Talk:Taekwondo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Taekwondo was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Sports (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Korea (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

List of Famous Practioners[edit]

Taekwondo: History, Karate relationship.

PLEASE UPDATE THE MISINFORMED INFORMATION: YES, TAEKWONDO " KOREAN MARTIAL ART" NAME IS 68 YEARS OLD. YES, TAEKWONDO NAME IS DERIVED FROM KOREAN MARTIAL ART CALLED " TAEKKYON" ART OF KICKING/ ART OF CONTACT. TAEKWONDO, DID NOT DERIVED FROM KARATE. KARATE IS OKINAWAN MARTIAL ART NOT JAPANESE. OKINAWA IS INFLUENCED BY CHINESE NOT JAPANESE. TAEKWONDO IS MIXED MARTIAL ART WITH KOREAN ROOTS. JAPAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT TRIED TO ERASE ALL KOREAN MARTIAL ART DURING 36 YEARS MILITARY OCCUPATION HISTORY. REALITY THEY COULD NOT BAN KOREAN MARTIAL ARTS. TAEKWONDO IS NOT KARATE INFLUENCED MARTIAL ART. TWO MARTIAL ARTS ARE COMPLETE DIFFERENT ART AND ORIGIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Kick1 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)



The list in the info box is huge and with some it is not even clear how strong the link is. Chris Angel?? I would suggest moving the entire group into a multicolumn subsection or alternatively a list like we see with Kickboxers or Aikido.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the size of the list is related to the definition of "Famous Practioners". Should a 'famous' rapper who earned a black belt when he was 17 be in this list? I suggest that the info box have people who are famous for their activities in taekwondo and that a trimmed paragraph have the names of the 'famous' teenage black belts. jmcw (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the best way is a brutal trimming of the info-box list and a little bit of a check on its growth. Had a tough day at work - I need a little brutality in my life. Maybe every name that does not mention Taekwando in the first paragraph.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Go one level more brutal: if the article does not have a reference supporting training in taekwondo, cut it out of this article. I used this logic in removing categories. jmcw (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
So do the people listed HAVE to be continue training in Taekwondo? Many of the people I have listed DO continue training while others also compete in other sports.--Snugglbunny (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The opinion of the International Taekwon-Do Federation vs the opinion of the World Taekwondo Federation[edit]

There are two organisations: the ITF and the WTF. The ITF was founded by Choi Hong Hi and the ITF believe that he is the creator of Taekwondo. The WTF believes Taekwondo was developed by a variety of Korean masters by collaborative effort. In cases of MPOV, both POV should be represented. The article covers these these POVs. I suggest that the template field 'creator' should be left empty or filled with 'various'. jmcw (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at when the ITF was founded (1964) and when the WTF was founded 1969. Now take a look at when General Choi started teaching Taekwondo 1955. The reason as to why the WTF states that Choi was not the founder is merely political. [1] The New York Times states that he is the creator of TaeKwondo. [2]. South Korea created a totally different Taekwondo, but kept the name. It's techniques are different as well as the goals in sparring. [3]. Additionally, many people recognize Choi as the founder. Those of the WTF say that TKD existed before Choi (which it didn't, Taekkyeon is a completely different art) or the WTF says it was a formation from different masters, but fails to mention who the masters are. General Choi wanted to teach TKD to north koreans and was essentially exiled to Canada. He later moved to North Korea and is labeled a traitor by many Koreans. Thus you can see why he the WTF tries to delete or omit his place in history. By the way, I have studied both WTF and ITF TKD. I have no preference in the styles. I do though only want the truth to be shown. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH - it is about reliably sourced information. This article has two reliable sourced views on the origins of TKD. According to the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV, we should present both views in a balance way. I suggest that we either leave the 'creator' field blank or return the 'in the opinion of' attribution that you removed. jmcw (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
And by the way, I agree with your analysis. But to put this logic into the article would violate Wikipedia policy WP:OR. jmcw (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
There are tons of sources which give both sides. So what is to be done? CrazyAces489 (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.martialartsarticlesonline.com/taekwondoolympicpast.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are good sources. I suggest that in the info box 'creator' field that we say 'see the article'. You and I do not have to decide who is right or wrong. jmcw (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
it takes away from the article. people want quick access. I suggest having 2 sections for founders to make it easier. ITF - General Choi and 1955. WTF - whatever date they list. OR we can ask for a 3rd opinion or get other editors to review it. CrazyAces489 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would have no problem with simply 'According to ITF, Choi Hong'. jmcw (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not see that the article has changed. It looks good now with the attribution to ITF. jmcw (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. That was before you made this posting. Take a look at these links. http://www.kidokwan.org/articles/the-evolution-of-taekwondo-from-japanese-karate/ this link omits Choi all together [4] CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive changes on November 25, 2013[edit]

This article has multiple points of view. With almost 8000 bytes of changes in 3 hours, it is not possible to see how the multiple POV have changed. Please make smaller changes over several days. Thank you! jmcw (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)