Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4

Kong Soo Do

Why is it listed as one of Tae Kwon Do's parents?

Quietmartialartist 15:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kong Soo Do translates to Karate Do (empty hand way)

Tang Soo Do translates to Karate Do (china hand way)

They were both exactly the same style, just different time period.

Taekwondo was called either Tang Soo Do or Kong Soo Do up until 1965, then it became official to call it Taekwondo. 76.205.94.175 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Bigzilla

Completely agre with Bigzilla User5802 15:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agre with Bigzilla. Taekwondo use this names in the process of change, then Gen. Choi came with the name of Taekwondo to finish the identity of the Art. Some Grand Masters' from that period of process still using the name of Karate to refers to Taekwondo see GM S. Henry Cho explaning this concept at the web page at http://www.henrycho.com/taekwondo.html#TaeKwonDo and http://www.henrycho.com/books.html and the book "Tae Kwon Do: Secrets of Korean Karate, by S. Henry Cho, Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1968" also see the S. Henry Cho biography at http://www.henrycho.com/hcho.html to see his expertice in this theme and this is not a promotion, I do not belong to this organization but I am related with the theme--WMACPR (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in my teach of the TKD style of Hanmookwan curriculum I still using the Old Taekwondo (Karate) forms called Pyang's Hyungs that are still in use by many Tangsoodo practicioners, with the New Taeguk poomsae; just because I want to teach my students about that particular fact of the transition period. The first Dan test of the Korean Taekwondo Association were using this forms and the first kwangjang's, shabonim's and kyosamnim's certified by the Korean Taekwondo Association used this forms for the first test Dan grading with the KTA until the creation of the sustitute forms like palgue and then the last and finally true identity of the change process of Taekwondo the Taeguk poomsae. This change of the curriculum of forms or poomsae in Taekwondo were also with the change of names like Tangsoodo, Taesoodo and Kongsoodo to the new identity name of the Art to Taekwondo. Some schools like the moodukkwan split in the process because some instructors like Kwang Kee the founder did not like to change the new name of Taekwondo, that is why Moodukkwan have TKD Moodukkwan and TSD Moodukwan. And the Taekwondo Moodukkwan people join to the change process. --WMACPR (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Korean martial art existed before Japanese military occupation. During Japanese 35 military rule their were martial art called Kong Soo Do and Tang Soo Do. Taekwondo is modern martial art terminology for Korean martial art.

---

No, you are wrong, Tang Soo Do and Kong Soo Do did not exist in Korea until AFTER WWII. If you think they did what proof do you have? 76.205.87.231 03:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Bigzilla

The above unreferenced individual did not say Kong Soo Do and Tang Soo Do existed before WWII, he said "Korean martial art existed before Japanese military occupation". -- Which is very arguably true. There was indeed Kong Soo Do and Tang Soo Do during the occupation and Taekwondo can be considered "modern martial art terminology" for Korean martial arts. User5802 22:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah no one's claiming Tangsoodo, kongsoodo existed before Japanese occupation. Korean martial arts definitely existed during chosun era and beyond. There are chosun records and old and recent that document existence of martial arts tests being held for military officers, as well the obvious existence of Korean folk practice of taekyon.melonbarmonster 23:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ranks, belts and promotion

I will shortly be adding new text in the "ranks, belts, and promotion" section which I feel could replace most of the existing text. For now I will comment-out the portions that I see as being replaced, so that they can easily be restored or restructured if it is felt necessary. However, the current section does contain many references to ITF and WTF differences, and these references may not be encyclopedic and may be confusing to the reader. The new section will be more general and hopefully more neutral, and will depend on the ITF and WTF articles to supply organization-specific information on this subject; those articles may need to be expanded. To me, the more I look at it, the more it seems unnecessary to have detailed descriptions of colored belts, titles, and modes of address in the main article, since they differ so much among organizations. I hope this will be another small step toward "Good Article" status, and that you all will find it acceptable. Omnedon 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I liked my version better. Wkerney 06:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme differences exist side by side with extreme similarities of the ITF and Kukkiwon style.

It is ignorant to write about the WTF vs the ITF. There can be no such comparison, since the WTF is not a style. This page is filled with this confusion. Over time, I have tried to edit this confusion out and a great majority of it is gone, but some still exist. It is encyclopedic to be accurate and educate, not mis-inform and dumb the reader down. 76.205.94.175 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Bigzilla

You are correct Omnedon the belts and rankings are MUCH to diverse across the spectrum. It's worth mentioning this diversity but should not consume a large part of the article. User5802 15:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly, ITF is not a style either, but an organisation - the correct name for the style is Ch'ang Hon. However, common usage of WTF and ITF also relates to the styles of those organisations as well as the organisations themselves, thus WTF is used as a shorthand for 'WTF-style'. However, I agree that the differences between the two systems are such that details on ranks and belts should appear in their individual pages, and not here. 212.50.184.130 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop organization promoting

Admin has instructed to keep external links to a minimum. Wiki isn't a place to advertise your particular organization. Please relax with ITF, General Hong pushing, including your websites, etc., in this article. Thanks.melonbarmonster 23:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually people should put the clubs of taekwondo in the article. They should do this as people who want to learn taekwondo, know where to go.Euge246 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Types of contact

Perhaps we just need to define our terms of reference. What does "semi-contact" mean to you? To me, perhaps "medium-contact" might be better than either "semi-" or "light-", as opposed to "full-", but I guess we just need to clarify. Omnedon 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Never came across the term semi-contact. Suppose you could use it but I'd say the terms "controlled contact", "light contact", "no contact", "full contact", or "medium contact" are more recognized. User5802 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Semi-contact" and "light contact" are exactly the same thing, and are used interchangeably in all the groups I've belonged to or associated with. I've never heard "controlled contact" or "medium contact" used, but presumably they mean the same too, which is everything in the grey area between "full contact" and "no contact". The only reference in the ITF competition rules is to "heavy contact" being grounds for disqualification, which would seem to suggest that "light contact" is the correct term, but this isn't specified anywhere I'm aware of. 212.50.184.130 (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be no-contact, light-contact and contact. This is how I have learnt it in my taekwondo years. I am a red belt 3 black stripes so I would know.Euge246 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-contact in the UKTA, TAGB, and GTI (to name just a few) is point-stop. The contact should barely be there (hence 'semi' as opposed to 'no') and once a point is score then the action stopped. Light-contact is just that. Heavier than semi, but should not be heavy, the action continues without pause unless someone falls over, they get tied up, leave the ring or someone is injured. The same weight gloves and foot mitts are used for both. Ptkd (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Japanese origins

The page seems to take a Korean POV in diminishing the significant role of Japanese martial arts in the 20th century Korean arts--most particularly, in that Tae Kwon Do is widely recognized as being a re-packaged form of Shotokan with a Korean gloss. I gather that this has been discussed before, but the page reflects an inaccurate acceptance of the typical nationalistic line out of Korea. Citations are definitely needed for e.g. the continued practice of taek kyon as an art as opposed to its history being used in the re-working of Japanese karate. JJL 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

JJL, I note that you have inserted the "fact" tag on some of the things with which you disagree, yet don't provide references when making your own counter-edits. Omnedon 04:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel they're "counter"-edits; that language is evidence of the POV that seems to have taken root, no? They're widely accepted as facts. If you doubt that then asking for a citation is certainly fair game, but these aren't "counter" edits. JJL 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the term "counter-edit" doesn't indicate POV. I'm simply saying that you are making edits to the existing material and stating that it is incorrect and POV; yet at the same time you are not providing sources to back up your own edits. Omnedon 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, thinking further, your use of the word "re-invented" in the article, and especially your use of the words "re-packaged" and "Korean gloss" in your comments here, seem to indicate POV on your own part. Of course, you can say whatever you want on a talk page; but it's hardly unbiased. Omnedon 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how such an edit is "counter" to something. I recognize that for material in dispute a source(s) is needed; that's certainly fair. However, not every statement must be referenced. For example, under "History" I made a chaneg from ancestor... to Korean martial art. I might argue that that's stylistic; it avoids making a stronger claim--one that would require a reference (that TKD had this art as an ancestor). I dispute the survival of taek kyon as an organized, taught system, and the banning of it by name, which is how I read the second statement I requested a cite for (if it simply means that martial activities were restricted in general, I accept that).

I'm happy to discuss the matter here if something is disputed. But I don't think it's uncivil to correct POV material, which is how I see the current article--largely accepting the cover story that the KMAs are 2000 years old and are for the most part unsullied by foreign influence. JJL 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not focus on "counter" too much. The edits were counter to what was already established; that's all I meant. That it was already established does not make it gospel, and you can certainly edit it; that's how this works, of course. And, for the record, changing "ancestor" to "Korean martial art" is not something to which I object. I'm merely saying, again, that if you are going to challenge established material, just provide some backup, especially when it is on a controversial subject. Omnedon 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

JJL, people have offered references and we've all taken a look at them with extensive discussions following. We all know what your position is. If you offer some references a discussion will ensue. To make things easier for yourself, look at the archived history and read through the past discussion we've had on this.

In the meantime, please refrain from making unilateral edits. The current version reflects consensus reached by many, many editors. I'd appreciate it if you respected the process.melonbarmonster 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with a rule against "unilateral" edits. I gather all this militaristic language regarding editing--"counter", "unilateral"--reflects a tumultuous history on this page. I will look at the archives of this Talk page. JJL 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to try to avoid a conflict here -- I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) that most of us could agree that there was some foreign (non-Korean) influence in the development of Korean martial arts. It was probably inevitable given the geography and interactions that took place, and I think the article indicates that there was some foreign influence. However, there is certainly some disagreement about its precise nature and degree. Omnedon 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is disagreement about the matter of how much of the modern KMAs are of foreign origin. The current wording says "influence" which seems an inadequate description of the base that Karate served for TKD. That section is entirely unreferenced/unsupported, however, which is unfortunate. JJL 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole article needs more sources. They're a bit hard to come by for a variety of reasons, but a few of us are labouring to come up with some. For now, "influence" may be inadequate to you, and is certainly not very specific or detailed; but it does at least convey the general idea in the absence of concrete information. Omnedon 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral edits are when you ignore edit history and previous states of consensus and keep on reverting your edits even when you don't have consensus in violation of the WP:3RR.melonbarmonster 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't seem to be in any danger of violating WP:3RR, it seems this term does not apply in this case. JJL 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop you if you want to engage in revert warring. Just makes everything less pleasant for all of us. I hope you won't engage in revert warring and just leave the article in its last state of consensus while we try to resolve this.melonbarmonster 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is edit warring. Editing a page is not inherently edit warring just because you don't want it edited. This is a very defensive bunch. JJL 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When you make an edit and it's contentious, you can't keep reinserting your version of the edit. That's called edit warring. Please stop. Leave the contentious text at its last state of consensus and resolve this through the talk page. See WP:EW.-- melonbarmonster (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I never reverted any of your edits, although I questioned them, and I did not accuse you of warring. That was the one other person who has been involved in this discussion so far. Omnedon 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussions. Apart from random web pages, the only meaningful source I see discussed is Burdick. The comments against it are wholly unsourced. Since the standard is verifiability not truth, and Burdick's work was published (in JAMA), Burdick's work meets the standard of verifiability. Is there a sourced (vice personal) rebuttal to Burdick? JJL 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was definitely a Japanese Origin. Even to this day, as you know Omnedon, my Kwan practices the original forms taught by Lee, Won Kuk which are carbon copies of Shotokan with a, in JJL's words: "Korean gloss."

That aside, JJL, as you are just coming on the scene, you should show a little more respect. These editors have been working on this for a long time and you should post any conflicting evidence here regardless of how much you think it is "inefficient" to fire away edits without a second point of view. Quietmartialartist 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The koreans from the 3 kingdoms came together to create taekwondo. To fight the japanese when they invaded korea. The first dan black belt form koryo represents this in a motion where your hands come up into a triangular pattern. Koreans practiced martial arts way before they were ever invaded by japan. That is why the flying side kick was developed to kick people off of horses. The guy who states he is a 3 stripe black belt must have about 5 years most experience. Taekwondo has came a long way. Thru many year and now is a olympic sport. The light contact to semi contact is more like point fighting style like he states. But why would you do that in any type of invasion of your country. Thats why taekwondo is in the olympics now. Because it is a FULL CONTACT SPORT. So that means the only way you win is by a trembling shock to the hogu (chest protector) or to the face or headgear. Its much harder to kick someone in the face and knock them out then to just tap the person in a helmet and say "1 point here", stop the match then continue. Taekwondo is a continuious contact sport sometimes rounds being 2 mins to 3 mins long. If you want to play flag football then go play it but if you really want to get tackled then play real food ball. That is the differnce in light to semi like tapping contact. And full contact taekwondo. If you cant handle fastballs i sugguest you dont step up to the plate. Oh and ive been taking taekwondo since i was 8 yrs old and im a certified kukkiwon 3rd dan black belt. Thanks i just figured i leave a post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.242.55 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of requests for citations

Melonbarmonster, you seem to refer to many "rules" that you feel govern editing of this page. However, you've just reverted two requests for citations, indicated as follows: . That is considered very inappropriate behaviour. Please replace the fact tags. JJL 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I was making a flurry of edits and I thought there were other edits besides the fact tag. I have no problem with the fact tag.

As for your accuasation that I'm violating WP:OWN, sorry that you feel that way. But all I've asked from you is to alert you to history of discussion pertaining the portions of the text you were editing and to keep the article at it last state of consensus. I don't see see how either of those requests are a violation of WP:OWN.

In any case, let us both try to WP:AGF and engage in productive discussions.melonbarmonster 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have again removed the fact tags rather than rising to the challenge of citing sources for your claims, as well as removing sourced info. This is once again and still inappropriate, and I am unable to WP:AGF at this point. It seems a simple matter of WP:OWN and a strong POV that the myths are all correct. I've provided a source (Burdick). It is the common opinion held by those disinterested in the Korean arts. That Shotokan was the main influence on TKD is a fact--self-evident to anyone familiar with both systems, but also able to meet the WP:RS criterion--and omitting it is plainly POV. In any event, the standard os WP:V not your version of the "truth". Please do not revert verifiable, sourced, relevant material in favor of the nationalistic Korean agenda, and please provide sources for questioned material rather than attempting to hide the criticism. -- JJL (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference in place of your fact tag rather than just deleting it. Not sure why you missed this. As for the Japanese POV stuff let's discuss in the section below. But most importantly, let us both keep things civil here.-- melonbarmonster (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You know I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were mistaken when you were accusing me of deleting your tag. But I see in the edit history that you outright deleted my reference and then claimed that I deleted your fact tag without even a mention that I had attempted to satisfy your request with a reference. That's outright lying and that has to violate some wiki rule somewhere. Dude calm down and let's keep things honest and civil please.-- melonbarmonster (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not calm. WP:OWN is an all-too-common phenomenon on WP and I am not nonplussed by seeing it here. I had only noticed ref. 3 to a discussion board post which is not a WP:RS. I missed ref. 4 which is indeed a source that is a reasonable answer to a request for a citation; I regret the oversight. After tracking down the volume info., the article itself states that the following were banned during the Japanese annexation of Korea: "a movement for physical training", "folk entertainment gatherings", and also "T'aekwondo". Earlier the article distinguishes between t'aekkyon ("incipient form of t'aekwondo") and t'aekwondo, so it isn't clear to me that the article states that t'aekkyon was banned. Indeed, the previous paragraphs seem to indicate that it was essentially gone by then ("we may be able to revive the old forms of t'aekkyon"). Also, it sounds like the Korean Journal wasn't accepted as a peer-reviewed academic journal until circa 2001; was it peer-reviewed at the time this article was published? -- JJL (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of peer review means sources and methods or research is layed out in the article so that it can be reviewed and analyzed by a panel of peers. KJ was certainly looks like a peer reviewed journal to me but it doesn't matter if it is or isn't. You still haven't provided anything new references. Most importantly though, please don't delete other editors' references. There's no justification for such behavior.melonbarmonster (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes regarding history

I've made some edits. I encourage others to work with them collaboratively rather than blindly reverting them. Pre-approving all changes on Talk pages first is a grossly ineffcient way to proceed. While JAMA references are not optimal, they're a step forward from much of the nationalistic clap-trap that forms the base of the usual 2000-year-old-art claim. JJL 20:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Japanese origins continued

To start afresh:

What you call "pre-approving contentious edits" is called gaining consensus and the only way to avoid edit warring. Please respect the editing process and leave the text at its last state of consensus. It's the only sensible way to avoid edit warring.

There are sources aplenty that give accounts of history apart from Burdicks' article. The first 2 pages of Burdick's article is downright goofy and his article is well known for being erroneus. Some references that give better accounts are Kyungjee Kim's "Taekwondo History" in Korea Journal and even General Choi's interview.

But most importantly do you have any references or evidence for your position beyond the Burdick article? We've already had that discussion and as much as I'm game for discussing it with you again, I'd like to know if you have any other references or evidence to support your edits. I'm not sure how useful digging up a beaten horse article that's been well panned is. I'm sure you can find much better references of your own to support your position. If you bring them here, we can look and compare references and work towards a resolution-- melonbarmonster (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kim article lacks an actual bibliography. He refers to books and gives their Korean titles but without a bibliography--editions, page numbers, etc.--it can't be checked. The Korea Journal is ambiguous but it seems as though the article was not peer-reviewed (as might be expected for an Athletics prof. writing history). I don't fully discount it--indeed, JAMA (where Burdick's work appeared) is subject to many of the same criticisms--but if the standard of criticism is "well known for being erroneus (sic)" as you suggest above then a debate is of little value. The archives show mostly "I don't believe that" as a response to Burdick's article. In any event, this request is reasonable, but so is the request that the present info. be verifiable, consensus or no. Indeed, you are taking as an immutable practice what is merely a suggestion of one style of reaching consensus. Another approach is that, rather than blindly reverting my changes, you modify them and we work toward consensus language both can accept. But you seem quite attached to the current language. I see edit warring as your choice. I am making small edits to a lengthy article. You can work with, or against, them. -- JJL (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Forcing your edits with reverts is not how you reach consensus through modifications. Please stop. KJ is fine and just because a particular author uses nonstandard citations doesn't mean it's not a valid wiki reference. Bibliography isn't even supposed to give page numbers, etc.. I think you mean footnotes or citations. Burdick article is a joke. He makes ridiculous claims about Korean history that are downright laughable. If you don't know enough about the topic at hand to know the difference please defer to those of us who have the expertise.melonbarmonster (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

References to foreign origins (or, isn't funny how similar the Korean hyung are to Japanese kata?)

References: The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary by Emil Farkas and John Corcoran (Overlook Press, 1983), pg.260 clearly states that the techniques of TKD are derived from "earlier Korean combatives and the[...]kata[...]of Okinawan[...]schools of karate". The Overlook Martial Arts Handbook by David Mitchell (Overlook Press, 1988), pg.161 states that "the [Japanese] influence in the formative years appears major" while pointing out that some parts of these arts are "not Japanese influenced". Referring to the rising kwans post-WWII: "All taught Japanese influenced systems." Both sources cite kicking as the place where the primary or most notable indigenous contribution is seen (but do not claim that all the kicks are native). The iconic Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts by Donn Draeger and Robert W. Smith (Kodansha Intl., 1980), pp.74-5 discusses Japanese and Chinese influences in a general way. JJL (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing new. There's nothing here that says TKD is "repackaged shotokan" as you are trying to claim. This actually supports the view reflected in the text that TKD is a modern construct made up of various elements indigenous and foreign.. as is the case with most MA's.melonbarmonster (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Korean-centric?

I realize that this is perhaps the least of the issues under discussion -- but "foreign influence" in the context of the development of Tae Kwon Do is quite appropriate. Of course it's "Korean-centric". Why not? Tae Kwon Do is Korean. Influence on its development from other countries was "foreign influence", because it came from outside Korea. It would have come from China and Japan and probably not many other sources, but my point is that it's not "wrong" to use the term "foreign influence" in this context.

In general, though, I think this whole thing is going too far. In the absence of really solid information, I would suggest that the issue of the ancestry of Tae Kwon Do be minimized (though not ignored) in the article for now, if this conflict is going to continue otherwise. We can make general statements that Tae Kwon Do is of Korean origin, and that its development was influenced by other martial arts, and we can probably all agree on both of those statements; but the degree and nature of that influence is clearly a contentious issue. Where's the common ground here? Omnedon (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about 'foreign' being taken w.r.t. Korea, and it's not such a crucial point to me. But I think it's not as simple as you indicate either. I've heard people argue that TKD and HKD are Japanese, and that Okinawan Karate is Chinese, as that's where the techniques came from even if they were later adopted by another country. (There are constant debates over whether JKD and Kenpo are Chinese or American.) To say "Tae Kwon Do is Korean" is already to accept that the art is primarily/originally Korean in nature, to my mind. Is Kumdo Korean? It's entirely Kendo given some Korean terminology, but is now associated with, and claimed by, Korea. Does that make it Korean? How about HKD, which originates in Jujutsu just like the Japanese arts of Judo and Aikido? From one point of view HKD is Korean, but from another it's Japanese. Is a hula dance, or a luau, an American tradition, or an Hawaiian one? I see TKD as having been largely imported to Korea, as HKD, Kumdo, etc. were done (to an even greater extent). Hence, TKD is itself in large measure foreign to Korea (cf. the argument that Okinawan karate is actually 70% Chinese), but has been mixed with Korean culture and modified in accord with stories of the past and largely lost Korean arts. We see people recreating dead martial arts all the time, as with Pankration. It happens. I recognize that this point is contentious and am not trying to convince you to adopt my opinion--but I do want to say that it isn't a straightforward matter.

As to origins, I've provided references in the Talk section above as requested. The fact that Gen. Choi is barely mentioned and that Shotokan isn't mentioned at all, nor the clearly Japanese basis for the hyungs in particular, are all things I find very problematic. On the plus side, the article properly indicates that the story is rather more complicated than the usual "Gen. Choi formed TKD all by himself from Taek Kyon and Shotokan" narrative that's so commonly seen. To me a workable consensus involves, for starters, an explicit mention of Shotokan's role--this could be partially done with the discussion of Gen. Choi's contributions--and the Japanese influences on the Kwans, and an acknowledgment that techniques and forms from Japanese karate played a significant part in the new art of TKD. As it stands it sounds like the usual story from the East--Japan denies any Chinese influence on their society and Korea denies any Japanese influence on theirs. It seems too accepting of how the Korean govt. wants the world to view TKD: home grown, as "American as apple pie and baseball" as it were. I find it quite POV and that's what I'm trying to reverse.

Does it sound like we have a basis for finding common ground? JJL (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Taekwondo is considered as Korean martial art regardless of your personal opinions on the matter of its origins. Keep your POV pushing to a minimum and keep the article at its last state of consensus when editors like myself or others disagree with you. Please don't try to force your edits if your edit proposal is not met with consensus.melonbarmonster (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill. You are the one changing the last point of consesnus--see my comment above from several months ago. JAMA is a peer-reviewed article with a doctorally-qualified board of editors. TKD is Korean, but its origins are undeniably in Shotokan Karate, as sources indicate. I've returned the article to the last point of consensus as reflected in the discussions above. A blizzard of false accusations is not the way to change consensus. What do you have to support the claim that TKD did not originate in Shotokan? JJL (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that states that TKD's origins are shotokan karate. At best they state karate was an element in early formations of TKD. Even the reference you gave most recently clearly states that TKD is a mix of various indigenous and foreign influences as is already reflected in the text. And burden of proof lies with the affirmative proposition. Your proposition that TKD is just "repackaged shotokan karate" is just hyperbolic POV.melonbarmonster (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that TKD is unarguably a Korean MA construction regardless of your particular views on TKD's origins.melonbarmonster (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice it doesn't say anything like that in the article. It cites references to support the position we arrived at here, which is why the word influences is used repeatedly. That's a weak word reflecting a compromise position (which is what "consensus" means on WP). You might find the discussion here [1] enlightening. In the meantime, please don't revert this months-long stable version of the article until you can support your claims. JJL (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The month long stable version was there out of desire to discuss this rather than resort to reverting. 2 editors have expressed support for "foreign influence" and you are the sole proponent for your version. That's not consensus but a good faith effort on those who disagree with you to try to resolve this respectfully. For you to claim this good faith gesture as some sort of consensus for your version is not honest. The last state of consensus was before you started making these unilateral changes to the article. Please show some deference to the process that the rest of us have been following on this article for some time now. Influence is the language used by all references we have at hand and they all support the position that TKD is a MA construct made up of both indigenous and foreign influences. Even the reference you provided states this view. If you have any other references that support your hyperbolic position that TKD is "repackaged Shotokan", I'll be more than glad to look at it and consider it for inclusion in the text of the article. Until then, please stop trying to push your personal POV on TKD's origins.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about "repackaged Shotokan" so I don't understand what your concern is there. The article clearly uses the word 'influence' which seems to be the point of consensus. What are you arguing about if not the contents of the article? By all means, if you find the phrase "repackaged Shotokan" in the article, remove it. As to your offer that "I'll be more than glad to look at it and consider it for inclusion in the text of the article", well, that's very gracious of you, but not actually how things work. Again I encourage you to see WP:OWN. As to what you claim was a good faith effort to--what, not edit this page after consensus was reached on 17 November 2007--I'm not sure why you feel you can speak for others, but again, that's not how it works. Please respect the consensus that has held since mid-November of last year. As for your comment below, I must say that you are much too credulous about what you've been told about the history of the Korean arts. JJL (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'll try to keep things civil here. It was your claim that tkd was "repackaged shotokan". That's why you need to back it up. The position that's reflected in the article is that TKD is a construction made up of both indigenous and foreign influences. If you disagree with this you need to back it up with new references and edit proposals. That's how the burden of proof works. Please see below to your claim of consensus.

The fact that you found [2] enlightening speaks volumes and really doesn't help your cause. I can assure you that your incredulous attitude with which you've participated in editing this article from the beginning is grossly misplaced. So far, you've offered no new references to support your hyperbole.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst interviewing Gen Choi's son, Choin Jung Hwa, he candidly admitted that Taekwondo was based in Karate. The first patterns that he learnt were the Heains/Pyong-ahns. Whether they were Shotokan-influenced or Wado or any other style of Karate doesn't matter, he was very clear that Taekwondo was derived from Karate. The first five of the ITF patterns are very similar indeed, it is only after them that the Taekwondo patterns start to take on a much more individualised manner. Ptkd (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split into Taekwondo(WTF style) and Taekwondo (ITF Style)

The series of articles on Taekwondo is confusing as it is. obviously this is due to there being two different styles, practictioners of each all claim variuously to be superior, original, more authentic etc, and secondly because of the political divisions among the ITF organisations themselves. However wikipedia is not a place for these battles to be fought. I propose two articles, one called TKD (ITF) and the other TKD (WTF) for description of the sport only. Each can mention the other and most obvious differences in the introduction. At the moment a newcomer to the sport or subject which have a very misleading impression from these articles.AleXd (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would be useful for most people. From a school perspective, they are pretty similar. At the championship level there are differences between WTF (Olympic Tournaments) and ITF (World Championships) -- but for regular students in a dojang -- little difference. (And let's not forget the ATA.) For regular students perhaps the main difference is the forms (patterns) are different. And WTF schools don't permit face punching. Other than that...I don't think too much difference. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AleXd, I also don't feel the article needs to be split. This has been discussed in the past; I'm not dismissing the issues you've mentioned, but I do think that the Taekwondo umbrella comfortably covers both ITF and WTF styles. Believe it or not, there is actually less mention of specific ITF- and WTF-related issues in the article now than there once was. Omnedon (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If there were two separate articles about WTF and ITF I would probably be proposing merging them together into a single article --Sindri (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Organizations chapter could however do well with some sub-chapters about each style/organization. The current text is a bit confusing. --Sindri (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if people don't want a split I agree with Sindri that there should be a clearer description of the divide. This should also be clarified in the lead section.AleXd (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, we could make a general statement along these lines: "There are two primary branches of Taekwondo study and development: sport and traditional." That's simplistic, and certainly not the only way of defining the differences. More would need to be said than just this, and of course the differences between the WTF and ITF don't really correspond with this statement. Also, one can be involved in both sport and traditional Taekwondo at the same time -- but the point is that each branch has its own focus.

BoJoDi

Does anyone have any information about the "BoJoDi" rank that was recently mentioned in the article? It is said to be the same as first geup, but I've never heard of it, and a Google search doesn't turn up much about it. I also have never seen geup rank indicated with striped belts, but that does seem like a reasonable possibility; I can see where some schools might do that, since dan rank is often indicated with stripes. Omnedon (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard about the "BoJoDi" rank either and didn't find any good references to it, so maybe we should remove it from text? About the striped belts, I've never heard about them either but I agree that it seems reasonable, nevertheless we should get a reference for that. - Nmnogueira (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

JLL

Please stop your wholesale reverting! Please.

1. The last state of consensus goes back to before you changed "foreign influences" as "chinese and japanese influences". Editors who disagreed with you tried to discuss it in the talk page rather than engaging you in a revert war. You are taking this good faith gesture and claiming it as evidence of "consensus". Please don't abuse courtesy extended to you by other editors who hold different positions than you and try to respect the process.

2. Please break down each edit that you disagree with instead of reverting wholesale. I deleted mention of Billy Banks' taibo since it is insignificant and does not deserve mention in the "see also" section. I also deleted the redundant sentence that early TKD masters and schools had Japanese MA training and influences. This has been stated and explained by an entire subsection. Repeating this over again is redundant and bad writing. If you're going to revert these two changes besides the title of this subsection, please explain yourself rather than just hitting Undo. THanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We did discuss it on the Talk page. A consensus was reached, and a stable version emerged. Now you return and without any discussion on Talk begin reverting. The edit war is caused by you. Feel free to discuss your changes here, but it is not I who must submit changes to you. The problem remains: WP:OWN. This is not your oage, and your way is not the only way. JJL (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see little evidence of consensus here. Before, I think the situation paused because it was developing into an edit war, and everyone stepped back for a while, but consensus was clearly not reached. Personally, I think the term "Korean-centric" is misleading in this case, yet of course I acknowledge that there was influence on the development of Taekwondo from outside Korea (mostly from Japan and China, as would seem reasonable, given the geography). Surely the terms "non-Korean", "foreign", et cetera acknowledge this influence from outside Korea. JJL, you may view that as "Korean-centric", but after all we are talking about a subject that relates to Korea; and it seems to be somewhat "Japanese-centric" to add a sentence about the Kwans that says, "All [Kwans] taught Japanese-influenced systems", since the influence is already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Also, I see that you have now added the word "strong" before "influence" in two places; it's true that there was influence, but just how strong is debatable, and stating it this way tends to suggest once again that Taekwondo is nothing but a repackaging of martial arts from Japan and China, which I simply don't buy -- that goes too far. Finally, I don't think it's fair to say that someone else is responsible for the edit war; it takes two to tango.

As a compromise, can we not simply agree to state that, for a variety of reasons, Chinese and Japanese martial arts influenced the development of Taekwondo, and leave it at that? Omnedon (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I added 'strong' in place of the previous 'heavy'. I thought that was a weaker word and that it therefore moved toward further compromise; the previous edit had simply removed the qualifier, which is misleading when one looks, to cite just one example, at the initial hyung which were clearly taken wholesale from the Japanese system. As to the "All the Kwans..." statement, it's verbatim from the referenced source. The previous paragraph mentions that Japanese, Chinese, and Korean influences were present; this statement indicates that all Kwans taught specifically Japanese-influenced systems. I am of the opinion that TKD was originally repackaged Shotokan that has clearly been much modified since then. There was too little left of the KMAs post-Japanese occupation. The origins of the system were Japanese, and as usual in the Orient each culture denies that there has been any outside influence on that. Hence many maintain that Yudo and Gumdo are without Japanese influence. In the interests of compromise I am not saying things nearly that strongly. In any event, to simply say, as you suggest, that the development of Taekwondo was 'influenced' by outside arts fails to communicate how heavily dependent the initial KMAs of the 1940s/50s were on Japanese martial arts.

I don't see how failing to continue responding here when I asked whether we all agreed on a consensus article could have been construed as helpful. If editors won't discuss things on Talk pages, then they surely have no place complaining about the consensus that emerges? JJL (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem was that I found it difficult to make much headway toward compromise. As I said, it seems to me that we simply stepped back from the issues for a while. I know I did. Other parts of my life (both in and out of Wikipedia) drew me away for a while. In any case, I personally have done very few edits as part of this particular discussion.

You often refer to "consensus" on this issue. We do not have consensus, as seems plainly indicated by this talk page. So far there have been three editors -- you, melonbarmonster, and me -- primarily involved in this discussion of non-Korean influences on Taekwondo. I am not sure that you can claim consensus in the face of disagreement, from the other two parties, on how best to indicate the nature of the non-Korean influence (which was already indicated in the article). We understand that it wasn't indicated as strongly as you personally wish. I would point out, however, that the "external / foreign influence" section existed with relatively little change in the year prior to your edits in November. That doesn't mean it was perfect, or complete; it simply mean that it was tacitly accepted for quite a while.

I'm sure that there is common ground. Perhaps we can tone things down a bit, assume good faith, and try to keep in mind that we all want the same thing: a better Taekwondo article. Omnedon (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More on TKD and Karate

I've given some secondary sources previously; here are some tertiary sources. My Funk & Wagnalls doesn't list TKD nor does it list any KMA under martial arts, despite taking up two whole shelves on my bookcase. From Encyclopedia Britannica Online: "Korean art of unarmed combat that is based on the earlier form of Korean self-defense known as tae kyon and on karate." [3]; Choi Hong Hi "was credited with having developed tae kwon do in the 1940s by combining elements of other Asian martial arts forms." [4]. From MSN Encarta: "The roots of tae kwon do go back thousands of years. In 1955 a number of similar schools of martial arts were merged, and the resulting style was named tae kwon do. An important figure in this effort was Choi Hong Hi, a Korean general who worked to combine a traditional Korean foot-fighting technique called tae kyon with Japanese karate." [5]. From The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English: "a modern Korean martial art similar to karate." [6].

Forgive me for citing Wikipideia, but: "The Chung Do Kwan was founded by Lee Won Kuk (이원국). GM Lee earned "the highest Dan rank" in Shotokan karate training under Gichin Funakoshi at Chuo University in Japan. After graduating from Chuo University, GM Lee continued his training at the Shotokan under Funakoshi Gichin Sensei's son, Funakoshi Yoshitaka Sensei, who taught the night classes at the Shotokan. GM Lee also traveled to China and Okinawa studying martial arts technique, history, and philosophy. He returned to Korea in January 1944 because of the bombing raids on Tokyo at the time. He eventually opened the Chung Do Kwan"; "GM Lee explains how he came up with the name Chung Do Kwan: "I was sitting on the beach in Korea watching the waves crash onto the shore. The name Shotokan in Korean is pronounced Song Do Kwan and means Pine Waves School. It then suddenly hit me that the name Blue Waves (Chung Do) would be a good name for the school, so I came up with the name Chung Do Kwan. I didn't want to call my school the Song Do Kwan because a child should have a different name than the father.""; "Although the name "Taekwondo" was proposed in 1955 by Chung Do Kwan students, it was slow to catch on among other Kwan Heads (Kwan Jang). Two of the other Kwan Jang preferred the name "Kong Soo Do" (Way of the Empty Hand). Some felt that "Kong Soo Do" would be more easily understood by potential students, in the same way that many people are familiar with the term "Karate". This idea was quickly voted down in meetings with various Kwan Heads. As a result, a compromise name -- "Tae Soo Do" -- began to be used. A few years later, the name "Tae Kwon Do" was adopted by all Kwans because it was similar in sound to the ancient Korean kicking game of Taekkyon." [7] (please don't feel compelled to go edit away that page's editors' work to suit the stilted views here). That's how it worked. Note, this is the first Kwan listed here and as I have repeatedly said, it isn't just Japanese-influenced, it was originally Japanese and was modified and renamed for a variety of reasons, including Korean-centrism.

Look at the section listing the Kwans, where I have said that Mitchell said they were all Japanese-influenced. Follow a link to the page of one of the kwans. Here's another (Moo Duk Kwan): "Hwang Kee wrote of his study on Karate books. He learned Japanese Kata and taught them" [8]. It also speaks of his studying Chinese arts and Korean arts, though his study of Korean arts is disputed.

What more do you want? What is now TKD began as Shotokan, for the most part. Your fellow editors agree. So do the references penned by disinterested authors. The claim that TKD began as a Korean art, 2000 years old, is revisionist history due to pro-Korean and anti-Japanese sentiment. It really isn't disputed by serious sources. JJL (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

JJL, none of these sources state that TKD was Shotokan karate. In fact, every single reference, including wiki articles, you gave disagrees with your position and takes the view that early Korean MA school were karate influenced. This is the the vast majority view in all these references.melonbarmonster (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these sources say that TKD was Shotokan karate. It says that as plain as day; I don't see how a reasonable person could conclude otherwise. Yet, I don't know why you keep coming back to that. Although that's true, I don't propose to put it in the article. The article makes the much weaker compromise claim "combination of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean influences" and I'm OK with that. You keep arguing against something I am not proposing to include in the article but merely showing you in hopes of making you understand why the current compromise position is a compromise.

My position remains that the article is acceptable as is, and I don't propose to add additional information to it as you would surely continue your reversions. These (low-quality) sources back up the stronger claim, but I am only arguing for the weaker claims in the article. This will be much more fruitful if we stick to that. What part of the current article do you find unacceptable? JJL (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a short list of other sites that to a greater or lesser degree credit a mix of Shotokan (as the base) with Taek Kyon as "Korean foot fighting" or the like: "developed using elements of the ancient Korean martial art of Taek Kyon and of Shotokan karate" [9], "Modern-day Taekwondo is influenced by many other Martial Arts. The most important of these arts is Japanese Karate." [10], "in Soeul in 1944. At that time, Tae Kwon Do was predominantly Okinawan /Japanese (2) Karate with minor contributions from Chinese Chuan Fa. The original kwans taught Okinawan/Japanese kata, wore gis; and the art taught was Karate with an increasingly Korean flavor." (attrib. to R.E. Dohrenwend, PhD) [11], "Taekwondo is actually only about 40 years old, and for a good portion of that time, it was simply an imitation of Shotokan karate.", "Until the 1960s, Taekwon Do was essentially the same as Shotokan Karate." [[12]], [13] (same text as previous link?). Apart from possibly the Dohrenwend material (if verified) this isn't really good reference material for the article but does indicate the prevailing opinion. JJL (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are all self published sources that are expressly deemed as invalid for use as references in wiki. If the Dohrenwend article was published please show us the proper link. Moreover, none of these sources justify the edits you are forcing with Edit Warring. Please read WP:NOT, this isn't a forum to discuss ideas and certainly a place for you to "prove" your position beyond edit related issues that improve the article.melonbarmonster (talk) ==00:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Truth about Taekwondo (Parts 1,2)" by Robert Dohrenwend Ph.D. ("the chief editor of the Journal of Martial Arts, from Syracuse University" [14]), Dragon Times #22-23 [15] (continued in Classical fighting Arts #1,2 [16]); excerpt here [17]. 209.216.217.87 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A Karate fanmag named Dragon Times eh... good grief.melonbarmonster (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Times and its replacement Classical Fighting Arts are well-respected, serious magazines with editorial boards. Classical Fighting Arts is endorsed by the The Library Journal [18]. You have asked for references to support my position but seem unwilling to investigate them. Here's a well-regarded magazine whose chief editor, doctorally-trained by a major research university, wrote a series of articles on the matter; yet, you dismiss it based solely on its name. This makes me doubt whether your requests for references and discussion is sincere or merely a stalling tactic. Again, I ask that you investigate this (series of) references, including the reliability of the media, so that we may have an informed discussion of them. When you ignore such sources then revrt changes while accusing me of edit warring, I certainly assume it is you who are being disingenuous in making that accusation. JJL (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

An article by Prof. Steven D. Capener of Ehwa University, Korea (at the time, he was writing his Ph.D. dissertation in sport Philosophy at Seoul National University) that appeared in the (peer-reviewed, ISI--indexed) Korea Journal (Winter 1995 [19]) [20] and is also available here [21]:

This process of development can be broadly outlined as follows: Japanese karate called

kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors. Well after these schools became established, the need to "Koreanize" was felt. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and

development within the historical flow of Korean civilization.

While attempting to escape the stigma of Japanese karate through the creation of a new

system of techniques based on competition, Korean t'aegwondo had already put itself in a quandary by asserting that its origin was rooted in traditional Korean martial arts such as subakhui or t'aekkyon. So while the nature of t'aegwondo was developing towards that of a martial sport of unique Korean creation and away from its Japanese nature of a martial art of self-defense, t'aegwondo leaders were unable or unwilling to

acknowledge t'aegwondo Japanese origins.

Again, this article by an academically-trained, well-informed professor in an academic journal justifies the relatively strong (but correct) claim that TKD is Karate, re-packaged. All objective studies of this matter agree. This isn't a novel or even controversial claim amongst those knowledgeable about the subject. I'm told that an essay by Simon O'Neil in his newsletter helps explain the perceived but indirect taekkyon influence but have been unable to examine it. JJL (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you.

funny. It is POV fork source. Wikipedia:Content forking ANyway, good academic source. but You pick a Japanese nationalism/POV in favor of well-sourced facts. Whatever your POV fork, Your Japanese favor source did not authorized by TKD organization. It is some type of "minority report'. That is not orthodox story. It is good source for Japanese favor POV. But, can you prove another academic source? but you can't. Manacpowers (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also i checked your encyclopedia(your favored soureces), However, it does not mean TKD is koreanized karate. Some Chinese martial arts(modified by japanese) karate's technique mixed with TKD. and TKD grade system borrowed from karate. but TKD and Karate are highly difference each other. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. first, TKD based on Korean traditional martial arts.(some mixed with foreign martial arts) mainly derived from tekkyon. and main techniques are kicking. but karate is not. also TKD is more dynamic than karate. Most of TKD technique are based on tekkyon. Song Duk-ki was the grand master of tekkyon. [22]

also This is good evidence videos that TKD and Karate are highly differente.

A Note to Manicpowers

Manicpowers, why do you keep refuting the Japanese lineage? Please read some textbooks. Look at any early TKD text by Richard Chun, Sihak Henry Cho, or any biography of a TKD founding father such as Gen Choi, Jhoon Rhee and Ki Whang Kim. They ALL had experience in Karate or what was referred to as, “Tang Soo Do”. This is not a POV push, it's a fact. I think you have a colossal misunderstanding of the history of both TKD and TSD. You tell editors to provide facts, yet when they do, you say these facts push some Japan-centric agenda. No one is saying anything negative or positive about either of these countries. No one is disputing the hard work and dedication that it takes to master any of these arts. But come on, it is clear as DAY; what we know as modern Tae Kwon Do started out as version of Shotokan, and there is NOTHING wrong with that. No one disputes that there are indigenous Korean martial arts, but everything about Tang Soo Do and TKD indicates a STRONG Japanese/Okinawan lineage, from the colored belts to the uniform, to the initial terminology. Every father of TKD studied Karate (Tang Soo) do. If you want to keep these web pages factually accurate, keep all of the folklore and pro-Korea inaccuracies out of the page. No hard feelings here, I am sure you are a great person and all, but you need to put facts, not hearsay, on wikepedia. Do me a favor, go to this site: http://budget.net/~dnolan/master.html and read this, [The translated version of "A Modern History of Taekwondo", written by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong, in the Korean language. Dan Nolan is one of the most knowledgeable and respectable TSD practitioners in the US. He has a direct line to Hwang Kee, and does not have an agenda. Also, if look up information on the authors of the paper, or any of the kwan leaders, and you can see that this document is pretty close to being dead on. The authors are reputable. You can even validate this document with any texts authored by Hwang Kee. Whoever JJL is seems to know what he/she is talking about. Let his/her edits be, unless of course there are huge grammatical errors. Speaking of grammatical errors, please keep yours to a minimum; it greatly weakens your credibility and does a great disservice to the site. I understand that a few typos are to be expected, but your use of grammar is, in my opinion, substandard and borderline illegible.

<fighting style>

• Karate Fighting style video [23]
• TKD Fighting style video [24]

<kick technique>

• Karate 540 degree kick [25]
• TKD 540 degree kick [26]
• TKD 900 degree kick [27]
• Karate 900 degree kick? none.

Manacpowers (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to agree with JLL. Having spoken directly to Choi Jung Hwa about his childhood and his training, as well as having trained in both the Heians and Chang H'on patterns it is evident that, in the beginning, Taekwondo was Koreanised Karate. They originally learnt the Heians (also called the Pyong-ahns, which are almost identical to the Pinans and which are used in TSD and some schools of Chung Do Kwan to this day) and then the CHang H'on were developed. If you look at the content of the patterns, the kicks and techniques (including reinforced bloke aka morote uke) are exactly those contained in the older Japanese patterns. However, the other kicks (mostly the spinning, jumping, jump spinning etc) that are not in the patterns were added into the Taekwondo syllabus making it a more Korean martial art. There is an argument that Patterns are supposed to be the heart of any martial art. With that in mind, compare the two sets of patterns, especially the earlier 5 of each system and you'll see the clear links. However, since Karate means (now) 'empty hand', and because there are many completely different schools of Karate (look at Taido) it can STILL be argued that Taekwondo is Karate. That's probably just semantics.

Even more interesting is that the ITF adopted the raised hand chamber, whereas the WTF use the age-old Karate chamber in their techniques. Their stances are also generally shorter (compare Taeguk Il-Jang to Chon Ji for example) and the movements much quicker, making them even more similar to the Pyong-ahn/Pinan patterns.

I've also examined Taekkyon and have found that although some kicks such as the crescent kick are similar, there is still so much that is different in the way that they move and also kick. Some kicks may have been brought into the TKD syllabus but on the whole, most of the additional kicks are just variations of the basic front kick, side kick and roundhouse, only with more jumps or spins.

Also, having looked at the videos I fail to see the point you're making. One 540 kick wasn't as high as the other so that proves that TKD isn't Karate? Have a look at Freestyle Karate and you'll see another type of kick. Get two different TKD guys together and you'll see a difference.

Also the fighting, you're using a WTF demo team to highlight the differences. Using that example you could compare ITF TKD with WTF/Kukkiwon and say that one or the other isn't Taekwondo. In fact you could compare the patterns of the two and say that they're not Taekwondo, or that they are Karate. You could also compare the terms that the ITF and WTF use and come to the conclusion that they're not the same art. ITF says 'rising block', WTF says 'Face block'. ITF says 'inward outer forearm block', WTF says 'Inner forearm block'. Compare the chambers of the two with a Karate chamber and you'll have an even more confused view. The ITF would stand out as being completely different from both, with the WTF sharing a similar chamber for the blocks as a 'Karate' system and yet different techniques and patterns. These videos do nothing for the debate at all.

Ptkd (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims of Consensus and Edit Warring

Hopefully, we can at least all agree that there was no consensus and that that the the parties involved in discussing edits in question are myself, JLL and Omnedon. Can we agree to restore the article back to its last state of consensus and work on an agreement here in the talk page? JLL, Omnedon and I had stepped away and refrained from engaging in edit warring per wiki policy, WP:EW. Please show us some reciprocation so that we can work this out civilly as possible.melonbarmonster (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing things on the Talk page, as is apparent from reading it. The last state of consensus is the stable version of the last couple of months. You and Omnedon seem quite comfortable speaking for one another, but he said that "Other parts of my life [...] drew me away for a while." That isn't stepping back for the reasons you indicate. I don't know why you declined to discuss matters here, but as you're back we can surely pick up where we left off. But you can't withdraw from discussion and claim that your total radio silence meant non-consensus. If you don't speak up, your opinion won't be counted. I can assure you that the lurkers support me in e-mail but I wouldn't expect you to give it much credence. The current state of the article represents the last and hence current consensus and so Yes, it's acceptable to me to leave it at the current state of consensus and then work from there via this Talk page. It's not reasonable to my mind to return "your" page to your favorite version despite the weight of sources to the contrary now that you're once again taking an active interest in it.

I am happy to discuss it from there. However, I think it's clear by now that we need more eyes on this, don't you? I suggest involving the WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts to get more opinions on the matter. However, I am leaving town for tomorrow for business and will be gone for nearly a week. I will have very limited Internet access while traveling. I propose we leave things as they are for the coming week, then I'll either read your arguments and sources here and respond, or we can involve more editors. Does this seem reasonable? JJL (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still claiming consensus when Omnedon and I have expressed disagreement with you as soon as you made your controversial edits. And you have the gall to claim our reluctance to not engage in revert warring as "declining to discuss matters"??? Even if that's what you genuinely thought, by this point Omnedon and I have made our positions clear and you are in no position to claim consensus unilaterally!

Right now, you have two editors who have disagreed and still disagree with you. You are enforcing your edits with unabashed Edit Warring and then claiming that you have CONSENSUS by yourself when two editors are expressing their disagreements with you???? You have two editors who disagree with you, no editors who agree with you and you claim consensus unilaterally??? How do you have consensus when you've been and still are the only supporter for your edits???

What kind of twisted logic is that?

You're right about this needing more eyes. I am considering further steps including asking for 3rd party comments and filing a report on your behavior on this board.

This is outright ridiculous regardless of our perspective positions may be.melonbarmonster (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your waiting while I traveled. I think getting more eyes on this is probably the best approach.

As to consensus: When I made a change to this page it was quickly reverted and I was told that I was making "uniltaeral edits" and "counter-edits" and indeed within about an hour and a half of appearing here on the Talk page you had (incorrectly) accused me of violating WP:3RR and of "revert warring", while saying that I must discuss all changes on the Talk page. (All this info. is plainly available here; note the times). After a few days of me providing references as per your request and seeing them ignored (e.g. here), you left.

I understand that you and Omnedon do not agree with the current state of the page. But it must be considered the most recent state of consensus; that means the burden is on you to present sources in favor of your arguments. (Note, all this was your own argument to me previously.) If you drop out of the conversation, for whatever reason, you can't expect Wikipedia to stand still for you, or that when you choose to return you'll be able to roll back the changes simply because they occurred while you were not participating. Such a policy would grind the site to a standstill. Of course we can and should discuss the matter here but the stable state of the past couple of months is the baseline. In the meantime, I certainly feel the Edit Warring has been done by you--blindly reverting changes, guarding the page, requesting references as a stalling and time-wasting tactic then ignoring them when supplied, and using inflamed rhetoric to paint others' actions as negative and your symmetric actions as positive.

I've been assuming that your plan is to make sufficiently many charges against me that you can get an admin to come here, take a cursory look at matters, see your many charges of edit warring and then take some action without spending the considerable amount of time that would be required to check the article and talk page histories for the actual facts. I have seen this "squeaky wheel" strategy work before and will not be surprised if it is successful here.

In summary, I am happy to discuss changes to the page here and attempt to reach a new consensus, but this will require that you investigate the references I supply, and provide references of your own. JJL (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious or you really trolling and pulling our legs here? The only editors until recently have been Omnedon, myself and you. Of the three of us YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION. You can't ignore every other editor's opinion and make unilateral changes by revert warring and then claim that's consensus! Now there are three editors who disagree with you. We've all been more than courteous by not engaging in revert warring. I ask once again for you to return the courtesy and undo your reverts.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Martial Arts

I asked for more eyes on this (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Taekwondo). It seemed simpler than mailing books to people. JJL (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation was suggested, but I'm trying a RfC first. JJL (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of Revised Romanization versus McCune-Reischauer

Per WP:MOS-KO, unless the terms have well-established romanized spellings already or is North Korea-specific, Revised Romanization should be used, rather than McCune-Reischauer. If there are reasons to deviate from that guideline, please give reasons. --Nlu (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection. JJL (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this article is in need of consistency. There should be one spelling of "Taekwondo", except in quotes, organization names, book titles, etc.  Randall Bart   Talk  01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In the recent past it was very consistent in that respect. However, some recent activity has changed that temporarily. Omnedon (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

JJL, you say you prefer "poom" but left "pum". Just to clarify, "pum" is in fact the Revised Romanization of 품. Omnedon (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't doubt that, which is why I left it; but we all become used to a certain spelling, and pum just doesn't register for me like poom does. I don't propose to change it. JJL (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct meaning of "kwon" (拳)

The article says:

kwon (拳) means to strike or smash with the hand

This does not appear to be correct. "Kwon" appears to be the same word as Mandarin quan (Cantonese kuen) which simply means "fist"; compare tai chi chuan, where chuan here is 拳. Perhaps someone with a better command of Korean than I have can confirm or reject this correction. -- Dominus (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right and this has been going back and forth forever. Unfortunately, uninformed and stubborn revert warriors or misinformed newbies often make these changes on wiki articles. User:Melonbarmonster|melonbarmonster]] (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Tae means '[[28]]' which I wouldn't translate as 'destroy with your feet'. I think it is obvious that the personed who named taekwondo actually wanted it to be 택권도 but didn't have a lot of knowledge of Chinese characters and picked the wrong character. The 택 coming from Taekgyeon of course, 脚. Kbarends (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

These (contentious) meanings are the ones applied to the characters by the founder of the art, and presumably the "uninformed and stubborn revert warriors or misinformed newbies" are simply correcting them based on this. I feel any discussion should be limited to facts based on actual knowledge, rather than whether an English transliteration of a Korean word "appears" to be the same as an English transliteration of a Chinese word. In addition, the meanings originate in 1950s Korea, when they may well have had a different understanding of the meaning of a word than the modern usage. Any opinions from 80-year old Koreans welcome! 212.50.184.130 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This probably originated from ITF Taekwon-Do. In the theory handbook I have, from ITFNZ (International Taekwon-Do Foundation of New Zealand), the meaning of Tae is "jumping or flying, to kick or smash with the foot," and Kwon "denotes the fist - chiefly to punch or destroy with the hand or fist." So I don't know.. Maybe it was just lost in translation somewhere. --Notquiteawesome (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what the words tae kwon do means. 태/跆 (tae or tái) means trample, it can mean "to destroy with the foot" but trample is more accurate. 권/拳 (gwon or quán) means fist, it does not mean "to destroy with the hand". 도/道 (do or dào) means way. 168.103.81.59 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Need confirmation

[29]According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems.

1. Don't Copy & Paste "One" sentence. It is POV sentence. We need whole article. You omitted whole article.

2. I doubt it is real book source or not.

3. Don't delete other proven source.

I responded to your comments on my Talk page. 1. Putting in the whole article (in fact, it's a book) would be a copy violation and senseless. 2. This is easily verified (e.g. through Amazon) with the info. provided. 3. I don't know to what you're referring here. JJL (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting in the whole article (in fact, it's a book) would be a copy violation and senseless. <- I did not say copy and paste from whole book. we need confirm from whole relation article. this is talk page. must confirm your claim. After confirm, delete is OK. if you can't, then don't put your sentence at this article. my source is clear. but your source is unclear.Manacpowers (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is perfectly clear. Do the lot of you want me to mail you books now, too? I've cited the source. Checking it is your job if you challenge it. This is precisely the sort of stalling tactic that has been used repeatedly here by the dogmatic protectors of this born-in-the-sands-of-time mythology--ask for sources then refuse to look at them, either by demanding the source be easily accessible online or declaring it unacceptable without investigation. Check WP:RS, WP:V, and of course the oh-so-relevant WP:OWN.

Sorry. Are you kidding me? The source is perfectly unclear. because, we can't read whole relation article. Who know? It is made by your brain? and You omitted other aticle. We need guess the meaning of a word from the context. Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what 'source' of yours you mean. JJL (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just give him a excerpt of the text in question. He's just asking for some confirmation. If you have access to the book just give it so we can all move forward and build come good faith and credibility which you're lacking here.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One more

The Overlook Martial Arts Handbook by David Mitchell [30]

first, We did not confirmed whole article from given source. 2nd, Author is an Englishman and a well known karate- and budo exponent and teacher. [31] This book written by karate teacher.(Originally Karate-JPOV book) not taekwondo book. also David Mitchell can't represent to all martial arts. Manacpowers (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on my Talk page. I'm afraid you have to actually view the source. Discounting anything written by someone who isn't already a TKD believer is precisely the problem. Please look at the book. JJL (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted, some of that information was copied verbatim from the Kukkiwon website, which is not the best practice; and granted, some of it needed re-writing; and granted, some of it may not have belonged in the article. However, having said that -- I think it's questionable to describe the entire addition as "nonsense". Omnedon (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"The martial art Taekkyondo(Taekwondo)had been secretly handed down only by the masters of the art"..."The masters of Taekkyondo were also under constant threat of imprisonment"...this is the sort of inaccurate (and POV) nonsense that I have repeatedly shown, via reliable sources, to be nationalistic propaganda. (I await a WP:RS verifying that only the masters taught it, and then only in secret.) That no one here will investigate said sources doesn't change the facts of the matter. I refer lurkers and those with open minds to the Capener article from Korea Journal cited above. Even the first ref. in the article, from the Korean Ministry of Culture and Tourism (!) and attrib. to Capener and Kim, describes Taekkyon as a game that essentially died out save possibly for one man who died in 1987 who still knew it. JJL (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems." "...this is the sort of inaccurate (and POV) nonsense that I have repeatedly shown, via reliable sources, to be nationalistic propaganda. (I await a WP:RS verifying that only the masters taught it, and then only in secret.) That no one here will investigate said sources doesn't change the facts of the matter. one karate teacher's karate POV book is reliable source? also He do not work for TKD. and his claim did not authorized from TKD organization. Last, That book is NOT academic source. That book is a martial arts paper book, it can't be a reliable source. if that book is reliable, then 'ninja training'[32] book is historical FACT and reliable source, too? nonsense. if i find 'origin of ninja is korea' from one book(actually, origin of ninja is china), that book is reliable, too? Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, David Mitchell book is 'nonsense'. He is a karate teacher. and his book is almost karate book. originally karate-pov book. also he can't represent to TKD. It is not trustworthy source.

All taught Japanese-influenced systems? first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technic. so 'heavily influenced from foreign' sentence is nonsense word.

2. Kukiwon is world TKD headquarter.

Which one is the more trust worthy? 1. one karate teacher's karate POV book 2. official TKD headquarter. millions of kukiwon dojo and TKD teachers

3. Please, away your book from this article. He is not TKD scholar. He do not work for TKD. and his claim did not authorized from TKD organization.

4. also Your edit is violated wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Content forking. and we did not confirm from whole article. Your source is unclear. but my source is clear.

5. if you keep David Mitchell's stupid claim(i still doubt it is real or not), it will be must actionable to attach 'hoax' tag. Manacpowers (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's equally well supported by the Capener and Burdick sources I have previously discussed. Get your history from your local university and your martial arts training from your local martial arts school rather than the other way around. Knowing a skill and knowing its history are two separate things.

I assume that Manacpowers is a sockpuppet account? JJL (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You think i am a melonbarmonster or somethiing? If you doubt this, just check He and me's IP. you believe me or not. i'm first participate in this article. do not mistake.Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe I tracked down all of JLL's so called sources, besides the books, and can tell you that most of them support the position that Karate was an influence and nothing more. At best the sources that claim taekwondo "originated from karate" is a vast minority view espoused by karate authors. This is getting out of hand. JLL's claims are so far-fetched and detached from reality and even his own sources.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Complete bullocks. You really feel that Capener's Korea Journal article doesn't support the claim that TKD originated in Karate? I've quoted from it above. JJL (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with being honest? What is your problem? You very well know that there are half a dozen articles from the Korea Journal to your Capener's article! You can't cherry pick the one article you like and ignore the vast majority view of the sources that are out there. You do this with sources and even in your revert warring in this wikipedia article! Learn to respect other people's view and the rules that we're all following here, please so we can move on to improving this article rather than wasting time and effort on pointless POV pushing.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you assert the existence of these sources but do not identify them. I would be delighted to investigate these half-dozen articles if you would only be so kind as to identify them for me. JJL (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddy, even most of your own sources state that TKD was "influenced" by karate and nothing more. The fact that you think admission of Japanese influence in references is some great novel revelation is a reflection of your own bias and ignorance that you're carrying over from other venue, my guess is some karate fan forum. The text already reflected the view that there are multiple influences in the construction of TKD as a martial art. You're the one who wants to challenge that with claims of TKD being "repackaged karate". That means you have to show evidence for your claims. That's how "burden of proof" works. I'm fine with the status quo. If you want some Korean perspectives for your own research and understanding of the topic, go do a search in the Korea Journal. ALL the articles except the one article you cited documents Korean origins of TKD.melonbarmonster (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

TKD originally from Karate

The reliable sources are unanimous in saying that TKD originated from Karate, principally Shotokan: Capener in the Korea Journal, a peer-reviewed academic journal; Dohrwend in the respected and carefully edited Dragon Times/Classical Fighting Arts; Burdick in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA. The only arguments against these sources have been that, e.g., the WP:OR that the "first 2 pages of Burdick's article is downright goofy and his article is well known for being erroneus" and the complaint that copies of the sources haven't been personally provided to the anonymous posters here. Is there a serious, informed objection to stating the facts as per these respected, unbiased, and verifiable sources--that TKD began as Japanese Karate and was later modified to suit Korean cultural needs? JJL (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Burdick's article has been thoroughly panned and is a joke among people who know anything about Korean history. The first two pages of the Burdick article contain historical falsities that are downright comical.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

JJL is Japanese Pushing POV Troll

You did not prove any readable source. first of all, Fighting style is very different. as i know, only 17% TKD techniques similar with karate. 13% are kung-fu. other are original technique.(derived from Song Duk-ki, the tekkyon master) mainly derived from tekkyon's kicking technic. so 'heavily influenced from foreign' sentence is nonsense word.

and Karate is not Japanese made. It is invented by china. karate was carbon copy of chinese Tang arts. even karate learned korean never say karate is orgin from japan.(they called as "Tang soo do". They did not called as "空"手. They called as "唐"手.) they say it's originate from chinese "Tang" dynasty martial arts. it's not japan's.

also chinese encyclopedia said,

" 空手道,是由距今五百年前的古老格斗术和中国传入日本的拳法揉合而成的。那时，在硫球上层阶级间，暗中参考中国的拳法创出了独特 的唐手，即最初的'空手道'。"

they say it's originate from Chinese Tang dynasty arts.

Chinese and Korean same said like that.

origin of 空手道(karate) name.

"から：汉字为"空"；这个字的解释有二：一为空,空手,手无寸铁;Kara亦可解释做"唐"的意思,唐者,唐朝也,唐代中国进 入盛势,唐人即是中国人.故karate亦可解做唐手,即中国的手技也.但因子十年前日本统一Karate为空手,故其汉字(k anji)亦废用唐手此名. "(from chinese encyclopedia)

Chinese and 唐手道 learned korean say that karate originally from chinese Tang dynasty martial arts. They did not say, it is invented by Japan. do not mistake. Check korean researched academic source. [33](in Korean) They did not say it is invented by japan. Karate is Chinese martial arts(some modified by japanese). Manacpowers (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'TKD originally from Karate?' I think that you are not constructive editor. you are Japanese POV pushing user. Your only source is one karate teacher's book.(also can't readable to other. and did not authorized from TKD)

but i admit, TKD accepted Grade system (Dan), practice suit(道服) from karate. (borrowd some 'system') but karate originally from Chinese. Manacpowers (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you're now using this account to spread the same nonsense to all KMA-related articles, such as Korean martial arts and TSD. JJL (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, everyone.

JJL is Japanese Pushing POV user. He find 'one sentence' from one matial arts paper book. and claimed that "TKD originally from Karate!".(actually, that book written by karate teacher. page cover is karate(空手), too[34]) I really sick and tired of this Japanese Pushing POV user. most important thing is FACT. but JJL is not FACT. He picked from unclerar and unreadable source. and He edited like this "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."[35] ALL Japanese taught? I pointed out THIS IS LIE and extreme POV.Manacpowers (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, POV forker JJL. Don't touch anything. first of all, please prove academic source, admit by TKD organization. You pick a Japanese nationalism/POV in favor of well-sourced facts. After all, you cut and paste only convenient records for you. Your change is based on Japanese nationalism/POV in favor of well-sourced facts.(it did not authrized by TKD. and minority report) My change is based on orthodox source. from TKD official website. Your change is JPOV. my change is based on TKD official website. so my edit is more suitable for encyclopedia. even ITF TKD founder also learend karate skill, it is not mean TKD is karate. TKD arts developed by korean's own skill. Manacpowers (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Manacpowers, first of all, as I already requested - be civil and refrain from personal attacks. Secondly, you are definitely right that Wikipedia hast to rely on verifiable and reliable resources. They should be as free of POV as possible - therefore definitely "Japanese nationalist", as you call them, sources should be treated with caution, but similarly, same caution should be applied towards the sources approved by TKD organization (after all they have their own interests in proving a long and separate tradition, I don't think that what an organization writes about itself has to necessarily be historically exact). I would suggest looking for academic sources to make your point, or even popular specialized magazines (similar e.g. to Black Belt, but as long as they do not cover only one particular style). Pundit|utter 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many academic journals that document a Korean origin perspective that I've cited and listed in the course of this talk page, not to mentioned internet sources that are NOT self-published and appropriate reference material. Moreoever, many sources that JLL cites to support his extreme POV position that taekwondo is "repackaged shotokan karate" in reality support the position that taekwondo was karate influenced which is the position of the vast majority in references and the original text of this article.

What I object to is JLL's revert warring and the unilateral edits he is making in spite of the fact that ALL 4 editors who have voiced their opinion on this matter have disagreed with him. He is the SOLE supporter of his edits and yet the rest of us have shown him the courtesy of not engaging in revert warring only for him to abuse our courtesy and claim his unilateral edits are consensus. This has to stop.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you jest--why would I need to be reverting if others are not? No one is willing to iteratively edit the article--it's all wholesale reversions. You have repeatedly refused to discuss things here while reverting all changes. JJL (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to out revert EVERY SINGLE EDITOR here??? You are the SOLE supporter of your view. Every other editor here has expressed disagreement with your edits. Learn to follow the rules like everyone else.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion by JJL

Instead of simply reverting, how about retaining agreed-upon changes such as the changes from taekwondo-->Taekwondo? Everyone has been asking for consistency in that regard. JJL (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you drag me into your drama? I undid your revert, so change my name with you name. Don't push your agenda to people.--Appletrees (talk)

Zen Koen Logic at work here?

JLL, you can't single-handedly force your edits with revert warring. There are now 6 editors who have voiced disagreement to your SINGLE voice. Stop reverting other editors' edits and let other people participate in this article. What kind of zen kuen logic makes it possible that JLL can claim consensus as the sole, single supporter of his position against all the editors who have contributed to this discussion thus far? Even editors who have passionately disagreed on previous edits have been single voiced in expressing their disagreement with your behavior here. Please return the courtesy that we've extended you and show a little good faith so that we can make progressive improvements to this article.melonbarmonster (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Origins of Taekwondo

Is it appropriate to emphasize a Japanese origin of TKD (in Karate; e.g., this version [36]), or a Korean origin (in Taekkyon; e.g., this version [37] or the now-current version)?

NOTE: I'd suggest this section is used by people who have not yet been involved with this argument (initially) as what is needed is external views, comments on these views are fair but if this is broken up by long rants it will defeat the object of an RfC, also give it time for comments I'd suggest reverting to a pre-argument version (i.e. the last consensus) until this is settled as a 'voluntary protection' --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my comments on the martial arts project talk page after it was raised there:

• OK the origins are complex and controversial. Would stating the controversy giving a brief summary of the sides had starting an article called History of Taekwondo where the opinions can be listed in full be the sensible resolution?
  P.S. for the record my own opinion is that that most likely there were native Korean arts that integrated techniques from other arts in the area, primarily China and Japan. Just as Japanese and Chinese arts took from each other and probably some techniques developed in Korea, saying any of them developed in isolation and that no one learned to fight by trial and error seems naive. The extent and net direction of influence is a subject for academic debate and not Original Research here if authorities can't agree on it then we present both sides & wait for them to finish arguing. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The view that's reflected in the text and the view that was agreed upon through long and arduous discussion from various editors is that taekwondo is a MA constructed by Korean martial artists from Chinese, Japanese and Native influences. Different sources from different POV put different emphasis on which orgin but that kind of POV pushing should be toned down. JLL came in and started to make inflammatory and hyperbolic claims such as "TKD is repackaged shotokan", changing "foreign infuence" to "Japanese and Chinese influence", and adding Japanese influences in the text while single-handed forcing his edits by revert warring in spite of EVERY SINGLE EDITOR who have been discussing and respecting each other in participating in this article for a long time. I don't care if it's pro-Korean, pro-Chinese or pro-martian POV, you can't revert war your POV into the article by revert warring with half a dozen other editors. That's just unacceptable.melonbarmonster (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Japanese origins

Collected into one place for convenience.

Strong sources

• Steven D. Capener, Ph.D. (formerly a professor at Ehwa University, Korea), "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes"; in the (peer-reviewed, ISI--indexed) Korea Journal (Winter 1995 [38]) [39], also available here [40]:

This process of development can be broadly outlined as follows: Japanese karate called

kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors. Well after these schools became established, the need to "Koreanize" was felt. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and

development within the historical flow of Korean civilization.

While attempting to escape the stigma of Japanese karate through the creation of a new

system of techniques based on competition, Korean t'aegwondo had already put itself in a quandary by asserting that its origin was rooted in traditional Korean martial arts such as subakhui or t'aekkyon. So while the nature of t'aegwondo was developing towards that of a martial sport of unique Korean creation and away from its Japanese nature of a martial art of self-defense, t'aegwondo leaders were unable or unwilling to

acknowledge t'aegwondo Japanese origins.

The article was written while he was completing his doctoral studies.

• Dakin Burdick, M.A., "People & Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years," volume 6, issue 1 (1997) [41], in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Asian Martial Arts:

The Japanese ban on martial arts in Korea was lifted in 1943, first for

judo and then for karatedo and Chinese martial arts. For the two years before Japan’s surrender, the martial arts enjoyed a new popularity in Korea. The actions of Korean martial artists in Korea in those days remains largely unknown (Corcoran & Farkas, 1983:128).

At least four Japanese martial arts remained popular in Korea after liberation, albeit under their Koreanized names. Koreans continued to study yudo (judo), kumdo (kendo), yusul (jujutsu), and kongsudo (karatedo). The Korean Yudo Association was founded in October 1945 by Lee Mum-suk and Han Jin-hee; the Korean Kumdo Association (KKA) was organized in Seoul in 1948. The KKA became affiliated with the Korean Amateur Sports Association on November 20, 1953, and in the same year the Korean Yudo College was founded with Dr. Lee Je-hwang as its first president. Both yudo and kumdo remained virtually unchanged from their Japanese namesakes. On the other hand, yusul and kongsudo have changed greatly since Korean liberation. Yusul developed into hapkido and all of its derivatives (kuksul, hwarangdo, etc.), while kongsudo would eventually go through the greatest changes of all, developing into tangsudo and taekwondo.

The various schools of kongsudo retained much of the style of karatedo for many years, including the various karatedo kata. Many tangsudo schools today still retain the karatedo forms. As late as 1965, Choi Hong-hi (the

“father of taekwondo”) was still teaching Shorin-ryu and Shorei-ryu forms

The article contains a great deal of additional information. For more on JAMA see here [42], including the Library Journal recommendation of it. Expanded version of the article here [43].

• Robert Dohrenwend, Ph.D., "The Truth about Taekwondo (Parts 1,2)", Dragon Times #22-23 [44] (continued in Classical Fighting Arts #1,2 [45]); excerpt here [46]:

Tae kwon do is a recent South Korean invention, and much of the distortion in tae kown do's developmental history as a martila art is due to the political and social influence ecercised during the 40 years that these three dictators were in power within South Korea.

During the early 1950's the South Korean government interfered with karate in Korea with the intent of converting it into a major new competitive sport, one that the Koreans cold dominate and which would bring international recognition and prestige to Korea. This new martial art/sport was to be 100% indigenous

He continues:

Its history begins with the opening of the Chunb do Kwan dojang in Seoul in 1944. Five more kwans (schools or styles) were subsequently founded during the perion 1944 to 1946. The six original Korean instructors had been students at Japanese universities and /or soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army, and learned karate in Japan, returning to Korea having earned dan (black belt) rank. The students in the six early kwans studied Japanese kata and wore gis, the art was karate with an increasingly Korean flavor.

Dragon Times and its replacement Classical Fighting Arts are well-respected, serious magazines with academically-trained editorial boards. Classical Fighting Arts is endorsed by the The Library Journal.

• Stanley Henning, M.A., "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000):

Henning argues that the KMAs of the pre-Japanese colonization period were heavily dependent on CMAs and that thinking of 19th century taekkyon as a comprehensive martial art is a misunderstanding of what was more a pushing/shoving technique/game. Here's the conclusion of the article:

However, (traditional Korean martial arts) appear to have been almost totally abandoned by the beginning of the twentieth century.

The evidence does not allow us to say, as some claim, that the tradtitional military skill, subak, was directly related to taekwondo(...)Taekwondo, for the most part, appears to be a post-Korean War product, developed primarily from what Koreans called tangsudo (karate) introduced during the period of Japanese rule.

The traditional Korean martial arts are but a vague memory and taekwondo a symbol born in the cradle of modern Korean nationalism(...)

On Prof. Henning's credentials and the regard in which his work is held see [47], [48], [49].

Commentary

Minor disclaimer, not Ehwa University, Ewha Women's University. And I don't the person with Ph.D degree is a female. --Appletrees (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, he is neither a professor of archeology and physical education department nor a serious scholar. He is just an English instructor who happens to love practicing Taekwondo. [50] --Appletrees (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From the abstract page: "Steven D. Capener received his B.A. in Sport Science from the University of Montana and his M.A. in Sport Philosophy from Seoul National University in 1994. He is currently writing his Ph.D. dissertation in sport Philosophy at Seoul National University." [51] It's unclear to me how you know that he is not a "serious scholar." Note that his work and Burdick's work are among the short list of martial arts material on the Korean Bibliography maintained by The Center for Korean Studies of the University of Hawaiʻi [52]: [53], [54], showing again, these are high-quality, reviewed, respected, academic sources...that plainly state that Japanese Karate was refashioned into a (now distinct) Korean art that came to be called Taekwondo. Incidentally, several other Korea Journal and Journal of Asian Martial Arts sources are cited there, attesting to the respect in which they are held by academics. JJL (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out your quotation is inaccurate. He is working as an English instructor but not a professor in any department at the university as you misguided. I know of the system more than you know. I don't think he is still a serious scholar at all. --Appletrees (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "formerly" as I am not certain he is still employed there. It doesn't matter whether he is still working as an academic. JJL (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Not all references are equal and we have to go with the more credible references if possible. And an article from an English teacher in Korea and a PhD academic are very different things. I find it incredible that you think this small distinction doesn't matter.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new here

JLL, we've already gone over these sources. You know very well that the vast majority of academic sources including the ones I've already given clearly support the position that TKD is karate influenced. These articles also do not support your revert warring and changing "foreign" to "Japanese and Chinese", et.. And the fact that you're still harping on the Burdick article that contains laughable claims about Korean history doesn't lend credibility to your cause. It makes it seem as if you do not know anything about Korean, East Asian history and can't discern what's credible or not. Please try to be responsive and respectful to the discussion that has been going on in this talk page.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We have not gone over these sources. You have repeatedly asked for sources then declined to discuss them. I understand that you do not find the Burdick source acceptable; as I have indicated, the Center for Korean Studies of the University of Hawaiʻi does find Burdick acceptable. The question is, Whose opinion on Korean Studies is more reliable--yours, or theirs?

You continue to claim that you have comparable academic sources yet I do not recall you producing them. You made a passing reference to a Korea Journal article but that is all. Perhaps you could start your own section and indicate these sources as I have with the above sources. Then a discussion might ensue. JJL (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the Burdick article in a footnote doesn't make the comic claims about Korean history in the Burdick article true. And no the University of Hawaii CKS does not support Burdick's claims. They would find it just as amusing as I do. I've given you sources JLL. Go back and look it up. I actually paid attention and read every reference you gave. This would a lot easier if you do the same and admit to things that you yourself know is true.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

On this Talk page and in the Archives are many other sources of varying quality. In fact, lookingthrough the Archives is enlightening. A good reference is Mitchell, David (1988). The Overlook Martial Arts Handbook. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 161, which states explicitly that all the initial schools in post-War Korea taught Japanese-influenced systems. (See also The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary by Emil Farkas and John Corcoran (Overlook Press, 1983), pg.260.) Several tertiary sources (onloine encyclopediae) and web sites are cited here: Talk:Taekwondo#More_on_TKD_and_Karate.

"Japanese influenced" means exactly that and contradicts your claims that TKD is of Shotokan karate origins or that TKD is "repackaged Shotokan". This source actually supports the the consensus before your disruptive and disrespectful POV pushing which is that TKD is a construction made up of Japanese, Chinese and indigenous Korean influences. The fact that you think this article supports your view is quite illustrative of how distorted your POV pushing is.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay cool :) "Japanese influenced" is not contradictory from "being derived from Shotokan", but I don't think the intention of the editor was to claim this as a hard fact statement. Perhaps some wording changes will do the magic? It seems to me that nobody disputes the fact that taekwondo had a period of drawing a little from karate (as a result of occupation and dynamic karate development). Btw, I'm wondering where in all that is kyoksul... Pundit|utter 22:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with being cool or not cool but I'm not cool with one editor revert warring with half a dozen other editors and ignoring consensus and wiki editing rules. Also, let's not equivocate and try to be clear as possible: JJL's position was that TKD is "repackaged shotokan" and NOT that TKD was "derviced from Shotokan"(toned down claim although I still would have a problem with this). It is more reasonable to claim that a vein of derivation comes from Shotokan. That supports the majority consensus that TKD's construction is made of up both foreign and indigenous influences or ingredients. This was and is what the text currently reflects which JJL has tried to change with the stated view that TKD was "repackaged TKD"! We have to be clear on this.

JJL's has been asked to tone down his dismissive attitude from the beginning by editors who have disagreed in the past, but JJL has spurned courtesy extended to him from the beginning even claiming other editors' refusal to engage in revert warring as consensus. We've all heard it before. Furthermore for the guy to ignore and revert war his inflammatory claims into the article in spite of EVERY single editor(i counted 6) voicing their disagreement with him is unacceptable behavior no matter what your POV is.melonbarmonster (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a claim that "TKD is a repackaged Shotokan" is unfair and, frankly, not very encyclopedic either. I'm sure you're familiar with 3 reverts rule - if anybody violates it, it is a clear ground for reporting the user and blocking. Pundit|utter 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but the 3RR is not permission to engage in revert warring upto 3 reverts.melonbarmonster (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No one ever proposed to put in the article a claim that "TKD is a repackaged Shotokan" (or at least, I didn't, though as Capener, Burdick, and Dohrwend all indicate, the claim is not far off). I proposed to say it derived from Shotokan. The rest of the hyperbolic claims are simply a form of rhetorical warfare. From the time I came here, Melonbarmonster reverted my changes wholesale, removed fact tags requesting citations, and hurled accusations rather than sources. It's an attempt to position himself for eventual admin intervention here, I presume--the hope that a harried admin will simply assume that whoever has been screaming the loudest and longest is the aggrieved party. The person guilty of refusing to engage in discussion here or to work cooperatively on edits rather than simply reverting is not me, as an examination of the history logs would show.

I keep putting up sources for discussion, but that doesn't seem to be off interest to people. JJL (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2008 (

A karate practicing editor has stated your claims are unfair and unencyclopedic above. I don't know if you're confused or being dishonest here. For the record, I removed the fact tag and inserted a reference in its place. You deleted my reference reinserted the fact tag and then complained that I deleted your fact tag. A fact tag is a request for citation! If another editor meets your fact tag request, you need to respect the citation or voice comments in the talk page. You can't delete someone else's reference!!! You exhibited this level of brazen disrespect for rules over and over again.

We've also gone over your sources already and you're refusing to make even the most obvious admissions and engage in responsive discussion. And it is you who specifically claimed that "tkd is repackaged shotokan". That's a quote from you.

Moreover, if you have no edit suggestions stemming from your claim that "TKD is repackaged shotokan", then we have nothing more to discuss here because I'm fine with leaving the article as is and your personal views on whether you think "tkd is repackaged shotokan" is irrelevant here.melonbarmonster (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe we all agree that taekwondo was influenced by karate. It makes no sense to push that it was shotokan in particular, as the style itself was forming. Citations can be removed if not satisfying Wikipedic requirements, but in this case I would like to propose discussing both adding and removing sources on the talk page here, under separate headings each (just for a while, to see if it works). Also, if we agree that the article, as it is now, isn't in that bad a shape, perhaps we can all take a week or two off, what do you think? Pundit|utter 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the citation and JLL never claimed there was anything wrong with it. He claimed and continues to claim that I merely deleted his fact tag without acknowledging that I replaced it with a citation. I'm guessing that perhaps in his frenzied reverting, he didn't even notice the existence of the added reference.melonbarmonster (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the future and on the article from now on - we all make mistakes, after all and let's assume good faith, as we all may need it :) Pundit|utter 00:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral Edits

JLL has made yet another unilateral edit in spite of ensuing disagreement. JLL or anyone else, can we all agree to refrain from reverting other people's edits from here on. If you disagree with what's on the article or you have an edit suggestion, please propose them here or voice your disagreement here. I have restored JLL's revert for now but let's respect the rules.melonbarmonster (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this request for abstaining from edits for a while. Pundit|utter 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one looking at the History of the TKD page? Why are edits like this [55] not "unilateral" and acceptable? Despite the comment below, this was a full reversion--whereas I did not revert but rather edited the edits that Melonbarmonster and others have been making all day long. I didn't return the "Japanese and Chinese influences" language etc., but worked with what was there.

However, I will support making no edits to the page from here out if others will. JJL (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC

[56] was a non-contentious and novel edit on the wording of the sentence. This has nothing to do with Japanese vs. Korean POV pushing and revert warring which you've been engaging in. Moreover, if you really thought it was reversion and you disagreed with the substance of my edit, you NEED TO STATE SO IN THIS TALK PAGE SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT! I still don't know what yor problem with this edit is although you've reverted and then complained about it here!!melonbarmonster (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. Pundit, I appreciate your attempts to help. I suspect it may be time for mediation though. JJL (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? JLL, you're the one who violated Pundit's suggestion by resuming your REVERT WARRING! And for your information, you need to identify specific edit differences between editors who disagree. Are you proposing that we change the text of the article so that is states that TKD is "repackaged Shotokan"??? You need to make clear what your edit proposals are ON THIS TALK PAGE FIRST and try to work on consensus instead of making edits and resorting to revert warrring. You have yet to make an explanation of the specific edit changes you want made in the article.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the continued problem...you wholesale reverted my edits, which were not mere reversions but rather iterative edits of what you and others had written, then asked that no one change the page you had just reverted. Yet when I restored the version you had reverted--to more nearly the version of the past few months--and agreed to work from there, you cried foul. As has long been the case here, you hypocritically claim that you're being subjected to the same treatment you dish out and that it's unfair when someone other than you is doing it. Apparently it was fine for you to edit the article [57] but was a violation of your "rules" when I did it. As I've said repeatedly: Your bad case of WP:OWN is the fundamental problem here. The attempt to be seen as the aggrieved party by screaming the loudest is also transparent. Aren't you prepared to engage intellectually by citing your own sources and criticizing the ones I have provided? JJL (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't even know that you had edited the text in question. I saw an awkwardly worded sentence and fixed it. I didn't revert at all. I looked through the edit history but couldn't find the version of this sentence that I unknowingly reverted to. Can you tell me when you made this edit so me and others here can look at it?

I also would like to know what your disagreement with my edit is. You've still yet to explain your reversion or initial edit(if you can give it).

Lastly, nothing you said changes the fact that YOU resumed reverting ALL the contentious portions of the text besides this one sentence. How do you act like this and expect to extend good faith to you?melonbarmonster (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Organizational Websites as references

The Kukkiwon and TaekkyonKorea articles were deleted by JLL(http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/information/information01.jsp?div=01 http://www.taekkyonkorea.com/guide/?file=history). I've restored them since they are professional organization websites that are of appropriate level of expertise unlike blogs, personal websites, commercial sites that are self-published and inappropriate for citation purposes. However, this is my interpretation of wikipedia's citation policies. Please feel free to comment if you feel these references are not proper.melonbarmonster (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these at best primary, self-published sources and hence to be given much less weight if any than secondary sources, esp. on contentious (vice simple factual) issues? With no author given, it's not possible to verify the authority of the source. JJL (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Per wiki policy of citations, self-published sources are generally not acceptable but there are exceptions when they are of sufficient expertise. I think these sources fit that bill pretty well and distinguishable from blogs, personal websites, commercial sites, etc..melonbarmonster (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case it clearly falls under WP:SELFPUB: the material is contentious, and it is self-serving (the Korean nationalism that is at the heart of the matter here). These are organizations claiming their own art has special merit--that's precisely the kind of bias this policy seeks to avoid. Also, no author is identified. If it's true and the art is notable, surely an impartial third party has written about it? I've cited the articles by Capener, Burdick, Dohrenwend, and Henning as peer-reviewed third-party sources on the matter. I think that's much more reliable than an anonymously authored organizational web page. What group's web page doesn't say they're the best?

Also, claims like "secretly handed down only by the masters of the art" strike me as exceptional claims, and this language precisely has been copvio'ed into several KMA articles recently. Other statements there such as "At that times people learned techniques from their experiences of fighting against the beasts" again seem to raise a red flag. I'd like to see a non-biased academic course say that the early Koreans learned martial arts by fighting beast-like animals with their bare hands. JJL (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how fact tags and citations work. These are references to specific fact tags. Your sources are silent on the matter at hand.

The Kukkiwon reference is a citation for the following:

"Song Duk-ki, afore-mentioned master of Taekkyondo, presented a demonstration of the martial art before the first Republic of Korea President Syngman Rhee on the occasion of the latter's birthday anniversary, thus clearly distinguishing Taekwondo from the Japanese karate."

The Taekkyeon reference is a citation for the following:

"Although practice of the art nearly vanished, taekkyeon survived through underground teaching and folk custom."

Please let us know if your sources speak to the issues above and then we can DISCUSS IT HERE rather than instigating revert wars.

If you have sources that state that Taekkyon didn't survive Japanese occupation or that Song Duk-ki didn't give a demonstration for Rhee, please give it and we'll discuss further.melonbarmonster (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"In the year 1952 at the height of the Korean War, Korea held a massive show of patriotism. Included in the agenda was the biggest martial arts display when all the Kwans of Korea displayed their skills. Major Nam Tae Hi stole the show when he smashed 13 roof tiles with a forefist punch. Subsequent to the demonstration, President Rhee Seung Man of Korea instructed General Choi Hong Hi to introduce the martial arts to all the Chief Of Staffs and the Korean army." (http://www.geocities.com/psta_gtf/realhist.html). 212.50.184.130 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to imply that your asking me to prove a negative is unreasonable, but we were talking about the quality of sources that support staements you'd like to see left in. Have we agreed that those web sites are not acceptable sources for the claims? Additionally, as a perusal of the academic sources I have given will show, there is serious doubt as to the survival of taekkyon as a martial art (see e.g. Henning, who maintains that it was more of a children's game that was retroactively built into a "martial art" a century later, in the 1940s and 50s, for ideological reasons). You raised the issue of the quality of these cources. Do we agree that they are unacceptable? JJL (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL, you're trying to prove a negative on your own volition. I'm not asking you to do anything. The reason why you think I'm asking you to prove a negative is because you're so bent on disputing the fact that Taekyon survived Japanese occupation and Song gave a demonstration to Rhee. I don't know why you're so committed to disproving these two facts. I think you're confusing our disagreement on karate's influence on TKD with this specific edit dispute. That's why you brought up Burdick and other irrelevant articles. You need to be sharper on what matters at hand JLL especially when we take these things to mediation.

As for the citations, in the absence of conflicting sources on the matters at hand, these sources are appropriate. If you're not happy with these, you're free to look for better citations so we can replace them. I'll try to look for them myself. Even if inadequate these are better than no citations at all.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bad sources are better than no sources" is not my understanding of Wikipedia policy, so yes, we do seem to see things differently. You're confused about what the phrase "prove a negative" means. I do contest the survival of taekkyon as a martial art. What do you think of Henning's take on the matter? JJL (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Henning would probably think that Taekkyon had degraded during Chosun times before Japanese occupation and that what was being practiced as Taekyon was a folk version of the real thing. But I don't know what specific Henning text you're referring to. If you can give me a citation, I'll take a look at it. And btw, you not agreeing that Taekyon survived Japanese occupation is what "proving a negative" means. If you mean something else by that phrase, please explain yourself so I can understand you correctly. I think it's disputable whether these sources are appropriate self-published sources or not. Without either of us knowing for sure, I think it's best to keep them and look for other sources.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Henning reference has been given already on this page and was in the article's bibliography before your reversions: Stanley Henning, M.A., "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000). You'll ercall that you've checked all these sources before, as you assured me. As to self-published web sources, we do know that they're not appropriate, and I've cited WP policies to that effect. You're simply being disingenuous. JJL (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

btw, citation includes specific page number and I asked you for text of Henning's comments about Taekyon during Japanese occupation which is the issue at hand. Just give me an excerpt or something so can both try to be productive instead of pointless arguing. If Henning doesn't deal with Taekyon during Japanese occupation then we have nothing further to discuss. If he does then I'll concede it to you. Just give it if you got it so we can resolve this. I also tracked down and read every reference that was accessible. I have tracked down but did not read your sources that are from books and articles inaccessible from the internet.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're changing points again to evade the issue. Let's finish the discussion you started first. Do we agree that the web sites you are using as references/sources fail WP:SELFPUB and are not WP:RS? JJL (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, do we agree that the web sites you've used fail to meet the standards here? Should we ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:RSN? I'm inclined to delete ref. 4 and replace it with a fact tag as the web site fails to meet WP standards per the discussion above. JJL (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a real problem with reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills. I specifically stated that "in the absence of conflicting sources on the matters at hand, these sources are appropriate." That's why YOU asked ME about Henning as a possible conflicting source and why I answered YOUR question about Henning. Try to be attentive JLL and tell me what Henning says about Takekyon during the Japanese occupation. If not then there is no conflicting source and these organizational references are appropriate for reasons I've already stated.

Of course if you have a real problem with these references you're more than welcome to find new ones. There are a dozens of sources that state this. If not, we have to work out this specific disagreement and compare sources.melonbarmonster (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Absence of conflicting sources is not the standard. I've cited WP policy regarding this, and you're merely stonewalling.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? If not, perhaps we can try Wikipedia:RSN. We won't be able to get mediation if not all parties sign their agreement to it. JJL (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? I already told you that my opinion is that these sources are questionable but not clear examples of inappropriate self published material. In any case, I've addressed your concern and replaced the Taekkyon citation and I will try to replace the Kukkiwon citation. This is an inane complaint JJL. I would love to know what problem you have with a citation documenting that Song gave a taekkyondo demonstration for Park Chung Hee.

And where is that HENNING MATERIAL???? If you're not going to back up your claims I'm going to assume you were BS'ing. I see no other reason why you would bring this up and then drag your feet about backing it up.melonbarmonster (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Again: i.) It isn't my job to provide you (or manacpowers) with copies of publicly available material, and ii.) you're trying to draw attention away from your inappropriate use of a web site as a reference for a controversial claim.

I understood that it was your opinion that changes such as those you have been making to references and such should be discussed here first, yet you have been making such changes "unilaterally" (to use your term). Why is that appropriate for you but not for others? JJL (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JJL is Karate POV pusher

His claim is some type of strange and novelty claim, and minority report. also That is not orthodox story. His claim is only Karate POV claim.(remember, He is a POV pusher) did not authorized by TKD.

1. Actual evidence.(by video)

Like alreay metioned, Fighting arts and Fighting style is cleary difference. This is actual evidence. [58] This is good evidence that TKD rooted from korean traditional martial arts tekkyon.

<fighting style>

• Karate Fighting style video [59]
• TKD Fighting style video [60]

<kick technique>

• Karate 540 degree kick [61]
• TKD 540 degree kick [62] (even 540 degree kick skill is different with karate)
• Karate 900 degree kick? none.
• TKD 900 degree kick [63]

You may admit it, TKD and karate skills are cleary difference.

2. academic document evidence. Author is K Rauhala(author:neither korean nor japanese) [64] read page 2.

A Brief History of Taekwondo [65] Ronald A. Southwick(author:neither korean nor japanese)

... Much more (input word 'history of taekwondo' at scholar.google.com, and read any source. you can find my claim is right) ... Check google. On the contrary, i can't find TKD rooted from karate. They consistently advocate 'TKD rooted from korean traditional martial arts'.

if you may say, you can't expect other editors to do the job for you. >> because, his sources are minority report(can't accepted wisely), just googling, and see any site. you can find my side claim is much more.

---

His sources are one sided claim,

for example, some scholar claimed like this "Jesus was African Black man!"

Nakamura : Nakamura suppose his claim "Jesus was black man, his root from africa."

Jane : "It is a minority report. It is not accepted wisely. even Jew race(Jesus was jew) do not think so. according to common sense, jesus was jew."

'Nakamura' easily find that scholar's academic source.

'Jane' can't find counterpart academic source. because, 'Jesus was Jew'. It is accepted wisely.(it is a common sense)

Nakamura's claim : "Jesus was black! see, this sentence, from this scholar's document! see this sentence!(hide whole article)"

Jane's claim : "It is a nonsense. See, this actual evidence. He birtplace is middle east. His mother is not a african. He rooted from Jew. He is not rooted from africa."

Nakamura's claim : "Jesus reidence in africa! When he was young, he traveld to africa! so Jesus was african!"

(Nakamura's claim is some type of strange and novelty claim, and minority report.also That is not orthodox story)

---

... JJL is same logic, too ...

and i think david's paper book All taught Japanese-influenced systems. He said about "system". not arts and skills. arts is difference. spirits is difference. virtue is different. made by difference race and country. developed by different man. Code of Ethics is different. TKD rooted from tekkyon. (not rooted from karate) but i admit it, TKD accepted some karate system.(grade system, dobok) but, his edit is, looks like a 'all TKD is karate'. See[66] He is a POV forker. He ignored 99%, only pick a 1%. and cut and paste only convenient records for him. He find a Karate POV 'sentence(which favored sentence by japanese nationalist)'. then claimed that "TKD originally from Karate!".

...

1. TKD rooted by tekkyon.[67] The Japanese colonial government totally prohibited all folkloric games including takkyon in the process of suppressing the Korean people. The martial art Taekkyondo(Taekwondo)had been secretly handed down only by the masters of the art until the liberation of the country in 1945. Song Duk-ki, one of the then masters, is still alive with the age of over 80 and testifies that his master was Im Ho who was reputed for his excellent skills of Taekkyondo, "jumping over the walls and running through the wood just like a tiger." At that time 14 terms of techniques were used, representing 5 kicking patterns, 4 hand techniques, 3 pushing-down-the-heel patterns, one turning-over kick pattern and 1 technique of downing-the-whole-body. Also noteworthy is the use the term "poom" which signified a face-to-face stance preparing for a fight. The masters of Taekkyondo were also under constant threat of imprisonment, which resulted in an eventual of Taekkyondo as popular games. Upon liberation of Korea from the Japanese colonial rule after world war II , the Korean people began recovering the thought of self-reliance and the traditional folkloric games which resumed their popularity. Song Duk-ki, afore-mentioned master of Taekkyondo, presented a demonstration of the martial art before the first Republic of Korea President Syngman Rhee on the occasion of the latter's birthday anniversary, thus clearly distinguishing Taekwondo from the Japanese karate.

but user JJL try to delete this FACT.[68] It is vandalism. Don't delete this.

2. Taekwondo finds its root in korean forefather's original invention, Taekyun and Soobak. [69]

other sources. [70] History of Taekwon-Do [71] Eun-Hee Koo, Ed. D. Shepherd University

more than 70% of skills are korean original.(developed by korean. not japanese) if you think TKD is karate, then please show me sources that TKD developed by japanese karate master. OK?

but karate is Chinese martial arts, which heavily modified from Ryukyu people.(actually, even karate learend korean never say it is originate from japan. they called as "Tang(china) soo do")

I ask to JJL

1. Don't delete like this.[72](It is clear evidence that your are POV pusher) It is not neutral edit. At least, We need both side claim. (this page is not for you)

2. Don't put on a original research.

3. We need avoid POV fork. don't ignore other side of claim. you cut and paste only convenient records for you. Many academic sources do not say like you.

4. Just show me any statistics source that TKD and karate skills are similar. as i know, only 17% skills are similar with karate. It is good evidence that TKD is not rooted from karate. (rooted from tekkyon, but some mixed with karate)

In the interests of fairness, do you have a source for your 17% figure? Anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, as a TKD practitioner having observed Shotokan Karate, I'd estimate that over half the techniques I've seen are close enough as to be considered 'similar'. 212.50.184.130 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Your claim is one of the different theory of TKD. it is neither established theory nor accepted opinion. (eg. Jesus was black man!)

6. TKD organization said, TKD originated from tekkyon, rooted from tekkyon.[73] See video[74]. your deletion at Song Duk-ki article is vandalism.[75] You try to hide TKD influenced by tekkyon.(It is POV Pushing) Do not delete and chnge it by your own will. you must respect other user's edit. At least, We need both side claim. (Wikipedia is not for you)

Last, if you think my expression is not civil, Please, understand me. Manacpowers (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

suggestion

let's not distribute blame, for a little while. For a by-standing observer, like me, the conflict escalated around something relatively less crucial (more or less we agree on the history, we discuss the wording) and less sensitive (e.g. as compared to massacres, wars or discrimination issues, also covered by Wikipedia). Perhaps indeed a formal mediation is a good way to resolve this, because both parties are wasting tremendous amounts of time, which could be used to develop new articles on martial arts or Korea/Japan. I suggested taking a voluntary week break, but apparently it didn't work as well. What I would like to propose to you is to apply for mediation, as I don't think we should apply for page protection at the moment (the edit war is relatively small and all parties are eager to talk, even if in heated atmosphere). What do you think? Pundit|utter 14:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is best. I asked for the RfC as when I went to the mediation page it suggested trying something like this first, and while I appreciate the calm presence of those here we aren't getting any nearer to agreement. JJL (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, I really appreciate your attempts at being a neutral voice here. I know you're a karateka but you've done an excellent job so far of being an objective party here. I would only ask that you would help me in pointing out JLL's continuing bad behavior. E.g., resuming his reverts AFTER your and my suggestion of holding back from making unilateral edits and reversions and then claiming "that didn't last long" as if he wasn't the one to violate your suggestion! To parties on the opposing side of the disagreement, such continued behavior will degrade even any good faith assumptions. Thanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The temporary truce was broken by an IP, then User:Ansric, then User:JJL, and finally by User:Melonbarmonster. It seems the problem is also that anonymous editors and users less engaged in the discussion previously jumped in. Pundit|utter 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is unusual, is that this particular IP was editing only taekwondo page, and Ansric previously edited briefly in December, and before that was silent for a long time. It seems to me that mediation may be the best way to address this debate, and you both (in spite of differences) seem to be good editors, probably willing to accept the result of the mediation - let's hope it works :) Pundit|utter 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Per the suggestion above, I have created a request for mediation page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo. Not having done this before, I hope that that is all that is required. I listed the following editors (other than myself): Melonbarmonster, Appletrees, Omnedon, and Manacpowers. If anyone else would like to add himself or herself, I believe that can be done by editing the page (?). If you agree to the mediation, you will have to edit the page to reflect that (Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate). JJL (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL, I have been involved in mediation before and I can tell you that you need to identify which specific edits are in need of mediation. So far you've argued generally that TKD is "repackaged Shotokan" rather than defending specific edits that you've been making in the article. It would be most convincing to everyone here who disagrees with you if you were to make a list of edit proposals(including those that have been subject to RW's) and give an explanation or defense that's specific to each edit.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the key disagreement is with respect to this paragraph: [76]. The section here [77] is a clear copyvio of the Kukkiwon site so I assume it can de removed on that basis. I see you've already done a wholesale revert; as per the edit history, I was trying to get good links to the contentious paragraphs. JJL (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediations I've been involved in the past have broken down each edit issue. You need to list the differences between different versions and list each edit issue in dispute and list them in the "issues to be mediated" section of the mediation page so we can discuss each issue specifically.

Also your "removal" is a revert. In any case, removing text is discouraged per wiki policy. Given the current situation, now is not the time to be making unilateral reversions and removing of text. If you really feel strongly about edits to contentious portions of the text, propose them here so we can discuss it. This goes for both you and me. Give me a chance to repair the text in question. If it is a carbon copy beyond repair I will agree to delete it from the text.melonbarmonster (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This section [78] in the current version is a clear WP:COPYVIO of the Kukkiwon site. That doesn't bother you? JJL (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

kukkiwon website did not notify that article strictly application copyright. also i did not copy whole article. it is a partly quotation. Manacpowers (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see similarities to [79] which should be repaired not deleted wholesale. Let me know if there are text from other pages that were copied.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, I feel I must point out that I have made no edits as part of this conflict regarding non-Korean influence, as far as I can tell from the article's revision history. While the conflict has been going on, I have reverted some vandalism and some departures from Revised Romanization, and have dealt with some other unrelated issues. I have, of course, taken part in this discussion; and I have requested peace and compromise here in various ways on numerous occasions. I do happen to feel that JJL is over-emphasizing the role of Japanese martial arts, as I have clearly stated; but I also feel that both JJL and melonbarmonster have been unduly harsh in handling this whole thing, almost from the beginning, and manacpowers' recent involvement hasn't helped calm things down. I do not wish to be identified with either side of this conflict. Perhaps that sounds self-righteous, but in fact I do understand what it's like to deal with edits, with which one disagrees, on a subject about which one cares deeply. I do believe all parties here have good intentions. I would simply say that I have long promoted the idea of stating, in some fairly simple manner, that Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts (which the article already stated before this began). Yes, I realize that this is not strong enough for JJL, and of course therein lies the conflict; but it is at least a statement which I believe all parties would accept as truth, even though it is admittedly simplistic and lacking in details. The more complex the statement becomes, the more disagreement seems to arise about the details (which are difficult to verify). Perhaps simple is best in this case, at this time. Omnedon (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been harsh but only because I have been lied to about JLL having consensus when there are 6 other editors who vocally disagree with him. I have seen JLL delete references that satisfy his fact tags and then accuse me of deleting fact tags. I have seen JLL resume his revert warring after a call to peace and then claim others violated the truce, etc., etc.. Heated discussions are one thing but deception, dishonesty and a woeful disrespect of the rules and the courtesy being extended by other editors here is something that I have trouble being calm about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melonbarmonster (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you'd like to be removed from the "involved parties" list here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo#Involved_parties? You had been involved in the discussion and your name was frequently cited as someone with an opinion on one side of it so it seemed appropriate to list you. The issue with saying "non-Korean influences" is that it's exactly backwards: These are fundamentally Japanese arts with Korean influences. I'd encourage you to look at the sources and then explain why, from a WP:RS/WP:V viewpoint, the weaker claim is appropriate. I think it leaves a wrong impression, and amounts to allowing proponents of the art to air their POV here. But on point I must agree: Every new KMAer will come by and revert it to what their instructor has told them, about a 5000 year old art learned from Hwarang warrior wrestling tigers and killing them with jump kicks.JJL (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

JJL, I'm suggesting no such thing; I'm involved. What I am saying is that I don't like the attitudes displayed by either you or melonbarmonster. I'm also saying that I feel a compromise could be reached, and I've said so several times; but you seem to insist more and more stridently that, in a nutshell, Taekwondo is essentially Japanese. It's not. That has not been demonstrated. There must be something between "Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts" and "Taekwondo is Japanese" that we could agree upon, even if grudgingly. Omnedon (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo is clearly Korean, just as Okinawan Karate is clearly Okinawan and Japanese Karate is clearly Japanese. But Taekwondo's roots are Japanese, just as Japanese Karate's roots are Okinawan and Okinawan Karate's roots are Chinese and, legend has it, Chinese Kung Fu's roots are Indian. (I might add, just as Brazilian Jiu-jitsu's roots are Japanese.) The term "non-Korean influences" suggests that a fundamentally Korean art was affected in some ways by a Japanese art(s). However, the situation is precisely the opposite, as sources clearly indicate (which presumably is why no one, yourself included, seems inclined to discuss those sources). Look here at the quoted material from the Capener article: Talk:Taekwondo#Sources_on_Japanese_origins. (The emphasis was in the original to indicate non-English terms.) "So while the nature of t'aegwondo was developing towards that of a martial sport of unique Korean creation and away from its Japanese nature of a martial art of self-defense, t'aegwondo leaders were unable or unwilling to acknowledge t'aegwondo Japanese origins." That's what happened, according to verifiable, reliable, academic, unbiased sources. Taekwondo is a unique Korean creation, but it was created 60 years ago from Karate and not, as the Kukkiwon link given by 'Melonbarmonster suggests, 5000 years ago by Koreans wrestling with tigers.

I'm open to discussion and compromise. (What do you think I think will happen in the RfC and now mediation I have requested?) On 13 November I was told: "If you offer some references a discussion will ensue." I naively assumed that that discussion that ensued would focus on said references.

I'd like the language of the article to reflect what I just quoted (again) from Capener; what Burdick says ("Japanese martial arts[including]kongsudo (karatedo)[which]would eventually go through the greatest changes of all, developing into tangsudo and taekwondo"); what Dohrenwend says ("Tae kwon do is a recent South Korean invention[...]the South Korean government interfered with karate in Korea with the intent of converting it into a major new competitive sport"); and what the other sources I've given support: That Taekwondo is (principally Shotokan) Karate, re-worked into what is now a truly distinct art, just as Shotokan is re-worked Okinawan Karate, which is re-worked Southern Chinese Kung Fu.

I see that you and others are strongly vested in not believing this. Thinking as Wikipedians and not as martial arts enthusiast, you tell me: Who has supported their position with acceptable sources, and who is still repeating martial arts legends gleaned from instructors and web sites?

The compromise language of a Korean base with Japanese (and other) influences doesn't seem like much of a compromise to me. I would like to see language clearly indicating that Karate was being taught and that it was intentionally modified into what is now a truly distinct and clearly Korean art. Everyone else seems to accept that their art started in another country--Taekwondo seems to be the big exception. Is that likely, or is that the sort of thinking that Sinanju parodies? JJL (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What a great illustration of JLL's propensity toward his own unique reality! JLL is stuck in a world where people are claiming that TKD derived from tiger wrestling in Korea from 5,000 years ago! That's why this guy has been derisive and disrespectful from the start! As I've stated before JLL has a seriously problem with reading comprehension and confusing things he's reading in karate fan forums with what's actually written in this wikipedia article. No one here has claimed these ridiculous straw man positions and the text already states that TKD's construction, origin, basis are made up of Korean, Japanese and Chinese influences. And yet JLL is raving against positions no one has ever taken in this entire talk page while making ridiculous claims that TKD is "repackaged shotokan". That kind of inflammatory and derisive POV pushing is what JLL has been engaged in waging and is the reason why we've been wasting our time needlessly on pointless arguing.

Also, Burdick and and Capener's article have been discussed extensively. JLL doesn't seem to have the expertise to know how to evaluate and reconcile these articles with even the references that are already part of the text. He's been repeating himself instead of engaging in a responsive discussion while again pretending that these few articles somehow the only sources to speak on this subject while ignoring the vast majority of sources that support Japanese influence in the construction of TKD.

Lastly, wikipedia isn't a place for you to argue your general beliefs with other people. This TALK page is for discussing EDITS. If JLL wants to make edits, he needs to propose them here and our discussion should focus on those specific edit proposals. It's pointless to argue about japanese origins and indian origins of kungfu if it's not related to SPECIFIC edits. For JLL to vaguely say he'd like to add language from Capener and Burdick after all his edit warring and wasting of other people time here is just lazy and indicative of his disruptive behavior in editing this article. JLL needs to list specific edits he'd like to make and give a reasoned defense of those changes. Claiming TKD is "repackaged shotokan" and then changing "foreign influence" to "japanese chinese influence" is just petty and inflammatory.

Many editors here have been around for some time and we've had disagreements within the boundaries of the rules and policies of wikipedia. Anyone who's genuinely interested in improving this article needs to follow the rules and policies. Claiming consensus while edit warring against the wishes of 6 other editors, etc., is ridiculous behavior and needs to stop.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that none of these "vast majority of sources" have made their way to this page yet, apart from two web sites that fail WP:SELFPUB. JJL (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What's odd is that you seem genuinely confused by your own burden of proof. This is how wikipedia works. I like the article and support the references that are already in it as is. You're the one who wants to make edit changes to the text so you're the one who has to provide the references to support your position. Again, I like the text and references of text in its last state of consensus. You want to make changes so you're the one who has to provide new references. Do you see how that works? I'm also not the one who added those self-published references although I'm still waiting for you Henning quotations.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the request for mediation has been accepted: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo. JJL (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL

Can you tell me which of your edits I reverted here. [80]? Thanks.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Taekwondo

This subsection contains word for word text from http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/information/information01.jsp?div=01.

I don't think the copied text is so extensive that we have to delete the text wholesale. I will attempt to repair the text later. I would agree to JLL or any other editor deleting those specific portions of the text that is a word for word copy(not the entire section of text). However, in return I would like to ask for the opportunity to make repairs to copied text to be readded later. I can't work on it now due to time constraints.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back to how it was before by deleting the first two (copyvio) paragraphs that you had been reverting back in. I made some small edits for flow. The second and third sentences, on the origin of the name TKD, don't work well together. It could surely use editing and I encourage you to do so, including adding back in some info. on what happened between WWII and the Korean War. Something about Song Duk-ki should probably be put in somewhere in the article. JJL (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL I extended good faith to you and agreed to take out portions of the text that are word-per-word copies from that website for reasons stated above. I specifically asked you to not delete the entire section of text which seems to be what you did. I'll try to make repairs to the problematic text sometime soon.melonbarmonster (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed". You have once again inserted two paragraphs in violation of WP:COPYVIO. JJL (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to brush up on reading comprehension. The "infringing content should be removed" means that the infringing content should be removed. Content that isn't a word-per-word copy should be left alone. The entire 2 paragraphs are not copy right infringements. They contain portions that are however. That is why I asked you remove just the parts that are problematic. YOU REMOVED THE ENTIRE 2 PARAGRAPHS!

And I also repaired the problematic paragraph, rewriting it and adding 3 new citations. When your shown some courtesy and good faith, try returning it sometime. If there portions of the text in question that you think still violated copy right, copy and paste it below instead of instigating a pointless argument. I'll go ahead and try to fix it.melonbarmonster (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel I must submit edits to you but you may edit freely. With Omnedon so far not signing the mediation agreement for the mediation I requested, and the RfC I requested going nowhere, it appears we're back to square one, with you editing in your POV and screaming bloody murder when I edit out even blatant copyright violations. I'll be replacing unsourced and ill-sourced material with well-sourced material from respected sources (the kind you might find in a library rather than a web site or techniques book). JJL (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been quite busy with a variety of other things, and in addition I have never been involved in a mediation before. I'm not trying to hold things up. In the past (prior to my Wikipedia involvement) I have often made the mistake of reacting too quickly and saying things that were not prudent or well-thought-out. I am still subject to that failing, but I try to moderate it by waiting and thinking -- not that I always succeed. However, I am certainly involved in this discussion and don't wish to appear to be setting myself above anyone else or the process. I'll check out the mediation page in the next 24 hours. One thing, though -- I'm not to blame for this being back at square one. Omnedon (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed Wikipedia:Mediation, I have agreed to participate. I would point out that the policy gives the involved parties seven days to respond; I did so in three. Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are 6 editors in this talk page who have expressed their disagreement with your view and edits. So far, no one has supported your position or your edits. You need to respect the rules and edit process and the other editors who disagree with you. That is why you need to propose contentious edits. Check out [WP:CON] and [WP:RW] if you want to know why you can't make unilateral edits and then revert war your edits till kingdom come.

If I make edits and other editors disagree with me. I also have to seek consensus and return the article to its last state of consensus. So far, only you have raised disagreement and I have made edits to address your concerns and have asked you if you have any other objections that I can address.

As for the mediation, it doesn't matter whether Omnedon doesn't sign onto the mediation or not. There are 4 people signed on to participate. That one less editor who disagrees with you in the mediation and that's better for you.

I also asked you to take out the portions of the text that are copy right violations. You were either lazy, dishonest or plain mistaken and deleted the entire sections including novel edits and the text that violated copy right when I specifically asked you not to. The rules YOU CITED state that "infringing content should be removed". You removed "infringing content" and then some. Moreover, I offered to further repair the any content you saw as being problematic! I'm making edits and changes to address your concerns. I have no idea what you're complaining about.melonbarmonster (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that all parties must agree to mediation. Am I mistaken?

I don't understand why you think I have to do what you want me to do. That's been the recurring problem since my first edit on "your" page. I removed the copyvio material. It's not dishonest of me to not do what you say you want me to do. I removed the copyvio material and explained that here. It was still in the edit history if you wanted to re-work (which, by the way, is itself questionable). JJL (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here is bound by rules of wikipedia when they edit. There is no reason for you to think you're exempt from them when everyone else here is following them.

And this is just another example. You removed the copy righted material and then some. The rules state you have to remove the "infringing content" not the surrounding text that is not infringing content. That's why I asked you to not delete the entire section, because that's what the rules state. I then offered to further repair the rework if you tell me what about it you don't like. Rather than telling what you don't like so I can fix it, you're just complaining and picking an argument.

And regarding the mediation, Omnedon said he's not a party to the disagreement. And you're the one who requested the mediation so I suggest that you ask the committee chair if you have any further questions.melonbarmonster (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not exactly say that I'm not party to the disagreement. I haven't done any editing in this, but I'm not without a view (which happens to coincide generally with the majority view thus far), and I hope to provide a couple of additional sources soon -- I'm waiting on one book to arrive via interlibrary loan. What I will find in that book, I don't know exactly, but I'm looking. I also wish to clarify that no offense was intended to any party when I referred to attitudes. I'm just calling it like I see it; it has been rather unpleasant from the start, but I know that emotion is hard to exclude when conflict arises. We just need to try harder. Let's try to assume good faith. Omnedon (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL please stop your reverting

You're welcome to try to repair the text that you think is a violation of the copy right. But leave the contentious parts of the article alone. Resuming your revert warring doesn't win you any fans here.

[[81]] is a revert of past version of your edits as well as deleting the new references I've added to this section. The article has been restored to its state of consensus.melonbarmonster (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is you who have reverted all edits, including ones that are clearly not contentious (as the See also for KMA, or the in many nations-->internationally). I might suggest that you cease blindly reverting every edit I make, as you have done since I first tried to edit this page, and work cooperatively either here on Talk or via iterative edits on the article page. Your claim that it has been reverted to its last state of consensus--namely, to your significant changes of 4 hours ago--is plainly false. I see you continue to make false and exaggerated claims to position yourself as something other than a page-protector for your version of events. JJL (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually still working on separating your reverts from your non-contentious edits. You're of course welcome to restore the "in many nations" text yourself. I'm willing to admit that reverted your noncontentious edits and am offering to correct. You on the other hand have no excuse for deleting new text, references, and reverting contentious portions of the article such as the history and foreign influence sections.melonbarmonster (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So...you had an excuse to do so, but I didn't? Can you see where your attitude is a part of the problem here? JJL (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL's edits to my Comments

JLL, you are not not allowed to changes to my edits or any other other editors comments and edits in this talk page as you did [[82]]! Learn to behave.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

JLL's Continued Reverting and Contentious Edits

In spite of the ensuing discussion and the fact that the issue of "Japanese origin" for TKD is up for mediation, JLL has resumed unilateral editing and Revert Warring. In spite of my good faith effort to repair the article, JLL has reverted a second time and is starting yet another Revert War.

• Per WP:EW and WP:GF policy, I will not return JLL's revert warring but I strongly protest and ask JLL to restore the reverts and return the article to its last state of consensus.

For clarity's sake here is a list of JLL's recent reverts:

1. JLL has deleted this entire text and references without any explanation. "As the Japanese colonization established a firm foothold in Korea, harsh colonial policies such as forced land, harvest conscriptions and forced labor resulted in rapid increase in number of Korean migrants to Japan "

2. Deletion of reference and revert of text from "'taekkyeon survived." to "some aspects of taekkyeon may have survived" This is the previous reverted to for this text.

3. Reverting back in contentious text: "All taught Japanese-influenced systems." This is the version reverted to.

4. The first two paragraphs along with new references in the "modern taekwodo" section were deleted.

JLL has also made contentious edits unilaterally rather than seeking consensus through discussion in the talk page and following the wikipedia policies on dispute resolution including the [83] requested.melonbarmonster (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As the page will show, I have repeatedly sought discussion here. It hasn't been forthcoming--just attempts to WP:OWN the page and discourage other editors. You continue to state that your "uniltaeral" edits are acceptable, but mine require your approval. WP:OWN is still the issue here. JJL (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• * As the page will show, we all have repeatedly sought discussion here. That does not give anyone editor here the right to ignore other editors and ignore the mediation request, talk page and engage in a revert war. There are rules if you want to edit here and you can't ignore them because you think you've "sought discussion".melonbarmonster (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)melonbarmonster (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi - as it is, apparently, controversial for other parties involved in the mediation, I would like to suggest refraining from further edits for everyone involved. Seriously - the article will not suffer, and the period of not editing will do good to everyone. So please, I wholeheartedly would like to request a slack period. Pundit|utter 14:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to this. But, unless we can stop "arguing about arguing" here and move on to discussing the issue at hand, I confess that I am somewhat pessimistic about its impact. JJL (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the article will stay itact for the time of mediation - and time can also do miracles on heated disputes. Thanks a lot for agreeing to abstain from edits till the mediation is resolved, I hope the other participants will agree, too. Pundit|utter 15:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, can we at least admit that JLL has reverted contentious portion of the text and that the article is not at its last state of consensus. If we ignore this we are awarding JLL's reverting.melonbarmonster (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is all not about apportioning blame, but about the quality of Wikipedia. JJL now agreed not to edit, I hope that if everyone else agrees to do likewise, the temperature will hopefully cool down a little. Sounds fair? Pundit|utter 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Abiding by the rules and asking editors to follow them when they violate them is not apportioning blame. If editors rampantly ignored the rules and engaged in revert warring as JLL has done, the quality of this article and wikipedia would be poorly served. Dispute resolution, mediation works on the assumption that the parties are reasonable and willing to follow rules and policies. I'm just asking you to and everyone here to be willing to point it out when people don't follow them regardless of what your position is on the disagreement.melonbarmonster (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I am asking you to stop editing this article for a while. Look, yesterday you had 7 edits, JJL had 5 - you both apparently find it difficult to stop, so I am asking you both to cool down and don't edit for a while, it will be only for the benefit of the article. In this respect it doesn't matter what your opinion on each other's edits is, and it doesn't matter who of you is right. You both seem to have trouble refraining from editing, and it is really one of the best ways to scale down the ambiguities, believe me. I know you both as valuable contributors elsewhere, so I think it can really work out :) Pundit|utter 01:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Need for Consensus

Agreeing to leave the article alone is pointless when JLL is ignoring his own mediation request and making unilateral edits that ALL involved parties have not supported. Seeking consensus is required per WP:CON. Ignoring consensus because no one agreed with you and revert warring is a violation of WP:RW.

The contentious portions of the article that deals with the extent of Japanese influence and origins for TKD need to be restored to its last state of consensus. It undermines mediation efforts for JLL to revert his edits into the article ignoring the dispute resolution steps that are being taken.

I understand Punidt and Omnedon, that you guys are trying to not take sides in this dispute but you guys have to be a firmer in pointing out clear violations of wikipedia rules that we all have to follow. Any dispute resolution and mediation requires reasonable parties abiding rules and policies. That's not POV but something that we all have to follow and abide by regardless of what side of the disagreement we're on.melonbarmonster (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus: Staus of taekkyon post-WWII

I'm happy to try to reach consensus, and with the article stabilized for now perhaps we can do so here. The frist sentence in Taekwondo#Modern_Taekwondo is not contentious to me, though it was not merely taekkyon that was banned--indeed, not merely martial arts and related activities; there was a more general suppression of Korean culture. It would be nice to have a more direct link to the ban; in the meantime, the reference is from the Aug. 1986 (Vol.26, No.8) issue of Korea Journal [84] and the name is transliterated as Kim Kyong-Ji at the journal's website (not Kyongji as here). That should be updated.

The first main point of contention, I think, is the second sentence: Did taekkyon survive until after WWII, or was it recreated from memory and training manuals (as shown in the Kyong-Ji article, which also seems to be the source for the quote from Song regarding his instructor), based on Karate and other movements? I contend that taekkyon was recreated as (Mu Tau) Pankration and other arts have been.

The Kyong-Ji article describes taekkwon as a something that was "played as a folk game" (pg.23). He describes the claim of continued lineage as follws: "A man named Song Tuk-ki claims that he has practiced t'aekkyon since the closing days of the Choson dynasty" (bold emphasis added). The word "claims" is used again in the next sentence, and "According to him/Song" in the next two sentences (pg.23-4). Apparently, Kyong-Ji is reproting the man's claims, not verifying them. He discusses the general ban on pg.24.

There is a lacuna going from Section IV to Section V. At the end of the former he refers to Japanes attempts to "obliterate" Korean arts (which, anachronistically, he refers to as t'aekwondo). At the start of the latter he refers to the "revival of traditional games and folk play" without describing what a revival is in this case--that is, how much had been lost and had to be re-created or re-imagined. He refers to TKD being different from Karate by the time of the demo(s) before Pres. Rhee but as this could be any time from August 1948 to April 1960 it isn't clear what this means. I certainly read it as, by this time the Korean arts had sufficiently diverged from their Karate base to be truly a distinct art(s), as is true now--just as Judo is clearly distinct from its base of Jujutsu. I suggest that the lacuna is intentional, to pass over an issue that the author would rather not discuss. I might add that the article has neither footnotes or bibliography in the electronic version I downloaded from the site. The Korea Journal was not originally peer-reviewed, and it seems likely to me that this is an example of a non-peer reviewed article due to the total lack of scholarly apparatus. Does anyone know when the KJ started to use peer review?

Against this unrefereed, unsourced article with its gap, I set the references I have given above: Henning, which disparages the notion of a martial art of taekkyon surviving to form a base for TKD, and Capener, Burdick, and Dohrenwend, which explictly state (with lacunae) that the evolution of TKD was from Japanese Karate through Korean culture and needs to modern TKD. It could be my preference to simply append ", and the art essentially vanished" with the current reference to the precdeing sentence and omit speculation about its survival. The folk game demonstrated by Song Duk-ki, if such is accurate, is another matter that can be handled later--I dobn't doubt that its memory affected the appearance of TKD as time went on. JJL (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is reached not assumed

You don't revert war your edits in the article and THEN try to reach consensus JLL. Good grief. This is a total farce.

And here's an excerpt from WP:NOT#OR

1. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
2. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board."melonbarmonster (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• When you asked for sources, I gave sources. You wouldn't discuss them. When you asked for line-by-line edit proposals, I gave line-by-line edit proposals (above). You disparaged them as a "highschool essay" and switched to a new tack once again. You're simply stalling in hopes I'll leave the article to you. JJL (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

precious article is very heavy POV. still no consensus.219.240.72.22 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More photos of ITF Tawkwondo needed

All the photographs are of WTF sparring. Need some of ITF also to show the differences.AleXd (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a practitioner of taekwondo called?

A practitioner of boxing is a boxer, a practitioner of karate is a karateka, what do you call one for taekwondo? 70.89.165.91 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)