Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Number of practitioners

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

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

Unlock Article?

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

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

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

remove unreliable source

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

This edit first inserted by Pabopa[[1]] who is a abusive sock & POV psughin troll.(now he indefinite banned)[2]. but this source recovered by Bentecbyewho is a "likey" sock of Pabopa. (See this prove [3]) and i already talk with phone call with mr. I already talk with interviewer by phone, He says, "I never allowed this interview public in magazine. also this interview are some exagerrated. writer forking from my testimony. after that, i never met anyone with interview." [4] it is not a reliable source for tkd history reference. Manacpowers (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Henning

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

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

I can't find an online version of this article, but there is considerable overlap with this online article [5] which includes the following:

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

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

Apropos of nothing but speaking of the Times, they did a story on a judging in TKD recently [6] that is reminiscent of previous work on the benefits of blue judogis. [7]JJL (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo in North Korea

• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

if you'll look closely at their do-boks, you'll see they use ITF logos, symbolising that they practice ITF TaeKwonDo. ITF is taught more in North Korea, rather than WTF which is used more in the South. ITF and WTF are both taught equally Worldwide. Therefore, it should be worthy of note that there is TKD in North Korea. Zu Anto 22:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sine wave

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

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

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

Offense versus defense

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

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

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

Taekwondo

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

Taekwondo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Italics

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

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

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

Electronic Armor

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

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

WHAT?

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

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

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

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

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

Organizations

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

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

Points

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

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

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

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

Registered Black Belts

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

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

wrong date for olympics

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

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

Correction Needed to One of the ITF External Links

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

Place of origin

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

WTF Rules change June 1, 2009

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

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

Duplication article?

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

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

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

WTA?

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

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9