Jump to content

Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Neutrality

The POV tag is still on this article, but is the neutrality of it actually still disputed? The article currently seems to state several points of view in fairly neutral terms; naturally there is an ongoing discussion about sources, but at least the actual presentation of the history and development of Taekwondo does not seem to have the POV issues that past versions had. I'm sure it will continue to evolve and will perhaps be expanded, but does the POV tag now need to be here? Omnedon (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As it stands it dosen't need the tag, as it shows the to sides equally and has cites for people to make up their own minds. I just hope it stays that way. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. By the way, good idea to move the "features" section closer to the top. Omnedon (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the tag isn't needed. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the tag, hopefully it can stay down. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove

Thinking of tags, I thought I'd see what I could do to help with the Refimprove one. The following small sample of releveant sources includes passages quoted from books, periodicals and journal articles and largely concerns the differing views surrounding TKD's origins and influences since that's been the subject of so much debate.

That Taekwondo is of recent origin, solely derived from karate:

  • Capener, Steven D. (1995). "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes". Korea Journal. Korean National Commission for UNESCO. ISSN 0023-3900. ...t'aegwondo was first brought into Korea from Japan in the form of Japanese karate around the time of the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule... {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Madis, Eric (2003). "The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate". In Green, Thomas A. and Joseph R. Svinth (ed.). Martial Arts in the Modern World. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275981533. Its sanctioned history claims that taekwondo is 2,000 years old, that it is descended from ancient hwarang warriors, and that it has been significantly influenced by a traditional Korean kicking game called taekyon. However, the documented history of taekwondo is quite different... The following essay links the origins of taekwondo to twentieth-century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shito-ryu karate and shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism.

That Taekwondo is of antique origin, either Korean or Korean influenced by others:

  • Henning, Stanley E. (1981). "The Chinese Martial Arts in Historical Perspective". Military Affairs. 45 (4). Society for Military History: pp. 173-179. ISSN 0899-3718. The Han History bibliographies (Hanshu Yiwenzhi completed around 90 A.D.) provide the first broad definition of the martial arts... The entry on boxing, or shoubo as it was called, appears to be the earliest clearly identifiable reference to Chinese boxing. ... The Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.) was a period during which conscript armies, trained in the martial arts, expanded the Chinese empire to Turkestan in the west and Korea in the northeast, where commanderies were established. It is possible that Chinese shoubo was transmitted to Korea at this time, and that it was the antecedent to Korean Taekwondo. According to one recent Korean source, "Taekwondo is known to have had its beginning in the period 209-427 A.D. ..." {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Henning's Chan citation: Lee, Chan; et al. (1972). Korea: Past and Present. Hahm, Pyoung Choon (introduction). Seoul: Kwangmyong Publishing Company. pp. p. 383. Taekwondo is known to have had its beginning in the period 209-427 A.D. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)
  • Min, Kyung Ho (Ken) (2000). "Taekwondo Past, Present and Future: An American Perspective". Koreana. 14 (4). Korea Foundation: pp. 16-19. ISSN 1016-0744. ...a sport which was started over 1,000 years ago in Korea (p. 16) / The ethical spirit of taekwondo may be traced directly to the five-point code of conduct of the Hwarang, an elite corps of warriors during Korea's Silla Kingdom (57 B.C. - A.D. 935)... (p. 19) {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Other sources noting its antiquity:

  • Bloom, Marc (1991). "Tae kwon do". American Health. 10. New York: American Health Partners: pp. 14-16. ISSN 0730-7004. Taekwondo, the 2,000-year-old Korean art of self-defense, is the most popular martial art in the United States. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Wood, Chris (1992-08-17). "The Way of the Foot and Fist". Maclean's. 105 (33). Rogers Publishing. ISSN 0024-9262. Few sports have worked as energetically to attract new adherents as this 2,000-year-old Korean martial art.
  • Park, Yeon Hee (1989). "Introduction: The History of an Art". Tae Kwon Do: The Ultimate Guide to the World's Most Popular Martial Art. Facts On File. ISBN 0-8160-2542-8. Modern-day Tae Kwon Do ... is a unique martial art incorporating both the quick, straight-line movements that characterize the various Japanese systems and the flowing circular movements of most Chinese styles. / Although Tae Kwon Do first appeared in the Koguryo kingdom, it is Silla's warrior nobility, the Hwarang, who are credited with the growth and spread of the art throughout Korea. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Lawler, Jennifer (1999). "The History of Tae Kwon Do". The Secrets of Tae Kwon Do. Chicago: Masters Press. ISBN 1-57028-202-1. Tae Kwon Do itself developed in Korea from Chinese origins.

Hope these are helpful! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding -- you've certainly done yeoman's work on this! Omnedon (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
wow. Manacpowers (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

References

As with the "POV" tag, I think the time has come to remove the "refimprove" tag. The article is now replete with references; more may be coming, but there are no longer any "fact" tags anywhere in the article. The goal of reaching good article status depends (among other things) on having a stable article that doesn't change on a day-to-day basis because of disagreements, and on providing thorough references, especially for statements that might be challenged. We've made a lot of progress on making the article more neutral, and I think we are getting close to having the article ready for re-nomination. Omnedon (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Heo reference still has to go (I'll get around to this at some point). The new refs. to other encyclopedias are deprecated (per Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion"). Until teh article is brought in line with WP:RS there are going to be issues with it. Given the quality of many of the refs., the refimprove tag seems apropos to me. JJL (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The encyclopedia references are not used by themselves, or in place of other references; as you can see, they are used along with various other references. Have you looked at the new sources provided by Huwmanbeing? They are good sources and they make it clearer than ever that there are varying views on the origins of taekwondo; this is currently reflected fairly and neutrally in the article. Omnedon (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't yet had a chance to look at them but certainly intend to do so. JJL (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Heo, please see WP:RS/N#Non-English journal articles. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement to a certain extent--the ref. to the abstract can be used, but it has to be clear that the source is the abstract (Summary? Do we know for sure what it is? How can you be sure that isn't a summary/review written by someone other than the author, which also happens often (e.g. Mathematical Reviews)?), not the document itself, as this has not been used in any way. The document appears to be a WP:RS in all ways but one: It's not the source being used. For a different take on a similar issue, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Google_Book_Search_snippets. JJL (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
We do know for sure it's an abstract by looking at the journal article. The section is within the body of the paper and is entitled "Abstract", with the author's name immediately above it and his email address below. No other names appear, so it's reasonable to accept the authorship. The {{Cite journal}} template seems to make no provision for citing the name of a particular subsection within a paper, but if there's some accepted way of doing so, that's fine. The source as currently cited already indicates the English abstract. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it indicates the existence of an English abstract ("(in Korean with English abstract)"), but it names the paper and states that it--the paper cited--was "Retrieved on 2008-06-27." This seems to indicate that the paper itself was retrieved and viewed. Manacpowers has stated that he has not viewed the paper, and my understanding is that you've viewed only an excerpt of it. (Is this correct?) Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong link--the link in the article does not go to the paper, just an offer to buy it. The link given previously by Manacpowers went to an ambiguous abstract/summary/review. What precisely are you looking at? The IE-only link from the RSN? If someone has reviewed the article, I'll accept their statement to that effect. Otherwise, the abstract alone is the reference and should cited. It sounds like not a matter of citing a subsection within the paper if the whole paper hasn't been reviewed, but of citing the abstract as a source itself? JJL (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, quite a few points to address:
  • As to the first assumption, no that's incorrect, Manacpowers states below that he has read the complete paper. I've read the English section from the original paper, which the Reliable Sources Noticeboard vets as appropriate and sufficient.
  • Yes, the link currently in place within the citation sends you to ReportNet where you can purchase the article in PDF form for a nominal fee, or download the first couple of pages free of charge. The author's English abstract is contained within the freely-accessible portion. This link replaces the original one since it provides the user a means of actually obtaining the text.
  • Yes, the cite does say "Retrieved on 2008-06-27", which I presume was when Manacpowers first added the Heo source. Others, including myself, have since accessed this article on other dates via other sites, so the date can certainly be changed to reflect this.
  • I'm not sure what you mean when you say the previous URL at PaperSearch.net[1] went to "an ambiguous abstract/summary/review". The page isn't substantially different from the summaries one gets from OCLC FirstSearch or other bibliographic directories, which usually give publication details of a particular journal article, a précis, etc. Apart from the fact that it's written in Korean, what do you find ambiguous?
  • I'm also uncertain what you're getting at when you say "the abstract alone is the reference and should cited." The abstract is a section within the journal article. How can a section within a source be "a source itself"? Perhaps you're mistaking the abstract for a separate, stand-alone piece distinct from the article; however, in this case it's a section within it. As I say, noting that something references a particular subsection within an article isn't wrong, but it just doesn't seem to be normal practice given the fields that are included in the Cite journal template and the accompanying examples.
  • As for Google snippets, I'm familiar with the discussion, but it's irrelevant here. In the case of snippets, the objections users raise concern "insufficient context" because Google lifts out very small, isolated blocks of about four lines — not even necessarily complete sentences. By contrast, the relevant text in Heo is available in its entirety. Given that you mention the snippets debate as "similar", I must assume that your assertion is that the section the author wrote in English may be non-representative of the rest of his paper, which is speculation.
I prefer not getting entangled in minute analyses, but at the same time I didn't want any questions to go unanswered, so hopefully this wraps 'em up. BTW, you say above that "the Heo reference still has to go." Can you articulate any policy standing against this journal article citation? Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I had interpreted Manacpowers' comments (e.g., of 16:32, 30 June 2008, above) to indicate that he had only seen the ambiguous abstract (?) that he originally posted [2] (e.g., his post of 15:44, 28 June 2008, above). It appears that this was not what he intended. If the actual paper has been checked, and this is indeed its English-language abstract, then linking to it is appropriate; if only this link [3] has been checked then it isn't. It appears there may still be a misunderstanding, as the cite says that it appears on pp. 79-87 but Manacpowers' comment below seems to state that it is "(1~2 pages)" that he has checked. To say that "the Reliable Sources Noticeboard vets [it] as appropriate and sufficient" is a misunderstanding of what they do, but if we are to place that much faith in them, the Cook ref. has to go per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_15 ("unlikely to be reliable").
I'm prepared to accept that Manacpowers has checked the article and that the abstract is an appropriate summary of it. This article is the only Google hit for "Korean Journal of History for Physical Education" so I wonder if its name is being translated properly? As indicated at Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources, which you were directed to at the RSN, such a source is deprecated. JJL (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:NONENG doesn't say such sources are deprecated, only that English language sources "should be used in preference to sources in other languages". Other entirely English language sources are provided, and the article itself is partly English to begin with. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As to the Cook reference, the entire quote is, "A photo book is unlikely to be reliable." There was no statement, as you imply, that this particular book is unreliable, and the book is not a "photo book" and has three full chapters on the history, with a bibliography. The fact is that there are many sources on both sides of this issue. The article currently reflects several views fairly and neutrally and cites sources to support all of them, and allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. That's the goal, surely. We seem to be there. Omnedon (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The goal is that they be supported by reliable sources. JJL (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
And reliable sources are indeed cited. The source survey I conducted recently (using the services of a university library and bibliographic databases such as OCLC) suggests there's plenty more material available if needed; however, given that we're now up to 40 sources, with individual statements pointing to as many as six at a time, I think adding still more to the areas we've been focusing on would yield only diminishing returns. Certain other sections, such as Features, Ranks and Philosophy, could use some citations — perhaps this could be our next area of work. Otherwise, though, I think things are now well supported. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a busy in real life. so i can't participate this edit for a while. However, i must point out that i did not say I was not viewed the paper. [4](1~2 pages)(in Korean)

  • Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
  • Author : In Uk Heo
  • Date : 2004
  • Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
  • Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
  • Keyword : Taekwondo

source is PDF file and It written by korean language. Here is the full text from source. [5](in Korean) I already read a full text. however, this link is a personal homepage and have a copyright problem. 1. This is a Academic journal. 2. author says "TKD shaped by Taekkyon, Kungfu, Karate. Karate is just one of them"

I found it actual evidence. Here is the early 1960s TKD training video.[6] This video is one of the oldest TKD training video. in this video, we can confirm that Taekkyon style training prevailed in that time. if you watching this video carefully, you can realized that taekkyon style teaching was common to not only korea TKD but aslo America TKD teacher. in that time, Karate was not have this style technique. In conclusion, Upon liberation of Korea(1945~), TKD first time in it´s life, modern TKD was trained by taekkyon's technique. it was already difference from Karate.

The first part of the video (girls kicking their leg up and getting back in a position while crossing their arms) seems very un-taekkyon to me. And just because the other guys do a few spinning kicks doesn't make it taekkyon. There aren't that many spinning kicks in taekkyon anyway. It certainly looks different from karate, but isn't taekkyon. I can imagine that Koreans quickly developed their own style of 'karate' which was different from it's Japanese source. But fact remains that the source was Japanese karate. (this doesn't make taekwondo a lesser martial art or anything. Also taekwondo has evolved and grown away from it's Japanese source in a way that we can now call taekwondo a Korean martial art. But still that doesn't change the fact that the source is Japanese. Just as hapkido's source, for a large part, is Japanese jujutsu).

Kbarends (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Koreans quickly developed their own style of 'karate' which was different from it's Japanese source?? Well,very original TKD instructors learend not only taekkyonbut also Kungfu, Karate. I agree TKD accepted som Karate system(dokbok, Grade system) but Japanese source is totally groundless claim. (well, karate derived from China and Okinawa. According to your logic, Karate is a Chinese martial arts) if you see very early tkd teaching manual, you can find that their original kikcing techniques and arts. I already said, "name of automobile made by Daimler(German), so nowdays all cars are 'made in german'. that is the serious misunderstanding. Manacpowers (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

and Hapkido and TKD are totally difference. Manacpowers (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your example doesn't work. In your analogy every martial art would be either, Chinese, Japanese or Korean. And I am NOT saying that taekwondo is a Japanese martial art. Just as karate is not a Chinese martial art, only because it was influenced by Chinese styles in the beginning. It is a fact that early taekwondo was called either tang su do or kong su do, which would obviously be the Korean pronunciation for the hanja karate was written with. In the mid-1940s, a Korean named Lee Won-guk who had studied in Japan introduced the karate barehanded fighting skill to Korea under the name tangsudo. Private gymnasiums for tangsudo, or kongsudo, opened around the country. They included Cheongdogwan, Joseon Yeonmugwan's Gongsudo Division, Mudeokgwan and Songmugwan. Later, tangsudo was again renamed taesudo, and then finally taekwondo in 1965, which was adopted as its official name. Would you deny this? Again. I am NOT saying that taekwondo is Japanese! To me taekwondo is a very fine 100% Korean martial art. But to claim that it comes from taekkyon is nationalistic nonsense. The videos only proof that the Koreans started to change the root material early on. Good for them! Kbarends (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, i understand what you say. i already knows original founders of 5 kwans also learned karate.(except hwan kee. he never learend karte. He read a karate book. but he was not practiced.). and i do not deny TKD influenced by karate. and Tang soo do name is similar with Okinawa karate-do. However, you must know this, Tang soo do is not a exactly Karate-do. I alredy answerd it here.[7] "Tang soo do = karate do(X)"
originial TKD kwans are 5. but, in fact, Moo Duk Kwan dominated almost all TKD orginizations. According to wikipedia, "the Moo Duk Kwan had risen to become biggest Taekwondo organization in Korea, with close to 75% of all martial artists in Korea practicing Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan." 2nd biggest TKD orginization was a Chung Do Kwan. This 2 kwans dominated TKD orginizations. maybe exceed 80%~90%.
Biggest TKD orginization Moo Duk Kwan founder never learned karate. He developed his arts from korean tradiotinal martial arts subahk. 2nd biggest TKD orginization Chung Do Kwan founder learned Taekkyon, Kungfu, Karate. i already said, this 2 kwans dominated tkd.
other 3 kwans were less than 20% from all TKD orginization. so, We can easily think that modern TKD root from Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan.
and Kong soo do Chang Moo Kwan founder learned Chuan-fa, Shudo-Ryu karate(not shotokan). According to reliable source, He was a more skillful person who trained Chuan-fa than karate. Chang Moo Kwan founder, Yoon Byung-in teached Toyama Kanken Chuan-fa and Toyama Kanken teached Yoon Byung-in his Shudo-Ryu karate. His kong soo do was not a purely karate. and he did not practieced shotokan.
so, it is hard to say, root of TKD is a karate. modern TKD root from Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan. Moo Duk Kwan founder never learned karate.Chung Do Kwan founder learned taekkyon, Kungfu, karate. karate is one of them. But TKD influenced by karate system. and Kungfu and Chun fa influenced to TKD, too Manacpowers (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the TKD bout video in 1962. [8] This video is 1962 Tae Soo Do bout video. In this video, we can confirm that Tae Soo Do was a Taekyon style.(not karate) We can confirm that early Taekwondo was similar with Taekkyon, Not karate. This is a point. Taekwondo already have Taekkyon elements in the begining. Manacpowers (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing the videos would be WP:OR, and worthless as Taekyon was itself a recreated style. JJL (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
you recgnize that Taekwondo already have Taekkyon elements in the begining. and Taekyon was itself a recreated style? that is the your POV and WP:OR. Manacpowers (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History section

The current third and fourth paragraphs of the history section seem to deal with the same basic subject (the Hwarang), but do not exactly duplicate each other. Should they be merged? Omnedon (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please have Neutral point of view

We should mention a fact. Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea[9].--Pabopa (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the issue. Original TKD practitioners not only wore karate gis, they practiced Shotokan kata; it was some time before the Pinan-series forms were replaced by new TKD forms. It was Karate, and was reformatted into a Korean art for nationalistic reasons. It's now as Korean as Karate is Japanese (despite Karate's strong Chinese influence, still very noticeable in many Okinawan styles), but many TKDers like to diminish the influence just as Japan has traditionally diminished the Chinese influence on its culture. It's tempting to believe the story that One Lone Mythic Hero managed to survive, alone and undaunted, to bring The One Ring of true historical TKD through in an unbroken chain, but it's far more likely that a.) the Japanese brutally and effectively suppressed Korean culture; b.) changing times were damping interest in these arts as they were in Japan (leading to the creation of Judo) and other countries; and. c.) the war had a negative effect on these arts, diminishing interest in non-weapon arts and killing off practitioners of these arts (as happened with Savate in WWI). What we know as TKD (and Taekkyon) is Karate, re-interpreted through a lens of Korean culture and printed manuals and pictures of older systems. JJL (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL. if you think TKD is a 'reformatted' karate. but TKD is a still korean martial arts. because, according to your logic, TKD 'recreated' their arts from Karate system. so, TKD is a still korean martial arts. and you still can't deny that TKD more heavily influenced by Taekkyon. Manacpowers (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
TKD Hyeongs are various...
  1. Official ITF Syllabus
   * 3.1 Cheon-Ji
   * 3.2 Dan-Gun
   * 3.3 Do-San
   * 3.4 Won-Hyo
   * 3.5 Yul-Gok
   * 3.6 Jung-Geun
   * 3.7 Toi-Gye
   * 3.8 Hwa-Rang
   * 3.9 Chung-Mu
   * 3.10 Gwang-Gae
   * 3.11 Po-Eun
   * 3.12 Gye-Baek
   * 3.13 Yu-Sin
   * 3.14 Chung-Jang
   * 3.15 Eul-Ji
   * 3.16 Go-Dang
   * 3.17 Sam-Il
   * 3.18 Choe-Yeong
   * 3.19 Se-Jong
   * 3.20 Yeon-Gae
   * 3.21 Mun-Mu
   * 3.22 Eui-Am
   * 3.23 Seo-San
   * 3.24 Tong-Il
  1. Unofficial ITF Syllabus
   * 4.1 Chul-Gi
   * 4.2 Bassai
   * 4.3 Juche
  1. Pumsae
   * 5.1 Taegeuk Il Jang/Palgwe Il Jang
   * 5.2 Taegeuk Yi Jang/Palgwe Yi Jang
   * 5.3 Taegeuk Sam Jang/Palgwe Sam Jang
   * 5.4 Taegeuk Sa Jang/Palgwe Sa Jang
   * 5.5 Taegeuk O Jang/Palgwe O Jang
   * 5.6 Taegeuk Yook Jang/Palgwe Yook Jang
   * 5.7 Taegeuk Chil Jang/Palgwe Chil Jang
   * 5.8 Taegeuk Pal Jang/Palgwe Pal Jang
   * 5.9 Koryo
   * 5.10 Keumgang
   * 5.11 Taebaek
   * 5.12 Pyongwon
   * 5.13 Sipjin
   * 5.14 Jitae
   * 5.15 Cheonkwon
   * 5.16 Hansoo
   * 5.17 Ilyo

Well, ITF tkd has 24 hyeong.(+ unofficial 3 hyeong) WTF tkd has 17 hyeong. According to wikipedia, karate similar hyeong are only 2, Chul-Gi, Bassai. This mean only 4.5% hyeong are similar with karate. so, it is unreasnable conclude that TKD is based on karate. Why you omitted this fact? your stance is clear. "Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." at least, we must recognized that other 95.5% hyeongs are created by their own. (found their skills from Subahk, Taekyyon...etc..) your Karate POV sources are ignored this. Manacpowers (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that people hold varying views on the development of Taekwondo. There are three primary views represented in the article: that it was primarily Japanese, that it was primarily Korean, and that it was Korean with other influences. These views are all represented without bias, and are all sourced. JJL, it is your opinion that Taekwondo is basically karate; you have some sources for that, and that view is part of the article. That view is not universally held, a fact that is demonstrated by the many sources that indicate otherwise. The present state of the article reflects this. Omnedon (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Refs. 4-9 in favor of a Korean origin are web sites (and primary sources--TKD orgs.) or encyclopedias (tertiary sources). The refs. supporting a Japanese origin are secondary, scholarly, and wholly in English...all of which are strongly preferred. This is why I kept hoping for mediation--I believe that those familiar with Wikipedia policy on sources would recognize that while there are sources indicating that the view is held that TKD is a 2000 year old purely Korean art, there are much stronger and more reliable sources indicating that the view is held by disinterested scholars that it has its roots in Karate. You're settling for a "Some folks say...others folks say..." article. I could produce sources saying that the moon is made of green cheese, but it would be unfortunate to have the moon article give equal weight to that viewpoint. Similarly, the myth of TKD's purely Korean origin, like the myth of karateka killing armed samurai with their bare hands, is just a feel-good legend. We should acknowledge the stories as what they are--common stories that are poorly supported compared to the contrary. (Does no one have an old TKD book to verify that the hyung were originally Japanese kata?) Until you familiarize yourself with WP:RS, this discussion can't be very productive. JJL (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You're ignoring other sources that I and others have presented that state that taekwondo is of antique Korean origin. These include journal articles (Heo, Henning, Min) and books (Lawler, Park, etc.). That encyclopedias are further sited is not inappropriate per policy, since they're only there to support. The same can be said of the websites. Please refrain from asserting that no reliable sources support anything but your own position. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
2000 year old purely Korean art. yes, this is a reasonable. you may know tkd originated from 5 kwans. (later, modefied by various instructors) Biggest TKD orginization Moo Duk Kwan founder seek their skill from true korean martial arts, Soo Bahk, taekkyon. 2nd biggest tkd orginization Chung Do Kwan(this 2 kwans dominated 80~90% TKD society) teached Takeeyon kicking skills. we can confirm this by very early Chung Do Kwan teaching manual. There is no record that Taekkyon exist in China, Japan, or any other countries. so, it is reasonable that TKD 2000 years old korean martial arts. But i do not say it is a "purely".
and Karate Kata. I agreed TKD influend by some karate system. dobok and grade system and kata. even kata and poomse contents are pretty difference each other. However, you know? even Karate Kata system originated from China.[10][11] 95.5% TKD hyeong contents are difference from karate. and karate kata originated from China. at least, TKD is more creative. Japanese karate kata are brought from China. However, Korean TKD hyeong are created by their own. Manacpowers (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL: So the issue here is precisely that "we're hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea?" Curious. The position you support, that taekwondo is essentially Japanese karate, is clearly and neutrally articulated in the article, plus it's backed by sources — two of which I looked up and added myself.
As editors, we're not empowered to pass judgment on which view regarding the origin of taekwondo is better or more correct; rather, we're simply supposed to document significant community views that are supported by reliable sources, which has been done. I can tell this isn't to your satisfaction — sources not toeing your preferred line have passed under a degree of scrutiny and debate that's been lengthier, more detailed and more intense than I've ever witnessed. However, by any reasonable standard it's quite acceptable, so I feel it's finally time to end this debate. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
As editors, we're supposed to pass judgment on which view(s) regarding the origin of Taekwondo are better sourced or more supported by WP:RS. I believe that Manacpowers problem with this is that it is, as another editor put it, an inconvenient truth for Korea, as Japan has so often found its cultural debt to China to be. But the motivations are irrelevant, which is why I haven't brought them up (but did comment on anotehr editor's comments about them).
Your goals for WP are disappointingly unambitious. You say we are "simply supposed to document significant community views" and in doing so have insured that the Cheese Shop is wholly uncontaminated by cheese. For an encyclopedia article to be useful, it should do more than indicate what views are held. I don't oppose stating the obvious--many people believe that TKD is a 2000-5000 year old purely Korean art--but while keeping Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight in mind. We differ in two main areas: I'd like the article to have useful content and be in line with Wikipedia policies regarding sources. JJL (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that you're practically alone in asserting the unreliability of the journal articles, books, and other sources that advance the position (or "myth" as you call it) that taekwondo is of Korean origin. As the many posts on this page attest, considerable time and energy has been spent discussing their reliability and addressing the many very detailed questions you raise. See the Heo debate above as an example.
Once again: we can't take sides on which position is right or wrong. Many reliable sources put taekwondo's origins in Korean antiquity, and it's clearly a significant community view. You may disagree with the position, and that's fine, but that can't guide our edits. All we can do is present the significant views in a neutral manner and ensure they're well supported by reliable sources, which has been done. This does not constitute a violation of undue weight; quite the reverse. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here we go again. I asserted above that the TKD web sites are unreliable and you say I'm asserting that the journals are unreliable. I gather you think that as long as you keep changing the topic of discussion, your unreliable sources will have to be left alone. JJL (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You assertion as I understand it is that reliable sources don't support the other position. I was simply noting that reliable sources included in the article do support it, and that you were omitting these in the discussion. We can certainly discuss the reliability of websites if you wish, though given past experience and current emotions, I suspect it'd be less than productive. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, you seem to claim that only the references that support your view are "good" sources, and that all the sources that disagree are "bad"; yet you ignore the additional sources that Huwmanbeing provided. As just one example, one of the sources that you depended on, Stanley Henning, was quoted elsewhere as acknowledging that taekwondo derived from Chinese sources.
Once again, the current state of the article is in line with general Wikipedia policy in that it is neutral on a subject that is controversial, providing information on the various sides of the issue in an unbiased way and with sources. Both sides of this issue are well-sourced. Omnedon (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, I have once again questioned specific sources and you have attempted to change the subject to a different source. It's a cheap tactic. JJL (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
well, JJL. your stance is clear. "Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." wikipedia is not your blog. Manacpowers (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL: We've been doing nothing but deal with your source-related questions for several months. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with them would mean discussing sources with WP:RS etc. in mind. But whenever I attempt to do that, you and Omnedon change the subject. If I say "Your new source X is weak" you reply "Well your source Y might not be OK either." This is a logical fallacy if your goal is to defend the reliability of X. JJL (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
When have we said that? Speaking for myself, I have no problem with your sources, and in fact have added a couple that support your position. I have, however, defended other sources that I also consider reliable. Doing so does not constitute an attack. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"When have we said that?" You're kidding, right? Your edit at 17:41, 30 June 2008 on this page was a classic ("problems can be found with anything if you try hard enough"), soon followed by an attempt to turn the tables once again (19:32, 30 June 2008) but these are far from the only examples. Even when I create a section to discuss a particular source that I find objectionable, you change the topic. This is either fallacious reasoning or outright disingenuousness. Which would you have me believe? JJL (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In my post which you cite, you'll notice I make a special point to say: "Now, just to be clear, I'm not attacking these writers or their work, but merely making a point that practically any writer can be attacked as being biased, unqualified, etc." Given your previous efforts to undermine certain authors, I was hoping to illustrate to you that absolutely any source (even those you cite) could be subjected to the same unfair and over-high standards, but that doing so would be "unproductive, unseemly, likely unjust, and at odds with Wikipedia guidelines."
Lest there be any doubt, I'll repeat it once again: I'm not attacking your sources or your beliefs on the origin of taekwondo, as the postings on this page make clear. They're fine. The sources are reliable. It's good that they're included and it's proper that the views they articulate are represented in the article. I've simply defended other reliable sources and sought to have significant views presented fairly. Please refrain from attributing positions to me that I haven't taken. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've attributed those positions to you via direct quotes of your writings. Your "defense" of other sources has taken the form of casting aspersions against unrelated sources while portraying questions about the sources you're supporting as "attacks" against them or attempts to "undermine" them. (You're merely a passive defender, while those who hold differing views are aggressive attackers.) Your constant use of language like "attack" is part of what stalls an attempt at serious debate. Again, at this point I assume it's intentional--a tactic. JJL (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out that your sources are fine and that I'm not attacking you is stalling the debate? I really have no idea how to proceed here... Huwmanbeing ☀
Well, I've asked again for a response to my comments here Traditional Taekwondo: Core Techniques, History and Philosophy about the Cook ref. If you could respond to my criticisms of it directly, rather than assailing Henning et al as you did previously, that'd be something. JJL (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Henning's fine — I cite him myself. Again, please don't mischaracterize my position. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL, you are criticizing Huwmanbeing for using the word "attack", yet you can see that he used it in a negative sense; he has repeatedly said that he is not attacking your sources or beliefs. I don't know why that would offend you. Let's get down to basics. Here is what I'm seeing:
A. You do not like some of the sources that disagree with your position. You do not need to like the sources; that doesn't mean they are invalid or unsuitable. Every source is different, and not all have equal value or equal application; but I have never seen this kind of treatment of sources before. There are sufficient good sources on both sides of this issue.
B. You want the article to state your position in a preferred manner over the others. Since there are many sources that disagree with your position, we need to present all of the positions in a fair and unbiased manner -- in other words, it should be neutral. To conclude that your position is fact compared with other positions could well constitute original research, since there is broad disagreement on this issue (not just here in Wikipedia). The reader can decide for him/her self.
C. You want more detail about your position. A good article is broad in its coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail. The sources provide the details for the interested reader.
Have I missed any basic points here? Omnedon (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Just WP:RS. JJL (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so Omnedon's points A, B and C are accurate, but you're adding WP:RS as point D. What particularly about the WP:RS guidelines do you refer to? Can you be specific? The main reliable sources associated with the content you're concerned about are books and journal articles, and a distressingly large amount of the time and effort over the past couple of months has already been spent trying to address a single editor's concerns regarding them. If there are still important RS-related points about these main sources that we haven't already covered, you're welcome to put them forward; otherwise, for the sake of peace and a return to productive editing, please let's move on. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

★ 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC) for the neutral point of view, TKD is a essentiall karate is a serious POV pushing. so, we must avoid this sentence. and i read that article, However, this person can't reperesent to all tkd. TKD influenced by neigbor martial arts. even encarta and britanicca encyclopedia admit this. so this is a nothing new. even britannica says, "(Korean: “art of kicking and punching”) Korean art of unarmed combat that is based on the earlier form of Korean self-defense known as tae kyon and on karate."[12] and that magazine article says, he leraned at Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan, one of the 5 kwans. Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan was a very minor kwans in tkd society. Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan founder Chun, Sang Sup, who had studied Shotokan karate with Gichin Funakoshi in Japan. Unlike other 5 kwans, Yun Moo Kwan founder learned only karate. (later, exchange his skills with Chang Moo Kwan founder) so, he think his Yun Moo Kwan tkd was a influenced by Karate. it is reasonable. But, How about other 4 kwans? Yun Moo Kwan was a very minor kwans. so, his(interviewr) background is a only lived a Yun Moo Kwan students. TKD is not a root from Yun Moo Kwan. so his opinion is not represent to all tkd. and his interview criticized by various TKD affiliated. Manacpowers (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

and this magazine Intervier said, "역사적 원류로 본다면 중국 것이 일본으로 들어갔고 일본 것이 한국으로 들어왔다고 해야 설득력이 있죠. 일본 사람들이 중국 무술을 많이 개량해서 과학적으로 만들었어요. (translate) "Historically, (Karate) Originated from China, and spread to Japan. Japanese people modified Chinese martial arts, and improved arts by scientific method." He says, Origin of Karate is a China. What do you think? huh? even this interview says, Karate is a China origin. ok? if you think this interviewer says are 100% true, then Karate article must change like his opinion. and TKD sentence chage like this, "TKD also influenced by (Okinawa Version) Chinese Martial arts Karate." Japanese, Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for japan. Manacpowers (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. There's no doubt among those who have investigated it that the base of Okinawan Karate is primarily Southern Chinese Kung Fu, with a modest admixture of Ryukyuan grappling and conceivably other very slight influences. I have regularly seen, and would agree with, estimates that Okinawan Karate is 70-90% Southern Chinese Kung Fu. (In Uechi-ryu it's nearly 100%.) But, I don't see the relevance of this. JJL (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
and plus, that magazine interviwer did not says, TKD is purety from karete. He says, early TKD accepted karate system. also He says, "Karate is a Chiese martial arts, modifited by okinwawan(japanese), and spread to Korea" and i don't think this magazine interview has WP:RS.Manacpowers (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the most ludicrous items have been allowed as sources for the Korean origins theory, what's the reason for deleting the recent edit by Pabopa? JJL (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL, I already said, He was a Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan students. Yun Moo Kwan was a very minor kwans among other 5 kwans. also Unlike other 5 kwans founder, Yun Moo Kwan founder, he was a only one person learned karate only. so, we must understand what intervier background, he think Yun Moo Kwan TKD is a heavily influenced by karate. it is a reasonable to him. but only to him.Manacpowers (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
JJL, you said very significant remark, "Thanks for the translation. There's no doubt among those who have investigated it that the base of Okinawan Karate is primarily Southern Chinese Kung Fu, with a modest admixture of Ryukyuan grappling and conceivably other very slight influences. I have regularly seen, and would agree with, estimates that Okinawan Karate is 70-90% Southern Chinese Kung Fu. (In Uechi-ryu it's nearly 100%.)"
This is the only one remark that i agree with you. even you admit karate derived from china. Manacpowers (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

every martial arts influenced each other. Like aikido and karate derived from Chinese martial arts. even Bruce Lee's martial arts influenced by TKD.

http://www.taekwondobible.com/discussion/history/brucelee.html

[13](Video)

Oh, this is a out of topic? come on, give me a break.

I just curious, Why JJL do not change article that 'Aikido and Karate are Based on Chinese martial arts?'(it was true) are you double standard? Manacpowers (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's only so much time in the day, and the Karate article does say that pretty clearly I believe, but I don't think you and I are actually in full agreement here. First, aikido is primarily developed from jujutsu and any Chinese influence on that was partial and long past (if at all). Second, while Karate developed from kung fu in a way similar to how TKD developed from Karate, Karate is now clearly Japanese just as TKD is now clearly Korean. So, I'm not sure what there is to change at those other sites. It's here that the myth is being strongly enforced. JJL (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you're again describing the idea that taekwondo is Korean as "myth", and earlier likened it to the theory that the moon is made of green cheese. You must understand that this doesn't help the situation. While you're certainly entitled to this opinion, it's not your job (nor mine, nor anyone's here) to judge the rightness or wrongness of significant competing theories, nor should we use this talk page as a general TKD forum to advance this view or that view. Our task (regarding the particular subject at hand) is to fairly present the significant, supported community views to the reader. You don't have to like that, or like the opposing theories, but I do ask you to accept that they exist, are well documented, and shouldn't be disparaged.
BTW, in regards to concerns regarding websites, the Britannica and Encarta online cites (minor supporting refs though they are) can be replaced by these from physical encyclopedias if you prefer:
  • The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 11 (15th edition, Micropædia ed.). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. p. 491. ISBN 1-59339-292-3. Tae kwon do (Korean: "art of kicking and punching"), Korean art of unarmed combat that is based on the earlier form of Korean self defense known as tae kyon and on karate.
  • Crompton, Paul (2008). The World Book Encyclopedia. Vol. T. Chicago: World Book. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7166-0108-1. The beginnings of tae kwon do are obscure. Historians believe it originated in a martial arts form called t'aekyon over 1,500 years ago. Beginning about 1910, the introduction of Chinese and Japanese techniques transformed the older art.
Wow. you checked these offline book? Huwmanbeing is a very good editor. he is a creditable. Manacpowers (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I was specifically asked a question by Manacpowers. It seemed appropriate to answer it. I agree that personal opinions aren't relevant here. That's why I try to follow WP:RS and associated policies and guidelines. From Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." See also Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples: "General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution." JJL (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement here — the encyclopedia cites (as I mention above) are merely "minor supporting refs", but nonetheless useful as indications of a widely-held view concerning the Korean origins of the art. The main reliable sources for this are of course journal articles and books: Min, Henning2, Park, Lawler, Heo, etc. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
1st of all, my sources are WP:RS, too. 2nd, your sources are heavy POV, and authors are not specialists of TKD, too. your source authors are funny. "English instructor of women's univercity, Karate magazine editor, Chinese martial arts lecture, Karate and budo teacher, Japanese aikido trainer...." They are Pro Japanese author, and they are not a specialist of TKD. Manacpowers (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Err have you looked at the Karate article recently? It specifically states the influence of Chinese and Okinawan martial arts, as for aikido, it was derived from a particular school of jujutsu, which has a whole host of influences and origins which are discussed in the jujutsu article, the most key of which was adoption to the needs of the Japanese during the 4 or 5 centuries there are records for, it was influenced externally but it was developed in Japan, the same as collegiate wrestling is a very specific style to the US, but has been influenced by all sorts including cross organisation with Judo, both borrowing techniques form the other. There is no anti Korean Cabal insiting that only TKD had external influences, all martial arts do. Going back more than the immediate influences of in differentiated arts in one every article is not sensible if you can look at karate and see it's origins in the infobox. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
well, Japanese aikido article do not say, "their origin from China." even can't find "China" or "Chinese" word in aikido article. JJL, please go to aikido article and change aikido article. this aikido article hide foreign influence. rubiish! JJL. please go to Aikido article. and play at there. TKD article is already done. even your favored karate source are include in it. What do you want more? go to aikido article. Accodign to your logic, they hide forieng influence. Manacpowers (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.net.pref.aomori.jp/misawa/english/trad_arts.html#aikido (Homepage of Misawa City, Goverment site)

  • Aikido
Aikido finds its origin in ancient China, but the concept of “ki” is connected with Shinto and has a peculiarly Japanese development. A martial art without weapons, Aikido makes it possible to overwhelm and throw opponents by grasping and twisting their hands, feet or joints, without resorting so much to strength. It’s effective for one’s spiritual cultivation and is practiced to maintain good health as well.Manacpowers (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


http://www.aikidojournal.com/bibliography_details?id=158

  • Aikido and Chinese Martial Arts - Volume 1
Subtitled "Its Fundamental Relations", this first in a two-volume set attempts to draw parallels in the fundamentals between the ancient arts of Kung-Fu, and the more modern art of Aikido. There is much discussion of origin and background, and the book is well illustrated.

Manacpowers (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This controversy exist, here is the source.

http://dojorat.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-aikido-of-chinese-origin.html

There is an ongoing debate (What? debate in the Martial Arts community??) as to if Aikido Master Ueshiba was influenced by the circular Chinese arts such as Bagua or elements within the Tai Chi Chuan forms. They certainly share the spiraling and opening/closing, Yin/Yang feel of those arts. Furthermore, Chin-na joint locking may predate the Japanese systems. This is a small part of a very well researched article by Ellis Amdur at "Aikido Journal". The entire series of articles, some with lineage that is clearly over my head- ("Inside Aikido") can be found at http://www.aikidojournal.com/?author=8

Amdur writes:

However, Ueshiba did observe Chinese martial arts. Takeda Hiroshi studied Ruyi Tongbei ch'uan from He Zhenfang in the 1920's and 1930's. Takeda published the first book on Tongbei ch'uan in 1936. Tongbei is a martial system that uses a very flexible upper body and whipping techniques with the arms, as if there is an axle from one shoulder to the other. Although I do not know if this is true in Takeda’s line, some Tongbei ch’uan traditions have staff and/or spear training with fajin practice as part of their system. According to the following website,
"Interestingly, although the content in certain portions of the book are very clear, other parts are very puzzling and strange. Many believe the reason is that Master He did not really want to teach Takeda, and so he diverted the teaching on purpose. There is speculation that this happened because of the political situation between China and Japan at that time." In any event, Takeda stated in an interview in a Japanese martial arts magazine in the late 1980’s, that his home became a center, not only for practitioners of Chinese martial arts, but also for visiting Japanese martial artists, and among them was Ueshiba Morihei, who visited him in 1936. According to Okumura Shigenobu, “Yes, he went to Peking too. He saw various Chinese martial arts. There are good martial arts in China. Ueshiba sensei was impressed by them.” Let me be very clear here. I am not saying that I believe that Ueshiba studied under Takeda Hiroshi - or anybody else in Beijing. But it is possible that, in his visit to Beijing, that he observed such training either by Takeda Hiroshi or by some of his other compadres, and saw something of value that he could "steal." Remember, Ueshiba was the man of whom Sugino Yoshio stated that he could observe something once and see exactly what they were doing. In sum, what I am saying here is that the type of force-building and expression that I am loosely referring to as “fajin,” may have been something that Ueshiba did observe in China and integrate in his own way into his art — either as something new or as a augmentation or variation to what he had already learned. Manacpowers (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for a period of time. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

every martial arts influenced each other

every martial arts influenced each other. like TKD derived from karate.

  • Choi Hong Hi who　The founder of TKD said that when he was studying in Japan, he met a Karate teacher who helped him earn his first degree Black Belt in less than two years. He then intensified his training, striving to earn his second degree. Around the same time, he started teaching.he practiced karate.His beliefs and his vision of a different approach to teaching martial arts led Choi to combine elements of Taek Kyon and Karate techniques to develop a modern martial art.He called it Tae Kwon Do, which means "the way of the feet and the hands", and this name was officially adopted on April 11th, 1955.
  • Mr. Lee who Vice-president of Kukkiwon did confession. the origin of the taekwondo　is karate. He said that 1,TKD was made from karate. 2,many Koreans say that origin of the taekwondo is tekkyon.However, it has unreasonableness.3,As for the origin of the taekwondo, I told a lie that it was Korean tradition martial arts(taekkyeon).because, to spread taekwondo all over the world, for the sake appearance. 4,There is not a problem now because taekwondo spread even if I confess a forgery in the origin.

--Pabopa (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC),correction--Pabopa (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Donga reference. Yes, it's true that there's been a great deal of influence between various martial arts. What is now TKD went from China to the Ryukyus to Japan to Korea, and possibly was in India even before China. JJL (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, i copy and paste my answer again.

and this magazine Interviewr said, "역사적 원류로 본다면 중국 것이 일본으로 들어갔고 일본 것이 한국으로 들어왔다고 해야 설득력이 있죠. 일본 사람들이 중국 무술을 많이 개량해서 과학적으로 만들었어요. (translate) "Historically, (Karate) Originated from China, and spread to Japan. Japanese people modified Chinese martial arts, and improved arts by scientific method." He says, Origin of Karate is a China. What do you think? huh? even this interview says, Karate is a China origin. ok? if you think this interviewer says are 100% true, then Karate article must change like his opinion.
He says, early TKD heavily influend by karate. and He says, "China -> Okinawa(Japan) -> Korea" is root. remeber, He says, origin of karate is a china.
He was a Yun Moo Kwan/Jidokwan students. Yun Moo Kwan was a very minor kwans among other 5 kwans. also Unlike other 5 kwans founder, Yun Moo Kwan founder, he was a only one person learned karate only. so, we must understand what intervier background, he think Yun Moo Kwan TKD is a heavily influenced by karate. it is a reasonable to him. but only to him. TKD is not a root from Yun Moo Kwan. so his opinion is not represent to all tkd. and his interview criticized by various TKD affiliateds.
2000 year old purely Korean art. yes, this is a reasonable. you may know tkd originated from 5 kwans. (later, modefied by various instructors) Biggest TKD orginization Moo Duk Kwan founder seek their skill from true korean martial arts, Soo Bahk, taekkyon. 2nd biggest tkd orginization Chung Do Kwan(this 2 kwans dominated 80~90% TKD society) teached Takeeyon kicking skills. we can confirm this by very early Chung Do Kwan teaching manual. There is no record that Taekkyon exist in China, Japan, or any other countries. so, it is reasonable that TKD 2000 years old korean martial arts. But i do not say it is a "purely".
and you say TKD hyeong are similar with Karate Kata.
Well, ITF tkd has 24 hyeong.(+ unofficial 3 hyeong) WTF tkd has 17 hyeong. According to wikipedia, karate similar hyeong are only 2, Chul-Gi, Bassai. This mean only 4.5% hyeong are similar with karate. so, it is unreasnable conclude that TKD is based on karate. Why you omitted this fact? at least, we must recognized that other 95.5% hyeongs are created by their own. (found their skills from Subahk, Taekyyon...etc..) your Karate POV sources are ignored this.
I agreed TKD influend by some karate system. dobok and grade system and kata. even kata and poomse contents are pretty difference each other. However, you know? even Karate Kata system originated from China.[14][15] 95.5% TKD hyeong contents are difference from karate. and karate kata originated from China. at least, TKD is more creative. Japanese karate kata are brought from China. However, Korean TKD hyeong are created by their own.
I already answered it here by counterpart acadmic sources. [16] Manacpowers (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
and TKD influenced by karate. this is a nothing new.
even public trusted Encyclopedia wriiten like this.
  • (2007) The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th edition, Micropædia 11, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 491. ISBN 1-59339-292-3. “Tae kwon do (Korean: "art of kicking and punching"), Korean art of unarmed combat that is based on the earlier form of Korean self defense known as tae kyon and on karate.”
  • Crompton, Paul (2008). The World Book Encyclopedia T. Chicago: World Book, 7. ISBN 978-0-7166-0108-1. “The beginnings of tae kwon do are obscure. Historians believe it originated in a martial arts form called t'aekyon over 1,500 years ago. Beginning about 1910, the introduction of Chinese and Japanese techniques transformed the older art.”
OK? this is a nothing new. However, You try to remove that TKD influend by Taekkyon, Subahk.
early TKD influenced by karate. yeah, it was true. however, 95.5% TKD hyeong created by their new. and found their skills from early Tradiotional Korea martial arts. so, it is reasonalbe conclude that TKD has a 2000 years history.
even oldest TKD video(i found it), we can confirm that TKD already have taekkyon elements. not like karate. [17][18](videos)
TKD influenced by Karate. claim is right. and TKD has a 2000 years history is right, too.
each claims are right.
Again, "Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." Wikipedia is not your blog. Manacpowers (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

TKD HISTRY ,China -> OKINAWA -> Japan -> Korea is root. --Pabopa (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i already said, if you think his opinion is 100% right. then Karate article must change like him. "Karate History, China origin." "TKD history, influenced by Chinese origin martial arts karate." Manacpowers (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
and that is not a newspaper, that is a magazine. and i already ask for information to Lee(intervier) and Kukiwon by phone call. Lee said, it is a something "incorrect report". and kukiwon said, "his interview can't represent kukiwon or any TKD orginization." i waiting official e-mail from kukiwon. Manacpowers (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
question

User:Manacpowers=User:Caspian blue? They appear at the same time.--Pabopa (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)--Pabopa (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. don't out of topic. not personal attack. We discuss about TKD. his english skill and wikipedia skill is way better than me. He said[19] "Don't follow or take advantage of me" Manacpowers (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This was a simple question.personal attack is this[20].--Pabopa (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
again, it is not a personal attack. [21] Manacpowers (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article and the history of TKD

The article now acknowledges three distinct possibilities for the history of TKD, but at the expense of any discussion of them. Lots of info. that is relevant and appropriate for a WP article, of the sort that appears in articles liek Karate and Judo, has been excised in the name of compromise. I'd like to see more "meat" in the article. Any thoughts on how to proceed? JJL (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the section is a worthy goal, I do agree. I see, though, that even though here you acknowledge three distinct possibilities, above you're still asserting that the opposing theory is a myth supported by unreliable sources. You're completely entitled to that opinion, of course, but only to the extent that it doesn't disrupt the page or violate the spirit of WP guidelines.
Since this has lately been a stumbling block, resolving this should probably be a sine qua non to further constructive work within the section. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with JJL. We should mention all the given opinions in the world.--Pabopa (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:RS says,

  • "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
  • "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. It must not contain In main body article. Manacpowers (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

extremist?Your opinion and judgment are not necessary.--Pabopa (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

he said the origin of the TKD is karate. NO taekkyeon!Vice-president of Kukkiwon did shocking confession!(April2002.in korean)--Pabopa (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dong-a Ilbo is magazine? wow,That's news to me.

  • karate history,chinese kenpo -> okinawa and japan karate
  • TKD history , okinawa and JAPAN karate -> Korea TKD
  • NO taekkyeon!

Vice-president of Kukkiwon did shocking confession!(April2002.in korean) --Pabopa (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


That is not news. Shindonga. That is the monthly published magazine. and that is the gossip magazine. he said karate originated from china. Wisely accepted TKD orginizations and academic source and Encyclopedia says, root of TKD is a taekkyon. i already said, if you think his intervier is 100% right. then Karate article must change like him. "Karate History, China origin." "TKD history, influenced by Chinese origin martial arts karate." and that is not a newspaper, that is a magazine. and i already ask for information to Lee(intervier) and Kukiwon by phone call. Lee said, it is a something "incorrect report" and he says, "I don't ask thie interview to public. this interview is so exaggerated, interview made by writer". and kukiwon said, "his interview can't represent kukiwon or any TKD orginization." i waiting official e-mail from kukiwon. and interviwer is not vice president of kukiwon. Manacpowers (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we should not delete his opinion.--Pabopa (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Tae Kwon Do Achievement and Locus of Control (M Sansone - 1999 - rowan.edu),
The history of Tae Kwon Do is as old as it is rich. The earliest records of Tae Kwon Do date back to about 50 B. C. During this time Korea was divided into three

kingdoms: Silla, Koguryo, and Baekche. Evidence of the practice of Taek Kyon (the earliest know form of Tae Kwon Do) has been found in the paintings of a tomb from the Koguryo dynasty.[...] In 1945 Korea was liberated from the Japanese. The Korean martial art was beginning to take root. In 1945 the first kwan (school) opened to teach the Korean martial art. The dojang was named Chung Do Kwan, followed by the opening of a second dojang called Moo Duk Kwon. These names are often seen in the titles of Tae Kwon Do studios. In the following years many kwans' opened.[...] It is clear that Tae Kwon Do has an impressive heritage, and is gaining tremendously in popularity. Parents are willing to pay over a hundred dollars a month to ensure their children gain the benefits of Tae Kwon Do. College students and adults are also joining studios is great numbers to improve their health and psychological well being. [22]

Manacpowers (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

originial TKD kwans are 5. but, in fact, Moo Duk Kwan dominated almost all TKD orginizations. According to wikipedia, "the Moo Duk Kwan had risen to become biggest Taekwondo organization in Korea, with close to 75% of all martial artists in Korea practicing Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan." 2nd biggest TKD orginization was a Chung Do Kwan. This 2 kwans dominated TKD orginizations. maybe exceed 80%~90%.

Biggest TKD orginization Moo Duk Kwan founder never learned karate. He developed his arts from korean tradiotinal martial arts subahk. 2nd biggest TKD orginization Chung Do Kwan founder learned Taekkyon, Kungfu, Karate. i already said, this 2 kwans dominated tkd. other 3 kwans were less than 20% from all TKD orginization. so, We can easily think that modern TKD root from Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan. and Kong soo do Chang Moo Kwan founder learned Chuan-fa, Shudo-Ryu karate(not shotokan). According to reliable source, He was a more skillful person who trained Chuan-fa than karate. Chang Moo Kwan founder, Yoon Byung-in teached Toyama Kanken Chuan-fa and Toyama Kanken teached Yoon Byung-in his Shudo-Ryu karate. His kong soo do was not a purely karate. and he did not practieced shotokan. so, it is hard to say, root of TKD is a karate. modern TKD root from Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan. Moo Duk Kwan founder never learned karate.Chung Do Kwan founder learned taekkyon, Kungfu, karate. karate is one of them. But TKD influenced by karate system. and Kungfu and Chun fa influenced to TKD, too Manacpowers (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, we should not delete all opinions.--Pabopa (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A Note About History to Manicpowers and Cohorts

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, by and large, started out as version of Shotokan or kin, 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, and clearly very passionate, 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]. This should be used as a historical reference. 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. Again, no offense meant here.



According to WP:RS says,

  • "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
  • "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

your source is a gossip magazaine. not academic source.Manacpowers (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


source of The monthly of the korean newspaper publishing companyVice-president of Kukkiwon did shocking confession!(April2002.in korean)

Where do WP:RS say that delete this source? I don't see any.

  • mr.Lee is not extremist.
  • "When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view." Where do WP:RS say that delete this source?I don't see any.and this donga souce is not minority.

According to WP:NPOV says,

  • "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."
  • "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

we should not delete his opinion.--Pabopa (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

no. i did not says, he is a extemist. His interview article is a extremist. Interview made by writer's POV. so, it is unreasonable. also it is not a academic source or something. I already talk with interviewer by phone, He says, "I never allowed this interview public in magazine. also this interview are some exagerrated. writer forking from my testimony. after that, i never met anyone with interview." He is 80s years old person. he is no longer work with kukiwon. and in this interview time(2002) he was not work in kuiwon. also, i e-mail to kukiwon and phone communication with Kukiwon, kukiwon Pubishing part says, "His interview is not represent our orginizations."
you still curious i phone communication with them? here is the phone number.

According to Wikipedia:NPOV says,

Bias
NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
POV forks
A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. Manacpowers (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

phone ?e-mail ?? wow,please read Wikipedia:No original research.mr.Lee is not extremist.--Pabopa (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

what is the reation with Wikipedia:No original research?

i already said, that article is NOT a academic source. 1. Interview article is a gossip Magazine 2. even intervier says, "I don't want this interview to public, also this interview are some exagerrated. writer forking from my testimony. after that, i never met anyone with interview." 3. kukiwon Pubishing part says, "His interview is not represent our orginizations." 4. if you beleive that gossip magazine article is 100% true, then You must recognize that "Origin of Karate is a China" 5. no. i did not says, he is a extemist. His interview article is a extremist. Manacpowers (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is your opinion,It is not rule.By the way,Did you get permission to show a phone number of Mr.Lee? --Pabopa (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

on the contrary, It is only for your rule. Wikipedia is no accpet POV fork.Manacpowers (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. i delete phone number. sorry. anyway if you really doubt that he and I communication are true, you can communicate with him. Manacpowers (talk)

You did illegal act....[23]--Pabopa (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not exacerbate things by accusing other editors of illegal acts here. While we strongly discourage the posting of phone numbers or other personal information on Wikipedia, and it was correct to remove the info (thank you, Manacpowers), it's not illegal to have done so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation - Create new sub-articles for each origin theory

A recent series of comments on the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboards for Incidents asked for independent admin review of the situation here.

First, I would appreciate it if all parties would assume good faith about each others' intentions and be polite and civil in discussion. From an outsiders impartial review, nobody's motives appear to be improper here. Please respect each other and the civility of Wikipedia in this discussion.

This article appears to be ripe for creating sub-articles, for example: Korean origins theory for Taekwondo, Japanese origins theory for Taekwondo, and Hybrid origins theory for Taekwondo. There may be a better phrasing or way to put that, it's just an initial suggestion.

This is not a POV split - it's an attempt to separate out serious and legitimate discussion of each theory into a specific subpage, where it can be explained and sourced in more detail. The main page would continue to briefly address each issue, but link to the subpages for more in-depth review of the theories' historical claims.

Such a split is pretty straightforwards - create the pages, move the content that is or was here that's specific to each theory and put it on that page, including detailed references and sources. I encourage all the main proponents of coverage of those theories to do that. Keep in mind that, while the articles should describe the differing theories and perspectives, our neutral-point-of-view policy remains applicable to all the subpages.

Each sub article should also have space for a brief criticisms section, with links to the other competing historical theories, and critics' most focused disputes related to each point of view.

As a rule, the criticism section in the article should be short compared to the main content of that subpage, and neutral and to the point, and provide links to the alternate theories more than arguing points within that section.

As a rule, in a situation like this, it's generally best if the proponents of a point of view are (within NPOV and so forth) allowed to manage the main content of each competing theory page.

I believe that this is both a timely suggestion and one which is very practical and easy to accomplish. I recommend the parties consider this and implement it quickly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for meditating the dispute. One thing I worry about the suggestion is that do we really need the separate articles on the each theory? I think the Korean origins theory for Taekwondo, Japanese origins theory for Taekwondo, and Hybrid origins theory for Taekwondo should be under the editors' user page, not as a form of article because if they are created as articles, readers can be confused or that would be likely a ground for further edit wars. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Having separate articles allows each point of view to be discussed in a more specific context, and in more detail, than having them as parts of a larger article.
Having them in userspace doesn't do any good for the main article here.
Readers should not be confused - all three theory articles should reference the fact that there are competing theories and link to the other theories, and the main article should continue to briefly discuss all three historical theories and link to all three more specific pages. The individual theory pages should discuss the theory in a neutral manner and not attack competing theories. Separating them out is actually better to avoid edit wars than keeping them together. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


This seems unfortunate, but I see the logic and am prepared to do as suggested. Would it be better to have a single History of Taekwondo page with subsections as described above, ordered alphabetically (Hybrid, Japanese, Korean) and principally managed by their proponents? JJL (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That might work, the further separated the sections are the better to avoid conflict. Separate pages isn't that much overhead, and if cross-links are maintained all four pages (the main one, and three subpages) can be easy for readers to navigate and compare and consider. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. I don't think the two suggestions by George and JJL are good ideas. Simply each theory can be under the subpage of both JJL and Manac, so other editors here can review it before published as an article. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not sure that we have a proponent (or reliable source) for the pure Korean origins theory. There are certainly people who believe it and that can be shown by citing primary sources at TKD web sites, but I believe that the sides represented on this page fall into either the hybrid (Taekyon/Subak with Shotokan/Kung Fu influences) or Japanese (modified Shotokan and possibly Shito) camps. JJL (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that multiple separate history articles would solve the recent problems, for a variety of reasons. As posts over the last few months show, a lot of the difficulty has been the result of protracted wrangling over the reliability/admissibility of certain sources and parsing of related Wikipedia guidelines. Multiple pages would spread that problem around, but wouldn't solve it (and the main TKD article would presumably still retain its own short history section anyway). As Omnedon earlier pointed out, a good article tends to be broad in its coverage, so finding some means to reach settlement or compromise regarding the current form would seem preferable. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

to Georgew... Tanks your concern. However, it is too complex. it is not a good idea. Aikido Originated from China. However, there is no article that Japanese origins theory for Aikido, Japan origins theory for aikido, Chinese origins theory for Aikido, and Hybrid origins theory for Aikido. it is too complex. Also, there is no artilce that Japanese origins theory for Karate, Japan origins theory for Karate, Chinese origins theory for Karate, and Hybrid origins theory for Karate. It will be a possibly most lamest edit war article in wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia:NPOV says,

Bias

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

POV forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable.

According to WP:RS says,

  • "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
  • "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"

currently, only one user who think "Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." against current mutual agreement version. for only one user, seperate is not a good idea. Manacpowers (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks like POV forks to me. An article History of Taekwondo that has thes sections and goes into the different theories in detail, with mention of all of them in the lead would make sense, as it would allow for the various theories to be covered in detail in a sensible way rather than the various theroies by stages. While this dose not resolve the problem of competing views it would make for a beter encyclopedic article. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
NO. there is no History of Karate or History of Aikido artilces exist. this is not fair. if seperate artilce, it will be a most lamest edit war, and it is purely POV fork article ("Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies."). only one person against current version. i don't like POV fork content. i just want obey Wikipedia:NPOV rule. WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.Manacpowers (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
"History of Japan A side." "History of Japan B side." That is the duplicate article. Wikipedia:Merge.
i really sick and tired JJL's stuborness and doggie stance. He keep a Japanese Karate POV pushing for 7 month!!! Manacpowers (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Because the history of those arts is less controversial, at some point their may well be and they can go into exaustive detail, but right now I think TKD needs one. Please don't oppose this just because JJL supports it. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
then, talk with JJL. in fact, controvercy is not exist. JJL make controvercy. there is no encycloedia for JJL. wikipedia is not for someone's blog. Manacpowers (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does! JJL is not the only one to have dissagreed, he had provided sources showing it is a widely held view just as you have, he has not created a controversy, he has just advocated one side of an existing one. The fact that you can both produce sources demonstrates their is a controversy. Please stop saying "There is nothing to argue about" when the last 6 months & umpteen thousand words show that there is!
You are right wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one built by consensus i.e. talking to people and agreing on things, not shouting you case as loud as possible and repeating it in the hope that everyone will give in and let you use it as your blog. So please stop saying that noone else's views are valid and there is no controversy because "Manacpowers is right" --Nate1481(t/c) 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE stop insisting that people take sides. Did you read what I said? I assume not since you are repeating yourself, so have at least not paid attention to them. Aikido managed to get to WP:Featured article status, which means that it was extensively reviewed by editors where is their any controversy about the origins of Aikido not that have seen. No one is saying JJL is right or that his inital rewrite was a good idea, but we are saying the view he and others hold is valid and should be presented neutrally as an option, he wants to go further ans say you view is not valid but this is also unreasonable, as it ignores the sources provided. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Nate1481, This current edit version is a "consensual" version. remeber, even I am not like this version. However, JJL try to break this "consensual" version. i really sick and tired by JJL for 7 months. and pease See,Wikipedia:NPOV WP:RS He think "Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies." He just want change article by his POV forking. current version have 3 variety view. pretty fair. anyway, what is your problem? Manacpowers (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Nate: The summary you posted on the noticeboard looks good and I agree with what you describe as the key problems: JJL's disruptive application of WP:RS, and the resulting incessant arguments between JJL and Manacpowers.
I think it's pertinent to note that JJL has been essentially alone in questioning the suitability/reliability of the current summary of TKD's origins. (If this is inaccurate, please correct me.) While both JJL and Manacpowers have been similarly argumentative, Manacpowers seems to accept the current compromise text and isn't seeking to put his own view (the Korean) ahead of the others; JJL, however, is seeking to assert the Japanese view as superior to the Korean. His efforts in this regard, while certainly not the only problem here, have been in my opinion the most consistently difficult stumbling block to overcome. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Three separate articles are not necessary. Obviously the overhead for Wikipedia itself is insignificant, but I fail to see how the reader is served by having three separate articles expressing different views about the same subject, simply because we have a disagreement going on here. Quite frankly, two users have caused most of the recent problems for this article: JJL with his one-sided attitude and uncivil behaviour, and Manacpowers with his long-winded, repetitive, and emotional responses. Huwmanbeing and I have supported compromise throughout the process, and a compromise version of the article finally emerged, followed by a protracted discussion on sources. The compromise version arose out of a need to present all three basic views equally and fairly, and that's what it does; it can be expanded with care to include more details about each side of the issue. There are already reliable third-party sources for each. A single separate article on the history of Taekwondo could also work, but again, that would not solve the current problem. Omnedon (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said, I agree. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
i agree Omnedon's opinion. Three separate articles are not necessary. and i agree current compromise version made by Omnedon.(even i do not 100% agree it) because current version is a pretty good example of what is the WP:NPOV edit. i think we must end debate at here. only JJL try to change Omnedon's compromise version. JJL, you must 'give up' your dogged stance. and i really sick and tired by you for 7 months. Manacpowers (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, You must not hide [his opinion].Please stop hiding a thing inconvenient for Korea.--[User:Pabopa|Pabopa](talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Pabopa is a abusive sock[24] and Topic banned user(korea relation)[25]. Manacpowers (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be, IMO, a history section with mentions of different origin theories supported by sources without conclusions drawn in the article. Tai chi chuan has almost as many contrasting theories, legendary and mundane, as it has styles, and we don't draw conclusions at thst article, either. Editors who are trying to "make a case" for one story or the other are missing the point. People have to collaborate collegially from here on (to paraphrase Peter Sellers' president in Dr. Strangelove: Gentlemen, don't fight, this is a martial arts article!). The page has been protected once, and that should serve as a warning that more admins are watching now. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your points regarding cooperation and collaboration are right on the money; unfortunately, though, they don't address the current problems. As you say, editors shouldn't miss the point (perfectly true), but what should happen when an editor does miss the point? This is what we're struggling with. The TKD article already mentions different origin theories supported by sources without conclusions drawn (or at least it does so to the satisfaction of all but one editor), so putting this section into a separate article most likely wouldn't end the dispute but instead just relocate it. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "supported by sources" continues to be a significant problem. The TCC article doesn't seem to say much at all about history, but it suggests the CMA article, which seems to tell a fairly unified story (wth noticeable gaps)--are you suggesting that what was contentious there was omitted? EDIT: OK, looks like much of the discussion was sent to the articles on the five major styles of Tai Chi. JJL (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Bradeos Graphon: JJL isn't content to accept the current presentation and supporting sources, as he says, and he is alone in that. This being the case, could you suggest an appropriate course of action? Huwmanbeing ☀★ 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree Huwmanbeing's opinion. "JJL isn't content to accept the current presentation and supporting sources, as he says, and he is alone in that."
I think only way for solve this discussion... is a give "Topic banned' to JJL. Manacpowers (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing about the TCC article is that practically nothing about TCC history before 1850 or so (when the Qing dynasty hired Yang Luchan to teach its soldiers) is "provable" in a historical sense. Everything else we have to qualify. That is what needs to happen here. We can say what the people who first publicised TKD said about it when interviewed or asked for histories for books, magazines, Olympic or govt. committees or TV, everything else is likely conjecture and should be qualified. If there is a source that fits our policies for a story, it should be included and people will be able to decide for themselves, or at least do more research. Debate about those sources should happen here, calmy, not in edit warring on the article. Continued edit warring will result in increasing sanctions against those involved, regardless of which side they are on. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Bradeos: It's certainly right to present things neutrally and allow the reader to decide — the article currently does this, with no theory superior to any other and each one supported by sources. It also already makes a qualification by saying that TKD's origins are a matter of contention and multiple theories are held. (The history section is here.)
Also, you're right to warn that warring over sources is inappropriate. Unfortunately, this has already happened in a huge way. Months of effort have been spent by myself, Omnedon, Nate1481 and others in attempting to accommodate a single editor's (JJL's) concerns over nearly every source not his own. To be brief, after so much debate and two failed attempts at mediation, we've reached a point where we need a solution to the disruptions. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
to Bradeos Graphon. but we really sick and tired by JJL's stuborness for 7 months.(yes! 7 months!) cleary, curent version is a pretty neutral WP:NPOV Version. and pretty fair. however, JJL try to break this compromise text. and try to pushing his Japanese/Karate POV. i agree Bradeos Graphon's opinion, "and we don't draw conclusions at thst article". Yeah, (except JJL) We do, too. Manacpowers (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Because TKD emerged in the 1940s, I'm not sure it's as much conjectural as contentious in its case. Some of the founders/early students are still alive so the research prospects are better. I have been trying to engage in "[d]ebate about those sources" as you suggest but have felt stonewalled as I have attempted to do so. Some assistance in guiding that debate would be most helpful. Would admins here be willing to oversee such debates? I know there was disagreement about the propriety of weighing in on reliability of sources at the Noticeboard. JJL (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Debate over sources is what we've been engaging in for a number of months. Note too that we've used the reliable sources noticeboard (example). Huwmanbeing ☀★ 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WTTU

Please add a stub for WTTU. It is another offical taekwondo "federation" like WTF and ITF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.32 (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sources

The article has had all contentious historical issues whittled down to "He said/she said" form and in that regard the web sites used as sources do indeed provide evidence of the existence of people who maintain a certain opinion on the matter. Attempts to move beyond that have been stalled by an unwillingness to discuss sources. I'd like to move forward in light of the suggestion to split off the History of Taekwondo into one-to-three subpages.

To give an idea of the issues at hand, consider the claim under Taekwondo#Development that "some believe that taekkyeon survived through underground teaching and folk custom" which is supported by refs. 4, 22, 23, and 24, but explicitly contradicted by Henning and largely contradicted by Capener, Dohrwend, and Burdick (within the bounds of proving a negative; see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_6#Nationalism and Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Strong_sources). Note that ref. 4 is a TKD organization website; ref. 22 is a Taekkyon organization website and ref. 23 is a Taekkyon organization publication; and ref. 24 is from "Escape From America Magazine" which is an e-magazine for those wishing to retire abroad [26]. Burdick and Henning are from the peer-reviewed Journal of Asian Martial Arts; please see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Strong_sources for more details on the quality of these sources and the academic backgrounds and independence of their authors.

The related claim under Taekwondo#History is that "Taekwondo organizations officially state that taekwondo was entirely derived from earlier Korean martial arts" which is certainly a true statement that should be in the article; by and large, they do maintain that. In considering the presentation of that fact, however, I note that it is supported by refs. 4-9: Four official TKD organization websites, two unsigned online encyclopedia entries, and a set of video clips from TaekwondoBible.com. Set against this are two alternatives--that TKD is partially or wholly based on arts from other countries--supported by refs. 10-17, which includes Henning and Capener (and should include Burdick and Dohrwend), all of whom strongly endorse the position that it is primarily from outside influences.

Considering Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:NOR#Sources, in each of these closely related cases the latter position is supported by published independent academic secondary sources, while in each case the former position is supported by affiliated primary web sites and tertiary and (mostly affiliated) primary publications. Given that fact, I think we can do better than merely asserting the existence of individuals holding certain opinions and make a stronger statement that acknowledges the official Korean TKD organizations' position while following the policy that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

I know that for the admins who are new here this is a lot of material to consider at once, especially for those not familiar with the martial arts. But, if we can't discuss the relative merits of these sources in light of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, the current article will continue to have only a list of theories of widely varying support, and these problems with sources will follow to the proposed sub-pages. JJL (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies."
"Everything that comes from My favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from other sources is 100% lies."
Trolling. I really sick and tired this for 7 months. whatever you did, counterpart source are rich. and it seem like a nobody agree your disruptive behavior. He try to break current version and pushing his POV. I think Admin must "topic banned" this user at TKD relation article. this is the only way for solve this problem. Admin must decide to this.Manacpowers (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


JJL: Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what's being asserted that's the problem. The organizations passage doesn't say TKD is exclusively Korean, but instead simply refers to what official TKD organizations say taekwondo is, which is relevant to this article. This being the case, referencing the sites is appropriate since, well, those organizations are the main sources for those organizations' beliefs.
As a matter of fact, the position articulated by the TKD sites may actually be overstated in the article: though they present the Korean origins of the art, nowhere do they explicitly state that nothing else ever influenced it. This being the case, simply removing the word "entirely" from the summary may be all that's necessary. It would say, "Taekwondo organizations officially state that taekwondo was derived from earlier Korean martial arts." To me this seems reasonable since a) it fairly summarizes what they're saying, and b) is a theory supported not just by the organization cites but also by the various books, journal articles and encyclopedia entries that assert a principally Korean origin in antiquity.
Incidentally, you make a mischaracterization by saying "two unsigned encyclopedia articles" — one of them (Crompton) is signed and states, "Historians believe it originated in a martial arts form called t'aekyon over 1,500 years ago." Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
good says. I agree with Huwmanbeing. I think History section of TKD article edited by only Huwmanbeing, Omnedon. 2 users's neutral stance are credible. Manacpowers (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as I indicated above, the article does correctly state that there are those who believe a variety of things about the origins of TKD, and I don't doubt that those beliefs are sincere. No one objects to the use of an org.'s web site to document its own views. But, I am glad to see that you, Manacpowers, and Omnedon now recognize that the statement regarding the purely Korean origins went beyond what was supported by the provided sources. As I've indicated before, it's common to see an elision of what happened in the 1940s in TKD histories in order to avoid having to state an uncomfortable truth. The refereed sources fill in the gap that is (intentionally, in my belief) left blank in many orgs.'s official histories, and that's a change I'd like to see implemented. With this change "Others state..." is phrased as though it's in contradiction to the foregoing statement but what follows (preceding the "or") no longer is. I also think the use of the word "officially" (left over from when the other positions were characterized as "alternative") is too strong, at least as used--it's their official position, perhaps, but there's nothing objectively "official" about it.
Which of refs. 7,8 is signed? I searched the pages at the given links for 'Cromp' and couldn't find anything, and the EB one says the contributors are "The Editors" of EB. The citation format suggested for each has no author credited. Did I overlook something? JJL (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't say the statement goes beyond the provided sources at all, quite the reverse. The websites state that the origin of taekwondo is both ancient and Korean, which is also what reliable sources say. There may also be other influences, or there may not — some address this and some do not. That being the case, the simple solution to your complaints is simply not to stipulate that either way and to state (for the Korean position) that TKD's origin is in Korean antiquity, as opposed to others who put the origin in the 20th century. Also I'm not sure why you see foreign influence as an "uncomfortable truth". For instance, the Korean Taekwondo Association (KTA) acknowledges the influence of Chinese Kungfu, so recognizing the role of other cultures isn't anathema as you suggest.
Anyway, previously you'd claimed the idea of the Korean origin to be "myth" or "legend"; if you now accept this and the sources that support it, then we've certainly reached a breakthrough! As for Crompton, I cite him above, but I haven't yet put it inline in the article yet. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to sources used in the article, referring to them as numbered in the then-current version. I wasn't referring to sources not used in the article. The encyclopedia entries in the current article are unsigned. That's not prohibited, but it is deprecated. JJL (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
JJL, I don't think anyone involved in this discussion has insisted that there were no non-Korean influences whatsoever, and I'm not aware of any Taekwondo organizations that make such a claim. However, they do tend to state that Taekwondo was based on earlier Korean martial arts, and that position is stated and reliably sourced in the article. To state that there were also non-Korean influences is neither uncomfortable nor inconvenient. Omnedon (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If no one was making the claim and no sources supported the "entirely" Korean claim, it's unclear to me why you edited it in and defended it. But, it's good to have it removed. JJL (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Um... you repeatedly restored the text yourself: [27], [28], etc. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to the sentence in the history section about what Taekwondo organizations say, what makes you think I "edited it in and defended it"? The compromise version mentioned several basic beliefs, and was an initial attempt to resolve the fierce edit war that was going on at the time between you and Manacpowers; it has naturally been modified since then by various editors, which is how this works. In this case, I removed the word "entirely" myself because it is no longer necessary, as Huwmanbeing rightly noted. Omnedon (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_6#Footnote_.237_.28In_Uk_Heo.29, starting with your comments of 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (and note the first sentence at Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence). JJL (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Good grief... You're actually taking time and effort to press a point about who's responsible for a single word that's not even in the article now? *Sigh* Do we need more evidence why this page is mired in problems?
If you insist on following this inane path, then please note — the first sentence in WP:BURDEN states: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." After it was added, you repeatedly restored the passage [29][30], so the burden is on you. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, you refer to a situation in which you wrongly and aggressively attributed "ownership" of a source to me, then later that day asserted that sources could not be "owned" after all. As far as I can see, this has nothing whatever to do with the sentence which you have just questioned, and which (as has been pointed out) you repeatedly restored yourself without questioning it at the time. Omnedon (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was answering your question. JJL (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You didn't, though. The question was simply this: what makes you think that I "edited in and defended" the sentence, "Taekwondo organizations officially state that taekwondo was derived entirely from earlier Korean martial arts"? That is the sentence in question, and I did not put it into the article. I did, however, remove the word "entirely" from it just recently. Omnedon (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

wow. any wikipedia rules that encyclopedia source is not suitable? any rules that unsigned encylopedia must not used as source? hilarious.. it seems like a you want remove your not favored sources as possible as you can. but, whatever your did, other sources are rich. don't worry. i can prove more source. but i think you must stop your doggies stance.("Everything that comes from Japanese/Karate favored sources is absolute truth and everything that is from foreign sources is 100% lies.") all of involvement members are very tired by you... actually, your source authors are not either "fair" 3rd party author nor specialist of tkd.(English instructor of women's univercity, Karate magazine editor, Chinese martial arts lecture, Karate and budo teacher, Japanese aikido trainer...) purely Karate POV source without scientific evidence.Manacpowers (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and unsigned articles within them are deprecated. I'm suggesting that they should be removed as poor and redundant sources. Does this seem reasonable? JJL (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, since encyclopedias are not defined as "poor sources", nor are they are "deprecated". They are tertiary sources, and are used properly in this article. Omnedon (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
i go to vacation. i can't participate this discussion for a while. anyway, i agree Omnedon's compromise version. Manacpowers (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To any admins still watching...

Well, this is representative of how attempts to discuss sources have gone since I first came here (Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Japanese_origins): First, a personal attack [31]; then, an attempt to shift the discussion to other matters and sources (including, in this case, one not appearing in the article) [32], [33]; and, amid more smoke and mirrors, the closest anyone comes to addressing the sources is flat contradiction [34].

At this point Omnedon has repeated his assertion that his position is somehow 'neutral' so long and often that I now wonder if he's actually come to believe it. Having used melonbarmonster and Manacpowers to do the actual editing has allowed him to remove as much information as possible on the Karate origins while giving prominence to the "official" TKD version of events. He eventually brought in his friend Huwmanbeing as a shill to run interference for him and repeat his claims of neutrality, while downplaying the incivility of Manacpowers (e.g., Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#JJL_is_Japanese_Pushing_POV_Troll) and the existence of others who do not agree with his point of view (e.g. Quietmartialartist, Ptkd, and Master Al Cole, and the editors of most similar pages as detailed at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#More_on_TKD_and_Karate). With this he continually dances around the highly questionable sources used to support his viewpoint while claiming these dodges amount to 'discussion' of the sources; but as indicated above, no such discussion ever occurs.

I've tried an RFC and mediation (Manacpowers would not agree), and agreed to the second mediation (Manacpowers did not agree). Whenever someone else has tried to mediate informally (e.g. Pundit, Nate1481) I have backed off and tried to discuss matters; but as here, if I edit it's described as an edit war, and if I try to discuss matters I'm told that that's evidence the article is now in a 'neutral' consensus form. The fact that Omnedon immediately backed off a claim he had been promoting all along [35] once other eyes were on the page should be telling.

This is a good time for attention to be paid to this article, with the Lopez family in the Olympics getting much press coverage. But, it's been scrubbed clean of well-sourced information from academic, peer-reviewed secondary sources by those who have a vested interest in protecting a legendary origin because they are Tae Kwon Do practitioners. I would like to see the well-sourced info. returned and the website-sourced info. removed. Is ArbCom the next step? That would be unfortunate, but perhaps it's necessary. The tenacity of several editors here has driven away other voices.

After this, the unsourced hagiographic treatment of the Hwa Rang is another issue that should be addressed. JJL (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

JJL, here are responses to some of the points you have raised.
  • I have never claimed to be neutral; some others described me as neutral. Here are a few of my statements from Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 6, 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC): "I have never personally claimed to be neutral, although I do take a middle-of-the-road position..." "Naturally, I have a view and am involved. Clearly, however, some see me as relatively neutral since I am willing to work toward compromise and since I am able to discuss without resorting to ad hominem arguments." However, the development of Taekwondo is presently described in neutral terms. Each primary view is stated simply and straighforwardly, with sources. That arose out of the work of several editors.
  • I did not "use" anyone to do editing for me. This dispute began way back in November, and from the beginning I repeatedly called for compromise and the end of the fighting that was going on first between you and user:melonbarmonster, and later between you and user:Manacpowers. On the very first day of the dispute (November 13, 2007), I said, "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.". The issue arose mainly from your use of terms like "Korean gloss" and "repackaged Karate" in describing Taekwondo; your original phraseology was POV, and some editors did not like it (quite understandably). When this was challenged, your combative attitude made things worse; granted, melonbarmonster behaved rather badly as well, and so the fight began.
  • I did not "bring in" user:Huwmanbeing as a "shill" or to "run interference". That is a highly offensive accusation. Huwmanbeing is a Wikipedia editor who became involved in this article, and has been involved in discussions here since before you arrived in November (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 3, where he was involved in an unrelated discussion as early as August 2007). At one point you bluntly said to him, "I don't understand what role you hope to play here. JJL (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)". To me this says that you do not value the involvement of other editors if they disagree with you. You see a conspiracy here, with me pulling the strings, when in fact you are simply in the minority among editors who are actively involved with this article, and when you wish your view to be preferred even though that is contrary to Wikipedia principles.
  • You claim that Manacpowers did not agree to the first mediation in January 2008. That's simply not true, as you can see here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Taekwondo. Everyone agreed, and a mediator accepted -- and then absolutely nothing happened.
  • Not all of your edits have been part of edit wars. Far from it. However, you have certainly engaged in edit wars with other editors such as Manacpowers, which in one case led to the article being protected as a direct result of your actions (both you and him). As soon as that protection was lifted, you began making contentious edits again.
  • I have never personally supported the view that Taekwondo was entirely Korean with no other influences. Again from POV dispute archive, 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC): "...most sources point to taekwondo being a Korean martial art which was influenced by other non-Korean martial arts (which was probably inevitable, given Korea's proximity to Japan and China, and the fact that Japan actually occupied Korea)." The word "entirely" that bothered you came from a basic compromise version that stated three basic views: the view that Taekwondo is essentially Korean with little or no outside influence, that it is Korean with outside influences, and that it is essentially Japanese. That text was provided as a starting point on which various editors would build. It worked. We now have a fairly neutral presentation. Omnedon (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You're correct that I misstated the matter regarding the first mediation. Manacpowers did sign agreement to it, but did not state his case on the Talk page. The mediation case was closed as "stale" with the lack of activity on the mediation Talk page cited as a reason. [36] I was aware that there was an earlier instance of Huwmanbeing backing you up (in your dispute with Bigzilla). As to what is contrary to Wikipedia principles...there we have a definite disagreement. I was hoping some admins would comment regarding that. JJL (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
JJL: I know you care about martial arts and I'm sure you could make excellent contributions to the article. Your approach, though, remains distressingly combative. While it's true that other editors have disagreed with you, accusing them of conspiring, "shilling" or "running interference" for each other is extremely unhelpful. Also, please refrain from mischaracterizing past events or others' statements: for instance, no one's saying everything you do is an edit war, only that you have in the past engaged in edit warring. Also, Omnedon has not been advancing the claims you refer to, as made clear in the earlier threads.
I, Nate1481, Omnedon and others have expended time and effort over several months in order to address your many concerns, and the current neutral description of TKD's origins seems even-handed and well-supported. I do understand that you're not satisfied with it or with some of the associated sources, and you have a right to that opinion. However, you're basically alone in it, and constructive work shouldn't be curtailed because of a single editor's persistent dissatisfaction.
In short, I urge you to please be willing to accept compromise, to refrain from impugning fellow editors, and to avoid mischaracterizing others' positions. If you have ideas for how to improve other areas of the article, that'd be great; otherwise (as I've implored you before), please consider letting this go. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, it looks like this page is scrolling pretty fast. It looks like the folks who have been doing the archiving have been doing a good job, but if you'd like, we could setup an archive bot for the page? That would automatically "harvest" any threads that went inactive, but would still always keep a minimum of 5 threads on the page. Would this be okay with everyone, or would you rather keep archiving things manually? Let me know, --Elonka 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about taekwondo at the Olympics

Why was taekwondo added to the Olympics and not karate (which I thought was a better known martial art internationally)? Is it because taekwondo is more widely practiced around the world, or because judo (another Japanese martial art) was already represented at the Olympics? Or do taekwondo and karate essentially the same technique? Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me why kung Fu has not been added to the Olymics since it is best known martial arts in the world due to Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Hong Kong films?--Caspian blue (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't the question. Kung Fu is not widely disseminated through schools in nations around the world, which give belts of various colors, etc.; on the other hand, it's common to find experts in taekwondo, judo, and karate all over the world. If the actual question could be addressed rather than asking a question in response, that would be great. Badagnani (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not ask you about the question. You know that the article has been disputed over the origin for months, so your question here looks like another provocation. You can search needed information via web or books. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if the question could be answered (my original reason for posting here) rather than adding opinions that don't help to answer it, thanks. Accusing other editors, as I see just above, is very unproductive and should not be engaged in. Badagnani (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, your continued false accusation is disruptive. I simply state the current status quo in spite of the fact that why you appear to ask such question (since you have not edited the article). You already left your question to several places, so somebody would answer you but it is always faster for you to find needed info by yourself than waiting for answer on a controversial question. Simple fact.--Caspian blue (talk)

It would be much better to actually answer the question I had asked. If you don't know the answer, that's fine; I can wait for other editors to help me. Badagnani (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question, is your question relevant to edit the article? I may answer the question depending on your intention. Besides, if you read the article, you would not even need to ask about the last question.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How so? Well, your answer is not necessary. Well, good luck for your question. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a question for the IOC not the editors of this page. --Nate1481 08:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is an aspect that our readers may wonder and which should be properly documented in this article, but which is not yet adequately explained, and which editors knowledgeable about taekwondo that are active here will likely know more about than editors active at the IOC article, which deals with many dozens of sports and martial arts. Badagnani (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that taekwondo first entered the Olympics as a demonstration sport in the Seoul Olympics, which may have helped it get its "foot in the door." Badagnani (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And judo appeared at the Olympics first at the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. It's starting to make sense. Badagnani (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the next thing we'll need is a history at Taekwondo at the Summer Olympics, or at this page, of how taekwondo got into the Olympics--namely, in which year the taekwondo hierarchy got the idea to apply for this martial art to be included in the Olympics, and which steps they took to ensure that it was properly standardized (judging, scoring, etc.) to facilitate that. This may be contrasted with Basque pelota, which was part of the 1992 Summer Olympics, but which did not remain in the Olympics after that, whereas taekwondo did. All our relevant articles are lacking in the specifics of the history of this aspect. Badagnani (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, stop trolling in Korea related pages please. You have no expertise in anything related to Korea and I have no idea why you're picking arguments, reverting and causing trouble in the Taekwondo page!!!Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference Checks

Tracking down references and checking to see if text that cites the reference is accurate or even existent in some cases. Unfortunately although not surprisingly some citations used are downright fraudulent. Text with nonexistent or incorrect citations are repaired if possible and removed if unsalvagable. And who is going around putting in "some say" into portions of the text they don't agree with????Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking by User:Melonbarmonster2

See [37]. Badagnani (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits have been: 1 Deletion of nonexistent references 2. novel good-faith edits with edit explanation 3. grammar and sentence restructuring. If you disagree with my edits please explain your position HERE IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE RATHER THAN REVERT WARRING. Thank you.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanking without consensus being sought nor obtained, again. Badagnani (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to explain why you disagree with my edits before we can begin to seek consensus. You're just reverting and not even attempting to explain why disagree with which of my edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

TKD translates to

跆拳道 translates directly as Trample-Fist-Way. 199.117.69.60 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani's Revert Warring

Pleast stop your revert warring. You are not even reading the edit explanations or you're oblivious to the substantive issues behind my edits and you're reverting without even participating in this talk page or even attempting to explain your disagreement with my edits. If you're not knowledgable in the issue being discussed please ask. In the past you've claimed that kimbap was eaten with soysauce and that korean shikhae was a tea.

If you are going to revert AT LEAST please explain the reasons for your reversions. E.g. I deleted the following italicized text

"Following the decades-long Japanese occupation, there was a natural desire to distance Korea from Japan as much as possible, and this certainly had an impact on the development of taekwondo. There was also a desire to create a national competitive sport that was uniquely Korean.[1] That effort has been successful, given the popularity of taekwondo throughout Korea and worldwide.... Taekwondo is practiced in 123 countries with over 30 million practitioners and 3 million individual...."

Burdick's article doesn't not make any link between TKD distancing from Japanese origins with worldwide popularity of TKD. Injecting this into the text citing Budick's article is editor commentary. If there's a proper reference that links popularity of TKD with efforts at distancing TKD from Japanese origins, this text would be fine. But without such reference this text is problematic.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The massive blanking, without consensus being first sought or obtained, is totally unacceptable. You removed an entire paragraph, and it is not clear whether the citation referred to the second sentence or the first and second sentences together. Please restore the paragraph, and discuss, in proper manner. Badagnani (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[38] contains many edits and many deletions for various reasons which I've explained in edit explanation and above. You need to take the effort to understand the substantive issues behind these edits and explain why you disagree with my deletions, edits, added citations, etc.. Ignorantly claiming all these edits as "massive blanking" just brings your credibility and rudimentary understanding of the issues involved into doubt. Please give me a breakdown of which of my edits or deletions you find problematic and WHY. I would gladly give you a response and we can work on coming up with a WORKABLE COMPROMISE.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Burdick reference was only intended to support the sentence "There was also a desire to create a national competitive sport that was uniquely Korean." It wasn't meant to support what followed it, only what preceded it. Overall, however, I concur with the concerns about inappropriate sources and unsourced statements. JJL (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That sentence is in the text within a paragraph that is stating a POV purpose which is why the paragraph reads poorly before my edit. Personal commentary is not appropriate so when you remove the problematic sentences the referenced sentence doesn't fit nor belong in that paragraph on its own. It's certainly a judgment call which can be discussed. If you want that sentence in the paragraph you're more than welcome to propose a suggestion. Burdick is cited in the article in any case.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
However, I believe this reference remains completely deleted, as there was no such discussion before the deletion. Badagnani (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, please take the effort to read articles and portions of texts that are being discussed here or elsewhere if you're going to participate in edit disagreement discussions rather than going with your "beliefs". You're wasting our time and effort when you make ridiculous comments like this. How's your kimbap with soysauce?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that Badagnani should not make false accusation to editors without reading the past discussion and "even article". The user has a tendency to resist to any deletion although such is no related to article and subject. After he got off his block, the user ridiculously accused me of doing massive blanking when I retracted my "own statement" on his talk page after his personal attacks and altering my statement without permission, and I relocated "my contribution" to other articles. The user should not edit Korean related article as long as inserting original research (I've been tired of fixing his original research and false information as well as lying and false accusations, somebody would know that I had been very kind to the user's persistent requests to fill information that he wants to know for a long time). The reason the user appears here is the result of his long-time following me. That is disruptive.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Trolling by Badagnani

Please stop. You obviously have little knowledge on Korea related issues as you've claimed that kimbap was eaten with soysauce and that shikhae was a Korean tea as well as not knowing that Green tea is a traditional Korean tea, etc.. While you are welcome to create articles, please don't pick inane arguments and instigate Revert Wars. If you want to be taken seriously, please explain why you disagree with my edits and even which of my edits you disagree with so that I know why and with what you disagree with. If you continue to make blind reverts I will be forced to take formal courses of action.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2, you are going about this in entirely the wrong way. You were involved here in the POV dispute with JJL starting in November, then disappeared in January; now, when you return, you immediately make a large number of unilateral edits, with no discussion, that make substantial changes to sections that have been part of a long-running effort at compromise, and at one point you use the term "POV BS" in your edit summary. This is not going to help. We need to get back to the compromise version, and if you have issues with it, we can work on them through the discussion page. Please don't simply remove large quantities of text and references. Omnedon (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Was there an agreement that no chances to the article would be made unless there was consensus? I read through the talk page quickly and may have missed such an agreement. If that is the case, please let me know. If there was no such agreement, I don't see anything wrong with my edits. I was not party to previous disputes that may have occurred and my edits were good-faith, original edits that are many different types of edits made for many different reasons. Again, they were original edits and FULLY explained in this talk page and in the edit explanation. I also asked a dozen times for Badagnani to explain his disagreement on the substance of the the individual edits. From his comments it's obvious that he has no knowledge about TKD. I've caught him in the past claiming he's an expert of korean cuisine while talking about soy sauce kimbap in the "korean cuisine" article so it's no surprise that he's not participating in any discussion about TKD history or other TKD related issues. Also there was no "massive blanking". I deleted portions of text with specific reasons given. I'm more than open to discussing whether a deletion is appropriate or not. But when I've given my reasons and the other side refuses to explain why he or she disagrees with the reasons given(bc they know little or nothing about TKD), it's impossible to move forward in any constructive manner. Most of my deletions were citations that were either fraudulent or simply nonexistent in any case which is pretty ridiculous and I have no idea how such basic and simple errors were allowed in the article in the first place. Again, I'm more than open to discuss any substantive edit discussions about specific portions of the text or citations rather than getting bogged down with RW's and procedural debates that have nothing to do with referenced facts about TKD or improve the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's like deja vu all over again in here. Which refs. were non-existent/fraudulent? Certainly, lots of weak refs. had been inserted--I have been trying to get that changed myself but without much success. JJL (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What is a "weak" reference? The references weren't even to blogs and website information which I would consider to be weak. They were nonexistent as in you follow the citation and it brings you to a nonexistent page, a nonexistent article, etc..
Also, can you tell me if there was an article-wide agreement to not make changes without consensus?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

SHAME SHAME!! GREEN TEA IS DEFINITELY NOT A KOREAN THING, OK? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tea) This article should be edited by a neutral person and not some pro-Kor TKD-er. I'm sorry if my comment didn't follow the right format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.83.114 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

All capital letters don't tend to get your point across any better. In fact, it sort of turns people off to the idea of listening to you. Quietmartialartist (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

74.210.83.114 , please do not taint the talk page with such shameful comment for yourself.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Defensive martial art?

"Traditional taekwondo... stems from military roots with much emphasize on offense. Modern Taekwondo, on the other hand, tends to emphasize control and self-defense." What evidence is there of this? In Olympic taekwondo, I see 100% offense and not a single block. Is Olympic taekwondo not "modern" taekwondo? Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw blocking at the olympics, but yes it probably should mention how competitive taekwondo has a much greater offensive focus. Mathmo Talk 16:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You're constantly blocking and defending when you spar. Just because you don't see the guy do "paint the fence" with an open stance doesn't mean there's no blocking. But that aside, I don't like that entire sentence either. I don't know who put it in or why. It's unreferenced personal commentary in my opinion but I revised it best I could to improve readability rather than delete it. That portion of the paragraph needs to be rewritten IMHO.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection and Olympics

I see it is semi protected yet oddly I seem unable to edit it even though I'm not a new editor... why? Also there is almost no mention of the Olympics in the article, there should be probably a whole section on it. For instance coverage of its status as an Olympic sport, it is being seen as increasingly unlikely (such as being reported by the BBC). There was even doubts prior to the troubles it has had at this Olympics. Mathmo Talk 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. I asked about this and proposed a section on the sport's Olympic history, but was greeted with only strong rudeness. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The tone and degree of Badaganani's question are quite different from the Mthmo's. Badagnani pulled the long-time tendentious karate controversy to here without reading the article. That's why his question was viewed as unfit to 3 people and provocative to at 2 editors. WP:AFG should not be abused. (look whose talking about rudeness?)--Caspian blue (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I can't edit the article either, maybe the admin full-protected it since Badagnani (talk · contribs) is fully responsible for the protection after his edit warring. Too bad.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting edit

{{editprotected}} Please correct the misspelling of the word "cannons" in the section "Philosophy".

Please also remove the following text from the section "WTF Competition" : ",senior fighters also fight in 2-minute rounds with 30-second breaks."

Thank you. Coreycubed (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Could the page be taken back to the last consensus version (234168351 diff fo current) prior to the latest flare up, (save the last 'cannons' edit should still stand) which was stable with no edits in the disputed section for over two weeks previously since it was last unprotected, except simple vandalism. The current version is not the best start point and and the previous includes several sources and tonal improvements (such as the removal of the POV term 'brutal' in the description of the suppression of Korean customs) to the current version. While it is not perfect is is an improvement on what is currently available as there are significantly more sources and a more neural tone. There are two sections that have been added but I belive most of this has been intigrated into the removed text and if not these should be preserved in a merged version. --Nate1481 13:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The page was protected so that exactly this kind of reverting could stop. We need to move forward to working out a compromise rather than playing around with revert requests.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nate. The version that we had before the most recent "situation" was the result of months of work from several editors; the latest stable version of the article would be the best point from which to move forward. Omnedon (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that there was a consensus version, and the removal of sources that led to the current protection is just more evidence of that. The lack of edits and apparent stability was in avoidance of an edit war during discussions on the Talk page, which ended when someone who hadn't been involved in those discussions began making edits. JJL (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
References removed were either fraudulent or nonexistent references. You didn't participate in any discussion when these changes were made. Also there were many deletions and many edits made for many different reasons. Please explain which edits you disagree with or which references you think belong back in the article and why so that we can work toward a compromise.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you distinguishing between references that don't exist and references that just aren't available on the web? JJL (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am but when citations are written up as an online reference with a URL provided that leads to a nonexisting article, it's a nonexisting reference.

Ok, a simple question JJL which version do you think is a better start point for a consensus version, the older 234168351 or the current one? --Nate1481 16:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a good question to which I don't have a good answer. The edits removed both wheat and chaff. Frankly things are such a mess here that I don't know what's better. I do know that there is no "consensus" version and I viewed that language as posturing for the admins. That was my point, and please note that I didn't oppose the request to roll back the page, just the assertion that the older page was somehow an approved version despite the ongoing debate at the time. Seeing my not participating in an edit war on the article page while discussion continued on the Talk page being taken as "consensus" is what concerns me. JJL (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to to forward instead of looking back.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to point out it was you who reverted to a much older verion by removing most of the negotiated edits, without discussion. --Nate1481 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Brutal"

This is the type of substantive discussion we need to have.

The word "brutal" was put in the text since that is what's reflected in the citation[[39]] which I added.

The text originally read: "The Japanese occupation of Korea formally began in 1910. As it continued, and especially as World War II approached, many aspects of Korean culture were more and more tightly controlled". No citation was given and calling abducting 5.4 million people into forced labor, killing millions, banning language, culture, national identity as mere "tight control" is contentious to say the least. The Stanford citation addressed exactly this issue.

The text needs to reflect published facts, not editor opinions. But this speaks to a greater problem with some editors in this article. There were scores of downright fraudulent or nonexistent citations in the article. Please take the time and effort to check validity or even the existence of references. If it's from a proper source, incorporation into text should be attempted regardless of your POV. That's what citations are for.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not what the reference says, the word 'Brutally' us used once in that source, in the sentence: "Any rebellion against the Japanese order was brutally suppressed and punished." so the caracterisation would be synthesis. --Nate1481 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you know how citations work. Synthesis is when you create novel claims based on referenced assumptions. Citations are not reserved for just quotations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It is, because the source dose not use the term brutal in relation to non-rebellious action, i.e. if you towed the line you would be ok, and while the line may have been unjust (and in reality brutal), the source dose not describe it as such. 'Brutal' carries various conertaion which are hold a negative POV, so while 'strict', 'repressive', 'hash', etc would all be simply descriptive, the use of words such as 'Brutal' or 'Cruel' needs a citation, due to the additional contortions, and the source does not support the usage. There may well be those that do. While in my opinion that wording would still not be neutral (and so not appropriate) it would be accurate. --Nate1481 08:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the August 30, 2008 NY Times had this to say in an article: "But for those Koreans who have never forgiven Japan for its brutal occupation of their country...". [40] I don't think there's any doubt it was brutal; but it's still not clear to me we need that level of detail in the TKD article. JJL (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Replace the nutrality tag

There were minimal changes except the addition of sources since the removal of the POV tag here and as the changes recent changes have reintroduce a POV and removed citation present at the time (diff) I propose that it be replaced while discussions continue. --Nate1481 13:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Working toward compromise

What we need is a substantive discussion of what the disagreements are so that we can move to a workable compromise instead of trying to play around with what version you may want the article to be reverted to. Previous versions were rife with either fraudulent or simply nonexistent citations and POV injections in text of the article and unreferenced personal editor commentary in the text. The revisions that are in the text now have been made for various different reasons. We need to discuss those edit disagreements in substance and work toward a compromise. In absence of a compromise, trying to force reverts to previous versions is exactly why the article was placed in edit protection in the first place.

Please list edit changes, both novel and reverts to past versions, you'd like made with reason so that we can begin a process of coming to a compromise.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Please restore the text removed without consensus (diffs provided just above), then begin with this process to request the removal of large sections of the article. Badagnani (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's being discussed above. Let's use this section to list and discuss substantive issue regarding edit disagreements.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, per {{pp-dispute}}, protection is not an endorsement of the page as it is, it's supposed to give you guys time to resolve your "dispute" (resolution which has only just now started). List your conflicts, get feedback, build consensus, request edits. Easy as that. Coreycubed (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether you believe it to be an endorsement or not, it operates on the "possession is nine-tenths of the law" principle, as the protection occurred directly after large areas of the article were removed, unilaterally, without consensus being sought nor obtained. So it isn't starting from "square one" at all. Badagnani (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Was there an agreement that no edits would be made without consensus? That's a option that's often taken with controversial articles but I didn't realize that such an agreement was in effect in this article. I don't know why no one's answering me on this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The dispute began because Melonbarmonster2, who had not been involved with this article since January, suddenly made eight major unilateral edits with no discussion in less than an hour; Badagnani reverted one of these edits with a request for discussion, and Melonbarmonster2 went on to make another eight major edits in the next hour, removing large amounts of material. It would be easier for the editors who have been involved in the last several months if we could go back to the state of the article before Melonbarmonster2's edits, then go through the changes he proposes here so that they can be discussed. Omnedon (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the "dispute" that you're talking about and unless there was an article-wide agreement that no edits would be made without consensus, which does happen in some articles, my edits were legitimate. The point of the editing process is for progression and improvements on the article through edits and discussion about edit disagreements in this talk page. We need to talk about substance of disagreements instead of trying to argue for revert to previous edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that Melonbarmonster2's request are somewhat hypocritical and self-serving. But, discussion of sources here has failed for months and this new factor will hardly improve matters. JJL (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been around since January so I'm more than willing to try to work towards new consensus and progress. Please participate in listing your edit disagreements so that we can begin this process instead of trying to revert the article to previous states. Moving on to substantive discussions about actual edit issues is the ONLY way to improve the article and find a compromise.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster: The "dispute" mentioned above is the one we're currently in — the one prompted by your recent edits. Essentially in a single day you swept away several months of work by other editors that was intended to achieve a compromise version of the page that a majority could live with. To now claim that you want to "work toward new consensus and progess", after having shown no regard for the previous effort, is disingenuous.
In short, I agree with suggestion (made by both Nate1481 and Omnedon) that we roll the page back to where it was before the current flare up and proceed from there. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, I was not party to the "months" of disagreements and compromise that you may have reached with other editors. In any case, that "dispute" and resulting "compromise", if there ever was one, isn't binding. New editors and new disagreements and new attempts at improving the article is allowed and should be welcomed. It also boggled my mind that nonexisting citations, POV injections of "some believe" to undermine portions of text, unreferenced editor commentary in text, etc., was the result of "months of work".
Instead of arguing about which past version we should revert to, we need to start discussions about the edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster has been here since January 2008 (under his/her previous account name, which does not include a numeral). Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No Edit W/O first seeking consensus???

This issue keeps on being brought up so I want to try to deal with it head on.

Rather than moving on to actual TKD issues and text of the article, JJL, Omnedon, Badagnani have ONLY complained and commented on the fact that I made changes without their consensus.

I know that in some controversial articles an admin or editors involved will agree to not making any edits without edit proposals in the talk page and ensuing consensus. If this was the case then I'm more than willing to own up to my careless reading of the talk page history before making edits. Was there such an agreement in effect?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster: No one is saying that every single edit has to go through consensus, or that there is an agreement to that effect. Instead, I think people are saying that it's exceedingly disruptive when you unilaterally replace big chunks of content that had emerged from several months of debate, editing and efforts at compromise. If you do have major changes to areas of the page that have been highly contentious, it's polite and logical to discuss them here first.
Also note that within one day of your return to editing this page, the article had to be locked down and your account blocked. This should suggest to you that there was something wrong with your approach. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, it seems like I disrupted a group of editors with the same POV from locking down the article to reflect your own personal POV. The previous state of the article doesn't sound like any sort of consensus to me but WP:OWN which is why all it is this difficult to get any of you to actually discuss substantive issues about TKD. No wonder you are all arguing to revert to article to previous states that reflect your own person POV rather than discussion improvements to the article. Let's agree to disagree at this point and try to move on to constructive discussions. I made my edits fully willing to discuss and compromise. The block is fully due to Badagnani's refusal to participate in the talk page and revert warring thinking that you, JLL and others would join him in tag team reverting. Hopefully we can move on from such gamesmanship to substantive discussions about TKD.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The changes by knowledgeable editors are mostly quite good; as stated clearly and repeatedly, it is the removal of very large areas of text, and sources, in a unilateral fashion, without first proposing it and reaching consensus for such removals, at this "Discussion" page, after having been asked many times to do so (something important at contentious pages such as this one) that has proven highly disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletions are legitimate edits if they improve the article. It seems to me that there was no agreement that no edits can be made without seeking consensus in the talk first. Whether you like the edits I made is subjective and should be discussed. Please list any edit disagreements you have beyond complaining about your permission not being sought first. You are the one being disruptive by revert warring and arguing about revert warring and NOT CONTRIBUTING ONE BIT to any discussion about TKD.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no such agreement. However, discussion preceded most recent edits, even if unanimity didn't. JJL (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As JJL says, there was no formal agreement but parties had been acting in accordance with good Etiquette as it was clear it was a contentious subject, and edits were made by consensus, that while not unanimous was discussed (often in exhaustive detail) and a consensus had been formed that while the version needed changing it was a good starting point and was neutral, if nothing else, the current version has distinct POV issues that need addressing. No one has claimed to own the article, they have simpley said that sweepign edits without disscussion on a contenious subject are a bad idea. --Nate1481 10:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
p.s. to Melonbarmonster2 are you related to User:Melonbarmonster? As that user was involved in the same debate that has been more a less continuous for the last 9 months.
Melonbarmonster2, in light of your recent comments about the editing process, here are some comments you made back in November:
"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)"
"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)"
This time around, you have ignored the edit history, you have ignored the discussion that was here, and instead you just jumped in with over a dozen major and contentious edits, contrary to your position last year. As Nate rightly points out, we don't need a specific agreement that forces us to collaborate in each given situation; it is simply good etiquette to do so, especially when it must be clear from the history that there have been disagreements here for months prior to your return. Omnedon (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent finds. :-) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully participating in the talk page and would have been fine with making compromises and discussing edit changes with you when I made my edits. Badagnani however, began revert warring while ignoring the talk page. I took the bait and got sucked into his revert warring which is why the page is currently blocked.

The discussion in November 2007 involved JJL repeatedly making reverts and unilateral edits while ignoring other editors who had let him know of their disagreements in the talk page. Rather than patiently working it out in the talk page, JJL resorted to revert warring.

Seeing how difficult it is for some of you to participate in actual substantive discussions about edits to the article, it seems gamesmanship has taken over this article. Hopefully I'm wrong on this.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to take issue with the comment "I fully participating in the talk page" I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Your contributions clearly shows that you made substantial edits before any post to this talk page. I can understand why you might have made the edits without fully reviewing the history initially, but continuing after you were reverted, without reading the talk page to find why you your edits were disputed (where you would have noted there were multiple active users discussing issues closely retaliated to you edits), especially when the initial revert edit summary was "Please seek and develop consensus at "Discussion" before blanking massively" is simply not behaviour that supports the comment "I fully participating in the talk page"
JJL's edits in November were inappropriate, (i think even JJL would agree it was not the best method to improve the article). While there have been other flair-ups, both he, Manacpowers and others engaged in long (and sometimes heated) discussions while not editing except in consensus. While the article was not as they would have wished and their were debates and disputed without edit wars.
Characterising Badagnani's edit as revert warring also characterises yours as such, it Takes Two to Tango (or edit war), especially when the initial revert was a polite requests to discuss the large removals. On you comments on 'gamesmanship' could you explain further? As you seem to imply much but state little. --Nate1481 09:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Edit Issues

Please reserve comments in this section for listing and discussion issues regarding edit disagreement in text.

Japanese occupation

The word "brutal" was used in the text since that is what's reflected in the citation[[41]] which I added.

The text originally read: "The Japanese occupation of Korea formally began in 1910. As it continued, and especially as World War II approached, many aspects of Korean culture were more and more tightly controlled". No citation was given and calling abducting 5.4 million people into forced labor, killing millions, banning language, culture, national identity as mere "tight control" is contentious to say the least. The Stanford citation addressed exactly this issue.

The text needs to reflect published facts, not editor opinions. But this speaks to a greater problem with some editors in this article. There were scores of downright fraudulent or nonexistent citations in the article. Please take the time and effort to check validity or even the existence of references. If it's from a proper source, incorporation into text should be attempted regardless of your POV. That's what citations are for.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The occupation was surely brutal. Whether mentioning that fact is important in the TKD article (as opposed to in the occupation article) isn't clear to me, but I don't have strong feelings either way. It would be helpful to me if you could clarify what a 'fraudulent' (vice non-existent) ref. is, and on which of those grounds you removed the refs. you did remove. JJL (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Brutality of occupation is why indigenous MA were banned along with language, culture, etc.. It's historical context for how Koreans were exposed to foreign MA and played their role in modern formalization of TKD in 50's at the President Park's behest.
Regarding your question about references, I don't know if the bad references were fraudulently inserted or not. They may be just bad references which is why I stated that they were either fraudulent or nonexistent references. Most common fraudulent/bad use of citations I've come across are when citations are given to support claims in the text that actually not supported by the reference or when referenced text is preceded or mixed in with unreferenced editor commentary so that editors' personal POV commentary is inserted in the article: e.g. "Following the decades-long Japanese occupation, there was a natural desire to distance Korea from Japan as much as possible, and this certainly had an impact on the development of taekwondo". The sentence that comes after this sentence is referenced but the reference doesn't support this first sentence.
And by nonexistent, I mean that the reference according to the citation literally doesn't exist. There were shortcut references in the text that were entirely missing: e.g. ref name="Heo" will be in the text with no preceding citation of the reference or URL citations that lead to URL's to magazine front pages and not the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You have removed correctly referenced information as well as that which you state was not and some of the named references are broken due to your deletions of references.
On the point of the use of the word 'brutal' from what I know it was but a)the reference does not say that, the word 'Brutally' us used once in that source, in the sentence: "Any rebellion against the Japanese order was brutally suppressed and punished." so the characterisation would be a synthesis, if based on that alone and b) the tone is defiantly not appropriate in an article that is not (despite protestations to the contrary) about the Japanese occupation of Korea, so the detail of that occupation that do onto relate to martial arts are not relevent. --Nate1481 13:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What correct reference did I delete? If I did, that was my mistake but could you specify which reference I removed that was indeed correct?Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not what synthesis is. The brutality of Japanese occupation is not my personal commentary but cited fact that is rife throughout the sourced material. Citing is not reserved for just quotations. The entire article is about "brutal repression" of Korean culture including TKD and the spirit of resistance stemming from it. Let's exercise a smidgen of good faith here. Also, the issue shouldn't be about "tone". The issue is about historical facts that are relevant to the development of TKD. The repression indigenous MA and the resulting foreign influence is directly related to the 50's construction of moder TKD. How can anyone claim this isn't relevant information.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MORALIZE. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

see below --Nate1481 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References issue

Melonbarmonster2: "or URL citations that lead to URL's to magazine front pages and not the article". Not all articles are available online. A hyperlink may be inserted as a convenience but if a full citation is given, that's the reference info. For example, you seem to have removed the Henning reference. I have a copy of it sitting next to me right now--it exists, regardless of whether or not JAMA has made a copy freely available on the web. The Dohrenwend link went to a table of contents that verified the article's existence even if it didn't provide free access to an electronic copy of the article. (Hmmm, I hadn't even noticed the editorial comment that had been inserted following the Mitchell ref., "(Cover title is "Karate(空手)" [42].) Is it your position that only refs. that are available via the web are acceptable? JJL (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

JJL, this is ridiculous. This has nothing to with POV arguing but this is just basic citations 101.
Citations that are written up as an online reference should contain URL that brings you to that article. If the reference isn't online then it shouldn't be written up as an URL citation. Please review WP:REFB and propose which references you want added to the article and we'll ask for the admin to include it in the text. I have no problems with existing references being included in the text, but editors HAVE to take the time effort to use citations honestly and accurately.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good reason why the citation, if you believed it to have been formatted improperly, should have been brought up at "Discussion," where input could have been sought in order to improve it. You chose, instead, to blank it from the article entirely without prior discussion and consensus--not good WP editing practice, especially at a very contentious article. This failure to properly utilize "Discussion" at contentious pages, in favor of unilateral edits removing large amounts of text, has been mentioned at various Discussion pages in regard to your habitual mode of editing no fewer than sixty times over the past year or so. I hope you will begin to take these requests to edit in a more thoughtful, deliberate manner into consideration. Badagnani (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please reserve this section for discussing and proposing edit issues please. Discussion page is useless when the other party doesn't participate is hell bent on blind reverting. If there's no agreement that edits can be made only when consensus is first reached, there is nothing wrong with making good faith edits to the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
From example #10 in WP:Gaming the system:

Reverting for minor errors - A simple form of gaming, although very common, is the tactic of completely reverting an entire revision due to minor errors, such as spelling or grammar, with a claim that the revision has errors. The spirit of Wikipedia is to tolerate defects in articles and make incremental improvements, as an attempt to salvage the existing contributions and expand them to be "encyclo-" (encompassing) for broader coverage.

If your concern regarding certain citations you cut was that links didn't go to complete texts of the articles, you could have simply removed only the link portion of the citation, or you could have brought the issue up here on the talk page. A tolerant and cooperative approach to editing is the spirit of WP and an embodiment of good faith; mass cutting is not. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

oh, this is a very very long discussion.(hahah.. 8 months! many contributors are really sick and tired by JJL) it is a same like a "which is better orange and apple?" My conclusion is... TKD influenced by some Karate system in its youth. however, it is "already" cleary diffrence from karate. most important thing is... TKD founder did not found their skills from Karate.(This thesis is to compare the techniques of Taekwondo with those of Taekkyon, the old version of Taekwondo. their essential techniques are still basically same. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences. ...) Actually, Karate is a Chinese origin. (even Karate leared korean say "karate originated from China") however, karate recognize as a Japanese martial arts. same case, tkd is korean martial arts. this is no doubt about this. for example, Name of automobile made by daimler(german), however, it is a very hard to say that nowdays all cars are "made in german". according to JJL's logic, "Japanese automakers leared manufacture skills from foreign in its youth, so, nowdays "Lexus, Toyota, Honda" are cleary "german automobile technology base" and its renamed "Lexus" by Japanese nationalism. yout think this is a nonsense? come on, This is a exactly same logic of JJL. Manacpowers (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Burdick was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_7&oldid=1046577247"