became advantageous later on. 다른 도장은 몰라도 청도관만큼은 분명해요. I don't know other kwans. but chung do kwan was certainly (Karate influence).

first, your reference is blog-like source. 2nd, he states that "early" taekwondo, not modern taekwondo. 3rd, Jhun Rhee is not a taekwondo founder. taekwondo is not made by Jhoon Rhee. Also, He was not a one of the kwans founders. and he emphasis his taekwondo is better than normal taekwondo. (its original means that "other taekwonds are karate influence, but my taekwond is not, i create my original move") ---660gd4qo (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. 이종우 국기원 부원장의 ‘태권도 과거’충격적 고백! Dong-a Ilbo TKD was transformed from karate (China origin).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Martial arts articles
• B-Class Korea-related articles
• High-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review