Talk:Karate/Archive 3

Article Cleanup

To get an overview of this article, I have used an editor to count the bytes in each section:

Introduction      1481
Practice of Karate 724
Kata (Forms) 1621
Kumite (Sparring) 1062
Dojo Kun 2061
Kokoro (Attitude) 1015
Courtesy 1200
Traditional Concepts 1656
Kobudo/Weapons 727
Conditioning 293
Sport 2258
Rank 2928
Etymology of "Karate" 452
Chinese Hand 1363
Empty Hand 1848
The Way and the Hand 651
History Okinawa 5021
History Japan 7259
History Korea 1543
History USA 242
History UK 541
History Soviet Union 1323
History International 798
Film and pop culture 1264
Sports and Olympics 1113
Negative issues 937

jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Practice of Karate could have better text. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kata (Forms) could have better text. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kumite (Sparring) : remove 'Basic Footwork' from the article. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. jmcw 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dojo Kun, Kokoro (Attitude), Courtesy, Traditional Concepts: create a separate budo philosophy article. For example, 'Go no sen' does not belong exclusively in karate. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dojo Kun has link to Bushidō which has a list. jmcw 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Moved Traditional Concepts to Japanese Martial Arts article. jmcw 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kobudo/Weapons does not belong in the karate article. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Added link to Okinawan kobudo article

Conditioning is much too short with not enough information. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Added Okinawan and sport karate material. jmcw 10:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sport should contain the information about Olympics. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Olympic info integrated and WUKO mentioned.

Rank with its list of ranks and list of qualities should have its own wikki page. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lists removed and links to existing wikki kyu and dan pages. jmcw 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of "Karate" is weasel worded; merge with Chinese Hand and Empty Hand. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Way and the Hand and the discourse on "do" would be better in the philosopy section. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History should have its own wikki article. A time line of 'In 1492 A taught B' might be more style neutral. History Okinawa should have more information. History Japan should have less style info. History Korea is ok. History USA is too short and lacks style info. History UKis too short and lacks style info. History Soviet Union: are there other styles than Shotokan? History International: delete. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Film and pop culture is ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports and Olympics: merge with sport; mention WUKO JKFA etc. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. jmcw 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Negative issues is ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "negative issues" section needs anything more than a link to "McDojo" as none of the issues are relevant only to karate. They can apply to Taekwondo, Kempo, Jujitsu or any other martial art or sport. Shinji nishizono 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe removing the redundant list would be a help. jmcw

Done. List removed. jmcw 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice review, Jmcw37! I wrote the subsection on the history of Karate in Soviet Union, and I do remember a couple other styles, but I've got to dig up reasonable references to be certain. If we end up having a separate "Karate history" article, I'll be sure to do that. --Cubbi 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

History need its own article, with just an overview & link here --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be away for a training week July 16-21 - will continue later. jmcw 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started revising the article for grammar, readability, and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. Janggeom 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look through the article and revised parts of it. I plan to change all names to the 'first name–surname' format since that seems to be the more common usage in this article. I plan to retain American spelling since that seems to be the common usage in this article. Janggeom 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I myself would prefer consistent Japanese order of family name/given name but there is a wiki standard Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names. Before 1868, Japanese order; after 1868, western order. jmcw 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to Taido and Taijutsu is a bit misleading, since Taido does not have a historical connection to Taijutsu. The founder of Taido, Seiken Shukumine, was an Okinawan schooled in traditional Okinawan arts, and never studied Taijutsu, AFAIK. I'm not sure if the names even have the same kanji for "Tai". --81.197.8.116 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Auto Peer-review Notes

(I'll be working through these)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize 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.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), fulfilment (B) (American: fulfillment).
• 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.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• 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. Thanks, Medains 12:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kata Forms

"None of these variations are more "correct" than the other, though during testing only one version is typically accepted all around the world." I think this sentence is poorly written but there is some truth here.

During to the recent effort to standardize (pervert) karate into an Olympic sport, the shitei (required) kata for each style have been standardized. I have been training as a referee during this time - it has been immensely successful<g>. I, a Goju ryu practitioner in Switzerland, can now easily judge the performance of a Shotokan kata from Japan<g>. I look for things on my check list - the kata performer knows what is on my list and must show them. As a sport referee, I do not need to know anything about the style or philosophy behind it.

There are two issues about kata variations here: standardized kata and dojo kata. Dojo kata are what your sensei teaches you. Standardized kata are what you must do in public for competition.

I think competition (especially for kids) can be helpful but it should only be a crutch for a short time of your life. Consider a start in karate at age 15 and training until age 75. Consider starting competition at 18 and continuing until age 33. Competition is then maximally 25% of your karate life - what are you doing the other 75%? jmcw 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points there. The problem is the use of the word "testing". Change the word "testing" to "competition" in the original quote and the statement might be accurate. Additionally, I would suggest that discussion of "standardized kata" occur primarily in the competition-related section, and the "kata" section remain focused on the development and purpose of kata training, and acknowledge that virtually every style of karate (and often individual schools within a style) has its own version of the kata which are more or less equally "correct" (notwithstanding that "correctness" largely relates to effective implementation of principles of balance, coordination, power-generation, etc..., rather than whether one's stance should be a little lower or higher during this kata, or one's punch should be to the solar-plexus or to the face during that kata...). Bradford44 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

cute picture

Does anyone like the cute karate pose picture at the beginning of the article? jmcw 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

karate influences from classical Japanese martial arts.

In the opening statement, karate is said to have developed from Chinese, Okinawan and Japanese martial arts. I have many references concerning Chinese and Okinawan roots. I have never seen one reference to support Japanese roots. Can anyone name a kata or a technique coming from classical (koryū) Japanese martial arts into karate? Even without a reference? jmcw 20:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Without reference and from the top of my head: you can point to some similarities in wrist techniques coming from jujitsu (and also known in aikido), such as nikkyo present e.g. in Bassai dai kata. Also, feetwork seems clearly more consistent with other Japanese styles. But I do agree, that the article is not balanced in respect to pointing to the ambiguity of karate origins. I believe a section on ideas in support/against the theory of kungfu being the prototype of karate is necessary - in particular, because many contemporary Japanese masters will fiercly oppose it for ideological and non academic reasons. Pundit|utter 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what? Since when does any japanese master of karate oppose its chinese origins? --Cubbi 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

well, in my experience it happens pretty often. Mostly because of looking down on the Chinese culture. Pundit|utter 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience it never happened. Maybe shito-ryu masters are more honest? :) --Cubbi 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

hahaha, let's not start the cross-style wars again ;) I respect and appreciate shito-ryu and it is, of course, possible, that its masters are more honest than elsewhere :P Pundit|utter 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• • There is evidence that karate came from Chinese arts, but there is not evidence that it was any particular art. Certainly not to the point of saying "Karate decends from Wushu." Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place for making political points. RogueNinja_talk 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You're probably right that wu-shu may be more narrow than general ancient Chinese art karate may be derived from, although I heard this word used as a general term for Chinese martial arts. Thank you for agreeing that Wikipedia is not a place for making political points. Presenting various points of view is exactly what I was trying to achieve. Do I take it right that you'll add a nice and polished paragraph on the ambiguity of this term and on many attempts of Japanese karate masters to deprive "karate" of its original meaning? The article currently only cites a karate master explaining that Chinese hand was not really Chinese. Nothing more balanced. I find it funny that I myself being a karateka for years have to oppose the pretty recent myth about the art's name. Do you have any sources that advise NOT TO report at least ambiguity on karate's name origins? Pundit|utter 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One only needs to read Funakoshi's books, or "modern bujutsu & budo by donald draeger to clear up 空 vs 唐. likewise to clear up the confusion of japanese influence. The classic question to japanese martial artist, how can an art never seen before in Japan prior to the meiji restoration have been influences that predate the meiji restorations????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.254.155 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this well said, "how can an art never seen before in Japan prior to the meiji restoration have influences that predate the meiji restorations". jmcw (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Karate had not been seen in China too, but teachings from China found there way to Okinawa. 220.253.1.182 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because the Japanese had not seen Okinawan arts does not mean that Okinawans had not seen Japanese arts. The Satsuma samurai who annexed Okinawa may have introduced some elements, perhaps unintentionally since the Okinawans were very secretive.--Ninja Shewolf (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Southern Chinese roots of Okinawan Karate are well-established. (Look at Ngo Cho kung fu for some convincing evidence; there are a couple of books out on it.) I have heard the Jujutsu theory but to the best of my knowledge it's pure speculation. It's not implausible, but it's hard to see much direct influence, whereas the kata clearly (and source-ably) come from Southern China. JJL (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, according to some new edits to Sōkon Matsumura, he was a master of Jigen-ryū before teaching Karate to Chocki Motobu, Anko Itosu, and Chotoku Kyan. If that's true, we might actually have some japanese influence after all. --Cubbi (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes it plausible, but any such inference would still be WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH until a source is found for it. JJL (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found a citation to back up the Satsuma tradition. I'll add it to Sōkon Matsumura. We need to say something here too: there is some Japanese influence after all. jmcw (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Karate began on the Okinawan island. It incorporated teachings from Bodhidharma, which arrived from China through the island of Taiwan. The teachings from Sohei were also incorporated from mainland Japan. More techniques were incorporated from Jujutsu during the Japanese invasion in the 17th century. In modern time, Karate incorporated teachings from Jigoro Kano. 220.253.1.182 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Our newest editor 220.253.1.182 believes in the early Japanes influence:

"Around the 12th century, samurai from the Minamoto family arrived in Okinawa from Japan
and became allies with the Ryukyuan nobles. The samurai taught their new allies the martial
art of daitoryu aikijujutsu and the pechin combined it with their own fighting system."

Does anyone have a reference to support this theory? jmcw (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

References were provided (which you continue to remove, which is a form of vandalism) 220.253.10.197 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are re-writing the lead sentence of the article and removing two references and adding none to justify the changes. This is poor manners. Please discuss with us here and show us the references to explain your wishes. Thank you! jmcw (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No reference was removed besides a duplicate. It is not poor manners, as it is clearly evident references were added, and noted in the summary. However, your comment above is poor manners, as you claim the references do not exist. 220.253.10.197 (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are taking about 唐手, then they may have some influenced by mainland Japan. However, whether Karate influenced by Koryu or Chinese martial arts, those sources are all written in after Meiji period. But if you are talking about 空手 - after exported to Japan mainland, then they definitely influenced by Koryu. You guys put the name of Funakoshi Gichin on to creaters, and Funakoshi learnd the Jujutsu's skill. --Ratekatara (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has sources indicating the strong Chinese influence on what became Okinawan karate. What's the source(s) for your changes? JJL (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing Quotations

Hi JJL - I have no problem with the text you wish to insert or the point that you want to emphasise. The only problem is that you are inserting your words in the middle of a reference: it would look as if your words were from the book that is footnoted. If you could find an alternative reference, that would be ideal; otherwise, could you please return the referenced quotation?

The opening paragraph specifies that there are three roots to karate: Chinese, Okinawian and Japanese. Chinese and Okinawian have references; Japanese does not ( because most likely there is NO Japanese influence on what was brought to Japan in the 1920/1930.) I would suggest that in six months or so that we remove the Japanese phrase entirely ( if there is no reference found.) jmcw (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand! Thanks, let me cogitate for a bit and I'll try again. JJL (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks better. We will see how long before someone changes "Chinese" to "Japanese". After it had happended several times before, I had put in the "Japanese" with a request for a citation. jmcw (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been following that discussion here. It seems quite speculative to me--of course it could have happened, but I see no evidence either in my own experiences (though I'm not a karateka) nor in anything I've ever read. I'm sure some karateka learned some JMA technique at some time before modern Karate, but am unconvinced of an actual influence. It seemed like the conversation was heading that way so I removed it but as you say I imagine it'll return. JJL (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the greatest influence came from China, including many of the kata. I just do not think we can rule out Japan entirely. Maybe "possibly" should be put before Japan. --Ninja Shewolf (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be unsourced, unlike the claims for Chinese and Ryukuan influences, and something that merely can't be ruled out is unverifiable. I'm not aware of a good source that claims it did happen, only speculation that it could have happened. JJL (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked above "Can anyone name a kata or a technique coming from classical (koryū) Japanese martial arts into karate?" No one has named a definite technique as "possibly". There is no grounds for speculation. jmcw (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Karata originated from India

Karate originated in India and then was greater developed and enhanced by the Chinese. Its even claimed that Kung Fu is also originally Indian. Mabuska (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you offer any proof of this? I'd be really surprised if anything that is recognisably 'Karate' originated in India. I mean, if so where is it now?

Based on just your assertion, saying "Karate originated from India" seems analogous to saying "English originated in Lebannon" (English came largely [from German which came] from Latin which came partly from Greek which came partly from Phoenician). This doesn't seem like a useful line of argument, it leaves out more than it actually tells us.The Zig (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My Australian friend ask me to help out on the English wikipedia with this article. I added new reference and will translate more information later. Karate began in Okinawa, and incorporated many teachings from Bodhidharma. 220.253.1.182 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese Martial Arts have existed long before Bodhidharma was born. Further, there is little-to-no evidence that supports the claim that Bodhidharma had any involvement in the development of the Martial Arts in China. In regards to Karate, it originated in Okinawa, not India. Karate wasn't based on the Chinese Martial Arts but rather the previous Martial Arts that were developed on Okinawa, which unlike Karate, were based on Chinese Martial Arts brought over from China. 76.4.129.74 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The origins of a human activity that has spanned a thousand years is difficult to document. Remember Wikipedia:Verifiability! Find a book or a magazine article or a web site to support what you believe. jmcw (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary

This page's introduction could really use a little bit more about how Karate is relevant today. Like, how many practitioners there are, across how many countries.The Zig (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

sadly, data on this subject are difficult to find. There are many federations, each has some interest in claiming that it has a lot of members, etc. Pundit|utter 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit

In Sanskrit, the word "Kar" means 'hand', and "ate" means 'only'. Which refers to the same meaning as in Chinese.

I have checked three on-line dictionaries at http://spokensanskrit.de/ and http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ and I don't believe this un-referenced statement. jmcw (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Sentence and References

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the lead sentence and its references. To support good-faith and good communications, I will show both versions here:

Karate (??) (listen^ⓘ) (or karate-do (???)) is a martial art developed from Chinese kenpo and indigenous fighting methods from the Ryukyu Islands.

Karate (空手) (listen^ⓘ) (or karate-dō (空手道)) is a Ryukyuan martial art originating from the island of Okinawa.

By my count, the first has two references and refers to both China and Okinawa. The second has no references and refers to only Okinawa. Does any agree to this analysis? jmcw (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the first sentence is well-supported while the second omits the Chinese influence which forms the largest part of the art. JJL (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed I would re phrase the first one as:

• Karate (空手) (listen^ⓘ) or karate-do (空手道) is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands from Chinese kenpō and indigenous fighting methods.

As the location is important but china definitely needs including, and that's before you start talking sources... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, it does look better. jmcw (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern Chinese martial arts were the bigger part (e.g., all the kata are of Chinese origin, and hence most of the techniques). I think they should come first in that sentence? JJL (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly southern rather than northern influence. I've see references for Fujian Province - would that be too specific for you? jmcw (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly that's the biggest influence (e.g. Ngo Cho, and of course the precursor of Uechi-ryu, is is really a special case). That's fine by me. I just think it's misleading to list Ryukuan sysytems first. Of course they were a significant influence, but Kung Fu is the base and source of most techniques in the art. JJL (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<- how about now (edited above) I only have a rough knowledge of the history so am ok with either, we don't need the same sources twice in the one sentence. P.S. I wouldn't go into exactly where in china in the lead, save that for the origin section. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that removes referenced information and its sources will be reported for vandalism. It will not be tolerated again. This is a warning. 220.253.4.36 (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Err I hate to be picky but you removed two references, hence you should report yourself... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence is supported with the references provided in the opening header. It appears you have another agenda for yours edits, especially after backtracking your edits to this article. 220.253.4.36 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Two more references, including the history of Ryukyu from the Okinawa culture reference website. It mentions the Minamoto family marrying an Okinawan family, giving birth to a son, who would become Shunten. Along with the strong influence and relationship with Japanese mainland. 220.253.13.106 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Web references are not very compelling. I'd like to see an academic reference for these many claims, which appear to be mostly wishful thinking. They are certainly outside of the mainstream. JJL (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You removed multiple references, including the reference from the offical Ryukyu culture archives. 220.253.13.106 (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're violating WP:3RR. It would be best to discuss these changes here and get consensus. Remember to assume good faith. People here have honest disagreements with you, and there may be conflicting sources. It would also be helpful if you registered under a regular user name. JJL (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The article from the Okinawan educational board, explains a great deal about what you have been disregarding for months. 220.253.13.106 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which means we have two conflicting sources. My personal view is that the Okinawan educational board will be less neutral, however the information from both sources should be presented in a neutral manner and it stated that their is a debate on the subject. We are here to report not deduce. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know little about Taekwondo, but have a look at the history times. 220.253.21.8 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I say, it's actually an intriguing story, about Minamoto refugees from Genpei War, Other sites (such as http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/002/001/index.html) begin the history of Karate with 1372 visit of Chuzan King Satto to the Ming Dynasty, so the events of 1185, if real, do not really contradict anything. However, such details have no place in the lead. They should go in Karate#History under Karate#Okinawa. --Cubbi (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

wonder-okinawa and the ryukyuan culture archives are created by the Okinawan government, and its educational board. 220.253.21.8 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The 36 families are well documented; I'd like to see an academic book as a source for the claim that the Minamato refugees taught their martial arts to the Rykyuans and that this knowledge survived. For example, the Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu raises questions as to whether that art truly existed at that time (but grants that legend has it that it did). JJL (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats because Karate was created in the 14th century, it was bushite, and te before that time. The Ryukyuan culture archives are compiled from the books written by the Ryukyuan kings, which is what you study in Okinawa about your lineage. The only "conflicting" source for the history of daitoryuaikijujutsu in the wiki article, is from one book, and that book actually states it focuses on the written techniques of koryu jujutsu and not on jujutsu developed and passed down by family lineage. That same book also notes that Kempo is not a Japanese translation of the Chinese word Chuan Fa. You clearly have an anti-Ryukyuan/Japanese nationality persona JLL, which is evident in your edits. 220.253.21.8 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<- I'd forgotten the infobox in this discussion, thanks for the fixes. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

re:infobox I agree that karate would not likely have spread over th world without Japanese support. But I would prefer to stay with the concept of 'origin' rather than 'development' to avoid absurdities. For example, the USA probably has a greater number of karate styles and karateka and Fudokan, which is widely spread in Europe, was grounded in France. I would not like to see USA and France in the info box<g>. My personal feelings from reading and after meeting both Okinawan and Japanese sensei is that Japan probably removed techniques from the art that came from Okinawa and China. jmcw (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(空手country)空手=japan,手/唐手=ryukyu.Parenthood = Chinese martial arts, indigenous martial arts of Ryukyu Islands.--210.252.201.142 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean 空手 'empty hand' was invented in Japan and 唐手 'Tang hand' was invented in Okinawa? jmcw (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Example,The history of TKD is KARATE(RYUKYU JAPAN) -> TKD(KOREA). TKD(Country of origin)=JAPAN? china? The present karate has been completed in Japan.The present TKD has been completed in Korea.(I can not speak english.sorry.)　空手の国を現在はない琉球国や中国を出すならば、日本の空手をもとにできたTKDも琉球や日本をCountry of originとして記載すべきである。パスタも中国の麺から出来上がったが、パスタはイタリアで出来上がったものである。それを中国が起源とは普通は言わない。現在の空手は日本で出来上がったものであり、琉球を併記するならばまだしも、中国まで記入するべきではない。--210.252.201.42 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is biased to some degree. Karate sparring for instance has been represented as a homogenous sport such as is performed within the WKF. The truth is that there are other forms of sparring such as bogu kumite that are historically relavent (please see the wiki entry for this) Very interesting and important to inculde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BZJ (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism. The two sections 'Sport' and 'Kumite' should describe not only the 'usual' kumite but also full contact and bogu kumite. jmcw (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope the changes are satisfying. The kumite section addresses light and full contact kumite; bugu is also mentioned. The sport section clearly shows WKF as proponent of the Olympics. jmcw (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

History channel

Lead expanded with reference from the history channel, this information is also noted in the books written by Funakoshi. Who also details many other things about Karate and its history. 220.253.147.150 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you possible define a user name for yourself? There are several people from your network VIC.netspace.net.au who are editing here (one returned to Okinawa two weeks ago) and it is a bit confusing. We can help you if you wish. jmcw (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The history channel does not say where it obtained its information, which makes it impossible to verify. The information it presents conflicts with books published on the subject. Roman gladiators in Okinawa 1000 years ago is somewhat difficult to believe without a verifiable reference. jmcw (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment shows your ignorance on the subject, and that you need to learn more about martial history, particularly the origins of Kempo. Furthermore, claiming the history channel is a poor reference is ludicrous. This information is also stated by Funakoshi in his books about karate, but I suppose you have an issue with him as well. The information does not conflict with books published on the subject, there have been plenty of reliable references provided, and many editors trying to add similar information to the article for a long time, albeit given up due to the authoritarianism of you, and "JLL". It is cited from a reliable source, provides a reference to other information in the article. The history channel (with input from notable historians and leading universities) The Okinawan goverment and cultural archives, and books published by leading karate instructors are not poor references, especially when you don't provide any verifiable and reliable references. 220.253.147.150 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can cite a scholarly source on the matter? JJL (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a code of conduct WP:ETIQ. May I ask you to read about our etiquette please? jmcw (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Your" etiquette? Thats a laugh! You have done nothing but bully this article and removing mass references which have been asked for many months (years?) and return provide no references yourself, or validation as to why. How about you provide some "scholarly" sources, since none of the references provided are. You also continue to remove that it is an "Okinawan" martial art. 220.253.18.103 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I mainly look down on books written by martial artists because most of them rely heavily on martial arts "legends" that have been passed from master to student. I doubt they have consulted authentic historical martial arts records during the course of the writing of their book. People who buy their books tend to believe what they read because the author may be a world renowned master, thus perpetuating the legend. What is needed in this case is a book or research paper written by an unbiased scholar with no connection to the style (i.e. a non-martial artist). Take Prof. Meir Shahar's new book (2008) on Shaolin history for instance. He relied on historical steles and records to expose many of the commonly accepted Shaolin legends as myth. Bodhidharma (c. early 5th century), for example, is commonly accepted to be the progenitor of Shaolin arts in modern publications. However, Shahar has shown that Bodhi was not connected to Shaolin arts until the mid 17th century when a Taoist wrote the Sinew Changing Classic. This manual honestly lists several popular fictional characters from Chinese literature as lineage masters. Qing Dynasty scholars actually lauded the book as the creation of an uneducated village master. Prior to this work, Bodhi was historically only considered the progenitor of Chan Buddhism, the religious sect of Shaolin. In addition, Shaolin actually worshiped Vajrapani, a Buddhist guardian deity, as the progenitor of their arts as early as the 12th century. I know the subject at hand is a Japanese fighting art, but the example is transposable to the current problem.

One thing you must also think about is that you can only kick and punch someone or lock their wrist/elbow/knee joint in so many ways. Therefore, martial arts the world over have similar if not identical techniques. A martial artist may note parallels between their style and another style from a completely different time and culture. This may lead them to think the older of the two styles may have somehow influenced the younger. Was the joint-locking system of the German school of fencing influenced by the qinna used in China? I think not. In reference to this discussion, I'm afraid that it's just a case of similar, yet unrelated, techniques used by the Romans and the Japanese.

Don't even get me started on the History Channel! --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that Human Weapon satisfies the criteria for verifiability and validity. It is an entertaining show, and not a scholarly research-based program. They uncritically repeat legends and hearsay to make the show fun to watch, but I don't think even they claim they are an academically reliable source. Pundit|utter 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know Human Weapon makes factual errors, but to not count it as a reliable source is absurd.69.109.58.5 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Karate Name

The following quote is from the book, Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts by Donn F. Draeger and Robert W. Smith; page 59, paragraph 5:

The Okinawans chose the name of karate-jutsu to replace the word te. The ideogram was chosen because it represented the T'ang dynasty whence had come the basic ideas for the development of te. While this ideogram had been read as "to," it is more commonly read kara in Japanese. To kara was appended te, the original ideogram for Okinawan te. The ideogram jutsu was chosen because it meant "art." Thus karate-jutsu meant "China hand art." The Okinawans thus cleverly respected three cultures, that is Chinese (kara), their own (te), and the Japanese (jutsu).

The following quote is from the same book; page 60; paragraph 3:

By 1932 all Japanese universities had dojos for their practice of karate-jutsu. About this time, for convenience the term karate-jutsu was shortened to simply karate...

... The production of a new Japanese style, apart from its ancestral form, required a Japanese name (the character kara, meaning "China," was replaced by an ideogram meaning to "lose" or "empty" oneself to gain serenity of mind). The change of the ideogram for kara angered some Okinawans, who considered it a slight against China. Furthermore, the new Japanese style had no complete union with te, which had however, Okinawan karate masters came to accept the new ideogram.

I'm hoping this information will be of use to the article and will help improve it. 76.4.129.74 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the term "bunkai"

The term "bunkai" is used in the main article, but not defined. This term has a seperate article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunkai . Perhaps someone who knows how to do it, could link that word to that article. 58.174.242.29 (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Kickboxing connection

Kickboxing variants (for example K-1) win by knockout.

Since when was K-1 anything to do with Karate ? Kickboxing is a far cry from Karate kumite. Kegon (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this text. Kegon (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad reference to WKF

WKF karate competition has two disciplines: sparring (kumite) and empty-handed forms (kata)

Something wrong here: all Karate is empty handed so kata is most definitely not "empty-handed forms" which kind of makes it sound like kumite is sparring with weapons and kata is sparring without. I would change this but I don't know what WKF officially translates kata to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegon (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this text. Kegon (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

History

Can anyone provide an ancient drawing or depiction of karate? 69.109.58.5 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead if you have one (under GPL, or a similar, licence) Pundit|utter 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC).

External References

I removed

• Okinawa karate kata video page BCC Kobudo
• Karate, Okinawan Kobudo and Kendo Kata videos.

Does anyone think there is value to becoming a video link farm? Maybe they would have a place in the kata article. jmcw (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about Olympic status

Why was taekwondo added to the Olympics and not karate (which I thought was a better known martial art internationally)? Is it because taekwondo is more widely practiced around the world, or because judo (another Japanese martial art) was already represented at the Olympics? Or do taekwondo and karate essentially the same technique, making it duplicative if both were included? Badagnani (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is simple politics. A sport is accepted when it receives a certain number of votes. Judo and taekwondo received enough votes; karate has not yet. jmcw (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK karate federations can't agree on the rules, which effectively prevents any discussion. Taekwondo is also split, but to a much lesser extent. There are so many different rules among federations that it is impossible to easily combine them (just for a start, think about a sparring between Kyukushin, Gosoku-ryu and Shotokan practitioners - the first use full-contact but don't punch on the head, the second use semi-contact and leg sweeps, also allow attacking all areas of the body, the last use light or no contact, but often don't allow sweeps. Pundit|utter 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that in part it's as simple as this: "AS is traditional, next month's Olympics in South Korea will include a demonstration sport popular in the host country." [1] "Judo and volleyball, both popular sports in Japan, were introduced to the Olympics (in 1964 in Tokyo)." (From here.) "(Seoul) was the second Olympic Games to be hosted by an Asian nation, after the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, Japan...Baseball and Taekwondo are demonstration sports." (From here.) China marks the third time for an Asian country for the summer Olympics. I'd wager the rules differences, the similarities, and the extra excitement of an emphasis on kicking are factors too. Savate or Muay Thai would add something distinctive. Barring sources, though, isn't this a more appropriate discussion for a web forum or the like? JJL (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson

One man's claims should not be put up here as "fact". I would argue that there are more karate instructors that would say he is wrong than would agree, but regardless no one can prove this right or wrong and in that case it shouldn't even be here. 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here in Wikipedia, we deal in verifiable statements. If you have a statement from someone who disagrees with Johnson, feel free to add it to the article. jmcw (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Korea section

JJL (talk · contribs) whom I've known for his persistent (not to mention, disruptive as well[2]) long-term edit wars over his strong POV in Taekwondo, falsely accuses me here of inserting a misleading content and proclaims to seek a consensus. I find this insistence absurd and offensive. I checked the source, and the edit that I support is more accurately based on the citation. I think he, Oda Mari, and her friend should explain why the Korean section should be censored as such and introduce rather the current mislead content; All Koreans in Japan during the period of the Japanese occupation did not volunteer to go to Japan. However, the section mispresents as if the people freely went there just like these days. Also, why did you erase the mention of "indigenous" Korean martial arts? Since you're not a consensus nor controlling the article, explain your view. --Caspian blue 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have changed the text to indicate when the emigration was voluntary. I have not seen any references to theorise that there was karate taught in the forced labor camps. I have added a 'See also' link to Korea under Japanese rule for readers who wish to know more about Korean and Japanese history. I feel that the injustices should be documented in the Korea under Japanese rule article rather than the karate article. jmcw (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong, you changed the article more misleading the section with the term, "emigration" ; voluntary migration by people. I have not said the source says "karate was taught in the forced labor camps." I clearly said many of the migration was "forced". Of course, the Korea under Japanese rule is the comprehensive article for understanding the period, but the section is "summarizing the history", so it should be "precise" without any mispresentation on the period and migration. The title section is also misleading.Karate outside Japan. The section should only says about Karate practice in Korea, not Taekwondo. I also am disturbed by JJL's same POV in the section as his Taekwondo sole origin from Karate in the article of Taekwondo. The section misleads that Taekwon was solely derived from Karate forms.--18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with jmcw that the Karate article is not the place to talk about the injustices committed against Koreans at this time. This is not censoring or whitewashing, it is simply a matter of keeping to the topic, and keeping it simple. As for what is more accurate to your source, I cannot say. That's a separate issue.

  Meanwhile, Caspian, I know you're a good guy, and a solid editor, and so I won't accuse you of intentionally or blatantly defying the WP:SOAP guideline, but, well, I don't go around trying to alter articles to make sure that it shows how much Okinawa was wronged by Japan or by American Occupation, how much Israel is wronged constantly by the global media, UN, etc. ... Wikipedia articles from Karate to Jomon period pottery are not the place to impress upon readers the extent of the wrongs committed against Korea.

  Really, the chief thing I disagree with in Caspian's version of the text is the implication that there is a long history of conflict between Korea and Japan. Whether you want to count the events of 1895-1945 as one lengthy event, or as the three separate wars which it was, the number of times Japan invaded Korea in the entire 2nd millennium can be counted on one hand. In the 1000 years preceding the First Sino-Japanese War (1895), Japan and Korea conflicted roughly twice. So, the attitude that there is a long history of perpetual antagonism and conflict is just patently incorrect. Thus, it's a small change in wording, but a big change in meaning - "due to past conflict... most notably during..." is far better than "due to history of conflict... most recently..." Past conflict refers to the individual past conflicts which did occur (1590s, 1895-1945), while "history of conflict... most recently" implies a consistent pattern, as if the Korea-Japan relationship were like the Arab-Israeli relationship - neverending animosity and perpetual conflict, with the Japanese occupation of Korea being only the most recent of a great many injustices... which is simply not the case. LordAmeth (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, LordAmeth. I agree your rationale on the term, "recently". However, I've found this Korea section is another extension form JJL's same POV pushing on the article Taekwondo.--Caspian blue 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I've edited the Korean section here, it hasn't been for some time (apart from reverting the claim that Korean martial arts masters went to Japan and were merely "exposed" to the JMAs there). The TKD page still needs attention but I lack the time right now. This is a continuation of what happened there and spread to other KMA pages, I take it. JJL (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo is Korean Martial Art. 36 years of Japanese Military Occupation didn't wipe out Korean Martial art in Korea. Even Kyokushin Karate founder is Korean. If you want historical details here it is Taekwondo Korean origin, Karate Chinese/Okinawa origin, Kyokushin Karate is Korean/Japanese origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProKorea (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Emigration

Emigrated to Japan???? That's a gross misrepresentation of the citation IN THE TEXT which clearly states that the "emigration" was due to forced labor and poverty caused by forced exportation of grain to Japan from Korea.[[3]] To excise this rather obvious context and characterize the zainichi migration as mere "emigration" is factually misleading and poor referencing. According to non-Korean, non-Japanese studies done by University of Hawaii, conscripted forced labor alone accounted for "migration" of 5.4 million Koreans. To call this "emigration" seems rather inaccurate.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

“ Jobs and opportunities—in reality, low paying jobs—were available in the colonial center, as the Japanese economy boomed after World War I (1914-1918), attracting many Koreans to Japan (see, for example, Weiner 1989). In addition, some Koreans went there for education or to establish businesses. ”

Please read the article more closely. jmcw (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make with the quote? Anyone can click on the hyperlink and read the pertinent text for themselves.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Korea was a part of Japan then. I think migration is the appropriate word. Hong Hi Choi had nothing to do with forced labor. He might had been forced to serve Japanese army, but he went to Japan of his own will. I'd like to know if there were any masters who were brought forcibly to Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Taekwondo vs Karate.

Taekwondo is Korean origin whereas Karate is Chinese/ Okinawa Origin. Please remember Kyokushin Karate. Founder is Korean Root planted in Japan. Kyokushin Karate is Korean/Japanese origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProKorea (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New, Longer Introduction

In order to enlarge the introduction, I would suggest the following:

• keep the current introduction
• add the change from 'china hand' to 'empty hand'
• the spread of karate from japan to the world after the second world war
• the karate films starting in the 60s
• sport, competition and the Olympics

These are chronological and show the development in the last 100 years. jmcw (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I invite comments/changes on User:Jmcw37/karate_intro. Feel free to edit. jmcw (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A slightly longer introduction makes sense to me, but I think I prefer the current form to your suggestion. It is a bit short, but the 2nd paragraph of your proposal really depends on the reader understanding the distinction between the ind. nation of the Ryukyus and Japan proper, and the 3rd paragraph is about martial arts movies more generally. The Judo, Aikido, and Kung fu articles, for example, cover less ground in the opening paragraph. Let me suggest this:

Karate (wikt:空手) (listen^ⓘ) is a martial art developed in the Ryukyu Islands from indigenous fighting methods called te (手, literally: "hand") and Southern Chinese martial arts. It is a striking art using punching, kicking, knee and elbow strikes, and open-handed techniques such as the knife-hand ("karate chop"). In addition, grappling, vital point strikes, and traditional weapons are taught in some styles of karate. Today the term karate is often used generically to refer to any Oriental martial art emphasizing striking.

Karate developed in the Ryukyu Kingdom prior to its 19th century annexation by Japan. It was brought to the Japanese mainland in the early 20th century during a time of cultural exchanges between the Japanese and the Ryukyuans. In 1922 the Japanese Ministry of Education invited Gichin Funakoshi (now known as the Father of Modern Karate) to Tokyo to give a karate demonstration; he stayed and taught the art there. Keio University became the first Japanese university to open a dojo; by 1932, all Japanese universities had one. In this era, the name karate ([[[wikt:唐手]]Chinese hand] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)), reflecting its Chinese origins) was changed to karate (wikt:空手, empty hand) to indicate that the Japanese wished to develop the combat form in their own style. After the second world war, Okinawa became an important United States military site and karate became popular among servicemen stationed there.

Today karate is practiced for self-defense, for self-perfection, for cultural reasons, and as a sport. Martial arts movies featuring karate are also popular. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that there are 23 million karate practitioners (called karateka) worldwide.

Longer than the current form but I hope more focused than the longer suggestion. JJL (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good useful points. I went over WP:LEAD and found two items. For an article greater than 30k characters, 3 or 4 paragraphs are recommended. Karate currently has 41k characters, so 4 paragraphs are OK. The second is "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I have re-written my first proposal incorporating your suggestions.

1. The first paragraph states what is karate.
2. The second give a brief history.
3. The third presents a controversy between the popular view of karate and the tradition view of karate.
4. The fourth sums up the current status of karate in the world.

Take a look at User:Jmcw37/karate_intro_2. jmcw (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's looking good! I agree with you (and WP:LEAD) that the current one is inadequate. I still feel the martial arts movies section gives undue empahsis on a minor aspect of Karate and that Karate is a minor aspect of it, though--Karate is a small part of martial arts films in general; none of the first four actors at that link are even karateka. (Of the second four, only Jean-Claude Van Damme is one.) The quote is good but maybe later in the article. A mention of The Karate Kid or some other karate-focused film might be better, or a more general discussion of Karate in culture, of which martial arts movies comprise but a part. JJL (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph: I would like the lead to say something about the range of depth of karate and karate-do. The popular wisdom of karate covers sports, teenage-ninja, the ten million wiki editors<g> and movies. Karate-do is different from other fighting sports in that karate offers a lifetime enrichment program. I would like something to show the whole spectrum of karate.

And I personally think that the movies of the 60s and 70s motivated the whole Babyboom generation into martial arts and thus popularity. After all, no one made movies about Shodo and it remains obscure<g>. jmcw (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

True! Still, most of those movies were kung fu movies, right? The ones coming out of Japan were all about samurai from the 16th/17th centuries. Your current last paragraph touches on the breadth of practice of Karate. How about something like this in place of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs (moving the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph here):

After the second world war, Okinawa became an important United States military site and karate became popular among servicemen stationed there. At the same time, Karate was being transformed into Tae Kwon Do in Koreas. The martial arts movies of the 1960s and 1970s served to greatly increase its popularity, and the word karate began to be used in a generic way to refer to all striking-based Oriental martial arts. Karate schools began appearing across the world, catering to the those with casual interest as well as those seeking a deeper study of the art. Today karate is practiced for self-perfection, for cultural reasons, for self-defense, and as a sport. In 2005, in the 117th IOC (International Olympic Committee) voting, karate did not receive the necessary two thirds majority vote to become an Olympic sport. Web Japan (sponsored by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs) claims there are 23 million karate practitioners worldwide. A karate practitioner is called a karateka.

For many practitioners, Karate is a deeply philosophical practice. Modern Karate-do teaches ethical principles and can have spiritual significance to its adherents. Gichin Funakoshi, known as the "Father of Modern Karate" for his role in spreading the art from the Ryukyus to Japan, titled his autobiography Karate-Do: My Way of Life in recognition of the transforming nature of Karate study.

Does that help address the "big picture" questions and the deeper aspects of study, or were you thinking along different lines? I do still like the long movies quote and it'd be nice to work it on somehow. The TKD comment will be considered contentious by the TKDers but it does go to the global spread and influence of the art. JJL (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation

Karate is NOT mispronounced when it is said "kah-rah-tee" (with IPA /i/ as the final syllable). Check any English dictionary, American or UK; the standard pronunciation in the English language uses /i/ as the final vowel, not /e/. Karate is "kah-rah-tay" (with /r/ as a flap/tap and /e/ as the final syllable, in TE 'hand') in Tokyo and Oosaka, yes. BUT, the English word comes from the Okinawan pronuciation. There is NO /e/ in Okinawan Japanese (Okinawa-go). When Okinawans speak their version of Hyoojungo (standard school-taught Japanese, based on the Tokyo dialect but having diverged from it decades ago), they will use /e/ "ay" in words. However, the Okinawan language does not contain /e/; instead it has three vowels, /i/, /a/ and /u/. Words containing /e/ in Tokyo Japanese have counterparts with /i/ in Okinawa. And so, as the word was borrowed from Okinawan Japanese, American English correctly pronounces KARATE as "kah-rah-tee" with /i/ at the end. Karate is not from Tokyo, it's from Okinawa. This "often mispronounced" comment is a total myth. For one, its pronunciation in English is fixed and includes /i/ and not /e/. However, even more importantly, the American English version of the word was borrowed FROM a Japanese dialect that ALSO pronounces it with a final /i/ --that is Okinawan Japanese. 75.175.175.64 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)