Response |
→Footnote #7 (In Uk Heo): sheesh! shifting blame for your own edits, unverifiable sources |
||
Line 466: | Line 466: | ||
::JJL, I didn't provide the source myself -- Manacpowers did. I presumed you had seen and read this before, since it has been in the article before, including this past week when the article was protected. The summary is partly in Korean and partly in English. I have included some of the references he provided as well as some of yours, as part of the compromise effort, and have added a new one of my own dealing with Korean history. I would point out that you are quoting only a portion of a sentence from that page; that sentence goes on to refer to the influence of Manchurian and Korean martial arts, and an earlier sentence reads, "Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only." [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
::JJL, I didn't provide the source myself -- Manacpowers did. I presumed you had seen and read this before, since it has been in the article before, including this past week when the article was protected. The summary is partly in Korean and partly in English. I have included some of the references he provided as well as some of yours, as part of the compromise effort, and have added a new one of my own dealing with Korean history. I would point out that you are quoting only a portion of a sentence from that page; that sentence goes on to refer to the influence of Manchurian and Korean martial arts, and an earlier sentence reads, "Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only." [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Since you edited it in, it's your source. Once again, the references that you and '''Manacpowers''' put forward are overwhelmingly ''random stuff found on the web''. You inserted this one and cannot even identify what it is! You don't know what type of document you're citing, you haven't read it, you can't say how to locate it for ILL, and you have only a poorly translated--summary, review, abstract?--of it to go by. I congratulate you on adhering rigourously to your consistently low standards for references and documentation. For any disinterested individuals who may be reading, this is exactly what's so frustrating (and why I sought mediation)--anything found floating on the web is given equal weight with "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ([[WP:SOURCES]]) such as the ones I've cited (e.g., from the [[Journal of Asian Martial Arts]] and the [[Korea Journal]], and other sources defended at [[Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4]], esp. at [[Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Sources_on_Japanese_origins]]). Mediation from someone conversant with [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] and who was willing to look at the sources would be very helpful. [[User:JJL|JJL]] ([[User talk:JJL|talk]]) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:01, 27 June 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taekwondo was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
As of 18:00, May 17th, 2008
The article is looking much better guys. Keep up the good work. Quietmartialartist (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Philosophy section
The section on philosophy has, I feel, become somewhat too large -- not just in terms of the newly-added Jidokwan information, but also the ITF portion. The tenets are already mentioned elsewhere in the article, and the oath and tenets are also presented in the International Taekwondo Federation article. I am not suggesting that there should be no kwan-specific information the article, but we probably don't need this level of detail on philosophy here when the organizations have their own articles. Omnedon (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since there has been no response or objection, I've moved the Jidokwan philosophy section to the Jidokwan article (and have asked for a citation there), and have removed the ITF philosophy section which seemed to have been the same as in the International Taekwondo Federation article. Instead, there are simply links to those two articles. The ITF philosophy section needs some cleanup, though. Omnedon (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ranks, Belts and Promotions comments
On reading through this article I found there are some minor errors in the Ranks, Belts and Promotions section:
The WTF/Kukkiwon standards do not mention the title "Grandmaster" in any of their documentation. This is a traditional title and is used by convention and courtesy for those holding a 7th Dan or higher but has no official status.
The title of Master is used for those who have obtained the rank of at least 4th Dan. In the official Kuk-Ki-Won Textbook (Oh-Sung Publishing Co., Sept. 20, 1995 English Edition) the term "master" is used interchangeably with the term "instructor" but there is no direct association with any specific rank. The title of Master is also generally only used with adults. The WTF/Kuk-Ki-Won does not recognize a 5th Poom (junior black belt). The rank of 4th Poom is not officially recognized in their documentation but certifications for this rank have been granted in recent years.
The title of "Sabumnim" (instructor) is a courtesy traditionally used for an adult instructor holding a 4th degree or higher. It is usually associated primarily with the senior instructor or school owner in a setting where there are multiple individuals with ranks considered master's level. The WTF/Kuk-Ki-Won has no test or certification requirement for this title.
--CharmsDad (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) However , in the ITF, the title "instructor" is only permitted for use by those with the 4th degree international instructor certificate and above. A master is he who holds the 7th-8th degree black belt and the Grandmnaster is a 9th degree black belt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.110.104 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Kukkiwon considers Master to mean the same as Mister, and is for Dan and Poom ranks from 1st to 4th Poom, and 1st to 5th Dan. Grandmaster is more formal, like "sir" and is for 6th Dan to 9th Dan. Also, Kukkiwon has a course and a test for "Sabum", or, instructor. Once a person achieves Kukkiwon 4th Dan or above, and, has completed the course and received a graduation certificate, they can apply for the Kukkiwon Sabum Shimsa, or Instructor Exam. If that person passes the exam, they will be issued a Sabum Gye Gyuk Jung, or, Instructor Qualification Certificate from Kukkiwon. I was in the first group of USA graduates in 1998. There is no need to include the WTF in this discussion as they have nothing to do with Taekwondo ranks, curriculum, or titles. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.142.143 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to determine the point you are trying to make. It would help if you would write in complete and coherent sentences. It would also help give credence to your claims of being a master if you did not use such a combat tone in your post. “Sir” is used for any male person, particularly one that is older or higher ranking than you. “Sabumnim” is a courtesy title for any master level (4th Dan or higher) and is independent of any additional testing or certification. You are confusing culture/courtesy with rank/certification. "Master" is the title used for those 4th Dan or higher (not 1st - 4th Poom or 1st - 5th Dan as you state in your post.) "Grandmaster" is the title often used in reference to those holding a 7th Dan or higher, as I described previously. WTF is the governing body so they absolutely should be included in the discussion. If the WTF is not included the Kuk-Ki-Won is meaningless. (“Kuk-Ki-Won” is how the name is spelled in their own English translations in reference books and other materials. "Kukkiwon" is how the name is spelled on rank certificates. There is no consistency in how this name is presented in the official materials.)CharmsDad (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I know it sounds combative when some offers up different information than the misinformation that you are posting. Please list your sources for the claims you make above in regard to Kukkiwon, WTF and titles.
Just to give an example of the errors you are making in your claims above, lets start by taking a look at this one where you stated "The rank of 4th Poom is not officially recognized in their documentation " You are incorrect. Here on the Kukkiwon (not Kuk-Ki-Won) website, we find that 4th Poom is clearly documented in the Kukkiwon Dan regualtions. See Article 8: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/examination/examination08.jsp?div=01
Oh, and your claim that it is written as Kuk-Ki-Won, no, take a look at their latest Textbook published Feb. 5, 2006. According to the Kukkiwon, today and for the past several decades, Kukkiwon is officially written as one word. http://www.amazon.com/TAEKWONDO-Textbook-Kukkiwon/dp/B000QG1EMQ
One more, just for fun. Above you made the claim "The title of Sabumnim (instructor)--- The WTF/Kuk-Ki-Won has no test or certification requirement for this title." I'm not sure where you get your information from, but a simple check of the Kukkiwon Academy section of the Kukkiwon website shows that the Kukkiwon disagrees with your claim above.
Check here http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/training/training04.jsp?code=11&div=04, see section 3. Qualification for Participation, part 2 where it states "※ Those who completed the course shall be qualified with the Instructor Certificate through the prescribed examination later when they obtain the Kukkiwon 4th Dan Certificate"
If you can get yourself to the point of learning something new, I can help clear up some confusion. If you just get angry and decide to throw around insults, then no one can teach you anything. I am ready to share information, and sources if you like. But first I suggest that you take a moment and research the sources I just provided for you.
Thank you. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.205.90.154 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Competition Section Comments
The section on WTF sparring section also has errors. For both junior (14-17 years old) and senior competitions each match consists of three 2 minute rounds with a 1 minute break between each round. (WTF Competiton Rules: http://www.wtf.org/site/rules/competition.htm) This was set for all matches except male finals with the 2001 revision and applied to male finals with the 2003 revision. These changes were prior to the introduction of both the 7 point gap rule and 12 point cap rule (both introduced with the 2005 revision.)
In the event of a tie score at the end of the third round a 4th "sudden death" 2 minute round will begin after a one minute rest. The first athlete to score in the 4th round wins the match. If, at the end of the 4th round, the score is still tied then the officials will decide the winner based on initiative shown in the 4th round.
In addition, the article makes a reference to the referee counting but does not indicate that if a 10 count is reached before the athlete indicates he/she is ready to continue then the match is over and the other athlete wins by knockout.
CharmsDad (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Mediators are not accept JJL's POV edit
JJL. you have a big mistake. Most mediator NEVER accept your edit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo
involved parties
1. JJL (talk · contribs) 2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) 3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) 4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) 5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs)
2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) opposed your POV 3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) opposed your POV 4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) is neutral. He was not accpeted your POV. 5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs) it's me. I'm opposed your POV
even Omnedon said, "JJL, I'm suggesting no such thing; I'm involved. What I am saying is that I don't like the attitudes displayed by either you or melonbarmonster. I'm also saying that I feel a compromise could be reached, and I've said so several times; but you seem to insist more and more stridently that, in a nutshell, Taekwondo is essentially Japanese. It's not. That has not been demonstrated. There must be something between "Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts" and "Taekwondo is Japanese" that we could agree upon, even if grudgingly." He was not accpeted your POV.
also he said, "The present dispute started in late 2007 over JJL's edits which were designed to reduce what he described as Korean POV in describing the history of Taekwondo. Some other editors, myself included, felt that his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV."[1]
Cleary, 4 member declined your edit.(1 member is neutral. but He never permit your POV edit)
- mediators rejected your POV edit.
read carefully Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4. no one permit your POV edit. if you still rv from your POV edit. it is cleary violate of rule of wiki.
your POV edit is possibly Wikipedia:Content forking.
- "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."
What forking is
- POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view.
- 1. involved parties are NOT permitted your POV edit.
- 2. His edit is possibly Wikipedia:Content forking
Manacpowers (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mediation was your chance. You didn't take it. I consider the matter settled as you didn't dispute it then. I have provided disinterested academic sources to back up these claims. I don't care to discuss this matter further unless you have a new source that bears on the issues involved. Your disruptive edits and rude comments are not appreciated. JJL (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- JJL, the meditation was failed because the primary disputer such as Melonbarnstar, did not show up (not me, you just urged me to sign up it), however the failed meditation does not mean that your insistence is settled down. Your disruptive edit does not excuse or explain as well. None ever agreed with your-so-called academic resources. The one was questioned because of not really an academic field. Besides, I don't think your way of speaking is close to "civility" but just rudeness. I'm not interested in this dispute as much as you and Manacpowers, but you're speaking for yourself. Consensus never has been reached. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mediation was the opportunity for those who disputed those sources to have the matter addressed. If you didn't participate then, despite having been invited to do so, please don't complain now. JJL (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're the one who has been complaining the origin, not me, or others. So please be civil. Well, a meditation can be always open again if people need so. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mediation was the opportunity for those who disputed those sources to have the matter addressed. If you didn't participate then, despite having been invited to do so, please don't complain now. JJL (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Again. there is no one accept JJL's disruptive POV pushing.
and your disruptive JPOV logic is nonsense.
you cut and paste from your only convenience source for you. and make false logic. you use Wikipedia:Content forking.
Wikipedia is not your diary. Every mediators opposed your POV. There is no need that article keep by your disruptive POV. Manacpowers (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I saw no benefit whatsoever from mediation in this case. JJL provided a summary, I provided a summary -- and as far as I know, that is where it stopped. Consensus was not reached, and no further discussion took place at the time. That does not mean that those that did not participate no longer have a voice on the subject. However, as with subjects like religion, evolution, and the like, there are competing views, and the simple fact that there is disagreement is part of this martial art's background. So, as a compromise, and to present the very real controversy to the reader without undue attention, here is what I would suggest: in a situation like this, I believe the article can reasonably (and briefly) describe more than one view. It could be something along these general lines:
- "Some hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art that was adopted and modified by Korean practitioners. (Source) Others believe that it was based primarily on earlier indigenous Korean martial arts. (Source) Still others see it as an essentially Korean martial art that was also influenced, more or less, by martial arts from other countries, especially neighboring Japan and China. (Source) The Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 through the end of World War II in 1945 meant that documentation was sometimes lost or sometimes purposely not kept; and the martial art that is now called Taekwondo began to emerge during this time, so that solid and incontrovertible information regarding its origins can be difficult to find. (Source)"
- In this way, each view is presented, no view is denigrated, and as long as the view is sourced, it's not mere opinion. On the other hand, no particular view is stated as absolute, unvarnished fact. The reader can decide. I would be glad to provide some additional sources to help with this. Omnedon (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Although there are competing views, only one view is sourced in academic journals. We've been through this before. Mediation was the next step in the WP resolution process. Those who declined to participate have indeed opted out of the matter. Since 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) you have claimed to be "labouring to come up with some (sources)". On 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) you stated that "I hope to provide a couple of additional sources soon -- I'm waiting on one book to arrive via interlibrary loan." You'll understand that I despair of seeing such sources anytime soon. In the meantime, some people may well believe any number of things; but there is no meaningful disagreement among WP:RS on this matter. The only disagreements are from websites. I don't care to re-hash this; that was what mediation was for. Until a WP:RS stating that TKD is a 5000 year old indigenous art is brought forward, there's nothing more to discuss. JJL (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Some hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art......"
- that is 'not' some, only JJL's opinion.
- "Some Karate teacher hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art......"
- i think this need more scientific data. actually, JJL's give source s are heavy POV pushing.(some sources are from karate dojo's teacher. this is not fair.)
- some karate dojo teacher's said, tkd is a essentially a Japanese martial? he pick up this style source.
- if you think Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art. then show me scientific data. We don't need karate dojo teacher's claim and some pro-karate guy's personal essay. actually, your(JJL) given sources are totally null and void.
- for example, one of his sources is like this,
- "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."
- but who is the David Mitchell? actually, he is a karate teacher.[2]
- and don't forget. JJL, your edit is rejected by mediators. Manacpowers (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're not making sense. JJL (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- you're sense already rejected by mediators. Manacpowers (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're not making sense. JJL (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
JJL. your source is not academic journal. it is a personal essay. also your source author is not permitted by tkd. those author contribute TKD? they are no relation with tkd. their "blah blah..." is not working to TKD. if you think your source is reliable, please show me scientific data. we don't need personal opinion without evidence. for example, some people say, "USA belong to africa!" then, USA really belong to africa? their(including you) opinion can not be a established theory. Manacpowers (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, "your source author is not permitted by tkd" you say. I allow for the language issue. Still, what's amazing to me is how many of your fellow TKDers support your reversions based on your logic. I can see why they'd want to avoid mediation, where disinterested individuals would judge the claims based on their strengths. JJL (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- cleary you are heavy POV pusher. this is no doubt to mediators.
- How about this source? I think this source is more moderate than you and me.
According to THE HISTORY OF TAEKWONDO By Glen R. Morris,
|
Manacpowers (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Compromise attempt mk 1
Ok I've tired to include both sides as opposing arguments, which should at least be satisfactory as an interim version comments? --Nate1481(t/c) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I confess I'm not very familiar with TKD, but attempting to fairly present the debate is certainly the right course. The passage that begins with "the history of Taekwondo had been controversial with two extremes..." may be a bit strong; admittedly there are differences, but saying that people fall into diametrically opposed camps probably overstates the case. Personally I think the earlier passage that Omnedon drafted reads quite well, since it points out that the facts and history surrounding TKD's early origins are not unequivocal, and that there are differing opinions about it, which sounds fair and reasonable.
- There seems little doubt that people do hold differing positions on this subject; that this is so makes it particularly egregious for certain users to assert that only a single position deserves to be advanced. That these users appear intent on resisting compromise (in favor of advancing only their own views) is unfortunate and isn't in keeping with the spirit of cooperation that WP encourages. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried (after attempting to discuss sources here failed) asking for informal mediation, asking for help at the WikiProject, and asking for mediation. I'm open to suggestions. The Koreancentric views are dogmatically held. The compromise edit has academic journals on one side and TKD websites on the other--a classic case of "teaching the controversy" (but it's still a good idea and I welcome the attempt). JJL (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
JPOV is bit strong. i suggest that "basically, Taekwondo rooted from tekkyon. but, some unique claims also exist." this is more moderate. Manacpowers (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The edits by Manacpowers are mislabeled (e.g., re-introducing grammatical errors while claiming to remove them (21:05, 17 June 2008)), break references (e.g. the Mitchell ref. that I fixed and indicated the issue with), and remove significant elements of one 'side' of this issue (e.g., the block quote). I am open to suggestions as to how to "work with" and "compromise with" this editor and his several supporters here. JJL (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Huwmanbeing: I know it may seem strong, but I was trying to represent the extreme ends as these seem to be the two versions argued over. There are of course intermediate positions from traditional with a japanese flavor to essential japanse with odds and ends form tradional styles to a complete blend of the two (and this middle ground is the most likely in my view) i.e. some kwans were essential japanese others tradional so merging them brough both sides evenly. A comment this effec should be included to balance it
- JJL on the types of source, there are acadmic sources that will argue the oposing view but that kind of source is harder to find quickly. As you seem well versed in the area i'm sure you could pull up a couple of them to support that it is a strongly held view, as it is disputed the article should just report and not try to draw conclutions. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really appreciate your efforts here and I hope you'll continue. I've tried to work with your edit but have found those attempts blindly reverted--even fixes of typos and grammatical errors. But...I think there's a good reason why it's hard to find academic sources that say TKD is originally Korean, while it was easy to find several that supported an almost entirely Japanese origin. This is not one of those cases where the truth lies in the middle--the Japanese were brutally efficient at stamping out indigenous Korean arts (of many kinds) in their half-century of occupation. How many people practice Okinawan sword-and-shield arts? They too were largely lost due to Japanese weapon restrictions there. If other academic or similarly high-quality sources exist, I'd be happy to see them. In the meantime, it appears that the Korean origins belief is a widespread myth, much like that of the Okinawan karateka sending samurai home dead by punching through their wooden armour. JJL (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- JJL's disuptive edit already rejected.
- I already said, David Mitchell is a Karate teacher. This source is a born to be a Karate Pushing. His source is already null and void.
- also your Capener, Steven D. source already pointed out that "it's not. That has not been demonstrated", "his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV." by neutral mediator. 2 sources are only your logical base? well, i have 100 times more reliable academic source than you.Manacpowers (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- and do not delete documented source quoute from Glen R. Morris. Manacpowers (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Capener, Steven D, and David Mitchell soures are "NUll and Void".
- David Mitchell is a Karate teacher. and his book is a karate book. It is not neutral. so it is not suitable that his source apply to TKD page.
- You quote from Capener, Steven D. Well, I can't find any evidence. I still doubt his claim is real or not. if you think TKD is essentially karate.
- first, show me reliable source that Testimony of TKD founder.
- 2nd, show me reliable scientific data that How TKD simiar with karate. Manacpowers (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Only JJL complaining the origin of tkd. others are not. please, shall you remove this source? David Mitchell is a Karate teacher(POV problem). it is not acceptable in this case. Capener, Steven D' source is still dispute. and remeber, Only JJL complaining this. Manacpowers (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted it as the whole quote was not needed and not helpful. Summarise what he said then source it. The Morris source is defiantly not neutral but can be used to show that that view exists. Please could you also read Wikipedia's policy on sourcing --Nate1481(t/c) 11:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) P.s. I would add that I think BOTH extremes are inaccurate but i'm trying ot be neutral in the matter
- Nate1481, JJL is pushing POV troll. He trolling by only 2 source. actually, he believe only 2 sources. repeat.. and repeat.. he can not show us more reliable source and scientific data or something. David Mitchell who karate teacher book is nonsense. and We need criticize Capener, Steven D's document. (his claim is not true) Steven D is a only one person who claim that root of tkd from karate.(according to his documents, He did not proved from evidecne. it is a some personal essay or opinion) however, there is no one claim like him. it is unreasonbale conclude that tkd root from karate by one or two source. I suggest to you all mediators, How many sources are support each side claim?(Quantity of My sources vs. Quantity of JJL's source) We must distinguish minority report(assumption) from mainstream reports(esatablished theory). Manacpowers (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
<-Manacpowers, several points:
- Calling someone a POV Troll (internet) is not helpful (and in this case is inaccurate please read Wikipedia:What is a troll? and WP:NPOV).
- The sources appear to be reliable published sources which, at the very least, show that there a debate as to the origin of TKD, this should be mentioned.
- The standard here is not truth but 'verifiability. Regardless of the real origins of TKD. the fact that it can be clearly shown that people claim both sides needs reporting.
- Currently YOU are the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely Korean' POV. The initial complaint over JJL's edits was that they were wide ranging and over stated the case. This was improved in the later version but it still had a distinctly non-neutral POV, which is why I attempted a merge to be a starting point. PLEASE READ some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before continuing as you are currently being a far worse POV warrior than JJL
--Nate1481(t/c) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
hmmm.. this debate start from JJL. no one make this disrupt. you have some mistake. i'm not a TKD is purely Korean POV. even I, quote from, 'THE HISTORY OF TAEKWONDO By Glen R. Morris'. read Glen R. Morris's claim. When he said, "TKD is purely Korean?" after long debate, i think Glen R. Morris's quote is more moderate than JJL and me. JJL's edit is purely Japanese(Karate) POV. Currently JJL is the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV.
He debating by only 2 sources. However, various reports admit that his claim is not true. read Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 Manacpowers (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
1. This debate start from JJL. 2. previous edit is well done by various ediotrs.. but since 2007, JJL make a JPOV edit. 3. frist, he inserted sentence, "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems." 4. debate start. if you see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4 you can find many ediotrs are protest his POV editor. even totally neutral edior(Omnedon) said, "his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV." you can read it.[5] Manacpowers (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- anyway, I think best way of this resolution is... delete history section of this article. if JJL pushing same POV by same sources again... and again... I will continually provide sources that TKD root from Tekkyon. However, I do not deny TKD influenced by karate and kung fu. TKD influenced by grade system of karate. Just one simple question, When TKD art developer said "I developed karate based martial arts!" TKD arts developer did not think so. They developed TKD. not karate. for example, When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher? Your success belong to mathematic elementary school teacher? Manacpowers (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that my suggestion is being applied and that compromise is emerging. However, as it is presently stated, the introduction to the history section isn't accurate. It says, "proponents of the art state that it is entirely derived from traditional Korean martial arts"; but not all proponents of Taekwondo necessarily believe this. I'm going to restructure it a bit and also add the middle-of-the-road statement that Nate mentioned. Omnedon (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can determine, Glen R. Morris is an airline pilot who started TKD in 1992 [6] and who then wrote a brief essay on the history of TKD for his black belt test in 1994 [7]. He's webmaster of the World Martial Arts Academy TKD web site. His brief report cites a total of four secondary/tertiary sources. I am unimpressed. These are the "sources" placed against the peer-reviewed academic journals such as Korea Journal and Journal of Asian Martial Arts to support the Korean origins claim of Manacpowers and his followers to justify "teaching the controversy" on this matter. It's true that there are many opinions on this, but I have yet to see evidence that the (mostly) Korean origins side has more going for it than the Okinawan Karateka who claim their art has little to no Chinese influence and was used to defeat sword-wielding samurai with empty hands. It's more bullshido--martial arts myth. JJL (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- funny. according to your logic, David Mitchell who karate teacher is neutral then? for example, When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher? Your success belong to mathematic study of elementary school teacher? answer me please. and JJL, Currently JJL is the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV.Manacpowers (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting discussion. The Taekwondo name was not accepted by the Kwan's until August 5, 1965. Before that time, it was basically divided between the names Kong Soo Do and Tang Soo Do, both of which translate into the Japanese language as Karate do. Early Kwan founders learned from the following Okinawan Sensei:
Gichin Funakoshi Sensei taught; Won Kuk Lee - Chung Do Kwan - Sang Sup Chun - Jidokwan (Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) - Byeong Jick Roh - Song Moo Kwan -
Kenwa Mabuni Sensei taught; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan - Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan -
Kanken Toyama Sensei taught; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan - Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan - Ki Whang Kim - Moo Duk Kwan affiliated -
The following of the above men, also had various training in ChuanFa Chinese/Manchurian/Taiwanese; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan- Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan- Sang Sup Chun - Jidokwan (Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu)-
The curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo was originally the same as Shotokan/ShitoRyu/Shudokan and some with a bit of ChuanFa (JooAnPah), this curriculum did not really begin to make big changes until the mid 1960's
According to the most senior students of the above men, and the leaders of Taekkyon in Korea today, non of the above men had any Taekkyon experience. I was personally told this by the senior students of the above me, and the leaders of Taekkyon in Korea today. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.142.143 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- "The curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo was originally the same as Shotokan/ShitoRyu/Shudokan and some with a bit of ChuanFa (JooAnPah), this curriculum did not really begin to make big changes until the mid 1960's"
- huh? well. show me sources, please. i want see curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo. basically, your claim is no sources and no evidence. Manacpowers (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts.
for example, Car invented by German(or france?). However, Nowdays success of Toyota and Honda, Lexus belong to German?(or france?) Because German(or france), Lexus can build a car? Japanese do not have their own skills? Kaizen, Kanban, Hybrid car... all of skills are derived from German(or france)? huh? nonsense. Like JJL's logic, you can say, "Japanese car is a essentially German. in old days, Japanese company learned manufacturing skills from German. So, Kaizen, Kanban, Hybrid car are essentialy belong to German." Basically, JJL's logic in unreasonable. and He picked up souce from extemist.
and you must know that Karate derived from Chinese Tang Dynasty Martial Arts. it invented by China.(not Japan) even karate learned korean did not say it invented by Japan.(they called as a "China Hand". They think it is a Ryukyu version Chinese martial arts.) Manacpowers (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is one written source posted at Stanford University. You can read it yourself. I can also e-mail to you anything you would require, including scans of the original book, whatever.
A Modern History of Taekwondo by KANG Won Sik and Kyong Myung Lee Published in March 1999 by: Bokyung Moonhwasa at 389-22 Seokyo-dong, Mapo-ku, Seoul, Korea 121-210. tel no. 82 2 325 8833/325 7211 fax no. 82 2 325 7213. ISBN 89-358-0124-0.
Note: Co-author KANG Won Sik, the current President of Song Moo Kwan, is a students of Byeong Jick Roh who trained under Gichin Funakoshi Sensei at Chou University in Japan before and during WWII.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/Taekwondo/documents/tkd_history.pdf
Kyo Yoon Lee, student of Sang Sup Chun, another student of Gichin Funakoshi at Takushoku University in Japan during that same time, also has a history section that reflects the same information in his book Global Taekwondo, ISBN 89-952721-4-7, Hamni Publishing Co., January 15, 2003, Korea. This book is hard to find, but I have scans of the history section if you would like to see them.
Interview with Chong Woo Lee, student of Sang Sup Chun who studied under Gichin Funakoshi and is considered to be the founder of Jidokwan.
http://www.taekwondojidokwan.com/page6.html
Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) 76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
One more note in regard to Taekwondo's roots being from Karate. Have any of you ever seen Dan certificates from Korea before 1965? In Korean Hangul, Korean Hanja (Chinese), and in English, they all state "Karate", written out exactly as Karate. No mention of Kungfu or Taekkyon.
Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com)76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
is 76.205.123.118 another IP of JJL? Well. you still do not show that source of curriculum.
and.. i already said, I am not denied some TKD founder learned karate(when they were young). so, your sources are already known source in this discussion.(JJL's claim is same.)
but TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. "some TKD founder learned karate when he was a young, so TKD is a karate." this is nonsense logic. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts.
This is simple. I already said, "car invented by german. However, Success of Lexus is NOT belong to German." I already said, "When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher?"
"TKD developed from their own traditional martial arts skills. it can't be a karate. TKD founder did not say it is a karate." TKD essential techniques are still basically same with tekkyon. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.[8]
Taekwondo's roots being mainly from Tekkyon.[9] but also influenced by Kungfu and Karate.[10]
- This is actual evidence.(video)[11]
This is good evidence that TKD rooted from korean traditional martial arts tekkyon.
<fighting style>
<kick technique>
- Karate 540 degree kick [14]
- TKD 540 degree kick [15] (even 540 degree kick skill is different with karate)
- Karate 900 degree kick? none.
- TKD 900 degree kick [16]
and your question 1, "Have any of you ever seen Dan certificates from Korea before 1965?". my answer : maybe 'dan system' influenced by karate or any sports. however, it can't be a evidence that root of TKD is karate.
and your question 1, "In Korean Hangul, Korean Hanja (Chinese), and in English, they all state "Karate", written out exactly as Karate." my answer : well, i never heard such a thing. show me evidence. they called as "China hand" or Tang soo do. also before 1950, subak-do and tekkyon(korean own martial arts. root of TKD) were existed, too.
These 'dan system' were introduced only after their countries' modernization under the influence of western sports' system. [17] Manacpowers (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you take the time to read the links I provided for you. Good luck!
Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com)76.205.123.118 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nationalism
This term was excised in a recent edit. The term is taken from Henning, as I indicated here: "The traditional Korean martial arts are but a vague memory and taekwondo a symbol born in the cradle of modern Korean nationalism(...)" (Stanley Henning, "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000):). The Dohrenwend series of articles says much the same thing in slightly different terms--referring, like Capener, to a broader set of political and social influences including and related to nationalism/Korean ethnocentrism. So, I think the use of this term in the article is well-supported by WP:RS. JJL (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- but a vague memory? it is not true.
- taekkyeon and subak survived through underground teaching and folk custom. (eg. Song Duk-ki)
- It seems like a He think Korean do not have their own martial arts. but this is ingorance. See Muyejebo, Muyedobotongji, Shippalgi etc. not vague memor. it recorded by BOOK.
- I think it is not WP:RS. it is WP:QS.
- sorry i am not good english. But JJL's edit rejected by mediators.
- maybe We need more moderate. but your edit is very heavy Japanese POV pushing withour evidence.
- and remeber. you are only one person who making disruptive edit of TKD's orgin.
- JJL's edit #1.
- "While some state that the art essentially vanished"[18]
- This given source is "Page not found" So i removed it.
- JJL's edit #2
- "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."
- but who is the David Mitchell? actually, he is a karate teacher.[19]
- It is not neutral. so it is not suitable that his source apply to TKD page.
- JJL's edit #3
- Steven D. Well
- Steven D. Well can't represent to all TKD. it is a personal essay.
- I can't find any evidence. I still doubt his claim is real or not. it is still dispute.
- first, We need reliable source that Testimony of TKD founder.
- 2nd, We need reliable scientific data that How TKD simiar with karate.
- it is nonsense that that is a acadmic journal.
- Let's analyze this. Steven D. writed that document in 1995 winter. but upper title name is "Student forum"
- in that time, He was a studnet. it's funny thing that report of univercity student can be a "eastablished theory"
JJL's edit is purely Japanese(Karate) POV. Currently JJL are the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV. Manacpowers (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- here is another academic journal of TKD. This source is more moderate than JJL and me. I found it from "scholar.google.com." and this is not favored source. this source is more close to Karate POV. However, even this source mentioned, "it can`t be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only."
According to Academic journal of the Taekwondo,
|
Manacpowers (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- And the others trained martial arts in Manchuria Therefore it can`t be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only.
- the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk, so we know that the current TKD seems to be affected by Korean traditional martial arts.
- I think this is a point of this matter. TKD do-jangs teached Korean folk. not karate. so "TKD is essentialy karate." is very unreasonable claim,
- it would be objective view that TKD had been shaped by Karate mainly and by Manchurian and Korean traditional martial art. Manacpowers (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's from the abstract (and largely agrees with the previous sources)...can you give a full citation for this paper? To say it was "affected" by KMAs is vague but hopefully the body of the paper is more detailed. Karate in Korea was intentionally modified to conform with images and memories of older Korean arts, as the sources previously given indicate, but had little if any direct borrowings from such living arts. It was affected in that it was driven towards that remembered ideal. JJL (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- you make no sense. this is summary. also there is no wiki rules that "summary should not be accepted."(According to WP:RS, this is suitable as a Sources.) what is the abstract? do you know curriculum of tkd do-jangs? i just curious "what dojang teached Japanese karate skills?" There is NO dojang teaching Japanese karate skill. and.... According to your logic, TKD founder trained martial arts in Manchuria Therefore TKD is "koreanized" kungfu? huh? Manacpowers (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Un Yong Kim, past President of KTA, Kukkiwon, WTF, KSA, GASIF stated that he had to tie Taekwondo to Taekkyon in written history because Karate lobby was strong because of Judo in the IOC, and he feared that Karate would lobby to make Taekwondo go under the Karate umbrella. There is no evidence that any of the Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon, as a matter of fact, the evidence point out that they did not train in Taekkyon. Taekkyon kept good records, and the record shows no Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon. They only watched some Taekkyon, and heard the legends of Taekkyon, and that influenced the Kicking of Taekwondo. In actuality, the kicking of Taekwondo and Taekkyon are radically different, so different that it is hard to imagine they are even related. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.142.143 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- is 76.241.142.143 another ID of JJL?
- "There is no evidence that any of the Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon?"
- Well... show me evidence please.
- Your claim is not true. for example, Choi Hong Hi leanred tekkyon 9th grade.
- and some founder learned karate and kunfgu. however, TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts sources.
Here is the another acadmic journal sources,
According to The Comparative Study of the Techniques of Taekwondo and Taekkyon,
|
Manacpowers (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- their essential techniques are still basically same. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
- Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
- (repeat)Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
- well... if you think TKD and tekkeyon are totally no relation each other... you must prove it by a academic souce for break this academic journal's logic. Modern TKD root from Tekkyon. some Kungfu, Karate.. etc... influenced to TKD. However, it is unreasonable conclude that TKD is esstentially karate. JJL says, "some TKD founder learned karate when he was a young, so TKD is a karate." this is nonsense. and this claim is not valid by TKD.(it means that his edit have a POV problem) also his source is not a widely accepted claim.(it means that his edit violate WP:RS, WP:V) Manacpowers (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
From the book "Taekkyon Kyobon", by Yong Bok Lee (leader of Taekkyon in Korea), Daewonsa Publishing Co., LTD. Korea 1995 ISBN 89-369-0162-1-00690
"All the records handed down of Taekkyon Practitioners show that from before the times of Song Duk Ki and recently, Shin Haeng Sang, that none of the pioneers of Taekwondo, or of the pre Taekwondo Kwans, trained in Taekkyon. Song Duk Ki, the patriarch of Taekkyon in modern times made this clear in his interview published in the Seoul News, on August 1, 1979."
From the book "Taekkyon Instruction Guide" by Yong Bok Lee, Published by Taekkyon Yunsuwon, (not for sale) 1997 Korea.
"CHOI Hong Hi's (Taekwondo Oh Do Kwan founder) claim to have learned Taekkyon has never been substantiated by him. It is a baseless claim as there is no record of the teacher he claims as Han Il Dong. It is also a fact that Taekkyon was a unique activity around the area of Seoul, and never existed in the North (Korea). Song Duk Ki and Shin Haeng Sang also refute Choi's claim and make notice that Taekwondo related to CHOI Hong Hi displays no elements of Taekkyon".
From an article in Taekwondo Times by Robert Young, Korean martial arts researcher and historian.
"It was not until 1968 that the public (of South Korea) was able to receive any exposure to Taekkyon. It took that long for Song (Song Duk Ki) and Shin (Shin Haeng Sang) to completely organize and systemize the art and their teaching method. It was also in that year that a kind of martial art feud erupted between the followers of Taekwondo and Taekkyon. Practitioners of both styles sought government approval as Intangible Cultural Assets, and both claimed to be the only true traditional martial art of Korea. Taekkyon proponents declared that it was the original creation, while opponents insisted Taekkyon was merely a subset of Taekwondo. In the end, an impartial board (Ministry of Culture) that the two arts were, in fact, different, but neither one was proclaimed a cultural asset." (until 1983, when Taekkyon was awarded that title [#76])
From my own personal experience as an American Taekkyon student of Yong Bok Lee. My World Taekkyon HQ member #002-63. Yong Bok Lee told me directly that no Taekwondo pioneers were students of Taekkyon. My practice of Taekkyon made it very obvious that there is no relation between the motive and the outcome of the two martial training methods. They are very different and not directly related.
I hope this helps to understand the truth. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
JJL's Questionable sources
According to WP:RS says,
- "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
- "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"
- by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article. Manacpowers (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:V says,
- Questionable sources
- Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties. Manacpowers (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.Manacpowers (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Protected
I have requested page protection so that you will have to talk to get a compromise version up. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- My attempts to talk have for the most part drawn only a single interlocutor, who largely just parrots my words back at me. See e.g. my attempt to discuss the removal of the word "nationalism" (Nationalism section above). Something stronger than this is needed. Since talking here, informal mediation, and formal mediation have all already failed, page protection is unlikely to accomplish much, I'd think. JJL (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit Backlog
- Worth mentioning that in the ITF a head guard may be worn only in the Juniors division. (That comes from a (pre-existing) reference to their rules.) Gherson2 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
EDIT WAR
PLEASE will both of you stop deleting sources! From what I have seen most of both are valid, to support that people hold that view. Manacpowers: please understand that just because a link is broken it not a good reason to delete the entire source, especially when it cites a published journal and the link was for convenience., there are also ways of seeing what was there, also saying "Capener, Steven D, and David Mitchell soures are "NUll and Void"." is not constructive in the least as you are refusing to acknowledge that someone can hold a different point of view even if they are wrong. JJL: While I appreciate your frustration your edits still have a distinct POV to them if you could re phrase them as statmens of opinion rather then fact it would be most helpful in attemptin to find a compramise. I put a 3rr warning on both your talk pages, please read the policy, it states that 3 reverts is an 'electric fence' and that persistan dispruptive edditing can end in ablock even if the letter of not reverting more than 3 times in a day has been kept to. As neither of your edits, however disruptive, fall under Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism the exception dose not apply. Please can you at leas stop edit waring on the page and leave it to other editors to pic up on your comments here and read the sources to impove the article. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am presently working on a compromise version of the entire "Modern Taekwondo" section and expect to have it online later today. Naturally, several parties will wish to revise it; but hopefully it form another new starting point for a compromise. The general principle involves avoiding extensive direct quotes, referring rather to the various sources and making relatively bland statements based on those sources. Given the current charged atmosphere, I would suggest that both sides refrain from making strong statements that are characterized as incontrovertible fact. I realize that both sides believe their strong statements are factual and justified, and neither side wishes to have those statements "watered down". However, under the circumstances that will not resolve the present conflict. I think that we need to consider the interests of the reader here; naturally the reader should be presented with accurate information, but the reader should not have to deal with an article that is in constant flux due to a conflict that presently involves only a handful of people. To put it simply, it doesn't look good and doesn't help anything.
- I would also suggest that everyone try to assume good faith and not be accusatory; let's focus on the data, not the personality issues. Omnedon (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have also renamed the "Modern Taekwondo" section to "Development", to be more in line with other sections like "History", "Organizations", et cetera. "Modern" is a bit redundant, since Taekwondo began in the 20th century, and "Taekwondo" is the title of the article and probably doesn't need to be in the section heading as well. Omnedon (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Footnote #7 (In Uk Heo)
What is the source here? A journal or publisher isn't given, and the link goes to a bibliographic entry for a paper entitled "Effects of Slit Configuration Factor on Heat Transfer Characteristics of Heat Exchanger with Slit Fin". JJL (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the hyperlink. I can't parse the special characters in the bibliographic entry in this link. Is the linked garbled English paragraph an abstract, an extract, a review, or a promotional blurb? Is this object a journal article or a textbook or an essay or a magazine article? Can you give a proper English language citation (journal name and number or book publisher and location) for the purpose of WP:V? I assume from the form of your reference that you're citing the source itself, not just this ambiguous automatically generated web page. Have you reviewed the article/book/essay? Frankly I hope it's a good source because it says "In conclusion, it would be objective view that TKD had been shaped by Karate mainly..." which is exactly the point I have been making, but I find it very hard to judge from what's been given here. JJL (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- JJL, I didn't provide the source myself -- Manacpowers did. I presumed you had seen and read this before, since it has been in the article before, including this past week when the article was protected. The summary is partly in Korean and partly in English. I have included some of the references he provided as well as some of yours, as part of the compromise effort, and have added a new one of my own dealing with Korean history. I would point out that you are quoting only a portion of a sentence from that page; that sentence goes on to refer to the influence of Manchurian and Korean martial arts, and an earlier sentence reads, "Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only." Omnedon (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since you edited it in, it's your source. Once again, the references that you and Manacpowers put forward are overwhelmingly random stuff found on the web. You inserted this one and cannot even identify what it is! You don't know what type of document you're citing, you haven't read it, you can't say how to locate it for ILL, and you have only a poorly translated--summary, review, abstract?--of it to go by. I congratulate you on adhering rigourously to your consistently low standards for references and documentation. For any disinterested individuals who may be reading, this is exactly what's so frustrating (and why I sought mediation)--anything found floating on the web is given equal weight with "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCES) such as the ones I've cited (e.g., from the Journal of Asian Martial Arts and the Korea Journal, and other sources defended at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4, esp. at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Sources_on_Japanese_origins). Mediation from someone conversant with WP:RS and WP:V and who was willing to look at the sources would be very helpful. JJL (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- JJL, I didn't provide the source myself -- Manacpowers did. I presumed you had seen and read this before, since it has been in the article before, including this past week when the article was protected. The summary is partly in Korean and partly in English. I have included some of the references he provided as well as some of yours, as part of the compromise effort, and have added a new one of my own dealing with Korean history. I would point out that you are quoting only a portion of a sentence from that page; that sentence goes on to refer to the influence of Manchurian and Korean martial arts, and an earlier sentence reads, "Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only." Omnedon (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)