Talk:Hapkido

What is with the boxed notes at the top from Wikipedia bitching about the article?

People come to Wikipedia for the data, not some editor's nit-picky comments. If the information is accurate and on topic, the style, footnotes, etcetera, etcetera are best left to the author.

Whoever is scurrying around putting all these boxed notes at the top of articles, probably hasn't created much of anything in their life. If they really want to improve an article, they need to get off their a** and add some data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.98.237 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, although try to keep your tone constructive. I think this is a good article. Vechs (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The "laundry list" is, I think, for that list of kicks - it seems out of place. The example curriculum is great though. Vechs (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yu

The Yu from the water principles is written, in hangul, as 류. The pronounciation however is that of 유. The hanja for the water principle is the one that is in the text now. This one: 流.

There are more words in the Korean language that are sometimes written with a ㄹ at the beginning and other times with a ㅇ. Think of the last name Lee (이 or 리), which you sometimes see as Ee, Yi or Rhee. The Korean word for dragon is also sometimes written as 용 and sometimes as 룡. Maybe somebody with more knowledge about Korean language can explain the details.

What I am trying to say is: Don't let the romanization of words be your guide. A great source to look up Korean words and their corresponding hanja is http://endic.naver.com/

Although originally pronounced with a ㄹ/r, all syllables containing ㄹ + /j/ (i.e. ri or starting with ry) have dropped the ㄹ/r, except in the Korean spoken in North Korea. The family name Li is still usually pronounced like this in English, but not in South Korea. Therefore, for hapkido purposes, 流 is yu, not ryu, same goes for dragon etc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Baley (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Steve Sexton

Somebody keeps adding Steve Sexton. I certainly have never heard of him, and I think he certainly hasn't been as influential has the people we have on the list now. I have no objection to making a list of high profile hapkido people in the states, or outside Korea. But on a separate list. Kbarends 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not John Sexton, it is Steve Sexton. Steve Sexton has been very influential in the United States and I would have no problem with creating a new list for influential Hapkido Masters outside of Korea.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtucker007 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for spelling the name write. I think we will soon see that everybody wants to be on that list. I would recommend we only add people who already have their own (at least B-class) article on wikipedia, to prevent the list from becoming unmanageable. Kbarends 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. However, I don't think the list will become unmanageable. If it does then we should use your suggestion about adding those who have at least a B-class article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtucker007 (talk • contribs)

RESPONSE: I have deleted this section for the same reasons listed above. The section that we have is for important direct students of Choi Yong Sul and those who controlled large organizations which were very influential in the formative years of the art. Mr. Sexton doesn't meet those criteria. This is no slight to him. My own teacher is the chief instructor for the WHA and he doesn't meet that criteria either. I put togerther a separate article for his contributions. - See Hwang In-Shik. Steve Sexton's contributions should be handled in a separate article in my opinion also.--Mateo2006 20:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: I have re-posted the section on Master Steve Sexton. The purpose of the "Major Hapkido Figures Outside Korea" section is to list influential figures who have made modern contributions to Hapkido outside of Korea. It is important to note the progeny of the direct students of Choi Yong Sul and how the art has expanded beyond Korea. Master Sexton is one of a few Americans to have been promoted to a Master level by Ji Han Jae and he has trained many students who have major hapkido chains in California. Mr. Mateo, you may want to add your master under this section. I do appreciate your comments in why you removed the section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtucker007 (talk • contribs)

Kbarends response I would like to see a separate article about Steve Sexton as well. What was Steve Sexton's influence on modern day hapkido? If Steve was such a key-figure, how about his teachers? And the claim 'one of the few Americans with 6th dan' isn't correct. There are a lot of people with a sixth dan in the US. I think people in this list should at least by recognized 8th or 9th dans.Kbarends 10:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: While I do not agree, I appreciate that those who remove the Steve Sexton section make comments on why they remove the section. I need to qualify the statement I made; Steve Sexton was one of the first Americans to get a 6th degree black belt from Ji Han Jae. While it may be true that there are a lot of people with a sixth dan in the US; many of them have likely inflated their degrees or not received their degrees from the direct students of Choi Yong Sul.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.158.14 (talk • contribs)

MATT'S RESPONSE: I appreciate that we are taking this to TALK to see the views out there.

From my point of view, I don't like the sprawling nature that the Hapkido section is starting to take on in terms of biographies of personalities. I thought it important to have things included about the Founder and first few students as they helped to develop hapkido into what it is. I think if we put every great hapkido teacher into this list it will obscure the function of a main HAPKIDO section which is to explain to the uninitiated what hapkido is. I mean if we look at the JUDO section we don't even have biographies of all the 10th dan practitioners of judo there. This can be handled in separate article I think.

I'd be quite happy to assist people if they wanted to develop a Steve Sexton section but lack the know how and then we could handle things through links from the main article.

I don't think even Master Han should be included here. There is a very good section on Master Han elsewhere. This is not true for most in the the "Major figures" section except for Master Myung Jae Nam and it would be hard not to include him in the main section as he was one of the founders of more than one of the major hapkido organizations in hapkido and founded a major branch of the art. I think we have to ask, "If I were writing a history of hapkido article would it be essential to include this personality in order to understand how the art developed?"

I think it is also important that we don't use the main article as a method of promotion or advertising particular teachers or schools and we have had a lot of trouble with that in the past.

I'd really like to hear other views as well though. Also if possible let's sign our posts to increase ease in discussion and addressing each other. We can also follow whose post we are reading here and where it begins and ends a little better. Thanks.--Mateo2006 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there no further thoughts on this either way? --Mateo2006 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: (06/10/07) also appreciate that there is a discussion on this subject. I think we should come up with some standards and criteria for instructor additions to this page that we all agree on. I don't agree the section is developing a sprawling nature since there are only a few masters listed in the "Masters outside Korea Section." I agree with Matt that we should not include every great Hapkido instructor on this list. However, masters outside of Korea who were trained or promoted by the founders students should be included on this list. For example, Steve Sexton was promoted by Ji Han Jae to a Master rank and I don't think many Hapkido practitioners outside Korea would fit in that category. Part of the "History of Hapkido" should include how Hapkido has spread outside Korea and include those masters outside Korea who are not far removed from the founder. The article should include not just how the art developed but where it is going as well.

In the peer review section, the Wikipedia editor suggested "the history section could be expanded, especially in referring to the development of Hapkido after Choi Yong Sul." This gives credence to including those Masters outside Korea who have made contributions to Hapkido and were trained by students of the founder.

I would like to create a separate page on Steve Sexton and would appreciate assistance in creating a page. For those who have not heard of Steve Sexton please see http://www.martialinfo.com/m/instructors/detail.asp?id=12132. This is an interview Sexton gives where he discusses his martial arts career. --Jtucker007 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

MATT: But there is a difference between describing how an art developed and teacher profiles which in most cases translate merely as school advertising.

Mr. Sexton isn't the head of a large organization and indeed doesn't even run a dojang of his own at the moment but works in security and teaches private lessons. As far as high ranking instructors under Master Ji I can think of many who have more important positions under Ji in America. (An example would be Ken MacKenzie or Yung T. Freda who have 9th dans awarded by Master Ji and held important positions in the Sin Moo organization. Or Merill Jung who brought Master Ji to the United States. Scott Yates and Sean Bradley seem to significant younger players in the organization.)

As far as bios including a teacher like Suh Bok-Sub is an easy choice as he was the first student of Choi, opened up the first hapkido school with Choi and probably was responsible much of the early curriculum. He was historically important to the development of the art.

As far as American pioneers of historical significance I would see arguments for Choi Sea Oh who opened the first hapkido dojang in the States, Han Bong Soo who did the most popularize the art there and Myung Kwang-Sik who did the most to document the art in the States in books and videos in the early years of the art there. Most significant teachers in the States would probably include Kim Chong Sung, one of the oldest and most senior teachers from the original KHA, Kimm He-Young (although he was very active in Kuk Sool for many years), Kwon Tae Man, Jung Won Sun. Son Tae Soo, Hal Whalen, Thomas Holcombe etc all are higher ranking representatives of the current KHF.

I'm not for a second suggesting that we include bios for all these people. : )

Now this list is just for the United States. Think if we did that for every country where they train in hapkido. It is neither realistic nor would the Wiki readers come away understanding what the art of hapkido was any better.

Only one person has written in the peer review so far. I'd like to hear more perspectives there.

I suggest we look at articles like judo or aikido and look at their structures. Even though I have contributed significantly to this hapkido article I have to say that it is quite poor compared to what is seen elsewhere.

I think we should ask ourselves if a outsider came and wanted to understand what the art of hapkido is, then would our article bring him closer to that goal? More bios do not help us to achieve that goal I think. We need more about THE ART and we need more work from authors who aren't solely interested in promoting their schools or teachers. There are other areas available for that sort of thing. One can write articles dedicated to particular individuals, schools, organizations etc.

That's my take. Let's here from others. : )--Mateo2006 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

kbarends I agree for 100% Kbarends 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: Regardless of our differing points of view I appreciate that we all enjoy Hapkido and can discuss it.--Jtucker007 05:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: I wonder why the section on Steve Sexton is continually removed, while the others under masters outside Korea are not? Based on the arguments above (which I do not agree with) not a single name should be on that list, but yet, Master West is not removed nor is Bong Soo Han's. Also, the list Matt includes above of "American Pioneers" are of Koreans who were trained in Korea, not Americaa. This is not an ethnic slight, but the purpose of "Masters Outside Korea" is to include masters of many countries (not just the United States) who were trained by Korean Masters. This section is to show how the art has spread throughout the world.

The masters outside Korea was kbarends idea as a compromise and so I do not know why he is no longer supporting it? We could just have a section at the bottom for the masters outside Korea with a link to their individual sites. How does that sound? --Jtucker007 07:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: I just removed the entire section on Masters outside Korea. It seemed that the arguments above called for the sections removal and not just the bio on Steve Sexton. It seemed silly to keep reposting the section on Steve Sexton after it is continually removed. The compromise is to have the links to the bio's at the bottom of the page. --Jtucker007 08:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts: It appears as if I am the only one here who remembers when Steve Sexton operated a small Hapkido studio on the corner of Vanowen and Topanga Canyon Blvd., in Canoga Park, California back in the 1970s. This is when I was studying at Shaw’s studio who was located in a nearby community.

Though I certainly mean no disrespect to Sexton, but for the most part I agree with everyone who has made comments about Sexton’s inclusion into this article. In fact, when you click over to his Wikipedia page, it looks more like a Myspace page, with all of the photos on it, rather than a Wikipedia article. Someone should explain to Jtucker007, who seems to be the primary author of the Sexton article and his ongoing placement into this article, that the amount and style of photographs used on Sexton’s page is not up to Wikipedia standards.

I believe that the tenacious fervor that Jtucker007 has used with his ongoing support of Sexton gives us all a clear insight into how Wikipedia truly operates. So, unless someone wants to be as tenacious with the removal of Sexton’s name, I guess it is going to stay in the Biography of Masters section of this article.

As stated by others, I too believe if this section is going to remain, several more articles need to be written about some of the other important contributors to Hapkido in the west. Some of my suggestions are: J.R. West, (HKD Black Belt 1967), James Benko (HKD Black Belt 195?), Robert Spear, (wrote one of the first books on the subject), and especially people like Oh Se Lim and Tae Mon Kwon deserve articles. I don’t like those Wikipedia red links that go to nowhere, so I didn’t include their names in the Biography of Masters section, but someone with the time should start these articles. I did, however, add a link to Shaw’s Wikipedia article, (HKD Black Belt since 1969, Korea HKD Federation 7th Dan, who has written many articles on Hapkido and several books on the martial arts).

(HKD 21:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Matt: So why not write those articles (or one of them) which are lacking? I don't mean that sarcasticly. I mean that you've identified a lack but we really do need more effort in the area of article creation. In the last week or so I've contacted a few people and created the basic set up for articles on people like Myung Kwang-Sik and Kim Yun Sang. We need a lot more work in this area.

Jtucker007 did the work and put in the link. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As for the picture it is really difficult to get good pictures, which people relinquish the rights to, for the hapkido page.(Although personally I have my doubts that Mr. Sexton and photographer really did relinquish the rights to that photograph. I hope I am incorrect in that, though.) Putting a picture of Sexton kicking in a section on kicking may seem a bit self serving but we should have a more generic picture to put in its place before we get rid of it. People aren't coming up to the mount. Perhaps if we remove his name from the caption it would resemble self promotion less? Any thoughts?

I fully agree that Masters Oh and Kwon are richly deserving their own pages. I can do the basic set up for the articles if people can fill in the details. I couldn't write much more than 5 or 6 sentences on Master Oh myself, though. Master Kwon, I have a little bit more information on and I did interview him about 6 months ago, so maybe I could add a little bit more there. I don't see much point in pointing people to pages with not much on them though. I like to know that people with the information are going to fill them in. Thoughts?--Mateo2006 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

JOSHUA'S RESPONSE: Steve Sexton gave me permission to post the pictures and content on Wikipedia. I admit, I am new to Wikipedia and am not familiar with all of the standards and rules that govern Wikipedia. I do appreciate any feedback on improving the Steve Sexton article to Wikipedia standards. I don't think there is a problem with removing Sexton's name from his flying side kick picture in the kicking section. My goal is not a promotional campaign, but recognition of a Hapkido Master. I do not mind removing content or pictures if given sound arguments explaining why a picture or statement is not up to defined Wikipedia standards. However, statements like "the amount and style of photographs used on Sexton’s page is not up to Wikipedia standards" does not make clear which standards are applicable or what about the amount or style of photographs makes the page a "myspace page" and not a valid Wikipedia page. Besides a couple of articles in black belt magazine there are not many primary source materials discussing Master Sexton. I do the best I can with the material I have. Again, I appreciate any feedback that is specific and provides guidance on Wikipedia standards.

Mr. Sexton deserves recognition for being one of the first American 6th degrees, an early American Teacher, and creator of a successful video tape series that demonstrates practical applications of Hapkido. I don't see any problem with having a link to his page on the Hapkido article. --Jtucker007 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re....

Hello again,

Hey Mateo, thanks for the suggestion. But, I just really do not have the time to do a first-draft bio article justice right now. People like you and Kbarends have been doing a great job keeping this and other articles ongoing and up to date. As an thirty year practitioner of HKD I may disagree with a few of your additions, but I guess that is just the nature of Wikipedia. So, keep up the good work.

Jtucker007, As mentioned, no disrespect directed at Sexton, (nor at you). Because as stated, I knew about him way back when. In response to your questions/comments: if you look at Wiki Bio pages you will see that there is generally one photo describing a person. There is sometimes more if it is specific to an event that set a cultural trend in motion or something like that. But, just photos for photo sake are considered decoration, as they are not considered revelant to the overall growth of an article. To get a better understanding of the accepted particulars, just cruise bio pages or if you look in the photo guidelines section of Wikipedia you can learn a lot. You too, keep up the good work....

(HKD 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Some good points about the role of photographs in articles.

If I were to start an article on Master Oh and set up the basic page is there someone out there with access to extra information who could add to the text?--Mateo2006 10:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Sexton Article

I started a Steve Sexton article for others to fill in. See here: Steve Sexton --Mateo2006 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mateo, I really appreciate you starting the Steve Sexton article. I am new to Wikipedia editing and was unsure how to begin an article. --Jtucker007 05:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you correct the copyright issues when uploading pictures? Thanks. --Jtucker007 05:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Ji leaving R.O.K.

We seem to have a frequent revision of text regarding Master Ji's imprisonment. Dr. Kimm He-Young wrote the following in his book Hapkido:

"Huh reported to the President that there was some secret training going on to overthrow the president. Ji was arrested and received a one year prison term and Kwon Jung-dal lost his position as a party leader." Hapkido by Kimm He-Young, pg 70, pp2.

This book was supervised, approved and later advertised with the written endorsement of Master Ji. It was written by a senior hapkido teacher who was at least for a time under Master Ji's direction.

To continuously change this quote to 'he was imprisoned for tax fraud' is to be untrue to this particular written source.--Mateo2006 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And again it has been changed...*sigh* also the Ji-section here contains a lot more information than the original article about Ji Han Jae. I would say we shorten the piece here and use the material to give the Ji Han Jae-article more body. Kbarends 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The seesawing back and forth on the topic of Ji's imprisonment is really pretty silly and amounts to an editing war. If it keeps up without taking it to some sort of action which ultimately won't serve anyone very well.--Mateo2006 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Huh reported to the President that there was some secret training going on to overthrow the president. Ji was arrested and received a one year prison term and Kwon Jung-dal lost his position as a party leader."

This is a very strangely worded quote. Ji was not a part of the overthrow of the president(as may be insinuated by the quote), he was loyal to the president and quit his job(along with many others) after the president was overthrown. In the ensuing power shifts many people were going after people near the former president, levying phony charges against them. Ji was thus arrested for tax fraud(completely boogusly) and arrested for 1 year with the judge on the case stating many years later that he had to give Ji some sort of prison sentence otherwise people would have kept coming after him and that he went for the minimum. This is what has been told at both years at the international Sin Moo Hapkido conference with Ji there himself.Ink Falls (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Principles

Are the principles of Won, Hwa and Yu true hapkido principles?? From what I have heard (yes I know, have heard is not a basis for an encyclopedia) these principles entered hapkido after people had read an aikido book (where aikido was translated as 합기도, and thus people assumed it was the same thing). I don't know how much emphasis is/was placed by people like Choi and Ji on these principles. I know that in the IHF curriculum there is a huge emphasis on these principles, but the ties with aikido are much stronger in the IHF-techniques. One could say that the principles started to play an important role, after the sorry-i-read-the-wrong-book-accident and found there way into hapkido. Just a thought. Kbarends 11:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My teachers is of KHA lineage who trained and taught at the headquarters in the 1960s and 1970s while teachers like Ji han Jae, Han Bong-Soo, Kim Chong Sung, Hwang Duk Kyu, Kim Moo-Jin were influential teachers. These principles have been important in our school since my teacher arrived in Canada in 1976. Han Bong Soo talked about them in his book in 1974. It is recently only that I have heard the claim that hapkido people don't use these terms. (KHF rep. Johnson wrote something to this effect.) I would also say regardless of their origin they were known and used by hapkido teachers at a relatively early point in the history and so have become part of people's way of understanding the art. If they have fallen out of favour as of late I think that they were still a part of hapkido for many years.--Mateo2006 21:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My teacher has said that after talking to DJN Ji about it, that Choi had never explained things in those terms to him (or at least that is my understanding of the result of their conversation). Master Bradley said that he'd certainly never been talked to about those principles by DJN Ji, and that they would not be a part of my curriculum as a part of Sinmoo Hapkido; he suspected that they were introduced via cross-pollination with Aikido. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.42.162 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat hapkido

There seems to be people have trouble with Combat hapkido and keep deleting their inclusion in International Organizations section.

There could be valid reasons for this but I think they should be handled in TALK rather than continuing to do this 'yo-yoing' of posting deleting that we are seeing here.--Mateo2006 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with an external link for Combat Hapkido, they are one of the bigger organizations which appear in the spotlight quite often. Like Matt says, yo-yoing doesn't make sense, try focusing on something else for a while (the Combat Hapkido article could certainly use your input) and after a while add the ICHF.com link. Kbarends 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There still seems to be someone who insists on removing the external link for Combat Hapkido. As previously mentioned Combat Hapkido is one of the bigger organizations that has a large Domestic and International following, and the inclusion of this external link contributes by showing the Diversity of Hapkido, and by providing new additional related information. MagnusRBHunter 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, "Combat Hapkido" is nothing but a mundane copycat version of actions. You guys are right,There is no need to be done with "yo-yoing" but you guys have to prove it as you guys are not one of kind "BS"martial arts business organization people.So far I havn't seen any suitable Hapkido instructor from "Combat hapkido" yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.2.104 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion, but I think I have a bit to offer here. One combat hapkido is giving real Hapkido a bad name. I have seen this stuff, and it's just the kids play moves, that have no real combat use. Soldiers would have great use for many of the high level techniques found in this art, but if this combat Hapkido continues it will make us all look bad. They have attempted to sell it to the marines. I don't think whoever is just in deleting the links, but combat hapkido has lost the very meaning of itself. I have seen Grand Masters of Hapkido do things that are quite incredible, like turning a black belt into his puppet through joint manipulation, or smash bricks to dust with their bare hands. lets see one of these watered down Phony Masters do that. What I'm saying is I don't think they really count as a martial art so why do they need a link? Martial arts are only martial art as long as the integrity of the art is preserved. Look at ATA. Where are the elbow strikes? The knee kicks? The focus of Ki? Real Tae Kwon Do has these things, but they are no where to be found in ATA martial arts. Real Hapkido has joint breaking, and eye gouging because if they can't force you to submit they break you, and what of Ki? Hapkido literally means way of the force from with in. I am a black belt in taekwondo, and i'm ashamed to tell people because of the bad name this art has because of ATA. Lets not allow the same thing to happen to Hapkido. At my school TKD and Hapkido are taught together, but you have to test in them separately because they are considered two different arts. Needless to say I wish I had tested in Hapkido. Don't get me wrong I am proud of my lineage, but I'm sick, and tired of people expecting me to prove my art is not the BS they see in these watered down schools that seem to be everywhere. There really needs to be some kind of regulations commission on this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.172.67 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hapkido and police

According to this link (hwp document) at the IHF website, in 2006 there were seven organisations in Korea whose dan certificates were accepted by the police academy. Their names are:

1. 재단법인 재남 무술원 (International H.K.D Federation, JaeNam Musulwon)
2. 대한기도회 (회장 한호택) (Korea Hapkido Federation KHF)
3. 대한국술 합기도 협회 (회장 박윤박) (Korea Kuk Sool Hapkido Federation, kuksul hkd link)
4. 대한국예원 합기도 협회 (회장 조진래) (Korea Kuk Yae Won Federation kukyewon hkd link)
5. 대한신무 합기도 협회 (회장 황덕규) (Korean New Martial Art Hapkido Federation sinmun hkd, Not Ji Han Jae related link)
6. 한국 정통합기도협회 (회장 유병돈) (Korea Orthodox Hapkido Association traditional hkd link)
7. 한민족 합기도 협회 (회장 서인선) (Hanminjok Hapkido Association hanminjuk hkd link)

Kbarends 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I added links to the homepage of the organizations that haven't got a wikipedia entry yet. Maybe somebody feels like writing about the organizations ^^ Kbarends 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

External Link Heading

We have had a long history of problems with the abuse of "External Links" on this particular page and it was for this reason that we went with the "International Organizations" title. I still support this idea as the tendency toward self promotion seems irresistable with an external links category and hapkido-in.

Others' feelings on this?--Mateo2006 14:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid soon a subheading will appear that says 'local gyms' Kbarends 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see you point was just attempting to standardize, I regularly remove schools added to jujutsu & others and I'm sure someone will create the external links section if it's not already there --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Have put a comment in that might help, also shuffled secitons a bit, seen others organised like this & think it works. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal!! : ) --Mateo2006 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Example syllabus

Is this needed, seems like it's not 100% relevant, as it may relate to a specific school --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Klaas and I have talked on this one before somewhere. The curriculum comes from He-Young Kim's book which is supposed to represent the Korea Hapkido Association curriculum established by Ji Han Jae and others. It is pretty representative of the content if not the order seen in the majority of hapkido schools. I think we do need to have more in the way of describing "what do people do in hapkido" rather than "Who does hapkido", as the article already has too much of that. I'm for keeping this section. Just my opinion.--Mateo2006 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's from reasonable central source then it's reasonable, have re titled & sub-sectioned it a bit but can see why it should be kept --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is too much we can always move it to a separate article. Right now I would like to see more updates in the history section. It is only about people now, little about the formation of the different HKD organizations, demo teams in Vietnam, etc. etc. Kbarends 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a second on that. Though I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a list of teachers on here, though we would need to make a list of requirements for who gets to be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.172.67 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the example curriculum, because (1) no specific citation, (2) the techniques shown would be considered pre-dan level, and (3) dan-level techniques are too advanced for a general Wikipedia article. --59.92.85.153 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The example syllabus cited from the Hapkido Bible is pre-dan level, as per my Hapkido dojang. --117.193.36.244 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New Linked Pages to Hapkido People

I've started up pages for Myung Kwang-Sik, Kim Yun Sang, and this morning, for Kwon Tae-Man and Oh Se-Lim, if people would like to add to these.--Mateo2006 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

History & Traning sections

Would it be worth splitting these off into a separate articles with summaries here as their getting quite large --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

MATT: In comparing the hapkido articles to others of its type, eg. judo and taekwondo, the training section is actually shorter here. (Although I would say that it is imperfectly titled to include things which are not strictly training such as curriculum and competition.)

In comparing the section on the history, our bios of important figures make it longer. I would argue that Choi, Suh, Kim and Ji are the essential as they contributed to the foundations of the art. (People may argue against Kim but most of our modern kicking strategies are believed by many to come from him.)

Master Won founded a somewhat less important branch of the school. Master Myung was very important in bringing in influences from another established art (aikido) and eventually evolved his art into an independent style; hankido. He was a really important organization head for hapkido with tons of followers though. Lim is important as a preserver of the art rather than a creator. These fellows are important but perhaps not at a seminal level. Perhaps we should move these to their own pages in cases where they don't already have them? I have no idea if this is the right thing to do. I'm just fishing because the length seems to bother some others. For me a long article is not inherently a poor one.

I'd prefer to see more quality added to the page rather than subtracted. This page is crying out for better description of the weapons work, influence the art has had internationally, influence upon other arts, an organizations sections. There are also many parts which could be written better. (eg. Hand strikes section, the paragraph on training.) Overall the article lacks a continuous narrative flow. It would be nice to see a few new faces rolling up their sleeves for this one.--Mateo2006 02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the info should be removed, on the contrary, if the secitons in the main article were summarised and links to the main articles added these could be extended. The history section is long enough that an over view without the sub secitons would be an introduction, the history of hapkido, not of individual contributors which can be gone into in there own articles, would make it easer to follow While it's relevant, it is not obviously so to someone reading it for the 1st time, and introductory paragraph giving an overview of the history would be an improvement, Keeping what is there now as as 'Major Figures from Korea' in a separate article or sub-section possibly:

2 History

Overview

2.1 Major Figures from Korea

2.1.1 Choi Yong Sul \

2.1.2 Suh Bok Sub |

2.1.3 Kim Moo Hong |

2.1.4 Won Kwang-Wha | These could be an article "Major Figures in hapkido from Korea"

2.1.5 Ji Han Jae |

2.1.6 Myung Jae Nam |

2.1.7 Lim Hyun Soo /

Dose that make sense of have I got lost in what I was saying? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Relation with Kotaro Yoshida (吉田幸太郎), a leading pupil of Sokaku Takeda

Here is a letter from Richard Kim to a Japanese resercher. http://www.toshima.ne.jp/~fukuoka3/hapkido/hapkido3.htm

dated November 26, 1984:

"The founder of Hapkido, Mr. Choi -- Japanese name Yoshida, is not related to Yoshida Kotaro, Samurai extraordinary.

Mr. Choi was a student of Yoshida Kotaro. In fact he was an excellent student. You must realise that before Japan surrendered in August 15, 1945, all Koreans had Japanese citizenship and names.

Mr. Choi returned to Korea and taught Daito Ryu Aiki Jujutsu. He named it Hapkido which in Japanese is Aikido. Since his time Hapkido has become modified with a distinct Korean flavour. It is an excellent art.

I would that the thrust and direction of Hapkido where it is different from what originally Mr. Choi had taught is in a number of sophisticated kicks which is unique to the Korean style of fighting. Probably, according to some, it may have improved the art for modern day consumption. That would be a matter of debate.

You are learning a good art. Stay with it and practice until perfection.

Sincerely,

Richard Kim, Hanshi "

Kim was a student of Yoshida (though for how long seems to be debated). Many of us have seen this etter before and it is interesting. It would be nice to know if there is any other evidence supporting this. I contacted Donn Angier in regard to this association but he could offer nothing that was not represented in the Aiki News issues of that time.

On a personal level, many other claims by Kim also seem questionable. --Mateo2006 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Master

I've added a page on Chang Gedo. Kim Yun Sang whos biography link appears on the Hapkido page was originally a student of his. Do you want to add a link to Chang Gedo's page too? Bamboo01 16:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Bamboo01 4 Dec 07

A couple of people have put Master Chang down as being taught by Kim Yong-Jin. This is incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboo01 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was first teacher? --Mateo2006 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

He was taught by his father, who was a Buddhist monk. Bamboo01 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Bamboo01 18 December

Who was he taught hapkido by? If it was by his father then who was his father's teacher?

The first school of hapkido was opened by Choi Yong-Sul and Suh Bok Sub, the second by Ji Han Jae (so Ji had very few people who could rightly be called contemporaries), the third by Kim Moo Hong followed shortly after by others like Kim Yong-Jin. All hapkido is traceable back to these early schools.

Chang was probably taught martial arts by his father but probably not hapkido unless his father trained with someone who can be traced back to one of these schools.

If you are a student of Master Chang ask him what 'kwan' in hapkido he originally belonged to. If it was the Ulchikwan then his teacher was Kim Yong-Jin.--Mateo2006 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Master Chang's father taught him 'hoshinsul' which I presume you would know just means 'self defense techniques'. In the mountain monastery where he grew up, there were no other names for this 'play'. When Korean made the martial arts a government thing, he left the mountains and had to join an organisation. He joined Master Ji, but was not taught by him. Master Chang's school is 'Wol Ge Kwan'. Does that help? Bamboo01 (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing war

We seem to have an editing war going on in the links to "biographies of masters" section regarding the inclusion of Steve Sexton and other names. While I, myself, didn't think Master Sexton merited a biography ON the main hapkido page I can't for the life of me think of why someone feels so strongly about not including a link to an article about him and others on another page.

It would be helpful if whoever keeps on deleting the links might follow Wiki protocol and discuss things and here and, if people don't agree with their reasons, cease and desist with the action before forcing a lockdown of this article and/or a banning of their right to post.

I am not saying that it is a foregone conclusion that their isn't a good reason to take people like Sexton or Shaw or whoever off the link to other articles list however at this point the argument hasn't been made.

I think it would also be helpful if people identified themselves with at least a posting name so as people will know who they are discussing things with.--Mateo2006 (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous poster 72.86.156.154 is making some well meaning but incorrect posts and others which seem to clearly be vandalism. (Eg.use of profanity. Changing quotes by other posters to belittle them.) Who is the appropriate administrator who should be contacted?--Mateo2006 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Everyone,

I have been watching the editing war that has been going on for a while, instigated by 75.37.1.96. I have looked back through the history of this page and believe, due to the type of very specific edits that have been made, that this person has used a couple of different anonymous ip addresses, and it looks like he or she also briefly used one name.

One thing that should be noted is that it appears that he or she has altered one of Kbarends posting in the Talk:Ji Han Jae section. Kbarends should be alerted to this fact, in case he wants to reenter his actual statement.

Due to the fact that the main editing war is against American masters, I contacted Scott Shaw today. He laughed when I told him what the editing war was about and said he appreciated all the support the primary editors of the hapkido page have given him but if his name causes any problems, to please remove it.

I have known Shaw since he was a young black belt at Sea Ho Choi’s school in 1971 and later went on to study from him, for several years, when he operated his own studio. I believe it is people like me, who know him, that appreciate how unassuming he truly is and how he doesn’t take any of this martial art politicking seriously. But, I also believe, as do others, that through his articles, books, etc., he has made a notable contribution to the art. And, this is true of other western hapkido practitioner as well.

I understand how some people, like 75.37.1.96 believe that it is only Korean born practitioners that should be considered masters and this is what has instigated this editing war. Though I think this philosophy is archaic and incorrect, it is how some people think.

My idea is maybe a "Notebale Contributors" section, or something like that, can be added to the hapkido article. In this way, it may end this ridiculous editing war that has taken up the time of so many of you frequent contributors. (HKD (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Is Hapkido eclectic?

The first sentence of the article describes Hapkido as eclectic. Is any Korean martial art eclectic? I know they borrow heavily from Japanese arts, but that seems to be an incorrect word usage. Compared to Jeet Kune Do, Hapkido doesn't really seem eclectic. Just because a martial art works on multiple techniques such as throwing, joint locks, punching, weapons, etc., doesn't necessarily make it eclectic. --RisingSunWiki 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An art which is a composite of different elements from different arts is by definition eclectic. As hapkido is an art with its roots in Daito-ryu aikijujutsu (which was already a composite art) and has wedded to this structure kicking influence from taek kyun and other striking based arts co-existing in Korea at the time, as well as being influenced by the techniques of yudo/judo; both by absorbing them and dedicating part of the curriculum to the defense of such tactics, I think it shows an undeniable degree of eclecticism.

Since the sources of these skills come from different origins this would make hapkido eclectic regardless of comparisons to an unrelated art.

Also I understand it, it is usually the Wiki aesthetic to keep the introductions to most entries are generally free of heavy footnoting. There is a good deal of supported comments in regard to hapkido origins and eclecticism in the article itself, I think. (See sections on Kim, Ji, kicking, throwing, speaking to the differing origins of parts of the curriculum.) --Mateo2006 (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoo Byung Don

Found this about Yoo Byung Don at a dutch website [1] Grootmeester Yoo Byung Don is de president van de Korean Orthodox HAPKIDO Association in Tae-GU.Grootmeester Yoo,was een topinstructeur van Grootmeester Choi de grondlegger van HAPKIDO. In English: Grandmaster Yoo Byung Don is the president of the Korean Orthodox Hapkido Association in Daegu. Grandmaster Yoo was a top instructor under grandmaster Choi, founder of hapkido.

Homepage of the KOHA can be found at [2] Kbarends (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also an article about him (in Korean) [3] And the right romanization for 정통 합기도 would be Jeon Tong Hapkido if you use revised rom. Kbarends (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Klaas.

Have you heard about Master Yoo and his direct connections to Master Choi before? Sorry to take this tact but so many people claim to be 'direct students' of Choi and I'm just wonder if he should be put in the first list of people known to have had significant training under Choi or in the second list of people who had some contact with Master Choi but who had other teachers as their primary teacher.--Mateo2006 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

According to a student of Kim Yun Sang master Yoo was indeed a student of Choi. There are a few pictures of the two together. If I am not mistaken he was a 6th dan under Choi. Kbarends (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. Thanks Klaas. Master Yoo was always positioned where he should have been in the article. A refreshing change! : ) --Mateo2006 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

For further context on the recent edits here involving the Korean vs. Japanese history of the art, see the debate regarding the origins of Tae Kwon Do at Talk:Taekwondo (begun at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Japanese_origins). JJL (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not agree to the arguments posed in that instance either, I have to point out that the histories of these two arts are not directly related to each other and so should be handled separately. Master Choi Yong Sul's most senior students during different parts of his life; Ji Han Jae, Kim Jeon Yoon (who I've interviewed personally), Lim Hyun Soo, Kim Yun Sang all agreed that Choi Yong Sul claimed to have studied Daito-ryu.

Although there are some claims that originally yu sool was imported from Korean and gave birth to jujutsu, this too is controversial as most older Japanese forms can trace their empty hand forms to related movements in their weapons based systems. Still that is one that continues to be argued with merit on both sides. It is however another thing to bring a direct link to this history and Daito-ryu specifically and then extend it to hapkido which also differs significantly from Daito-ryu. It is especially problematic because Daito-ryu has failed to prove conclusively that its art extends much earlier than the early 20th Century when we have the first appearance of scrolls for the art and first mention of the art in any physical evidence. It is only the oral tradition of the school which draws the art to Shinra Sabura Minamoto no Yoshimitsu. (One may look to the work of Serge Mol and others for extra information on this.) Since Daito-ryu has difficulty proving that it dates back even to the 19th century and hapkido has difficulty proving that its roots are definitely in Daito-ryu, it would be truly tenuous to try to date hapkido back to the importing of Korean fighting arts to Japan centuries earlier.

One may be able to argue that importing of Korean arts led to the birth of Japanese arts in general but not to hapkido in specific.--Mateo2006 (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I already explained in here. Manacpowers (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it would be much more appropriate for you to use the page we are referring to post on so everyone interested in the changes would be privy to your POV rather than my userpage.--Mateo2006 (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the material posted:

As a traditional practitioner I have been informed by a Grand Master of the highest status 9th dan TKD 8th dan HKD that Hapkido as we call it now can be traced back to the Hanyo temple in South Korea at least two thousand years ago. Further more Korea's Hwarang warriors predate the samurai by one hundred fifty years, and were exiled out of silla after they were overthrown by the larger koreo dynasty. The Hwarang fled to japan, and it stands as fact that two generations later the Japanese had samurai practicing nearly identical martial arts under nearly identical philosophies. Fighting along side the Hwarang were soldiers who studied under the monks of the Hanyo temple where the early roots of Hapkido were formed. These men were also forced out of their homeland into Japan. It is not conclusive proof, but it is an interesting coincidence, and is good evidence that it was not born from Japanese arts, though with how much the Japanese and the Koreans hate each other it is hard to imagine a Korean being willing admit something they love came from Japan. Still this article is about (Korean Martial Arts) so it should be written by practitioners of these arts from the Korean perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.172.67 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hapkido

I appreciate your effort to Hapkido Martial arts article. It is very good you learned hapkido. i read various informations of Hapkido. I just point out that we should report that these views exist. According to Official Homepage of Hapkido say, Their root is possibly China origin. Choi learned aikido. However, It is unclear Choi really studied Daito-ryu. Becauese Daito-ryu faimily officialy denied this. Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with aikido. Because it was already modified by various instrutors.(eg. Ji han Jae) In korea, Hapkido is refer to various integrated martial art. for example, any martial arts founder said, My art is "(????) Hapkido".(even it is no relation with hapkido and aikido) This hapkido name is very common name in s.korea. This "(????) Hapkido" word used Like as "Not TKD, However, Martial arts" "any combatant sports" noun itself. Not every Hapkido is Daito-ryu. so, I suggest that all "(???) Hapkido" named martial arts in s.korea are not link with Daito-Ryu. so, i try to refer to Hapkido is Various Martial arts. and it is not direct link with Daito-Ryu. I know Choi Yong Sul learned Aikido. But Nowdays Hapkido is not direct link with Daitoryu. (even Daitoryu admit this) I just point out 2 points. Modern Hapkido is not direct link from Daito-ryu. Hakido made by Korean. Founder learned Aikido. There is evidence that people believe Hapkido invented in india or China, Shilla. there are sources that people believe this, so the fact that they exist should be included. Manacpowers (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in, but I just want to leave my small input here. I know almost nothing about hapkido and akido (well any martial arts too). However, I checked a Korean version of Encyclopedia Britannica and other encyclopedia, the two of which say 合氣道 originated in Indian about 3000 years ago and spread to China with Buddhism by Buddhist monks. It was said that Bodhidharma advocated martial arts of Shaolin Monastery (maybe 6th century?) and in the atmosphere, 合氣道 was practiced in Cihna. Therefore the India origin theory is not his (Manacpowers) POV. However, the encycolopedias regard hapkido and akido as the same thing handed down from China and India. I don't know how correct the general information would be. The info about 合氣道 in Korean --Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source from Japanese Goverment site.

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) 05:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are just so many holes here I will only mention a few.

Aikido was not developed and the term was not even coined until the 1940s and it didn't develop into the form we know today until later still. Early disciples of Ueshiba trained first in Daito-ryu, later in aikijujutsu forms with various names and then aiki-budo. Since the period of contact that we are looking at is the 1920s and 1930s it seems clear that Choi was not studying a modern art like aikido but rather aikijujutsu or something like it as that is what Master Ueshiba taught at that time (presuming that they had contact at all).

The claims which are made are that Master Choi participated in Daito-ryu seminars in Hokkaido some of which Ueshiba may have attended and mentioned to his son. These are made by the son of Morihei quoted in an interview in the article.

The sources for the perspective that Choi claimed to have studied Daito-ryu are the primary students of Master Choi (Suh, Ji, Kim (Jeon-Yoon), Lim and Kim (Yun Sang)). They are consistant and are sources which are closer to the information than the Encyclopedia Brittanica but are probably only read by people who have invested considerable time and interest in researching the subject matter, of which quite a few of the posters here have done.

This of course does not mean that the information is true it but it does make those individuals closer to the information.

One may make claims that the roots of martial arts extend down from India or China to Korea and Japan with reasonable arguments. To make the claim that hapkido is specifically related to an art extending from these countries would require some evidence beyond superficial observation.

A knowledge of English would also immediately recognize that 'drawing parallels' between things is no way the same as claiming that one of the arts extend from the other.

Lastly, Amdur is quoting someone's webpage. If this is a 'well researched' article then we have different opinions of what that means. It is actually a quote from Amdur's quarterly editorial for Aiki News and has been dealt with very well long ago by the editor Stanley Pranin.

I don't object to the inclusion of any of these elements I just think they should be placed in a separate section entitled "Other perspectives" rather than weakening the integrity of the existing article.--Mateo2006 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should include all of the stories as different perspectives. Honestly it is very possible that different schools and styles of Hapkido originated from different places, though the India theory seems most likely seeing as even in the most thoroughly Korean origin stories it comes from Buddhist temples, and the Kung Fu practiced by shoulin monks came from India as well. It is also very likely seeing as India and China are the oldest civilizations on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.172.67 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would you delete Kim, Jong-Yun as a notable student of Kim Moo Hong?

Why would you delete Kim, Jong-Yun as a notable student of Kim Moo Hong? Kim, Jong-Yun is one of Kim Moo Hong's oldest students and one of the most respected masters in Korea. He also happens to be the President of the Korea Hapkido Federation and the senior Master for the Police department. - Kevin F. Donohue

Belt system

Is it Geup and is it everywhere the same?--Razionale (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yu hanja

We currently list the hanja for 유 as both 柳 and 流 but only 流 is correct. 67.100.167.5 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

The sourcing on this article is awful... Really needs to be pruned and rewritten. Too many images that are too large, some flowery prose, ahhh.... toobigtokale (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)