Talk:Taekwondo

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)