Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

copyvio references

I removed copyvio contents. The wrongly translated document translated from Shindonga magazine. But, It is copyvio content without copyright holder shindonga's permission. this references insereted by Reinosuke. maybe throwaway account of some Japanese.

Original article was shindonga magazine article.

  • According to shindonga front website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."[1](in Korean)(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)
"material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation."

Because this, I removed non-free English translated copyvio content. The English translation and publishing are NOT permitted by copyright holder. It is a "illegal" copyvio document. 660gd4qo (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, small quotes from copyrighted text are often quite valid. See Wikipedia:Quotations. You can't really claim that it is a copyright violation to use a single sentence or sentence fragment from a published work, as long as the source is clearly identified. Omnedon (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
first, native korean reference linking is not copyvio. but whole document reference itself is a "illegal" copyvio document. The English translation and publishing are NOT permitted by copyright holder. for exmaple, harry porter book translate to foreign language and publishing without permission of author&copyright holder. it is copyvio. second, small quote is not a big problem. but, 'forking specific quote by ediotr's convenience' is pov. third, i'm not sure translated to english as properly. fourth, kukkiwon officially state that it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo. --660gd4qo (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Flip Flop Source (Carpener article)

In main article, Capener, Steven D documents use as Karate-POV references. But, after 5 years, authour changed its point of view. Previous document and later documents contents are not same point of view.

  • Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995). -- He claims it is nothing but a karate base. And Korean's traditional martial arts vanished in 1910~1945.
  • Capener, Steven D. (2000). Taekwondo: The Spirit of Korea (portions of). - In this document, auhor state that taekwondio history trace back to subakhi.
"Korea has a long history of martial arts stretching well back into ancient times."
"The earliest unarmed Korean martial art which has been identified was call subakhi."
"Therefore, it is possible that Koreans were perhaps the first to systemize this kind of martial art into an early form of sport in Asia."
"In 1895, an American anthropologist named Stewart Culin visited Korea for the purpose of studying Korean games. In his book Korean Games he includes a picture of two children engaging in a taekkyon match."
"Taekkyon had become so popular as a folk sport"
"It was in the early 1960s that taekwondo began to systematically organize itself both in matters of administration and technique."
"In the early 1960s, however, some taekwondo leaders started to experiment with a radical new system that would result in the development of a new martial sport different from anything ever seen before. This new martial sport would bear some important similarities to the traditional Korean game of taekkyon."

Flip Flop? Author changed its point of view. This author's document is proper references as Karate-POV reference? This author's reference really match to "almost entirely based upon karate"? Later document cleary admits taekwondo connect to Korean traditional martial arts. Is author still claims that taekwondo was entirely based upon karate? I heavily doubt it. --660gd4qo (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The later article doesn't contradict the earlier one--it just dances around the issue more politely. You're engaging in WP:OR. Please stop removing the factual material on the Japanese origins of the art from here. JJL (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You makes no sense. It is not proper answer this question. Author admits taekwondo connect to Korean traditional martial arts. btw, It is not WP:OR. Anyway, since WHEN karate was Japanese origin? --660gd4qo (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Capener, Steven D. (Winter 1995) -- This document was school student report. If you see first page carefully, Its first paragraph title is... "STUDENT FORUM from Korea Journal, Winter, 1995.". ---660gd4qo (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This references have 2 problems.

  1. Author changed its view
  2. 1995 document was STUDNET report.

And Check List of Taekwondo techniques, List of shotokan techniques. If you think it is Japanese origin arts(Actually, China + Ryukyu Origin), How many techniques are smilar? please give your opinion. What do you think? Is it still WP:RS reference? please give your opinion.

I admits one of the early taekwondo froms borrowed karate fomrs, system and uniforms. However, Nowday taekwond is completely reformatted. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

POV quote

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Describing points of view

Wikipedia:Quotations#When_not_to_use_quotations

"the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." --660gd4qo (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. these are controvercial POV quotes. because, these quote completely ignore taekwondo also connect to Korean traditional martial arts.
  2. Karate is NOT a Japanese origin. It is a China + Ryukyu origin. numerous references support this. so "Karate is Japanese" is completely nonsense, and ignoring historical fact.
  3. One of the controvercial reference author, Capener, Author changed its view later.
  4. Mr. lee talk officialy denied by kukiwon. modern taekwondo is not wholly made by mr. lee. he was a one of the members. kukiwon state that it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo.
  5. According to Madis, Eric document, his evidences are taekwondo founder learned karate, uniform is similar with karate. but, author's comment ignoring many facts that taekwondo also influenced by subahk, taekkyon, chinese kungfu and some taekwondo founder was NOT learned karate.

--660gd4qo (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Karate is a well-understood term, even though Karate originated in the Ryukyus when they were independent and drew overwhelmingly from Souther Chinese martial arts. What is now TKD is heavily modified Shotokan. There are sources in the article supporting both the histoical view of a Karate base and teh Korean revisionist view of a 5000 year old purely Korean martial art. It's not appropriate to simply delete sourced contrary views simply because they don't align with yours. There are clearly sources for the Japanese origin and while many would like to see them thoroughly redacted that isn't in accordance with Wikipedia customs. Frankly, it's shocking to me that the Korean-centric view remains, given that it's completely false. JJL (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
JJL: As you correctly point out elsewhere, the truth or falsehood of this (or any) position is not for us to determine. I definitely agree that material shouldn't be redacted merely because someone dislikes it or disagrees with it. Huwmanbeing  12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. JJL, You still gave not enough evidences and explanations. you just claims your POV only. btw, according to your behavior, you are likely Japanese or Japanese american. Karate originated from China, Ryukyus people developed it. Karate was orginally ryukyu people (adopted from Chinese martial arts) martial arts against to Japanese invasions. Originally it was not Japanese. Ryukyu people was not Japanese. Various old document, modern scholar documents support it. There are clearly sources for the Chinese + ryukyu origin. Frankly, it's shocking to me that the Japanese-centric view remains, given that it's completely false.
  2. heavily modified shotokan? exactly how many skills are smiliar? show me %. heavily differences. they are independent and drew overwhelmingly from karate. though, some system adopted from karate. remaining karate influence are only 2~3 hyeongs, grade system, uniform. even if your POV pushing claims are true, almost every sources state that it connect to traditional korean martial arts. (no source denied it) At least, it is completely reformatted, much better than direct chinese+ryukyu copy martial arts, karate. Korean taekwond is a well-understood term.
  3. It connect to purely Korean martial arts. (btw, it is not 5000 yrs, 1300 yrs martial arts)

--660gd4qo (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on my ethnicity is rude. It seems to me that we are in agreement on the origins of Karate in the Ryukyus except possibly for its actual value against the Japanese occupiers, so I don't understand what you're disagreeing with there. The article contains multiple sources (and there are more in the archives here) regarding the origins from Japanese Karate. It's true that it now has been heavily modified and is its own art. Please read the archives on this matter. JJL (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
your ansewr is very vague, and not enough. POV quotes are very questionable. Numerous counterpart references denied that statement. (connect to traditional korean) And, It's true that Karate is not Japanese, Chinese + Ryukyu origin, which heavily modified by Japanese. if you want know this, i can offers numerous evidences, but this article is not karate article. You can't answer many questions. also questionable pov quotes are completely ignore many facts. And your beloved Capener changed his view later. I think Capener reference should be removed. --660gd4qo (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
660gd4qo: WP:POV states, "points of view are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." So the fact that the quote shows a particular POV is not a justification for removing it. That some might consider it controversial isn't reasonable grounds for removal either, nor is an outside organization's wishes that we avoid it. This source (and other better ones) favor a view that you don't agree with; please don't seek to undermine or remove it just because of that.
Thanks. I agree some parts. But, forking some quotes are POV problem. If should forking some quotes, it must forks from more 'neutral', 'most agreeable' quote. I don't denied some authors have different views. ---660gd4qo (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That said, the one semi-defensible reason I can see that might favor the deprecation of this particular source is that it just doesn't seem very scholarly. I can't read Korean, but what little of the tabloid I translated starts off with "Shocking Confessions!". Make of that what you will. :-) IMHO, though, and given that it doesn't have to stand alone, it's OK. Huwmanbeing  12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that reference is very tabloid-like gossip article. Even kukkiwon and mr.lee denied it.--660gd4qo (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Karate was one of the element of early taekwondo. 'taekwondo' itself is not a single root. in 1950s, Korea martial arts associations merged various martial arts & kwans in korea, and named as single "taekwondo". and 'discovered','created' many techniques from traditonal korea martial arts. According to Kimmo Rauhala(Professor of University of Jyväskylä, Department of social sciences of sport, Finland), "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems". Again, Karate was not a single root of taekwondo. modern taekwondo is very distinctive from karate. --660gd4qo (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

According to one of the taewkondo founder lee won kuk interview,

"The step-by-step evolution is not known becaus Tae Kwon Do has been influenced by many masters as they taught their own special variations of the basic techniques to their students. --660gd4qo (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the questionable quote as follow :

Madis, Eric (2003). "The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate". in Green, Thomas A. and Joseph R. Svinth. Martial Arts in the Modern World. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0275981533. " The following essay links the origins of taekwondo to twentieth-century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shitō-ryū karate... The use of belted white cotton martial arts uniforms... modern taekwondo uniforms are essentially identical to the once used in karate...(Note : Karate is Chinese, Ryukyu Origin. Author ignoring facts that taekwondo also influenced by subahk, taekkyon, chinese kungfu.[2][3] and some taekwondo founder was not learned karate. I can prove numerous evidences also) ...shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism. (Note : evidence? this TOTALLY baseless assumption. Yes, baseless. this is biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material.) --13:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Many sources cleary state taekwondo also connect to traditonal korean martial arts. "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems" this is undeniable fact. however, if early taekwondo influenced by karate, it mean revised history? really? this is biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material. I don't know who inserted this reference first. need more explain about this. if no explain, then this reference can classify into " biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material". --660gd4qo (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There are sources (of varying reliability) stating all sorts of stuff. But you can't simply remove the ones that don't agree with your POV and leave the ones that do. Please read the archives where I've argued at interminable length that the superior sources point to a primarily, almost exclusively, Japanese origin. When there are conflicting mainstream POVs the appropriate thing to do is give all of them. JJL (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I already read numerous previous discuss at here.[4] superior sources point to a primarily, almost exclusively, Korean origin. (btw, Karate is not a Japanese origin) And I already know your forked references are fringe theory, and Your pov is not a mainstream view.
And This article already moderated 2 years ago. [5] Most editors disagree with JJL. --660gd4qo (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And you did not give enough answer of questionable pov quotes. The questionable pov quotes are directly denied by various evidences. IF you want quote it, you must prove first WHY THIS QUOTE IS TRUE. You need show more evidence. We need more discuss about this.
  1. First, Show us clear evidence that taekwondo disconnet to traditional korean martial arts. (Note : even Karate POV Capener's document directly denied this)
  2. Second, Show us clear evidence that it connect to South Korean nationalism. (Note : it just doesn't seem very scholarly)

--660gd4qo (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Numerous counterpart evidences show that it connect to tradional korean martial arts. many taekwondo arts 'discovered' from Muye Dobo Tongji, taekkyon, subahk.
Development of Taekwondo, By Yeon Hwan Park, Thomas Seabourne[6]
Title : Taekwondo techniques & tactics, Martial arts series
Author : Yeon Hwan Park, Thomas Seabourne
ISBN 0880116447, 9780880116442
"When Japan freed Korea in 1945, Korea's ownm martial arts had a chance to grow.
"Many differnet kwans focusing on different style of taekkyon, subahk, tang soo, kwon bop..."
"Lee Duk Mu wrote Muye Dobo Tongji, the first Korean martial arts textbook with an entire chapter devoted to taekwondo."

According to Kimmo Rauhala(Professor of University of Jyväskylä, Finland), "70% of the techniques are unique, not found in other systems" --660gd4qo (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


660gd4qo, it seems initially that your intent was to question a quote from the "shocking confessions" source (which, given its tabloid nature, is not unreasonable), but it seems to be widening into a general questioning of the entire Japanese-origin position and the articles supporting it on grounds of bias, quality, truth, etc. I won't say if I agree or disagree with the Japanese view, because that's irrelevant and not up for debate. All that matters is whether it's an accepted view supported by appropriate sources. Verifiable evidence says that it is.
As has happened in years past, both here and elsewhere, opposition to a particular view often seems to manifest itself through attempts to undermine supporting sources. If one tries hard enough, one can find fault with any source, but that's a mug's game. If you've read the archives you'll see evidence of how over-reliance on this approach provokes endless, intractable debate. Instead, please try to accept that there are indeed multiple significant views on the matter of the art's origins, and that those you disagree with (and sources supporting them) are necessary to present in order for the article to fairly treat the subject.
I don't mean to pontificate or stifle debate; this is just an encouragement to avoid arguing about things that aren't likely to be productive or that are outside WP guidelines. For instance, you assert that "if you want to quote it, you must prove first why this quote is true". This is not so. Truth doesn't matter in this context. That may sound strange, but that's Wikipedia. Thanks, Huwmanbeing  17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


My name is Steven D. Capener and, as my name and my material are being discussed here, I thought I should clarify a few things.

First of all, anyone who reads carefully will easily see that I do not contradict myself in the two writings discussed here: the article "Problems in the Historial Treatment of Taekowndo" & the book "Taekwondo: the Spirit of Korea." In the book I say that there EXISTED such things as subak and taekyon, but I never suggested that they have any relation to taekwondo apart from, in the case of taekyon, a possible propensity of Koreans to prefer foot games. In fact, I was under great presure by the Korean Ministry of Culture to change my text and say that taekwondo was an indigenous Korean martial art that developed from subak and taekyon. I refused to do so pointing out that that would be lying. They wanted me to do it anyway. I will re-state my assertion that nothing like taekwondo existed in Korea before liberation in 1945 and that the schools that opened after liberation were all teaching purely Japanese karate including Whang Ki who wants to claim that he had learned a Chinese form but the reality is that he learned Karate while working for the Japanese on the Manchurian railroad, a Japanese company. The myth of taekwondo's Korean origins is, more and more, losing credibility in the taekwondo community within Korea. A large number of taekwondo instructors over fifty years old acknowledge the fact of taekwondo's Japanese origins, but few will admit this to non-Koreans due to issues of nationalism and the perception of loss of authority. There are NO compelling arguments based on hsitorical records that show any kind of connection between taekwondo and previous forms of unarmed combat or folk games. No one can show one instance of any kind of activity resembling taekwondo (or karate for that matter) in Korea from the end of the Joseon dynasty (end of the 19th century) to the liberation from colonial rule(1945). This has led to the myth that the Japanese "outlawed" taekyon" because it could be used as a form of resistance. This is a fantansy with NO basis in reality concocted to try and explain the historical absence of any unarmed fighting of play forms. As I stated in my article, the claim that the Japanese authorities would outlaw something as silly as taekyon (which had already disappeared) while compelling Koreans to learn judo and kendo in schools and practice military drilling and bayonette technices is laughable. Once again, I will remind people interested in this issue that senior officials of the first Korean Taekwondo Association (most notably Lee Chong Woo) have stated publicly that all of the original "Kwan" masters learned in Japan and taught tradition Japanese karate, in fact, they actually tried to out-Japanese each other in matters of form and philosophy in order to demonstrate their authority and credibility (which derived form their training Japan). Lee Chong Woo has clearly debunked Choiu Hong Hi's claims that he combined taekyon with Karate. But in fact there is no need to even do so, or to take Choi's claims seriously as his first "textbook" the "Taekwondo Guide" shows what he was practicing to be traditional Shotokan karate without any claims otherwise.

I hope these comments help to clear up any misunderstanding as to what my position in this debate is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.49.84.227 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. My name is Dakin Burdick, and I've also published on this subject. In fact, I'd like to thank Steven because his first article stopped the various death threats I was receiving from Korean nationals after my 1990 web article on the history of t'aegweondo (taekwondo) as being karate. Let me support Steven's statement that t'aegweondo (and tangsudo and kongsudo and t'aesudo) all derive from karate. Most of it came from Japanese Shotokan, but some Koreans were studying Okinawan karate as well (as seen in the Kanbukan's training manual from the 1950s). Olympic taekwondo is quite different from karate, as are other modern arts that drew upon karate's techniques. But of course, not all modern t'aegweondo is Olympic in nature. There's a lot of different schools out there. Also, I have to disagree with Steven regarding t'aeggyeon. I studied that art starting in 1987 and it was even then quite different from what most people do with it now. And if one examines GM Song's book on the subject and other works on t'aeggyeon, it becomes clear that t'aeggyeon was different back in the 1930s and beyond. Steven calls t'aeggyeon "silly" and I definitely disagree with that. Moreover, the Japanese were intent on wiping out all Korean culture during their period of occupation; they weren't being picky about eliminating some things and leaving others. The Japanese language and educational system was imposed on the Koreans, and kendo, judo, and finally karate-do were taught. For at least 20 years after World War II, some Koreans still called the art "Karate" rather than kongsudo, tangsudo, or anything else. See Robert Shipley's email to Black Belt about this in the early 1960s for evidence of that. Nevertheless, I'd agree with Steven that most future taekwondo instructors did not study t'aeggyeon in their youth. Let me also point out that the stance that Korean instructors took towards t'aeggyeon's role in their history changed with the political tides in Korea. Both Mas Oyama and Gen. Choi claimed to have practiced t'aeggyeon in their youth, for example. Maybe it was still around because as a folk practice, but I have a feeling that claims of this kind were sometimes influenced by the Korean political scene of the 1950s and 1960s in which tying one's practice to traditional Korean methods was politically savvy. Only two t'aeggyeon masters surfaced after 1945, so it is unlikely that everyone was training with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.240.2 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Historically Koreans thought hand was too precious to use?

"Historically, the Koreans thought that the hands were too valuable to be used in combat." what is the source for this? --Tonsdon (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Ref. #13

Ref. Outdated http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217689/k.918D/Martial_Arts.htm Ecofox (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Lee's talk in 2002

"it could be persuasive to say that Japan adopted their martial arts form from the Chinese martial arts, and it flowed into Korea later..."

According to kukkiwon notice no.30[7],

"About ex-vice president Mr. Lee's talk in 2002"

"Kukkiwon informs that the report of Mr. Lee Jong Woo(ex-vice president of Kukkiwon) interviewed with Shindonga magazine in 2002 was not official of Kukkiwon but just individual point of view talk. Therefore it's not proper to use that report as the reference of the history of Taekwondo."660gd4qo (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Mr. Lee was Jidokwan's person.[8] Jidokwan is a one of the kwans. It is not only root of Taekwondo. Jidokwan is only kwan which heavily adopted Karate.(also kungfu) His personal claim is not represent to all taekwondo society. 660gd4qo (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether his comment is official of Kukkiwon or not, it is fact that his comment is one of the sources of the description "Others state (...) that it was partially affected by karate during the Japanese occupation." And Kukkiwon doesn't have the right to decide what the 'proper' history of taekwondo is.--Reinosuke (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Lee doesn't have the right to decide what the 'proper' history of taekwondo. And Lee was one of the member of taekwondo orginization(and taekwondo orignizations is not only 1). he is not represent to taekwondo itself. since Kukkiwon is a 1 of the official orginization of taekwondo, it is proper reason that lee's interview is not proper reference of the history of Taekwondo.(because kukkiwon officaily denied it) 660gd4qo (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
And logically, his interview is not true. Mr. Lee said he was a key role of Taekwondo forms. half truth and half lie. Taekwondo forms made by various taekwondo masters. ITF+WTF forms are almost 45. Karate influenced forms are only 2. It is only 4% of taekwondo forms influenced by karate. other 96% forms are 'created' by koreans. And, they discovered their skills from traditional korean martial arts techniques. He ignored other taekwondo staffs made forms. And modern taekwondo is a 100% distinctive from karate.[9] early taekwondo was influenced by karate. early taekwond adopted karate system. but, "almost entirely based upon karate" is nonsense. because, those taekwondo founders also studied more kungfu, tachi, taekyon, subahk.660gd4qo (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
You're now engaging WP:OR. Furthermore, early TKD was indeed "almost entirely based upon karate" and hence it is not surprising that there are sources to indicate that. Intentionally misstating that this is a WP:COPYVIO is inappropriate. JJL (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
According to shindonga website, "무단 사용하는 것은 저작권법에 저촉되며, 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다."(Korean)(All contents are copyrighted, do not use contents without permission)
since its document "illegally" translated to english, publishing without copyright holder's permission, it is cleary WP:COPYVIO. and i'm not sure its document translated as properly. "almost entirely based upon karate" this sentence is WP:OR. --660gd4qo (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be morre strait foward!

In this incidnet, Mr.Lee denied his interview.
According to famous Korean taekwondo club, [10](in Korean), 그글이 신동아에 나온 뒤로 본래 인터뷰 내용과 차이가 있다는 이종우 원로의 항의도 있었듯이 뭔가 충격적인 것을 써야 하는 언론의 특징을 감안하면서 읽어야 하는(Mr. Lee said Shindonga interview was "distorted", The magazine always want finding "shocking" gossip.")
Mr.Lee does not permit translate & publishg his interview. Again, Mr. Lee later denied shindonga article, and he did not permit publishing & translating. --660gd4qo (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shindonda "magazine" is not a dongailbo newspaper. It is a gossip magazine article. it is not a reliable or academic source. The article writer, 육성철(Yuk sung chul) 기자 (reporter) already dismissed from shindonga magazine. So, can't confirm its true factor. so, "shocking" titles article is not proven reliable source. --660gd4qo (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Interview of Mr. Lee

Later, Mr'lee said, Shindonga magazine interview is "distorted".

And shindonga article is HEAVILY doubted. It was a gossip magazine, and it is not a reliable souce.

Here is the another interview of Mr. Lee.

According to Ohmynews Interview,

이종우 세계태권도연맹 부총재와의 만남 (Meet with Mr. Lee jong woo)[11](in Korean),

Mr. Lee : "태권도는 부분적이나마 가라데에서 유래해 왔다.(taekwondo partly influenced by karate. ※Note: He state that "partly".) 그러나 일본의 가라데가 어디에서부터 나왔냐가 중요하다.(however, we must know that where is the Japanese Karate came from...) 일본의 가라데가 일본이 독창적으로 만든 것도 아니다.(Karate is not made by Japanese) 말하자면 동양 문화권은 중국으로부터 많이 나왔다.(it came from China) 중국의 영향을 많이 받았다.(Karate was heavily influenced by China)

중국의 우슈가 나오기 이전에 우리나라에도 고유의 무술이 많이 있었다.(before Chinese wushu, Korean have their own marital arts)

--660gd4qo (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jhun Rhee says Chung Do Kwan was influenced by Karate

According to ShinDongA (신동아) magazine, Jhoon Rhee stated that early Chung Do Kwan was a direct copy of Karate, while the advanced kicks developed later on, which made it superior in fighting to Karate and Kung Fu. [1] -- Tonsdon

first, your reference is blog-like source. 2nd, he states that "early" taekwondo, not modern taekwondo. 3rd, Jhun Rhee is not a taekwondo founder. taekwondo is not made by Jhoon Rhee. Also, He was not a one of the kwans founders. and he emphasis his taekwondo is better than normal taekwondo. (its original means that "other taekwonds are karate influence, but my taekwond is not, i create my original move") ---660gd4qo (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
original source has been added. Tonsdon (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^
    “태권도의 발차기 기술이 가라테보다 더 발전했지. 일본은 전통을 따지기 때문에 지금도 옛날 것 거의 그대로 가르쳐요. 그런데 한국은 그런 의식이 없어 뒤돌려차기니 뭐니 해서 제멋대로 만들어냈어요. 그게 뒷날 다 복이 된 거요.” [Indeed, Taekwondo kick techniques are more advanced than Karate. Japan likes tradition, so they teach almost exactly same as olden times. But Korea doesn't have that concept, so they made to their likings, back spin kick and whatnot. All that became advantageous later on.]
    (note) kicking techniques are derived from mainly Subak and taekkyon. [citation needed]
    ▶당시엔 뒤돌려차기가 없었습니까. [Was there no back spin kick at the time?]
    “그랬지. 나도 그때 뒤돌려차기는 못 배웠어요. 기본 동작만 배웠지. 지금은 뛰어앞차기 등 기술이 얼마나 화려해요. 가라테보다 훨씬 앞서 있지. 상대가 안 되죠. 쿵푸도 그렇고. 그러니 올림픽에 들어갈 수 있었던 거야. 대중이 좋아하니까.” [Yes, even I didn't learn back spin kick at that time, just basic movements. Now with the jump front kick etc, how fancy are the techniques? Far advanced than Karate. Karate is not a match, same with Kung Fu. That's why it could go into the Olympics, since the mass like it.]
    ▶태권도에 대해 이렇게 정리할 수 있을까요? ‘시초는 가라테이지만, 이후 기술적으로 더 발전한 것’이라고. [Could it be concluded this way about Taekwondo? That "Although the beginning was Karate, afterward it advanced technique-wise."] “다른 도장은 몰라도 청도관만큼은 분명해요. [I'm not sure about other Kwans, but certainly at least Chung Do Kwan.] 75세에 송판 깨는 美 태권도 황제 이준구 (all article in one page)The original source (article divided into 12 pages

This is already reflected in text. These POV crusades are damaging the article. Please stop.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

American Taekwondo Association

It seems to me that this article is incomplete without discussion of the American Taekwondo Association (ATA).

The WTF, ITF, and ATA are considered the three main Taekwondo bodies in the world. I know that some poorly-run schools have led some people to discredit the ATA, but there are also poorly-run WTF and ITF related schools. Additionally, most poor Taekwondo schools are independent. Also, I think it is important to note that the ATA is older and more in line with the traditions of Taekwondo than the WTF. I know that the ATA has a smaller membership, but it is a major organization and any thorough discussion of Taekwondo is incomplete without mention of the ATA’s role. Daddio19 (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddio19 (talkcontribs) 04:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but don't limit it to adding ATA. There should be a new section devoted to discussing the various Taekwondo organizations. Include a table of organizations including when they were founded, where located (USA, Europe, Korea, etc.) and maybe a SHORT paragraph on how that organization differs from the others. Well, maybe not that last bit, because they'll all say something like, "This organization traces its roots back to (name of grandmaster) and is the only one that follows the true tenets of Taekwondo." Most of the Taekwondo instructors where I live belong to the International Taekwondo Alliance. I found the ITA wiki page (poorly written, but it's there), but could not find any reference to the ITA on the main Taekwondo page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkilgore (talkcontribs) 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that the American Taekwondo Association (ATA) should be listed as one of the major Taekwondo bodies. I have taken both WTF and ATA. ATA uses the Songahm method of teaching, while this is relatively new (developed in the 1980's) it has definately created a standardized system of instruction. While I have to give credit to my WTF training for improving my skills, I really don't remember much in the way of forms or any other techniques or tools that I could use for self practice. The Songahm form allows me to go back and practice any or all the forms I have learned. If I change schools I know the info I learned at this one will transfer readily from one to the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.101.223 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the key here is that outside the US the American Taekwondo Association is a lot less prominent, which relates to WP:Systemic Bias. --Natet/c 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clear up my point. I am referring to Songahm Taekwondo, practiced around the world by the ATA, STF, and WTTU. Daddio19 (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to mentioning ATA in the article if there's a need but there's also nothing wrong with not mentioning ATA. There are Taekwondo associations all over the world and there's no need to list them in the article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

POV forking

I combined POV fork paragraphs in the article per WP:POVFORK. I also organized redundant references for sake of not deleting them but they will need to be culled. There's a lot of primary sources and original research in the citations that need to be removed.

The POV forks dealt with are: 1. Korean vs Japanese origin of TKD. This POV fork existed in the opening of history section and the modern developments section. 2. Historical context behind Japanese ban of Korean MA. POV fork existed in opening paragraph of modern development section and then again in the third paragraph. The third paragraph also contained editor personal comments and ruminations which is considered original research WP:OR. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again

Melonbarmonster2 wrote in his edit summaries: Then the lawler reference is in the wrong place. Thanks for the heads up. Also please provide a pdf or quote) and (Lawler referenced moved per JJL's notification. References that can't be verified must be quoted or PDF provided so other editors can check the reference. Please provide it.) This isn't correct. No one is under any obligation to provide an online reference for you, and that fact that a ref. is not in accord with your POV does not mean it must be moved. Are you really planning on starting this Korean-centric propagandizing again? JJL (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are three categories in the text reflecting all the different variations of claims regarding TKD's formation after WWII. If I were to engage in Korean centric propagandaizing I would do what you are doing now and try to delete or change the claims of the other categories. Contrary to your ridiculous claim, I have preserved all THREE variations of claims including all the references for all three claims whereas you are trying to meddle with the language of the category that you don't like ignoring the references attached to it. Stop messing up your Karma and exercise a little good faith please. My edit has been extremely fair.
There is no NPOV reason to change the category itself and ignore the 5 other references. The Lawler ref has been moved according to what you have claimed it states. And all online and offline references can be challenged. Please read WP:BURDENMelonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawler Reference

Per WP:RELY I would like to challenge this reference: 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."

Please provide a pdf or quotation of the relevant text. At this point no one knows what the reference actually states and doesn't and JJL has try to use this reference to state conflicting claims from claims it supported before today. If the challenge can't be met the reference should be removed.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in either WP:RELY or WP:BURDEN do you find an obligation for me to make a pdf of copyrighted material for your convenience? JJL (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in exchanging sarcastic comments with you. At this point no one even knows what claim that citation is supposed to support. The citation has been challenged so unless you can provide verification it should be removed per the wiki rules I've already given you. If you disagree we'll just take mediation steps.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

JJL, last call on this please.

Before my revisions, the reference was used to claim that TKD was derived from "native Korean martial arts with influences from neighboring countries"[12] I did not change this but simply merged it with similar references in its new place.

Contrary to its original cited claim, you have claimed that Lawler supports the claim that TKD was derived from Kungfu, Karate and other MA's besides TKD.[13].

At this point, there is no evidence for your new claim about the Lawler reference and without a quotation or some sort of textual verification, I can only assume that the last state of consensus is the correct use of this citation.

Provide some evidence or the Lawler reference will be returned to support the claim as of RxELAPSE's last edit[14] which is exactly the way that I had used it[15].

Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Lawler reference says "Tae Kwon Do itself developed in Korea from Chinese origins." What more did you want? JJL (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that a direct quote from the book? Can you give the page number and the surrounding paragraph or paragraphs? Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I found out through tracking down this reference that Lawler's book is about the technical aspects of Taekwondo and that her brief conclusion on the issue of TKD's origins is that TKD was formed postwar from Korean MA mixed with Chinese and Japanese influences through the amalgamation of the various schools that existed in the 50's. If you want me to look at a specific page or quotation that speaks contrary to this, please let me know. Otherwise this reference will be moved to its original location as it existed even before my recent edits.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

JJL/Melonbarmonster2 Revert Warring

This article has chronically suffered from POV crusades and pro Korean and pro Japanese trolls regarding TKD's formation after WWII. It's probably in the most NPOV form that it's ever been right now.

Currently, the variations fall into three categories each supported with 6 or more references: 1. TKD is created from indigenous Korean MA. 2. TKD is created from TKD mixed with influenced from other MA's from China and Japan, 3. TKD is created from mostly Japanese MA, ie Karate. Regardless of what your personal opinion is on the matter, the above three claims are REFERENCED and stated neutrally.

Please respect the citation rules, existence of the controversy and stop trying to delete and change the categories. The same would apply if a Korean editor was trying to delete or undermine the latter two categories.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to reject "2. TKD is created from TKD". The three main claims are of principally Korean origins, a mixture of extra-Korean sources, and the historical origin from Japanese Karate. That's what the citations stated. You're trying to break the old #1 into a #1a, 1b while removing the old #2. You're doing it by switching sources around. JJL (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
btw I switched ONE reference based on what YOU claimed it states. Please don't make ridiculous accusations.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for being so honest about your POV motives. It pretty evident that you're not dealing with substance of the text and the references and just reverting for the sake of reverting. All I can tell you is that I didn't even create the categories and that they are a carryover of the first paragraph of the history section[16] which I merged as accurately as possible from what the CITATIONS actually claimed.
Of the over 20 references that are used in the paragraph in question there is NOT ONE reference that supports your claim that TKD was created from Kungfu and Karate other than Lawler(according only to you), which I suspect also doesn't make such a claim.
There are 2 academic references on top of 4 other references that state that reference "Korean MA mixed with other MA's" category. It should be left accordingly.
Lastly, please provide verification for the Lawler reference. Contrary to your claims, I highly doubt that the book supports a Kungfu/Karate derivation of TKD or even a Karate only derivation of TKD.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The ref. says: "Tae Kwon Do itself developed in Korea from Chinese origins." It seems clear enough to me. What part of it do you find ambiguous? Also, I'm not claiming that "TKD was created from Kungfu and Karate". I'm claiming that some people claim that. It's well-known that TKD was created from Japanese Karate. However, in accordance with WP policy even the fringe tehory of a wholly Korean origin after the Korean arts had been completely suppressed must be given space. JJL (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that a quote of the text or a quote of the referenced claim? And whether you think TKD was created from Japanese karate is irrelevant. That's the EXACT POV arguing that has no place in the article. In my personal opinion that's as a ridiculous claims as claiming TKD is derived from only Korean MA's but you don't see me lying about references and undermining text of claims to support my own view. Please reciprocate some of that courtesy.
For the purpose of our discussion the only thing that matters is what verifiable, legitimate citations actually state. Please provide a page number for your quote. A complete inline citation according to WP:CIT for offline sources has to include page number, and relevant text anyways or it can be challenged and removed. Right now, your claims about this reference is highly doubtful and potentially harmful to the article. Just provide the surrounding text so we know what the book actually states.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

--LonewolfSoldier (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)== WTF Scoring ==

I corrected the wording regarding scoring the turning kicks. The previous wording suggested it was the targeted athlete that had to turn for the second point to score. It is the attacking athlete who must fully turn during execution of the technique for the "turning kick" point to be scored.CharmsDad (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UT As long the targeted hit the opponent with a turning kick, I believe it counts.

Taekwondo is not really self-defense it is more like a sport

Taekwondo's is mostly kicking, but when comes to a real fight. The fighting stances are not really stable. Taekwondo is also vulnerable from grappling moves. A Kick can be countered by a grapple and take down the taekwondo fighter down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonewolfSoldier (talkcontribs) 03:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From my experience some of the fighting stances are useful in real life such as the cat stance. Also, just because something is vulnerable to something else doesn't mean it's not self-defencse. It just doesn't work that well in that specific situation. Finally, depending on how it's done, a grapple can be countered by a kick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.172.52 (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: WTF Competition Rules

{{editsemiprotected}}

I am new to this, so please bear with me.

I noticed that in the Competition Section (WTF), the explanatinon mentions current and former rules. This is a confusing section which has some inaccuracies. It seems as if some of the old and new regulations are mixed up.

Please change Under World Taekwondo Federation and Olympic rules, sparring is a full-contact event and takes place between two competitors in an area measuring 10 meters square. to Under World Taekwondo Federation and Olympic rules, sparring is a full-contact event and takes place between two competitors in an area measuring 8 meters square.

Also, points are no longer awarded in the event of a knockdown. The article mentions points awarded for knockdown in two situatins which are no longer valid. Please change . Valid attacks that knock an opponent down are awarded an extra point. Punches to the head are not allowed. If a competitor is knocked down by a scoring technique and the referee counts down, then an additional point is awarded to the attacking competitor. to Before the 2009 rule ammendments, attacks that knock an opponent down were awarded extra points. Currently, no points are awarded in the event of a knockdown. Punches to the head are not allowed

Source: http://www.wtf.org/wtf_eng/site/rules/file/WTF_Competition_Rules_and_Interpretation_GA_Passed_on_Mar_2_2010_with_photo.pdf

Another possible addition to the article could be the use of video replay in WTF Competitions. Nchlswu (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noting these rule updates; I have checked the provided reference and updated the article. Janggeom (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Taekwondo

Can someone please include a well-informed heading under this article on Taekwondo and its criticisms? Such as it being a long-range fighting style and students of it will be hard-pressed on the ground, and its lack of disarming techniques? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.109.52 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Before critisizing you should know what you are stating or don't critisize. I am a 6th Dan Master in WTF Tae Kwon Do and we do teach gun disarming techniques as well as knife and other weapon disarming. We also teach Hapkido included with the Tae Kaon Do classes which is a Korean style very similar to Judo and Aikido which includes joint manipulations and grappling techniques from the groung but yes we do concentrate on long stikes because although 80 percent of fights end up on the ground 100 percent start standing. It is obvious you only know what is taught at lower ranks because at Balck Belt it is one of the more complete martial arts around and in my 38 years of training I have studied many styles. These comments usually come from ignorance.

Master Julian Santana, 6th Dan IJF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.63 (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't ignorance to simply criticize TKD. I've training in TKD for 7 years, earned my 1st Dan one year ago, and while it is an excellent sport to learn kicking, most TKD guys IN MY EXPERIENCE are mediocre at takedowns and are pretty much untrained at groundfighting. There is a reason that TKD fighters in MMA learn other martial arts before they transition (Anderson Silva, for example).

Taekwondo most popular

This phrase "Taekwondo is the world's most popular martial art in terms of the number of practitioners" is based on a book about Taekwondo of the year 1989. In my opinion it's not acceptable as a reference, we must find another one. 20+ years are not a small amount of time in statistics --Diuturno (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ITF competition

{{editsemiprotected}}

I noticed a mistake in ITF competition section. "the competition area is slightly smaller (9 meters square instead of 10 meters square)" should be changed to "the competition area is slightly bigger (9 meters square instead of 8 meters square)", since the current form is obviously wrong as WTF rules state that the competition area is 8 meters square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.95.96 (talkcontribs)

Thank you for the note; ITF source checked and article updated accordingly. Janggeom (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF competition: new section

{{editsemiprotected}}

The current WTF competition section does not mention poomsae (forms) competitions at all although WTF organizes also poomsae competitions. It strongly implies at the moment that there is no other form of competition besides sparring under WTF. I suggest that poomsae competitions should also be mentioned and preferably given equal space with WTF sparring competitions (I think WTF does not give either a higher status or anything so they should receive as much attention).

The rules can be found here: http://www.wtf.org/wtf_eng/site/rules/file/Poomsae_Competition_rules_Interpretationl_20060725.doc

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.95.96 (talkcontribs)

Unprotected You are free to make the edit yourself. -- œ 09:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Taekwondo Commands

Changed the english section of the taekwondo commands. The pronunciation before was off, for example, "창례", when seperated, is "Chang" and "Rye", but when put together, it sounds like "Changnye" The "r" sound turns into an "n" sound when placed after a "ㅇ" or a "ㄴ" or a "ㅁ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emelius77 (talkcontribs) 18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we use typically use Revised Romanization of Korean on Wikipedia except for things which relate directly to North Korea; and the previous spellings should have conformed to that. It's true that you can't always directly pronounce Revised Romanization the way it looks and have it sound the way it should; that system has rules that one has to know. However, they should still be romanized that way in the article to conform with standards. Omnedon (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

taekwondo

most of d people think dat taekwondo is a male dominated game n female cant play it to d extent to which male can do. what do u all think abt dis issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.56.25 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.165.35.29 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.61.44 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Country of origin

In this article Country of origin is South Korea, but im 100% sure, that the first time name "Taekwon-do" was used by Choi Hong Hi in North Korea, so imo the Country of origin should be changed to North Korea, not South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.253.56 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is neither from South Korea nor North Korea. I suppose the origin is Korea.220.255.1.137 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Korean Commands - romanization error

Romanization Hangul Meaning
Kyung-yet Bow

Uh, the Korean text here actually transliterates as "Hwal", not "Kyung-Yet". What gives? Muzilon (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

People are always messing with that command table, and with other Korean words in the article. Normally it's because they don't realize that we're standardized on Revised Romanization here, and in good faith they change the romanized words based on what they're used to; but in this case someone changed to something totally other and somehow it was missed until you spotted it. I've fixed it; thanks. Omnedon (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Are the words "Hwal" and "Insa" also used to mean "bow" in TKD? Muzilon (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Class project - August 2011

I am using this article on Taekwondo as a class project after noticing some serious errors regarding the history of Taekwondo in a story that my class read. My class and I are researching the history of Taekwondo, Taekkeon, Subak, and the Hwarang, and being that all of my students are Korean (I am an English teacher in Korea) and can source information in Korean, we are going to attempt to clear up some of the glaring inaccuracies in this article - especially regarding the Hwarang's involvement in Taekkeon, and the Ancient Korean martial art forms Taekkeon and Subak themselves. I do ask for everyone's patience during our efforts, as I am not experienced at editing a Wikipedia article! Barondugger (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Thanks, Baron Dugger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barondugger (talkcontribs) 07:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources as a starting point. Because the history is controversial, only the very best quality sources should be used. It is not so simple as just removing 'serious errors': Wikipedia:Neutral point of view demands that in the case of controversy, multiple viewpoints should be presented. Each viewpoint should have one or more reliable sources. Thank you and your class for the effort in this article! jmcw (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to run this by everyone before attempting to make changes. According to Korean texts and internet sources (and common knowledge), Taekkyeon was(is) a foot oriented sport, while Subak was(is) a hand-oriented sport. My class also found that there is evidence of Taekkyeon being the oldest purely Korean martial art, as Subak has influences from the Han dynasty (~2700 years ago). There are references to 50 B.C. for Taekkyeon in Wiki's timeline of martial arts, but the tomb that the funerary art depicting Taekkyeon is from Gojosun, which is ~350 A.D. As for the involvement of the Hwarang, we can find no significant evidence of the Hwarang's involvement in creating a new martial art, nor can we find any evidence of them spreading Taekkyeon around Korea-they were conquerors, not ambassadors, and Taekkyeon existed and was known by the other Kingdoms long before the Hwarang were created. My class's position is that all the references to the Hwarang should be deleted entirely, as they are not relevant to the creation of modern-day Taekwondo. The fun one is going to be who created Taekwondo. This is purely a POV issue, but our research has found that the Taekwondo created in the military (at the 29th battalion)is Taekwondo "lite"-that is, abbreviated so as to make it teachable to troops in a short period of time. My class agrees that this should be an issue that is discussed from both viewpoints. Choi controlled the Korean Taekwondo Association, and thus was able to bias history in his favor, but many other sources point to the amalgamation of the other Kwans' techniques under order of President Rhee. I would love to get feedback, as I have done much more research on this than my students, and I have not told them a lot of things I have found in English sources to prevent 'coloring' what they find in their Korean sources. Thanks!Barondugger (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Barondugger, I have found that every Korean source I've studied has been heavily biased one way or another. I would be inclined to exercise caution and a healthy degree of scepticism when consulting Korean-language sources. Any sources published in South Korea today are likely to conform to the WTF's version of history, and likewise, many (perhaps most) non-WTF sources are likely to follow the ITF's version of history. From my perspective, and to the best of my knowledge, neither of these versions is a rigorously accurate account. Regarding the Hwarang, I do not see any claims in the article that they helped create a new martial art, so I do not see the justification for removing all mention of the Hwarang. The assertion that they helped spread the art of taekkyeon through the land does not appear to be sourced, so that is certainly a candidate for removal, in my view. Regarding the creation of taekwondo, one would have to be careful in defining what 'taekwondo' is. Needless to say, this is a highly controversial topic. General Choi was not in control of the KTA for very long, as far as I am aware, which was probably a key reason behind the formation of the ITF. My primary caution is that, based on my experience, any Korean-language sources are likely to be heavily biased. Janggeom (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
All sources are biased. There's no original research or synthesis allowed on wikipedia just verifying content with proper sources.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)