Talk:Kumdo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright problem

This article is a copy of [1]. It is against the copyright law. So I rewrote it. 15:54, 1 March 2006 Michael Friedrich

"The present form, combining inner strength (gi), the absolute and unbounded swing of the sword (geom), and the use of one's lower back and body (che) is a recent development, and is known as "kikomchae". In tournaments one does not receive a point when striking the opponent unless the blow is accompanied by all three components of kikomchae." This is still a copy of [2] and is against Wikipedia:List of guidelines#Guidelines. Michael Friedrich 08:47 24/04/2006
Removing wholesale isn't rewriting. I'll restore that lost information, but phrased in my own words and relating it to ki-ken-tai-ichi. — AKADriver ☎ 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I think you misunderstood. I rewrote the whole article on the 1st of March and removed the copied sentence on the 24th of April. Thanks.Michael Friedrich 11:01 28/04/2006

The name of this article: Kumdo, Geomdo, or Komdo

As of 1987, there were 32 Romanization proposals published in English articles according to an academic source that I have lost since. Not one of those 32 Romanization proposals included a rendering of "u" for the vowel in "검." This rendering is what has been called the American-enlisted-man's-back-of-the-envelope Romanization as a slap against the ignorance of international spelling conventions that is reflected. Wikipedia guidelines indicate a preference for the Revised Romanization or the McCune-Reischauer Romanization. Without getting into the shortcomings of the Revised Romanization - such as its rendering of this vowel as a historical mistake based on an erroneous assumption about a French spelling (reported in an academic journal edited by David McCann) - it is very clear that the rendering "Kumdo" cannot be used, even if it is favored by certain Korean Komdo teachers in the U.S. who have no knowledge of these issues and give an "off the top of the head" rendering based on phonology idiosyncratic to American English.

The page should be moved and re-directs created. -DoctorW 19:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My rewrite

The article as I found it was a horrible mess; the English was often too obscure to be understandable, and there was a lot of rather obvious PoV material. I've tried to rewrite it so as to retain everything that was relevant, NPoV, and understandable. I hope that at least it gives a decent starting point for future (constructive) edits.

Incidentally, in some of the discussion above I couldn't really make out what was going on, as no-one was signing or indenting their edits. the impression was of a private argument being carried out in public. Could editors please sign their comments (with ~~~~)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If the anonymous editors continue to insist on reverting the article to what is clearly a PoV state, especially without having the courtesy to discuss the issues here, they're heading for being blocked from editing and/or the protection of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

About removing the photo

I've removed the photo("Image:Kendo.JPG|thumb|300px|Komdo") from this page because it has only been copied from the Kendo page.Please be fair.Nobu Sho 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frequent non-NPOV edits from anonymous user(s)

The frequent edits from 220.105.x.x and 221.189.x.x IPs adding the link to "WHY DOES KUMDO TELL A LIE?" are getting ridiculous. Will the real slim shady please stand up and explain why you keep adding a link to a clearly biased source? The article already states that modern Kumdo is derivative of Kendo forms brought to Korea during the occupation. Citing a source which unabashedly attacks Kumdo, and Koreans in general, does not add to the quality of the article. Unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it, I'm going to revert the edit again or possibly ask for mediation. AKADriver 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted this section

A part of information on the net of South Korea and the apprenticeship of Kumdo insist on the lie when Kumdo is an origin of the kendo.
When the evidence of their insistences was verified in Japan, a lot of counterfeits were admitted, and the South Korea origin theory was denied completely.
Moreover, the plagiarism problem of this kendo was taken up in the Japanese kendo league (International_Kendo_Federation), and fixed as an international fact that it was a Japanese origin. [3]

There are some major problems here, namely:

  • While my Japanese is probably worse than the author's English and no insult is intended, we should probably discourage people from indiscriminately adding poorly machine-translated content like this unless they have some new revelation.
  • As of now, this whole controversy has been done to death by people who are native or fluent in English. This specific legal battle mentioned is documented in clear English at Haidong Gumdo#Legal controversy.
  • NPOV doesn't mean presenting every view (See: WP:NPOV#Undue weight). To this outsider and to anyone reading the version of this article (minus the quoted section) it is very clear that Kumdo began as a local variant of Kendo. It's also very clear to me that only a minority of ultra-nationalist Koreans believe the opposite. Please, please, understand that by giving lip service to this so-called controversy you are only lending legitimacy to these otherwise obscure claims.

I have gone back through the history of this article and, past the original badly-written and short-lived version from 2004 (which only described Haidong Gumdo rather than the entire Kumdo family), every revision since has presented the facts as they are. You are not presenting NPOV. You are manufacturing a controversy that, at least as far as this article is concerned, doesn't seem to exist. — AKADriver ☎ 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Identity Politics

Is it appropriate to write an encycropedia article based on identity politics? I accept that origin of Tekkondo is disputed. However, what is the point of writing an article which try to insuniate that Komdo is a Korean when Komodo side even admit that Komdo is Kendo? Because I don't care to engage in edit dispute about "turth", I propose to delete anything which is not sourced properly to verifiable sources. Vapour

4.23.83.100's edit

I believe this edit is unreasonable.

  • First, kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Japanese kendo without doubt. If it is not so, why KKA is a member of IKF? Simply saying "Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing in Korea." is not enough.
  • 4.23.83.100 changed "This belief is not commonly held outside Korea" into "This belief is not commonly held in Japan," but the former sentence was made after a long discussion [4] [5] (see "Merger", which was somehow deleted).
  • "the Japanese invasion of Korea in the early 1900's merged Kumdo with Japans version Kendo."
This is not the case. The word kumdo was not used befor Japanese kendo was introduced in Korea. Korean fencing, which Koreans believe to existed in ancient Korea, was not called kumdo. So, "merged Kumdo with Japans version Kendo" is not true. Besides, if it is true that kumdo was merged into kendo, Korean kumdo should have been more different from kendo, which was not mixed with kumdo. But as 4.23.83.100's also admits that "1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese kendo", kumdo and kendo was very identical during Japanese occupation. In other words, Korean fencing was not merged into kendo but it was completely ignored. It is more true that after 1945 Koreans merged Korean fencing into kendo and made it kumdo.
  • "The reason for this was in 1910, Japan outlawed all Korean martial arts and either absorbed the Korean martial art or tried to eradicate it."
Do you have any information sources for this sentence? It may be true that Japanese occupation caused disappearance of some traditional Korean cultures. But as for "Japan outlawed all Korean martial arts" "absorbed the Korean martial art" "tried to eradicate it", I've never seen any reliable sources.
Editing Agency of Korean History is not an organization which can outlaw anything. Do you have any reliable sources for this information?
  • "Up until the the occupation in 1910, kumdo developed in parallel with kendo."
There's no reliable source for this either. As I said before, there was no such a thing "kumdo" before Japanese occupation even though there may have been something like Korean fencing. This sentence is also contradictory to the sentences "Later in Korea, warriors were regarded as secondary to scholars during parts of the Goryeo Dynasty (908-1392) and much of the Joseon Dynasty, due to the heavy influence of Confucianism, martial arts other than traditional Korean archery were little practised except by members of the military. As a result, the popularity of certain martial arts waned without many successors to carry on its traditions. Today, there are only two remaining documents that refer to ancient Korean martial arts".
  • "In 1895 the Empress of Korea was murdered by the Japanese, which were a sign of thing to come for Korea."
What does it have to do with kumdo or kendo? It is true that the Empress was murdered, but it has nothing to do with kendo. You need only to know Korea was occupied by Japan from 1910 to 1945.
As I said before, Editing Agency of Korean History is not an organization which can outlaw anything. Do you have any reliable sources for this information? Besides, the Agency was established in 1925. How was it able to outlaw Korean martial arts in 1910?
  • "The impact of the Editing Agency of Korean History and the outlaw of Korean martial arts by Japan was to create a system where the rules and the equipment of Kumdo are almost the same as those of kendo." "The impact of Japans Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of Korean culture is still felt today, as you can tell from above" Do you have any reliable sources for "Japan outlawing Korean martial arts"?

4.23.83.100's edit is not the truth but it is only what s/he believes to be true. There's no reliable source for his/her edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    • If you look up Japanese occupation of Korea, this is discussed. In college during east Asian studies I remember learning about Japan trying to eliminate Korean Culture. I believe that is why the Korean Palace was dismantled by the Japanese. I remember discussing the outlaw of Korean language, martial arts, poetry. I also remember the class talking about how alot of the script on the palaces which had poems dedicated to the rulers of Korea were changed to be dedicated to the Japanese rulers. Their was a section on how Korean culture was being devoured by the Japanese culture. I remember learning that all the family coats of arms were destroyed by the Japanese. And you can only find old text on what they looked like or modern descriptions on what they think it looked like, but if you ask Korean families who were members of the upper elite class, none of them have a family coat of arm. They had them before the occupation but not after. They moved some monuments from Manchuria to Pyongyang in orders to justify the Occupation. I know there were lots of references in Japanese and Korean, but I can not read either one fluently. The american Asian history book only has one or two paragraphs and the professor had someone translate the asian books into pamplets for us. So if you can read Korean or Japanese just get a college level history book and their should be a few chapters dedicated for this stuff. I also remember discussing how Japan was conflicted on how to outlaw Korean culture, at one point if it fit their needs, they would bring aspects of it back then later they would outlaw it again. (Side note: I hate it when people keep bringing in foreign references that are not translated, I've noticed this alot especially in ancient Korean history sections on wikipedia, why are there so many Japanese references on ancient Korea, that doesn't even makes sense. This question wasn't directed towards you, I was just wondering outloud)
    • I think the writer is trying to point out that you can't outlaw something then say then didn't have that at all and they learned it from Japan. That wouldn't make any sense. Your contradicting yourself in the article if you leave it like that. If swordsman didn't practice fighting sword techniques, why were there even swordsmen in Korea. Why is their a book from the Silla period on sword fighting? Why were the Korean even making swords before the Koguryeo, Paekje and Silla period? Why would a culture make swords, have books on sword fighting techniques, only to learn how to use a sword from Japan in 1900's? That does not make sense to me. Please let me know how you would like to change this article to compromise. We know the editing agency existed in 1925 and they were modifying material from the past, so 2nd Century or 1895 or 1910, all these periods can be modified. Wokou or references about them could be modified.
    • Is it terminology you do not like, would it be better if they used Korean sword art and not Kumdo, even though Kendo was not the term used in the past I believe Japan's Kendo article starts when the sword arts begin in Japan not when the term Kendo appears, do we need to edit that article also. Since both Japan and Korea are using Chinese terms as a generic way of saying sword arts I don't know how to change this Chinese term.
    • The ancient martial arts books have references to the Korean sword arts even before run ins with Japan, but if your obsessed with terminology I don't know how to change it in a simple way.
    • I believe the impact of the Japanese occupation must be kept in. People need to get a comprehensive idea of this time period. Also, I believe the empress being murdered is in there because some people in Japan still believe Japan did nothing wrong during this time. It is pointing out that if the Japanese would murder the empress of another culture, they would have no problem Editing some points in history (Why even create a Editin Agency?) I think the empress part is in there just in case someone says the Editing Agency did not exist or had no power. --Objectiveye (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


You are saying that your edit is an original research. You only REMEMBER what you disscussed in your college. You have no detailed information sources. It is happening ONLY in your mind. Your memory cannot be used as an information source. You must say WHEN, HOW, BY WHOM, WHAT kind of Korean culture was outlawed. You only saying "I BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!" You absolutely have no information sources at all. Your edit cannot be in wikipedia.
I'm not saying Japan did not do anything wrong in Korea. I know Koreans were discriminated and I think what Japan was a hurt to Koreans' pride. But what you think of the period should not be in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not your blog. You say that you believe the fact that the empress was murdered is in the article because some people in Japan still believe Japan did nothing wrong during this time. In other words, you're saying that you want to keep the sentence because you want to tell people what Japan did was wrong. This is not what wikipedia should do. Wikipedia is not a blog or an essay. What people in Japan thinks does not matter.
Besides, you're English is very hard to understand...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim all these things but I just realized you have no references. Two points we agree on is Yes Koreans made swords and they had books on swordmanship prior to contact with Japan. After the Occupation, the two swords styles became very similar.

I think we need to work to not modify these two points and we can agree on the article. I also believe things need to be put in the correct timeline. You can't start with the 16th cent then jump back to the 2nd cent and forward again to 1910.

So Since you have no references showing that Korea did not have swords or swordsmen prior to meeting Japan, you can't change it to this weird version.

I know alot of Japanese pride is hurt when people keep saying to them their entire culture seems to be borrowed. I know that is why they spend 100s of millions on trying to prove rice cultivation didn't come to Japan from Korea, I know it hurts their pride when the Japanese Imperial family states he has Korean lineage, (Emperor Kammu) what emperor Akihito said etc. But because you think Japan already borrowed too much from Korea and would like to say Japan showed Koreans something is just your blog.

You have no references backing your claim. Find me the reference which states Koreans didn't have swords/swordsmen prior to meeting Japan.

If you have a terminology issue, with the Chinese generic term for sword arts, start by fixing the Kendo article to not include past sword art history in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectiveye (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I read the few references that are on this site, one of the references has Japanese references as it's reference. Again I'm going to have that question: Why are their so many Japanese references on ancient Korea (like when talking about Paekje or Silla swordsman etc. and again I'am going to ask why even have an editing agency?)

Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it! It is YOU who have no reference. I did not say Korea had no swordsmanship before being under Japanese influence! What I did was to revert information without sources.
What you're saying is completely irrelevent to the article! No Japanese is trying to prove rice cultivation didn't come to Japan from Korea!!! People are trying to prove what route rice took, but they are not doing so in order to prove "rice did not come through Korea"! It is your delusion! Emperor Kammu has nothing to do with Kumdo! What you are saying is completely irrelevent and only your delusion! But I wonder why Koreans are trying to say everything Japanese are from Korea and deny Japanese influence... Some even say that Man'yōshū is written in Korean, and that Sharaku was Korean, and that the word Samurai is from ssaulabi, and so on...
You're saying nothing! I don't say Koreans didn't have swords/swordsmen prior to meeting Japan! My edid never says Korea did not have swords[6]! It is you misinterpretation! As I don't say Korea did not have swords or swordsmanship before being under Japanese control, what more reference do you need?
What I deny is Korean swordsmanship was merged into Kendo during the occupation. This article, which is very favorable to Kumdo, also says "Kumdo is a Korean translation of the Japanese term." "The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart. In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts."
It is YOU who shows no reference for your edit AT ALL! You never answers what I pointed out above! You talk nonsense! And you change the subject! (What do rice and Emperor Kammu have to do with Kumdo!?)
You never show the evidence that Editing Agency of Korean History outlawed Korean martical arts.
Adding the information about the Empress is you POV. It is fact, but it has very little to do with the article.
You only Remember or Believe things and show no evidence.
Please DO NOT revert until you show evidence!!--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
About your question.
"Why are there so many Japanese references on ancient Korea?"
I don't get what you're talking about at all. Which article are you referring to? Does this question have anything to do with this discussion? It seems like to me that you're changing the subject again.
"I'am going to ask why even have an editing agency"
Please use understandable English. Your English is very hard to understand... Are you asking why Japan had the Agency for Editing Korean History? I also think this question is irrelevent to the article, but I will answer it.
To govern a country, the goverment has to know the country in detail. Knowledge of history is essential. It is very natural that Japan tried to know the history of Korea in order to govern Korea and established an Agency to know Korean history systematically because no systematic study on Korean history had been done before the Agency was established although there were many historical documents. This website says the Agency was established in order to compile information on Korean history and to collect Korean historical documents.
Are you by any chance thinking that Japan established the Agency to outlaw Kumdo? It is not an organization with political power. The sentence "In the aftermath of the Japanese Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of traditional Korean martial arts, the 1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese kendo" is absolutely nonsense. It says "aftermath of the Agency" but what did the Agency do to Korean swordsmanship? When, how, who outlawed which traditional Korean martial arts? In 1945, Kumdo was not practiced but what they were practicing was Kendo because Korea was a part of Japan at that time. The 1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese Kendo not because of the Agency but because Kumdo was nothing but Kendo itself.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no references and the version of the article you were trying to write/push was difficult to interpret. It jumps from the 16th cent, then to the Japanese occupation and then back to the Silla period. This article seems to have the same feel as the arguement with 16th cent Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo. Things that you can carbon date are easier to deal with when it comes to Japan, but if you look on the Sumo page, eventhough the rules and techniques are identical to Korean, Mongolian and Chinese wrestling, it is still claimed as Japanese. For the Koreans, Mongolian and Chinese the relative time is not that far apart in terms of when this style of wrestling was practiced but Japan is 500 years later, so ancient history for Japan is a touchy subject. [7] and [8]

The Editing agency and the Japanese Occupation impacted almost every aspect of Korean life, swords were confiscated and history was modified to fit Japans need. If Japan wanted to study Korea like you stated above, then they would have left the Korean Imperial Palace alone they would not have confiscated certain books, they wouldn't have tried to get rid of sections on wokou. Japan wanting to older than Korea has always been an issue, Japan trying to find a way to eliminate Korean culture and edit history so that the edits will show Japan was some how older than Korea is still an odd complex for Japan. Look at Fujimura, this was the biggest case of fraud in archaeological history, but it only happened because the Japanese people wanted to believe the Japanese culture was older than it actually was. [9] And as far as your comment on no systematic study being done, have you seen all the history books Korea has, all organized from the Koguryeo, Paekje and Silla period. Then they had volumes of history organized for the following periods that came after. Koreans were writing before Japan even knew the concept of writing. That was why the Editing agency was needed. In order for Japan to justify its actions, Korea had to be younger than Japan.

If Japan only wants to know how rice cultivation reached Japan or what route it took, why is all the focus on Non-Korean routes.

I was looking at this Kumdo article and one of the references has a list of references in the back as it should, but when I tried to read the references I realized all the references were Japanese. Even the ones that had Korean names as the title. If you click on the link, Japanese pops up. Then I started to wonder about that, which got me to look at other articles. I was asking why there are so many Japanese references in topics about ancient Korea, just go check out the Japan page look at the references and you will see Japanese articles on Zen Buddhism, rice cultivation, writing, etc and it all has to mention Korea. Then it also spills over into the ancient Korea topics, there seems to be alot of Japanese language references when we are talking about a point in history prior to Japanese history.

Please DO NOT revert until you show evidence!!

Anyways you have no references and your version of the article in not in chronogical order, at least fix that first. --Objectiveye (talk) 20;58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What you say sounds very odd. "It jumps from the 16th cent, then to the Japanese occupation and then back to the Silla period. This article seems to have the same feel as the arguement with 16th cent Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo." Did I say anything about Silla period? Did I say anything about Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo? What does the Japanese pottery have to do with Kumdo? Are you referring to Imari porcelain by any chance? Japanese people know Imari procelain is originated from Korea. Were you thinking by any chance Japanese people claimed that the porcelain was originated in Japan? I know nothing about about Sumo, but you sure like to change the subject.
About the society (agency) what you say is happening only in your mind. To which sentence are you referring to? I could not find anything about the society (agency) in the websites you broght.
Rice? You changed the subject again. You seem to be possesed by a persecution complex. In your head, all the Japanese culture MUST have been brought by Korea. Japan only wants to know how rice cultivation reached Japan or what route it took. According to the Japanese wikipedia, DNA of Japanese rice could not be found in Korea and in Manchuria. But how rice cultivation reached Japan is still disputed. Please do not change the subject again.
"All the references were Japanese."?? I do not understand what you're talking about... Which reference are you referring to?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The interpretation of terminology seems to be at issue. The Chinese term for way of the sword is being used literally here and you want to use it to mean Japanese way of the sword. We need to think about how to fix this.
You can't just leave out the Editing Agency and the Occupation, it impacted every aspect of Korean martial arts/culture. That impact is still felt to this day.
Look at the blackship article. The references that author uses are all Japanese. I went to the Korean references (the references he used on his blackship article and when I clicked on it eventhough the references had Korean names on them it turned out to be Japanese interpretations. The link sends you to a Japanese site.
I'm also just pointing out all those past issues which seem to have similar problems as this one. The pottery, buddhism, Sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system, they all have arguements like this page. I think these two links sum up the issues a little. [10] and [11]
When I have time I'll try to modify this article so we can both agree. I have other things to do right now. Thanks, --Objectiveye (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The interpretation of terminology seems to be at issue. The Chinese term for way of the sword is being used literally here and you want to use it to mean Japanese way of the sword. We need to think about how to fix this.
I don't get why you say so. The term, way of sword, was not coind in China.
>You can't just leave out the Editing Agency and the Occupation, it impacted every aspect of Korean martial arts/culture. That impact is still felt to this day.
You still have not show any reference for this comment. What impact is it? What the agency did to Korean martial arts? It is only happening in your mind. You only "REMEMBER" your discussion at college. It is a typical original research. It is not possible to keep the information of the agency without any sources.
>Look at the blackship article. The references that author uses are all Japanese.
It sound like you're saying no Japanese references are reliable, which is very sel-righteous. I cannot agree with you. In spite of the language in which it is in, a source is a source.
>The pottery, buddhism, Sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system, they all have arguements like this page.
You changed the subject again. I still do not understand what you're referring to. It seems like you think pottery, buddhism, sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system are all from Korea, which is self-righteous and Korean nationalistic. As I said above, Japanese know that Imari porcelain is from Korea. Buddhism is not from Korea, but it came to Japan from India via Korea. All the Japanese know it. I've never seen any reliable sources that prove sumo is from Korea. I know Koreans believe the technique of making swords came to Japan from Korea. I don't know where sword-making technique itself is from, but I've never seen any reliable sources the technique of making Japanese katana is from Korea. Koreans believe samurai is from Korea and even coined a false etymology, Ssaurabi and Samurang. I don't know whether Chinese writing system was introduced to Japan via Korea or not. Maybe it was. But I know some Koreans even think hiragana and katakana are from Korea, which is rediculous and nationalistic.
>When I have time I'll try to modify this article so we can both agree.
As long as you insist on the Agency and show no sources, I will not agree with you.
You even removed sources I added. I cannot understand it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Why are there two articles, Kumdo and Korean swordsmanship? They have some sentences in common and they are mostly saying the same thing. I believe that Korean swordsmanship should be merged into Kumdo or the other way around.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Korean swordsmanship be merged into Kumdo#history.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. it is different. Manacpowers (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You do not tell me what's the difference. What the two article say is almost the same. What's the difference?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I change my proposal. Kumdo should be merged into Korean swordsmanship because Kumdo is a part of Korean swordsmanship.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For further discussion, please go to Talk:Korean swordsmanship#Merger. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be more of a re-name than a merge, and also some of the wording such as 'Korean interpretation' seem to have a strong POV. --Nate1481 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)--Nate1481 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? What name do you think is the best? I don't think there is no other choice than "Kumdo" or "Korean swordsmanship."
"Korean interpretation" is not a POV because it is from the website which is very fabourable to Kumdo[12]. The website is by Scott Shaw, an American author, journalist, actor, film director, film producer, musician, and a well-known martial artist. I think it is OK to use the words "Korean interpretation" as long as it is sourced. It is true that Kumdo is a Korean interpretation of Kendo. You can see that from the fact that Korea Kumdo Association belongs to International Kendo Federation. Kumdo and Kendo have so little difference that you cannot say they are different sports.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Kumdo and Kendo and merger

[13] sorry i revert it. this edit is a POV pushing without any source.Manacpowers (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you're saying at all. All you concern is not whether it is sourced or not, but whether it is favourable to Korea or not. Your edit is full of Korean POV.
My edit is sourced. Which sentence are you saying is not sourced?
In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two artsHOUSE OF DISCIPLINE MARTIAL ARTS GROUP GUM KIDO. Although there are some slight differences between the two today, "most people accept that they are doing essentially the same thing, and train and compete in the same environment."Alexander Bennett, Korea - The Black Ships of Kendo, Kendo World
See? I added two sources.
And it is your edit that is an original research.
The impact of Japans Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of Korean culture is still felt today, as you can tell from above.
You still have not showed any source about this information. When, how, what did the Agency did to Korean martial arts?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[14] This edit is a inappropriate.

1. founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts[15]

who founder say like that? who is the this document author? this document credible?

2. "In the aftermath of the Japanese Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of traditional Korean martial arts, the 1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese kendo. It is also romanized as kǒmdo, gumdo, or geomdo. The name in hanja is 劍道, equivalent to the Japanese 剣道, literally translating to "the way of the sword"."

you delete this sentence(other user's contribution), without any consensus)Manacpowers (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Korea Kumdo orginization says, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'[16] (in Korean) [17] (in English) 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable. Later, Japanese Kendo also influenced to Korea.

Until you show any reliable history record, Keep korea Korea Kumdo orginization claim. Not Japanese POV. Manacpowers (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


What are you saying? Your edit makes no sense at all again.
>1. founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts[18]
The cite says "The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart. In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts." (see the bottom of page 1)
>you delete this sentence(other user's contribution), without any consensus)
As I said, the society (agency) is not an organization which has political rights to outlaw anything. You talk like you know much about the society at Talk:Club for Editing of Korean History but you have never show any source at all.
>Unfortunately, Korea Kumdo orginization says, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'[19] (in Korean) [20] (in English) 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable. Later, Japanese Kendo also influenced to Korea.
This is your misinterpretaion. The name "Kumdo" was not used befor the occupation ( According to the text, the term gekiken was changed to kumdo in 1910[21]). Even if Korea had long history of swordsmanship, modern Kumdo form as a sport is from Japan without doubt. KKA admits that.
"오늘날 우리는 일본에서 경기화, 스포츠화 된 검도를 하고 있습니다. 이 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실입니다."[22]
"서양의 기사도를 대표하는 무술로서 현대 스포츠로도 각광을 받고 있는 '펜싱'을 우리는 잘 알고 있다. 그시작은 이탈리아였고, 스페인 · 영국 · 프랑스 · 독일 등에서 수백 년간 계속 발전시켜 오늘에 이르렀는데, 비록 경기용어는 모두 프랑스어로 되어 있고 경기명칭도 나라에 따라 ESCRIME, SCHERMA, FENCING 등으로 각각 다르게 호칭되고 있으나 경기방식은 똑같다. 그리고 그들 국가들은 모두가 자부심을 가지고 국제적인 규칙에 따라 나름대로의 기술개발을 하면서 함께 이 경기를 즐기며 키우고 있다. 돌이켜보면 현대의 검도경기가 시작된 것은 불과 100여년, 처음에는 명칭도 격검이었다. 대한제국은 일본이 개발한 경기방식을 바로 받아들여 군과 경찰에서 교과목으로 채택하고 군사훈련에 적용시켰으며 당시의 사립학교에서도 청소년들에게 보급, 권장하였다. 우리의 선각자들은 어렵던 시절 일제치하에서도 그맥을 이어 오늘에 이르게 한 것이다."[23]
If Kumdo were as different from Kendo as you say it is, why KKA belong so International Kendo Federation? KKA admits Kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Kendo although there're some slight differences ("오늘날 우리는 일본에서 경기화, 스포츠화 된 검도를 하고 있습니다. 이 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실입니다").
So, there's no reason to remove the sentence below. It is cited as it is, though.
In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts[1]. Although there are some slight differences between the two today, "most people accept that they are doing essentially the same thing, and train and compete in the same environment."[2]--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry, funny. that is not a official state of KKA.

your reference is a board of KKA site. this written by one internet user. unreliable source. this is not a KKA official claim. sorry, this is not personal attack. but i want say this word to you, "are you kidding?" Manacpowers (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See your reference carefully.

http://www.kumdo.org/community/read.php?tb=col3&no=35&fid=23&p=12

that is the club community's message board. it written by some internet user. it is not a acadmic source and its not a official info. of KKA.

also, please, see category carefully, 커뮤니티(community) > 동호회(club)

sorry, this is not a personal attack, but are you really kidding? Manacpowers (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Korea Kumdo orginization says, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'[24] (in Korean) [25] (in English) 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable. Manacpowers (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

also, Your mentioned source says[26],

<본국검법(本國劍法)>은 현존하는 세계최고(最古) 의 것으로 또 다른 놀라움이자 자랑스러운 우리의 유산이기도 하다. 이와 함께 중국의 모원의(茅元儀)에 의해 전해진, <조선세법(朝鮮勢法)> 또한 고대검법의 정수로 현대검도의 모태가 되는 것이다. ... 일본이 검도를 스포츠로 개발한 것은 그들의 자랑이요. 그 뿌리가 우리에게 있음은 우리의 긍지이다.
本國劍法 is our cultural heritage and its a oldest martial art of fencing. also, Chinese martial art of fencing is also element of Korean fencing.... Japanese developed martial art of fencing as a sports. (this mean is not kumdo originated from japan, it says, Kumdo originated from China, Korea. they says, Japanese developed as a "sports level") early Japanese kendo root is a korea. Manacpowers (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you read my edit? "Modern Kumdo as a sport was brought from Japan and is a direct interpretation of Japanese Kendo" And I cited from KKA's official website. It is not only a board. Did you not see who wrote it? It is by 대학검도연맹 경기이사 (Director of Competition of KKA), not an ordinary internet user. It IS KKA's official claim.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, Don't miss interpret it.

1. "오늘날 우리는 일본에서 경기화, 스포츠화 된 검도를 하고 있습니다. 이 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실입니다."
this mean is not kumdo originated from japan, it says, Kumdo originated from China, Korea. they says, Japanese developed as a "sports level"
2. He did not says like that, also His claim is not a official claim of KKA. do you know what is the "이사"? anyone can be a "이사".
3. that is not a official info. of KKA. it is a Club message board of KKA.
4. club's message board is not a suitable source of wikipeida. any reason that club's message can be a official claim? if chinses claim that "Ryukyu Must retrun to China" in their PLA community message board. then, Ryukyu really belong to China? Manacpowers (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You sure like to change the subject. Who talked about China and Ryukyu? Don't talk nonsense.
Then what do you say about this site[27]? "대한제국은 일본이 개발한 경기방식을 바로 받아들여 군과 경찰에서 교과목으로 채택하고 군사훈련에 적용시켰으며 당시의 사립학교에서도 청소년들에게 보급, 권장하였다. 우리의 선각자들은 어렵던 시절 일제치하에서도 그맥을 이어 오늘에 이르게 한 것이다." As you can see, modern form of Kumdo is from Japan. And if it is not the Korean equivalent of Kendo, why does KKA belongs to International Kendo Federation? You never answer this question.
Besides, why do you remove information from these two websitesHOUSE OF DISCIPLINE MARTIAL ARTS GROUP GUM KIDO[28]? Do you say these two are also unreliable? It is too self-righteous of you.
"Modern Kumdo as a sport was brought from Japan and is a direct interpretation of Japanese Kendo" Even KKA does say so. You also said "Japanese developed as a "sports level"". Kumdo as a sport is from Japan? What's wrong about it?
And as for your interpretaion that "early Japanese kendo root is a korea", All Japan Kendo Federation officially denies it[29].
There's no reason for removing "Kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Japanese Kendo" because KKA belongs to IKF.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
sorry, i laugh at your ridiculous and Bad faith forking.
1. club's message board is not a suitable source of wikipeida.
2. "대한제국은 일본이 개발한 경기방식을 바로 받아들여
(trans) Korea accepted Japanese style sporting event
it is not says, Kumdo originated from Japan. "Japanese style" is not mean "Japanese origin". Curry invented in India. However, Japanese style Curry is a Japanese origin? ridiculous.
3. i already prove counterpart source. Korea Kumdo orginization officially state that, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'[30] (in Korean) [31] (in English)
They says, 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable.
4. why you omiited this sentence intentionally?
<본국검법(本國劍法)>은 현존하는 세계최고(最古) 의 것으로 또 다른 놀라움이자 자랑스러운 우리의 유산이기도 하다. 이와 함께 중국의 모원의(茅元儀)에 의해 전해진, <조선세법(朝鮮勢法)> 또한 고대검법의 정수로 현대검도의 모태가 되는 것이다. ... 일본이 검도를 스포츠로 개발한 것은 그들의 자랑이요. 그 뿌리가 우리에게 있음은 우리의 긍지이다.
本國劍法 is our cultural heritage and its a oldest martial art of fencing. also, Chinese martial art of fencing is also element of Korean fencing.... Japanese developed martial art of fencing as a sports. (this mean is not kumdo originated from japan, it says, Kumdo originated from China, Korea. they says, Japanese developed as a "sports level") early Japanese kendo root is a korea.'
Conclusion... this is more suitable expression, Korea Kumdo orginization officially state that... Kumdo is a Korean fencing, and its mixed with Chinese fecning elements. Japanese developed asian fecing as a sports. Korea adopted this Japanese style Kendo system... Manacpowers (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


How many times do I have to say? You Koreans always talk about "origin". Kendo is originated from Korea, Judo is originated from Korea, Sharaku is Korean, Samurai is from Korea, etc.etc.... When did I referred to the "origin"? I am talking about the modern form of Kumdo and it is the Korean equivalent of Kendo. If it isn't, why does KKA belongs to IFA?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

well, your original research is not work to wikipeida.
KKA says, possibly Kendo originated from China.
(KKA) belongs the International Kendo Federation (IKF)?
show me evidence please.
Alexander Bennet is a most people? nope. He is a Japanese kendo trainer.[32] his opinion can't represent to Kumdo.
Alexander Bennet who kendo trainer [33]is not a reperesnt to most people.
please do not change article without compromise.Manacpowers (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


this is more suitable expression, Korea Kumdo orginization officially state that... Kumdo is a Korean fencing, and its mixed with Chinese fecning elements. Japanese developed asian fecing as a sports. Korea adopted this Japanese style Kendo system... Japanese kendo trainer Alexander Bennet claims used as reference only. it is not a good for kumdo article. he is kendo trainer. not kumdo. Manacpowers (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


You say "you have no right to chage other user's contribution", then why you have rights to revert my edit which is cited? If you say "you have no right to chage other user's contribution", why don't we change the article back to form befor this edit war occurs?
Alexander Bennet represents all practitioners but I added "according to Alexander Bennet"... There's no reason for removing it. The only reason you remove the information is it is not favourable to Korea. What you concern is not whether it is properly cited or not, but whether it is properly favourable to Korea or not.
Stating that the website from Alexander Bennet is not good for kumdo article is purely your POV! This proves that what he concern is only whether the article is pro-Kumdo or not. Any article against him will not be counted as a source. It is too self-righteous. To make the article neutral, states from Kendo practitioner should not be ignored.
website, which is linked from the article, also states that "The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart."
I don't know why you disagree with this, which is well cited.
Kumdo is a martial art of fencing in Korea. It is a direct interpretation of Japanese Kendo.[34]
Accordiong to Alexander Bennett, from International Research Centre for Japanese Studies, "in many countries around the world kumdo and kendo coexists side-by-side, and apart from a few differences in terminology, most people accept that they are doing essentially the same thing, and train and compete in the same environment."Alexander Bennett, Korea - The Black Ships of Kendo, Kendo World. KKA officially states that Kumdo as a sport was developed in Japan but the origin of Kumdo is in Korea[35]. But the All Japan Kendo Federation officially denies KKA's theory that Kendo is originated in Korea[36] and there is a dispute.
I already added "KKA officially states that..." in the last edit.
If "Kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Japanese Kendo" is an original research, why isn't "Kumdo is a martial art of fencing in Korea" an original research? --Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem. You seem to being pushing your POV. Most agree that the route was China to Korea to Japan. If your only wanting to focus on the Sport aspect, fix the Kendo history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do all your guys never listen to others properly???!!!! WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF KENDO???!!!! I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE KUMDO AS A SPORT!!!
>Most agree that the route was China to Korea to Japan.
Most?????? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?! This might be the case awith sword itself, but it is not with Kendo. It is not possible to say when people started to swing swords. But the Japanese way of sword was developed by samurai in Japan[37]. The form of Kendo was developed in Japan and introduced to Korea around 1910.
You cited New York Times but in does it say Japan outlawed Korean martial arts?! No, it doesn't! It says "Most history books of 20th-century Korea emphasize the brutality of Japan's occupation: the imprisonment, torture and execution of Korean nationalists and the systematic suppression of the Korean culture." It explains only what Koreans think of the occupation. It is not even an explanation of the fact.
Another website you cited says "feed its Imperial war machine." I don't think that a website which uses such an expression as "Imperial war machine" can be said to be a reliable source. I can only say like this, "there are some say ----". Even if the website can be said to be reliable, it says nothing about the society nor Korean martial arts. You gus never show any source that explains what happened in detail. Show me sources that says how, who outlawed what martial arts. Japan must have did something cruel and discriminated Koreans at that time. I admit. But you guys say "Japan did cruel things. Japan must have outlawed Korean martial arts too. It must have been by the Korean History Compilation Society." This is only a stretch (확대 해석).
I cannot believe why an expression that "Kumdo is a direct interpretation of Japanese Kendo.[38]" can be an original research although I cited a source. If it weren't, how could KKA belong to the International Kendo Federation. If Kumdo were so different from Kendo that they are two differnt sports, how?! What I wrote is properly cited. It is not a POV at all. You're calling anything you don't like a POV. What's problem about you guys is that you guys do not care whether it is cited or whether it is true or not but you only care whether it is favourable to Korea. You only believe what you want to believe. So, you believe information without source when it is fabourable to Korea, and you don't beloeve anything which is not favourable to Korea even if it is properly cited. This is what I call POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying that during the Occupation that Japan didn't force Koreans to pratice their version of things like martial arts, language, essentially culture. Look at the longer history though. Korea already had Swords and swordsmen. And if you think the samurai were sports players swinging wooden sticks, I'm probably going to disagree. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys really never listen to others properly. I didn't say Japan didn't force its culture on Korea. I don't mean to justify Japanese occupation of Korea! But how, who outlawed what Korean martial arts? You guys only BELIEVE what you think. Show me a source which say The Korean History Compilation Committee, which you keep calling the "Agency", outlawed Korean martial arts! How can it be possible for the Committee to outlaw Korean martial arts in 1910 although it was established in 1925? What you guys say about the Committee is all 확대 해석. It SHOULD HAVE.... It MUST HAVE.... Don't write your imagination.

And you say "Japan forced Koreans to pratice their version of things like martial arts". Yes, it did. Don't talk like I deny that too. I never denied that Japan forced its culture on Korea. But it proves that Kumdo is the Korean version of Kendo. "Japan forced Koreans to pratice their version of things like martial arts". This means what they call Kumdo is the Korean version of Kendo, doesn't it?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

1. KKA is not officially states that origin of Kumdo is in Korea. they says, china origin. they says, root of kumdo is china -> korea -> Japan. nowdays japanese make as a sports. they did not says, it originated from korea.they says, Korean original Kumdo was also exist.

2. if you think Japanese kendo trainer's claim is right, then you must show us(essentiall same technique?), how similar they are.

3. 'All Japan Kendo Federation' denies unclear Internet rumor. there is no evidence that they denied KKA. KKA is not says, it is a korea origin. your edit is "little bit fabricated". this is a problem.

4. Japanese kendo trainer Alexander is NOT represent to "most people".

5. kumdo is not direct link with kendo. if your claim is right(i don't think so), but it is still mixed by original korean fencing arts. cleary, Korea original sword skill exist. and it mixed into it. Kumdo = Kendo (X)

6. Problem is...... your edit is slightly wrong. and content forking, use unrelated source('All Japan Kendo Federation' denies unclear Internet rumor. not KKA) Manacpowers (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

During the occupation Japan forced its culture on Korea, but we are just pointing out that Korea already had a long history of swordsmen and swords. By writing the article the way you want it, it seems like you are trying to imply that Korea didn't have swordsmen prior and didn't practice or write books on sword arts. This is exactly the kind of things that Japan did during 1910 to 1945, this was Japans way of eradicating Korean culture, which Korea still has to deal with and that is why there is so much conflict here. Japan pushed their version of sword art during the occupation, then states Kumdo is exactly like Kendo. We are pointing out the long history of Korean sword arts and that it existed way before and after the occupation. And today they are going back to versions prior to the occupation focusing on the old books the existed prior to Japans occupation and they are calling all that Kumdo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I added "Kumdo is a Korean translation of the Japanese term, "Kendo", and the Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart[39]." This is not a Japanese POV because it is from a website by Scott Shaw, an American writer. This wesite is about Kumdo, not Kendo. There's no reason to remove it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be obessed with putting Kumdo is a direct interpretation of Kendo in the first paragraph. It makes more sense to put it in the middle of the article in the history section. I moved it. We have to put everything into context. The Occupation and suppression of Korean culture had a huge impact on Korea and still does today. Until you start to put references that prove exact moves and the swings are identical and start stating how that is differenct from the Silla books, the Japan part should be put in the history section. You also need to reference that Korea didn't have swords and swordsmen prior to Japan, if you want the article to be written your way. YOu shouldn't put your comment in the first paragraph. Everything needs to be in context. --Objectiveye (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit long, but please read all of it because I have a suggestion to solve this dispute.
>You seem to be obessed with putting Kumdo is a direct interpretation of Kendo in the first paragraph. It makes more sense to put it in the middle of the article in the history section. I moved it. We have to put everything into context.
I put it at in the first paragraph because I though it was the best place to put it. That Kumdo is a direct interpretaion of Kendo is not history but it is general explanation of Kumdo. I don't think putting it in the middle of the article makes good sense.
As you can see, that information is in the first section of Scott Shaw's Website, which I cited, not in the history section. Shaw's website proves that the best place to put the information that Kumdo is a direct interpretation of Kendo is not the history part but the first paragraph.
Let's take an example. In the article of Hanja, the first paragraph says "Hanja is the Korean name for Chinese characters. More specifically, it refers to those Chinese characters borrowed from Chinese and incorporated into the Korean language with Korean phonetics." The sentence, "More specifically, it refers to those Chinese characters borrowed from Chinese and incorporated into the Korean language with Korean phonetics", is to Hanja what the sentence, "Kumdo is a direct interpretaion of Kendo," is to Kumdo because they both explains what they are "more specifically". Stating only that "Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing" does not tell readers what it is like. We should add the information what Kumdo "more specifically" is like, just like Scott Shaw did in his website. Putting the information in the very early part of the article only follows the precedent (Scott Shaw's website, the article of Hanja). I don't think it is a POV.
>The Occupation and suppression of Korean culture had a huge impact on Korea and still does today. Until you start to put references that prove exact moves and the swings are identical and start stating how that is differenct from the Silla books, the Japan part should be put in the history section.
I know that the impact of the occupation on Korea was so strong that the modern Korean culture is influenced much by Japan. You talk as if I were trying to justify what Japan did to Korea but I have no intention to do so. But it seems to me that you only do not want to admit that Kumdo is the same sport as Kendo only with slight differences regardless of the fact that Kumdo practitioners and Kendo practitioners play in the same Kendo tournament. I wonder why you say as if they were different sports although they compete in the same environment. And if you want to mention Japanese influence on Korean culture in general, please write it in Culture of Korea or Korea under Japanese rule. (By the way, the NY Times you cited cannot be used as a source to explain what Japan did because what the NY Times explains is not what Japan did, but what Koreans thinks of Japanese occupation.)
>You also need to reference that Korea didn't have swords and swordsmen prior to Japan, if you want the article to be written your way.
You still misunderstand me. Did you read what I wrote above? Did I say that Korea didn't have swords and swrodsmen prior to Japan? No. I already told you so. I wonder why we are talking in circles. Maybe this is because what you think of Kumdo and what I think of Kumdo are different. You are referring to the whole Korean swords art, including both the ancient Korean swords art and Kumdo as a sport. But what I am talking about is Kumdo in a narrow sense. The name, Kumdo, was coined in the 1910s. So, what I am talking about is Kumdo which people have played since 1910s. You seem to be thinking that I am saying the ancient Korean swordsmanship was also a direct interpretation of Japanese counterpart. But I am not. Korea may have its history of swordsmanship. But what Koreans doing now under the name of Kumdo is the same as Kendo, which was introduced to Korea in the 20th century. This is what I am saying. What you are mentioning is Korean swordsmanship, including the ancient Korean sword art. But what I am talking about is Kumdo as a "modern martial art". You think the ancient swords art became Kumdo and regard Kumdo as a descendant of the ancient Korean swords art. That's why you think they are the same thing. But I regard them as two different things and I am thinking that what people call Kumdo now is Kendo which adopted some techniques of the ancient Korean swords art. I am not saying Korea didn't have swords or swordsmen before being influenced by Japan.
So, I would like you to agree with merger of Kumdo into Korean swordsmanship (see Talk:Korean swordsmanship#Merger. If the title of the article is "Korean swordsmanship", I will not add the information that Kumdo is a Korean interpretation of Kendo in the first paragraph because "Korean swordsmanship" include not only Kumdo in a narrow sense but also the ancient Korean swords art, about which people can know only from historical documents. But as long as its title is Kumdo, I think we should put the information in the first paragraph because Kumdo is the name of the sport people have been playing since 20th century and it is a Korean interpretation of Kendo.
I think the only way to solve this dispute is to merge Kumdo into Korean swordsmanship. Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are getting suppression mixed up with influence. The reason why the Chinese characters were an influence was because it was a new concept. When the Koreans introduce the Chinese writing system to Japan that would be influence because it was a new concept to Japan. The introduction of Buddhism to Japan by Korea was also a profound moment for Japan. This was a whole new concept they had never seen before. "Buddhist images of the Asuka Period were made primarily by artisans from Korea"[3] You can describe these events as influence
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/japan/yayoi/yayoi.html
http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=580
http://www.japanvisitor.com/index.php?cID=359&pID=334&cName=Japanese
Here is an excerpt from a book by Barry Harmon
"This statement illustrates circumstances found in Korea at the end of World War II, when Koreans who held onto the knowledge of an indigenous Korean system were few and often secluded, and teachers of Japanese martial arts were the only approved instructors. This situation began the amalgamation of Japanese martial arts with the remaining fragments of the Korean systems still in general circulation."
I usually try not to use non-english references on the English version wikipedia
Anyways, the term Suppression is more appropriate.
You have to think about it this way. Lets say Germans who already have automobiles gets occupied by Japan for 35 years. Then the Japanese force the Germans to only make and use Japanese cars. Because of this action German cars are not made anymore and are not allow to develop for 35 years. For 35 years many people are killed off, lets say 6 million. Now lets say many of the people that died used to make German cars. Certain aspects of the German cars are incorperated into Japanese cars and similar aspects between German cars and Japanese car are only to be pronounced in Japanese terminology. Finally, after the 35 years you can't come back and state that the Japanese cars influenced German cars. You can say Japanese suppressed the development of German cars for 35 years and after the 35 years German cars seem similiar to Japanese cars.
You are also trying to stop time for Kumdo to right after the Occupation/Korean war period. Kumdo kept changing again as time went on and the country got wealthier. When people started to have money and time again, they re-eduacated themselves by studying the ancient books from Silla and researching the suppressed past. It still seems to be progressing and the term Kumdo is being used for that progression. The Koreans are using the Chinese characters to mean Sword arts.
The title is Kumdo and since this is an article about Korea, it should to be interpreted the way Koreans are using it today. Language changes all the time. Koreans are not using the term to only mean it as a sport. The language seems to have combined alot of terms which meant sword arts from the past.
As far as the merging of the articles, I'm not sure yet. From what I can tell Kumdo is being used for two handed sword arts like the ones mentioned in the Silla books and Korean Sword arts is encompassing all techniques. Single hand, Single hand battle style, two hand, two hand battle style, etc. And the way Korean swords will be presented can be affected by the way this article is organized. It is so complex, just research Dr Boots collection of Korean swords and you will see almost every version, (the double edge, single edge straight, single edge curved, etc.) I'm not sure if we would be simplifying too much by joining the articles. In any case these wiki articles need alot more work done. I hate using foreign language sources, but we may just have to, anyways, I'll have to get back to you on this one. --Objectiveye (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know Japan oppressed Korean culture during the occupation. I know it. I don't deny it.
But would you please not change the subject...? You change the subjects too often... Chinese writing system and Buddhism have nothing to do with this talk, let alone Germany. Which word to use, influence or suppression, is not important now (Please do not misunderstand. I know Japan suppressed Korea culture back then). I have no intention to evaluate Japanese occupation here. When I say Kumdo is the Korean a direct interpretation of Kendo, I don't intend to justify Japanese occupation of Korea. I want to talk only about the simple fact. I have no intention to say whether introduction of Japanese Kendo into Korea was good or bad. But I admit it was bad for Japan to have suppressed Korean culture. OK?
>You are also trying to stop time for Kumdo to right after the Occupation/Korean war period.
You talk as if it were my words that Kumdo is a direct interpretation of Kendo, but this line is from Scott Shaw's website. Please do not talk as if this was an original research.
Anyway, if we merge Kumdo into Korean swordsmaship, we have no reason to discuss this dispute anymore. I'd like to agree with it.
And I don't understand why you hate using foreign language sources. Do you mean Koreans are the only people you can rely on? If so, I have to say it is too self-righteous of you.
By the way, there's no such a word as "alot". It is "a lot." Thank you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I want the english version of wikipedia to mainly have english sources, because not everyone can read the foreign sources and verify the information. I know this is difficult to do, but that is just my preference. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a problem with defining Kumdo as a Korean variant of Kendo. I have practiced Kumdo myself for a brief time, and to be honest this martial art is in my view entirely Japanese. Even the uniform used in Kumdo is Japanese Kimono! I believe there's plenty of room for Korean swordsmanship in the article for Korean swordsmanship, and I think it would be a dishonor to Korean cultural heritage to pretend that Kumdo is "from Korea" when we have our own tradition of swordsmanship. Cydevil38 (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I really agree with you. Somehow Objectiveye and other editors misunderstand that I claim that Korea had no swords or swordsmanship, but I never claimed such a thing. All I claim is that Kumdo, which people practice today, is the Korean equivalent of Kendo. Claiming that Kumdo is from Korea does Korea more harm than good too because it will make ambiguous the difference between the Japanese swordsmanship and the Korean swordsmanship. I believe Korea should admit that Kumdo is the Korean name of Kendo and establish (or reestablish?) its own swordsmanship under a different name. So, I think that it has no problem stating "Kumdo and kendo are, save for a few cosmetic differences, completely identical" so long as we have a source[40].--Michael Friedrich (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The part about Kumdo being a variant is in the middle of the article. (did not remove it) Lets put things in chronological order. Cydevil did you notice that when you start the sentence the way you wanted it, you get alot of additions about Kendo being Kumdo and the first paragraph gets extemely long with Japanese POV. By putting in the middle of the article we can keep the article in chronological order and let people modify it with references for the better in the middle of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The information that Kumdo is Korean varient of Kendo is so important that it should be at the top of the page. "Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing." This sentence does not gives readers an idea what it is actually like. This is general information about Kumdo and chronological order does not matter here. 4.23.83.100 does not want it at the top because he or she (excuseme, which are you?) does not want the informationto stand out. If putting it at the top is Japanese point of view, it is Korean point of view not to put it at the top although it is true.--D10 Spada (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In Kendo, general information what Kendo is like comes first. History comes later. It is natural to state what Kumdo is like first. If you want to emphasise chronological order, you should go to Korean swordsmanship.--D10 Spada (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

When korea claims that Kumdo Originated from korea? I never heard it before.

As i know, they claim that It originated from China. and Modern Kumdo influenced by Japanese kendo system. do you think Korean was nothing have sword fighting skills? no. Masonfamily (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

and Kumdo word means "the way of the sword". The origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志. This name is NOT originated from Japan. also Japan did not invented this name. Even Korea kumdo association state that it originated from China.(not Japan)Masonfamily (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This article suggests differently.

"Kumdo," literally means, "Sword Way." Kumdo is a Korean translation of the Japanese term, "Kendo." "Ken" meaning, "Sword," and, "Do" meaning, "Way."

The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart. In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts.

That is the Scott Shaw's POV. However, The origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志. is Japan used 劍道 word before Han dynasty period(207 BC – 220)?
Han dynasty used this word first, and This word spread to Japan. Masonfamily (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Clearly it is not as cut and dry as you imply. I suggest that we try to work out a version that can include both interpretations rather than insist just one is correct. John Smith's (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Both sources provided by each are unreliable and personal site/essay.--Caspian blue 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Scott Shaw's peronal essay is a unreliable source. Masonfamily (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? John Smith's (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Japan uses the word 劍道, merely reflects that it incorporates Chinese characters in its written language. Japan imported Chinese culture extensively through contact with Korean traders during the Tang Dynasty, including the written characters. However, language changes and meanings diverge. The Chinese characters 切腹, seppuku or harakiri, remain in the Japanese language but not in the modern Chinese language. In an ironic twist, Chinese words for manga, the telephone, and other words are reverse imported from Japan, who coined the terms using their interpretation of Chinese characters, kanji. For Chinese, 劍 or jian, refers to the double-edge, straight sword, popularized in movies such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and numerous wuxia epics, and is seen as the ultimate expression of Chinese weapon arts because of it is considered the most difficult to master. Japanese usage of 劍 started off as referring to straight-bladed swords of the Heian period, but became associated with the single, bladed, curved katana, a slashing weapon primarily. As such, its usage is considerably different from the jian. Chinese martial artists would classify the katana as a type of 刀, dao, or broadsword. As such, the term 劍道 can only be said to come from China, in that it uses a writing system derived from Classical Chinese. However, the word's meaning in the context of kendo and kumdo, does not suggest a Chinese origin, as the jukdo or shinai, operates like a Japanese katana rather than a Chinese jian.
original reserarch. OK. show me reliable evidence. Notepcnako (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan, an island of people of ethnic Chinese descent, was occupied by Japan earlier than Korea was, and also has a considerable number of kendo practitioners. It practices Kendo along Japanese lines and does not claim Chinese origins for it. In addition, Chinese have not had a metaphysical fascination with the sword as the Japanese did in their search for meaning for martial arts and the sword in the long peace of the Edo period, where samurai without nonmartial skills and abilitites, found it hard to make ends meet. This metaphysical fascination and practical concerns for training saftety led to the development of kendo in Japan, and led to the development of modern kumdo. To make a long story sense, a possible reference to 劍道, during the Han Dynasty or before, does not mean that Chinese coined the term to a martial art that was only developed into its current form in the past couple of centuries, as the Chinese use refer to 劍 to mean a different weapon than used or approximated in kendo and modern kumdo and did not develop a martial 道 philosophy evident in martial arts development, which stressed personal development, such as the development of aikido/hapkido, judo/yudo, kendo/kumdo. 功夫, kung-fu, and 武術, and wushu are the usual umbrella under which, Chinese martial arts are coined, and weapon arts and hand-to-hand arts were not taught in isolation as with modern Japanese art, but as part of a traditional curriculum of a particular style of wushu or kung fu. Just a couple of thoughts, not to denigrate kumdo or Korean martial arts, as I've practiced taekwondo in the past, practiced with kendo clubs in college, and currently practice kumdo at a KKA school. 204.249.77.1 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

original reserarch. OK. show me reliable evidence. Notepcnako (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look up jian in wikipedia and study the history of kendo. You will notice that how a jian/kum is used is completely different from how a jukdo is used in kumdo. As for original research, show me reliable evidence in English that the Chinese invented kumdo as the Chinese have their own martial arts. I can argue this to death and you only refer to one Korean blog page claiming that because the word shows up in a Han dynasty book or dictionary, that means the Chinese invented kumdo. As with blogs, there is nothing to make sure that those claims are not original research itself, as you claim the English sources which we have consistently referred to be. The word jian in Mandarin and the word kum from kumdo or kendo mean 'sword' but to the Chinese it means a straight-blade, double-edged sword, not a sword like the katana. There's another Chinese character for that type of sword, dao, or do in Korea, as in jukdo. You have not said anything, Masonfamily/Notepcnako to refute these claims, but dismiss it as being original research despite numerous citations to the articles, where as you present your one sole claim as historic fact, which would not work in an academic setting and is not written in a grammar consistent with academic work. While Alexander Bennett is a kendoist, his article's tone is academic in nature as he notes the globalization of kendo with the particular example of Korea, and includes citations to interviews conducted with high-ranking KKA officials.

The kumdo article should try to have a npov and remain academic in nature. China->Korea->Japan may have been true very early on in Japan's history such as the Heian period, which you can look up in wikipedia, but by the 20th century that is no longer the case. Chinese influence in Korean swordsmanship before the Japanese takeover of Korea is obvious, yet the word kumdo is not mentioned in the Muye Dobo Tongji or the other catalogues of Korean martial arts. If scholars of the Joseon dynasty did not mention a kumdo coming from China, on what other basis can you claim a Chinese origin to kumdo. Like you, I practice kumdo. In particular, I practice at a KKA-sponsored dojang and none of the instructors and higher ranking members claim Chinese origins for kumdo. Kakashi1113 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-English sources are also accepted as references. Why don't you guys just include the "both arguments" if there are reliable sources. I found this from Empas/Britannica that the term[41], 劍道 first appeared in a Chinese book about 2000 years ago. --Caspian blue 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of kumdo

The discussion about the origin of kumdo has been moved here, a new section.--PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we assume that Chinese people invented the word "sword way", i.e. 劍道. However, this means only that the name, 劍道, was used in ancient China. This word seems merely a general noun. When someone develops his own style of sword fights, even at the present day, he probably calls it 劍道 or something similar. In fact, wherever people have a sword, there is their own style of sword fights. These styles can be distinguished by their practical way to fight, not by names. For example, no one insists fencing originate from China since fencing developed its own style by itself.
Anyway regardless of the word, if you would like to say that “Kumdo”, not the word but practical styles, was developed in ancient China, you must show evidence to support your theory. This means that you need to compare Kumdo-style and ancient Chinese 劍道. If in Korea, sources, which show Kumdo-style was invented in Korea, are required.
By the way, sources should be cleanly confirmed by anyone else in the world. When it is impossible, this cannot be called sources anymore. Of course, sources in Korean language should be possible, whereas people outside Korea clearly have to be convinced of the reliability. This can be challenging, though.--82.83.178.118 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be good to note that there are barely any sources for kumdo in other languages except Korean. Nanominori (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of the origin and the history of kumdo. Before the edit, it is suggested that those who want to show sources in languages except for Korean be waited for, for some constant period. Incidentally, without enough sources, how did Korean people reach the conclusion? If they do not have sources in other languages, they can show ancient archives, i.e. the first source. Do they have such a proof?--134.76.93.252 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. These archives need validating in the world.--134.76.93.252 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur, although archives in different languages would probably mean that the archive itself be second-hand source. As for how Korean people reached the conclusion, there are enough books written in Chinese languages that not many people read simply due to their excruciating work on translating old Chinese. Also, it might be nice to reference that many texts were lost in the Japanese occupation of Korea - not to say that Korea lost every book, but many. Nanominori (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, it might be nice to reference that many texts were lost in the Japanese occupation of Korea - not to say that Korea lost every book, but many.
It is a pity that these Korean books, actually sources, were lost. No one is able to illustrate what was written there anymore. Although I would like to know how many books disappeared, certainly, this question is another topic to be given outside our present discussion (I do not mention this question from now on).
You said that we have plenty of Chinese archives as well as a few Korean ones. The conclusion that "Kumdo-style" (the word used in the above comment) derives from ancient China means:
1) Kumdo-style was invented in ancient China.
2) This was exported to Korea.
3) The exported style was maintained, and continued, in Korea until the modern kumdo began.
4) During the period 3), the exported style did not significantly change. If it significantly varied, we have to conclude that kumdo is Korean invention or Korean invention based on the Chinese style, which depends on to what extent Korean people altered the Chinese style.
In brief, these 1) to 4) mean that a style similar to the present Kumdo was invented in ancient China, exported to Korea, and continuously preserved in Korea until the modern era. How did Korean people study these 4 items? In which Chinese archives, and in which volumes and pages, kumdo-style is described? How were these descriptions corroborated? On which international journals were their articles published? How were their study examined and criticized by others, that is, overseas people? Maybe general people feel weary of so many questions. These are, however, typical questions from researchers, which have to clearly be answered for the sake of demonstrating the theory. I would ask more, probably later.--PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to say that the a style similar to present-day kumdo was invented in China. Present-day kumdo was invented in Japan, while the history of kumdo began from the Silla period of Korea. By stating old Chinese books, I mean it as in written in hanzi/hanja/kanji - in a period before hangul came to being (Silla, Baekje, and Goguyeo formed Unified Silla, which in turn conformed into Goryeo, and then Joseon - the period in which hangul was invented). I would say the same for Japanese sources, but the term kanji would be preferred over Chinese characters in Japan. Also note that reading the thread should have lead to your answer for the international journals:
It might be good to note that there are barely any sources for kumdo in other languages except Korean. Nanominori (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Before continuing our discussion, I want to talk about what the first source is.
As a particular example, we assume that I am a researcher and study the history. No one knows what happened in the past, so that I work on the research. Definitely, I read an archive. Maybe it is written in a difficult language, whereas I have to read it. At length, I find something important written there. This is my finding, and achievements. I will write an article to publish the finding. The article should convince any readers of my finding. One of the most important things for this purpose is the citation. I have to show not only what was found but also where the finding is written, i.e. in which archive, in which volume, and in which pages, shortly citation. Although I may also copy the original texts into my article, this is not essential compared to the citation, because anyone can reach the original archive referring to the citation. Readers are able to confirm my work. If the citation were not added, they would regard my article as fantasy or a fabrication, because no one could examine my theory.
This is to show the first source. We do not necessarily copy the original text. We at least have to cite the archive and illustrate what is written there. Any author can do this, if he really studied, and he must. Maybe readers cannot translate the archive, but they know where they can reach the finding.
I will talk about corroboration, if required, later.
We return to our discussion.
I don't mean to say that the a style similar to present-day kumdo was invented in China.
Now, we conclude that kumdo is NOT derived from China. We hope, if this statement were strange, someone would suggest another, answering our questions given in our discussion.
Present-day kumdo was invented in Japan, while the history of kumdo began from the Silla period of Korea.
I am sorry but I cannot understand. You said, in brief, the present kumdo was imported from Japan but originates in ancient Korea. You have lost me. Since the present kumdo and Japanese kendo look identical, the former part, "the present kumdo was imported from Japan", makes sense. However, is the phrase "imported from Japan" distinct from "originating from Japan"? If kumdo learned kendo and most of kumdo-style was replaced with kendo-style, kendo is considered at least one parent of kumdo. If we would like to demonstrate that the other minor parent, if it exists, is originated in Korea, we must show,
1) Ancient Korean people developed their own style, i.e. ancient kumdo.
2) This style was maintained, and continued, in Korea until the modern era.
3) Even after Korean people imported kendo from Japan, the ancient style is still found in the present kumdo on the whole. If not, the tradition of the ancient kumdo was already lost.
These 3 items mean that the ancient kumdo should be compared with the present kumdo and kendo. What is the difference among these 3 styles, i.e. the ancient and the present kumdo and Japanese kendo? What kind of sword did ancient Korean people use? What kind of clothes was worn by them? How did they practice ancient kumdo? Did they wear protectors during the practice?
Also note that reading the thread should have lead to your answer for the international journals:
I'm afraid I couldn't find it, though I read the thread. If you can recommend a good review, could you cite it, please? I am just interested what Korean people think. This also helps people here understand the history of kumdo.
Finally, I would like to mention the sentence on the top of the page, "The term is often mistaken for a Korean kendo, but the origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志." I have read 漢書藝文志. I would say this sentence is at least partly correct. Actually I found the word 劍道 in it, only once. Is this word really related to the present kumdo and Japanese kendo? When Korean people imported kendo, if they did not have the term "kendo" translated into Korea, what did they call kendo-style? When they were taught kendo by Japanese people, how could they learn without terms used in kendo?--PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Present-day kumdo was invented in Japan, while the history of kumdo began from the Silla period of Korea.
Confucian traditions banned many martial arts to be practiced in the Joseon period. Ancient kumdo died in this era, as you have speculated in the third item in your list. However, Haidong Kumdo claims to have some traditions recovered; I have not found sources to prove this fact as of yet.
Also note that reading the thread should have lead to your answer for the international journals:
This was a remark in which very little international journals have of the information related to kumdo.
After the Japanese occupation of Korea, kendo's kanji characters translated into kumdo in hanja, which resulted in some believing that Japanese kendo originated from Korean kumdo. There are no evidences supporting this idea, nor is it agreed by the majority of Korean historians. Simply put, the current kumdo originates from Japanese martial art known as kendo, but one should still note that there was a sword-based martial art originating from Korea in the Silla period. It would be fallacy to completely consider kumdo as Korean kendo, however, as long as there is proof of Silla's martial arts. Nanominori (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We make conclusions:
1) Kumdo is imported martial arts, which is known as kendo, from Japan. The name, the style, and the terminology of kumdo all originate in Japan.
2) No significant differences are found between kendo and kumdo.
3) Quite a few Korean people and Korean organizations claim, without any sources, that kumdo originates from Korea or China.
4) Ancient Korean style of sword fights was already lost early in the Korean history. The details of this style have not been found yet. This ancient Korean style is not related to kumdo.
In summary, our article on kumdo in English Wikipedia needs total correction. I would like to suggest, as a starting point, Revision as of 11:54, 14 August 2009 by Globalmartialart. His revision meets our conclusions. Of course, anyone can make improvements to the updated revision, based on not fantasy but sources. I also suggest that we wait to change the revision for a few days. If someone would like to show another theory, he will propose it with sources in this waiting period. I am hoping that Globalmartialart will change the revision for us after the deadline, because he wrote our new revision. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Globalmartialart will be needing to find verified sources to support his claims if he is to make a change. I've put enough sources to hold back a massive rechange; User:PhD XXXXXXX, you must also understand that this thread is in my and your opinions. No complete sources have been submitted in this thread.
our new revision
That is quite a bold statement. I have never said that I would allow Globalmartialart to revise the article; his edits have not been in a NPOV manner. Jumping to conclusions are another form of fallacy, PhD XXXXXXX. Nanominori (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is not the discussion of only you and me, but the discussion which anyone can enter into. (“We” means not only you and me, but also any people who think together; in professional articles, usually “we” is used instead of “I”.) I am sure that others also watch it. Therefore, we are waiting for another suggestion, if someone has one, before changing the revision. And, for what purpose here discussion page is used? In this discussion page, we talk about what we should do for our article, kumdo. Our discussion, if it says something correct, must be output to the article. When we find wrong sentences in the article through the discussion, such sentences should be corrected.
I understand Korean people insist that kumdo is originated in Korea or China. Our discussion started from this point. As you know, I tried to help them demonstrate their theory toward any other people. However, they have so far shown no essential sources supporting their theory. Therefore, we made the conclusions written above. For example, did they answer our question about the sentence, "The term is often mistaken for a Korean kendo, but the origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志."? We cannot but conclude that they wrote a wrong sentence. If they want to deny our conclusions, they will surely answer our questions and show the sources.
Which parts of the suggested revision do not match your opinion? You can discuss it here. The author will also answer your question, I hope. And, as was already mentioned, this revision is only a starting point. You can make improvements, if you want to. Or, you can also make another suggestion.
Finally, could you add the signature at the end of your comments, please? Otherwise, I cannot understand who thinks what. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
My bad on the signatures. As I have said, Globalmartialart or any other contributors must provide a legitimate source for their information. Deleting sourced material and adding non-referenced data does not contribute to an article. Also, who is this author you speak of? Nanominori (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have returned the indent of this discussion page.

"The author" is a person, who wrote the suggested revision, i.e. Globalmartialart.

We take an example from this revision. The sentence, "The term is often mistaken for a Korean kendo, but the origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志", was deleted in this revision. This sentence cites a Chinese archive. However, as was already mentioned, this sentence is wrong; this archive is not related to kumdo. Do you think this sourced material positively contributes to the article and readers?

Where should we arrange in this revision? How would you like to improve this revision? If we throw this revision, how will we correct our article? Do you have an alternative idea? Do you think the present article should be kept for a long time without any correction? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the question. Where are the sources that Globalmartialart provided in his/her edits? He must also change his revisions to have NPOV. Nanominori (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That is my question. On which part, which sentence, which word, and which characters of the suggested revision, do you require the improvement? If you do not show where should be improved, how can we improve it, or how can we provide the sources? You can also directly ask Globalmartialart about your question. I hope he will kindly answer you.
If you do not like the suggested revision, I do not stick to it anymore; we can throw the revision by Globalmartialart. We can directly correct the current article. Shall we do it now? As an example, we can immediately delete the wrong sentence shown above, i.e. "The term is often mistaken for a Korean kendo, but the origin of the term derived from old Chinese book 漢書藝文志". --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to contact the user several times with no success; that was a part of the reason why he had twenty-four hour ban, along with starting an editing war without accepting an invitation to discussion. I'd be in no position for the book listed in the article to be deleted; as I have studied Korean language enough to read the text in the source's website, I can see that the website is biased against Japanese kendo's history (kendo has evolved greatly to be called its own art; if kendo was to be completely of Chinese origin, then the entire culture of Korea and Japan (disregarding the Ryukyuan Islands and the natives of Hokkaido) would be of Chinese origin; both countries contributed enough to call their sport their own). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanominori (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the correction. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen your edit, Globalmartialart and Nate1481. I was about to suggest a new revision... Thank you for your cooperation. I am pleased at your understanding. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed edits

1. There is no clear evidence that KKA claim that Kumdo originated from korea. So, clean up VANDALISM edit.

2. 'Kumdo' termes originated from China.Notepcnako (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep calm, as there are sources for both sided of this debate, could you try to include both views? --Nate1481 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert. This is a nothing but a bad revert. Why you try to ignore and Delete other's source. at least, could you try to include both views? And KKA claims that it orginated from china. so all of origina thory must be a clean up. Notepcnako (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

1. KKA says[42], 劍道 originated from China. "오늘날 검도경기의 원형은 격검(擊劍)이다. 중국의 <사기(史記)>나 <한서(漢書)>에는 격검이 상대와 일 대 일로 겨루는 무술이라고 설명 되어 있다"

and its terme originated from China. "검도(劍道)라는 용어가 처음 사용된 때는 확실하지 않다. 다만 중국의 <한서(漢書)> 예문지(藝文志) 병기고(兵技攷)에 나오는 '검도삼십팔편(劍道三十八篇)'이라는 기록이 최초의 것으로 알려져 있다."


2. Chinese encyclopedia source says, 劍道 Originated from China.

源于中国的剑术，在隋、唐时期传入日本,经日本人的研习修改,形成独特的刀法技术,古时用来保家卫国、防御外敌和维护社会秩序,现今才渐渐成为一项武术运动，改用竹刀、穿着护具对打。 　　在公元前473年，中国的吴被越所灭，吴的难民由山东半岛及东夷诸岛国渡海逃亡到日本，同时并携带了青铜制的“戈”与“剑”等。再经二百多年后，中国进入生产铁器的秦汉时代，这些铁器也随同大陆与朝鲜渡海过来的移民们，一块抵达日本。二世纪后半叶，耶马台国女王，遣使贡魏四次，获魏明帝赠绢、铜镜和大量的武器如“铁矛”、“铁剑”。

http://www.sakurajp.com.cn/bj/kcfw_5.html

源于中国的剑术，在隋、唐时期传入日本,经日本人的研习修改,形成独特的刀法技术

古时用来保家卫国、防御外敌和维护社会秩序,现今才渐渐成为一项武术运动，改用竹刀、穿著护具对打。

If you read Chinese, you might have read that the top of the page is the Japanese culture section. You have not proved anything with this article than perhaps that Chinese are picking up kendo among other Japanese martial arts as a hobby. Kakashi1113 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And others :

http://www.zryhw.org/column/en_1.aspx?file_id=3087 http://www.pcgames.com.cn/netgames/zhuanti/nobunaga/zg/0507/672247.html (and i can find more)

Your source is from a gaming site, a blog perhaps. Not a solid, reliable Chinese source. I expected an offical source, not a personal page. Kakashi1113 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost Every Chinese and Korea sources says, "Kumodo and Kendo originated from China". Why Japaese are isolated from World? Why Japanese fabricating that Kendo originated from japan?

Who are these almost every Chinese and Korean sources which claim these? That is just speculation and would not be acceptable in any high school essay, let alone a college term paper. China has an extensive list of martial arts and styles, as its civilization has existed far longer than Korea or Japan. Why is jiandao, which is the Chinese translation of the characters for kendo/kumdo not found? Taiwan, which was taken over by Japan earlier than Korea was, practices kendo. Meanwhile, mainland China has only begun to embrace kendo, and wushu is far more popular as a martial art. Kakashi1113 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no clear evidence that KKA claim that Kumdo originated from korea. So, clean up VANDALISM edit. We must clean up "kumdo origin theory" it is Japanese 2ch made Fabrication.

2. 'Kumdo' originated from China

3. I already prove that KKA did not says, its originated from Korea. So My 'clean up Origin theory' is reasonable.

So, it is reasonalbe that "clean up" Japanese fabrication material. Wikipedia must not edit by Japanese assumption. Notepcnako (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't mind translating these articles from simplified Chinese into readable English, would you? Or did you merely pickout Chinese articles with those two words? Let us make up our own conclusions about kumdo in an article for an English speaking audience. These Chinese articles from what I've gleaned are not written by academics and are Japanese cultural blurbs, not ideal sources for your claims. I have asserted that even if 劍道 is mentioned by Chinese in centuries, we cannot make assumption that it means the martial art/sport where people use jukdo and have hogu. For one thing, as I have said, 劍 means a straight-bladed, two-edged sword to Chinese. If you have indeed practiced daehan kumdo, it will be more obvious that kumdo as practiced TODAY is influenced more by Japan than China.

Here's a noteworthy article from the former Taiwanese president during the Kendo championships, two years ago: http://www.president.gov.tw/en/prog/news_release/document_content.php?id=1105499317&pre_id=1105499199&g_category_number=145&category_number_2=145&layer=&sub_category= Kakashi1113 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

don't delete sourced material

this page is linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. so many japanese net user team edit this article. however, there is no kumdo source says, kumdo is japanese origin.

  • root of kumdo is Mainland.
  • kumdo adopted japanese kendo system, but later modified their own. Apartwrote (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

>kumdo adopted japanese kendo system, but later modified their own. please tell me the difference between the two if you can.--Globalmartialart (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Globalmartialart, the history of kumdo is different from Japanese kendo. Korean kumdo began from the Silla-style sword arts. The current-day kumdo lost most of the traditional styles and has almost completely adapted Japanese kendo, albeit with minor differences. However, this does not mean that kumdo should be recognized as Japanese - its style has only differed in the last hundred years. Nanominori (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Globalmartialart, please answer the question from User:Apartwrote. You are avoiding the question. Nanominori (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think Kumdo is different from Kendo? You said "The current-day kumdo lost most of the traditional styles and has almost completely adapted Japanese kendo, albeit with minor differences", so kumdo has no difference from kendo and it is Korean equivalent of Japanese kendo. If Kumdo today is really descended from the Silla swords art, you cannot say "Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing." What you say contradicts itself. If Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing, it is not different from Kendo at all. In conclusion, kumdo is only the Korean pronunciation of Kendo. --Globalmartialart (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Give me references and I'll consider it. You must remember that this thread does not contain any legitimate sources. Nanominori (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"legitimate sources" for what? What should we demonstrate? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wipipedia runs on sources for information. His edits are not in NPOV and contains unnecessary details about Japan; he should get sources if he is to make a change that may cause controversies. Nanominori (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand you do not like the revision by Globalmartialart. On which parts, which sentences, which words, and which characters of the suggested revision, do you find problems? If you do not show where should be improved, how can we improve it, or how can we provide the sources?
If you insist that kumdo should be regarded as Korean original culture, could you show the difference between kumdo and kendo? If you can cleanly show that kendo was significantly altered by Korean people after they imported kendo, anyone will be convinced of your opinion, of course including me. This is the sole way, I guess.
And, how do you answer the criticism made by Globalmartialart above? If you can clearly answer his criticism, it will also corroborate your theory. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you just nit-picking? It is the same as interrogating a person when and where at the exact location and time he or she was at a week ago (or any other date). Although I believe that contemporary kumdo is same as kendo (which states my opinion, not a fact), you still are avoiding the question that I asked for both of you (PhD XXXXXXX and Globalmartialart): where are your sources? If you have legitimate sources, you can edit the page as you wish. Until then, the changes that you have made are biased and without any source. Nanominori (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Kendo World Online<- Isn't this enough?--Globalmartialart (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
"I believe that contemporary kumdo is same as kendo (which states my opinion, not a fact)"
Do you believe "not a fact"? What do you mean? You have lost me. What do you believe? And, why do you believe it?
I move to a new section. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I forgot one more thing.
"Until then, the changes that you have made are biased and without any source."
What makes you, in advance, pronounce that "biased and without any source"? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Globalmartialart, that is a Japanese website with Japanese point of view. It does not hold NPOV. PhD XXXXXXX, I will not answer your questions for you have been circling my questions and have clearly not made any answers to my questions. Nanominori (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure whether all of the revision by Globalmartialart is correct or not. I do not stick to his revision anymore, as was already mentioned in the section "origin of kumdo". I cannot show the sources you want (and I do not know which source you want). I am only the third person that is just interested in the discussion between you and Globalmartialart because of a curiosity.
"That is a Korean website with Korean point of view. It does not hold NPOV." Do you think this statement is correct? If no one denies it, I can delete all the Korean sources here.
"I will not answer your questions for you have been circling my questions and have clearly not made any answers to my questions."
Do you know that those who reject any communication are not highly evaluated in western countries (and other overseas countries)? Westerners would discuss their theory again and again. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 05:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To Nanominori
>>"that is a Japanese website with Japanese point of view. It does not hold NPOV."
First, the website doesn't seem to be completely Japanese but run by some people from foreign countries, too.
If you it does not hold NPOV because it is Japanese, then why do you believe information from Korea? If Japanese sources are not worth believing, so are Korean sources. Who can believe sources such as [43] and [44] though it is in Korean? They does not hold NPOV because they are Korean websites with Korean point of vies.
Even if you use a website witten by an American man like this, he seems very influenced by Koreans because he started Hapkido at the age of six and I'd say his website is with Korean point of view and does not hold NPOV. Well, what shall we believe?--Globalmartialart (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Nanominori, where have you gone? I am enjoying a talk with you. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, we assume that Nanominori does not have anything to add to our discussion. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kumdo and kendo

I have moved from the section "don't delete sourced material".

You and Korean people asserted the theories in this discussion page. I have just helped you and Korean people illustrate the theories. I have not so far suggested any theory; there are not the sources which I must show you.

I only suggested the revision by Globalmartialart because I found some correct parts in his revision. I am not sure about other parts in his revision, so that I suggested the revision as a starting point and asked you where you found problems. Since you said his revision could not be used for our article, definitely you can show which sentences are wrong. However, you have not answered me yet. Therefore, I asked you many times. Could you answer my question now? On which parts, which sentences, which words, and which characters of his revision, do you find problems? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate that kumdo is Korean original culture, we have to illustrate that kendo was significantly altered after Korean people imported it. Would you show the significant difference between kumdo and kendo? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No significant differences between kumdo and kendo are found.
We conclude that kumdo is kendo, originated and imported from Japan.
See also sections "Origin of kumdo" and "don't delete sourced material" in this discussion page. --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
[citation needed]
See also: WP:Synth
--Natet/c 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The conclusion above is changed to,
No significant differences between kumdo and kendo are found, whereas Korean people and organizations claim that kumdo is Korean original culture.
Do you think this new statement satisfies the standard which you have showed? --PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Information Source Details Needed

What is in the books 5,000 years of Korean martial arts and Korean impact on Japanese culture? These books are on the reference list, but what do they really say? The list doesn't even tell us which page of the books the information is on. Do they really say the Kendo and Kumdo are almost exactly the same "because during the Japanese occupation of Korea all Korean swords and coats of arms were confiscated and destroyed by the Japanese"?

We need to know what the books really say. Until then, I'll put {{fact}} there.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The book 5,000 years of Korean martial arts, is not a scholarly work. It takes third party information without looking at primary sources in Korea, China and Japan. Also the writer is a practitioner of Kuk Sool Won, making his book quiet biased towards presenting Korean martial arts as pure Korean which totally conflicts with training manulas such as Muyejebo Beonyeoksokjip (무예제보번역속집, 武藝諸譜飜譯續集) and Muyedobotongji (Hangul: 무예도보통지, Hanja: 武藝圖譜通志). Theses books clearly states that they studied and implemented Chinese and Japanese martial arts. As far as I remember there are couple of skills that are said to be of Korean origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.35.13 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits aroud January 2010

Hello, Korean people. It has been a long time. May I ask a question about your edits around (or since) January 2010?
Did you read this discussion page, where we discussed your theory, before the edits? A large number of open questions about your theory are still kept, although I helped you demonstrate your theory. However, it seems that you have been editing our article independently of our discussion. Would you like to explain this situation?
See, especially, sections "Origin of kumdo" and "don't delete sourced material" for your quick review.--PhD XXXXXXX (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: how do you know or convince that all edits made on the article including objection to the unsourced Japanese POV edits are Korean people? Who are referring to as "you" in you opinion, and why do you exclude "Japanese people" in your inquiry? Weren't you criticized for not providing "sources", but only insisting based on "your" WP:SYNTHESIS[45]? The situation is just the same as the time you edited the article without source but based on your "personal opinion". No more no less.--Caspian blue 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter where those editors are from. I do not want you to change the subject.
Please tell me what you are calling "unsourced Japanese POV edits"?
Actually, I do not think we can ever reach an agreement because information sources that Kendo practitoners have and those that Kumdo practitoners have are too different. I believe that most kumdo practitioners believe what the KKA says, but most Kendo practitioners, including me, do not because the history of kumdo which KKA claims contradicts that of kendo and is too different from what the All Japan Kendo Federation says. The Japanese regard the KKA's claim as a fabrication and consider it to be unreliable. Kumdo practitoners, however, believe the KKA is right and what Japanese people believe is fabrication. Both of them think their own information sources as reliable and true while those of the other are full of lies. Kumdo practitoners use the KKA's website as an infromation source, but the Japanese would never admit it to be a reliable source. It is impossible for us to determine which souorce is reliable and which is not because it would be "an original research".
Therefore, I am very sure that we will never reach an agreement, which means we should not mention anything as a "fact" about history of Kumdo. They are all only "claims". The article should not be written like "Kumdo is...." but like "The KKA claims that Kumdo is..."--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It does not matter where those editors are from -> Please remind and follow your own word for yourself, and PhD XXXXXXX since you guys are the first people keeping mentioning the ethnic card to counter your opponents' stance. Showing the irony is not a good method to persuade your opponent. :-) Minor housekeeping is what I do here, not cleaning the existent content. The latter is your job since you people are the one who complains about the article. No consensus has ever formed in the past discussions, so simply quoting them does not justify the new addition of the "unsourced contents" by the Japanese editors. Proving something as an original research is not that hard if you have "sources". Unless you do so, your argument can be regarded as another "original research". As I said, seek neutral experts in the field from WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:WikiProject Martial arts, or present reliable sources. --Caspian blue 20:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The ethnic card to counter my opponents' stance? I used the word "Koreans" meaning only those who believe kumdo is distinct from kendo because most of them will be Koreans. I do not intend to insult the Korean race at all. Sorry if you are offended, but isn't it you who are really peculiar aboute ethinic matters? If not, you wouldn't say such a thing as "mentionning the ethinic card to counter your opponents' stance".
I did used the word "Koreans" but I never used it "to counter my opponents' stance". I mentioned Korea just because most kumdo practitioners and those who believe kumdo is distinctive from kendo are Koreans. I did say "stupid Korean claim" but I only meeant that the claim that kumdo is distinctive from kendo is stupid and I never said "Koreans are stupid". I cannot help thinking that you are the one who is most peculiar about races or ethnics, since you keep menthioning "Japanese" "Japanese" "Japanese"....
Besides, I am asking you what you are referring to as "unsourced contents by the Japanese editors". Would you be kind enough to answer my question, please?--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your edits tell themselves, and you already know the answer. Were your edits "sourced" or not? Have Japanese editors including sockpuppeters appeared the article with the same agenda as your or not? I'm not sure why you're taking a miff at the correct analysis on your edit. That is just the other side of the coin that you tossed out; you insisted that your edits did not get your way by the "stupid Korean POV", so I adopted your "logic" to define your unsourced edits as "unsourced Japanese POV". If you don't want to be called as such, then, don't call your opponent "Korean" etc. You said you're pro-kendo, then the other side would be "pro-kumdo" or people who do not allow unsourced original research any more. I've recommended you to take the "practically effective ways" to resolve the issue, but you have refused to do so. I'm not sure why you have been wasting my time with the meaningless arguments.--Caspian blue 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't told me exactly which sentence you are referring to as unsourced POV. Tell me which one you are mentioning.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You still have't told me exactly which sentence you are referring to as "stupid Korean POV". Tell me which one you are mentioning.--Caspian blue 13:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought I told you several times[46]. Seems you never read what I wrote. No wonder you never made sence.
>>Kumdo is distinctive from japanese Kendo.
I added {{fact}} tags to the sentences I think is stupid or unsourced, too. I thought you were smart enough to understand what sentence I was mentioning. A big surprise.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought I told you several times about your answer.[47] Seems you never read what I wrote. No wonder you never made sence[sig]. I think such endless questioning and edit warring are stupid and meaningless. I though you were smart enough to understand what edit of yours I was mentioning. Not a big surprise since you've not been getting at what is the main point to resolve the dispute. You seem have no interest in doing so.--Caspian blue 14:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Caspian blue, do you really trust the Korean source? At least, don't you think it's vicious that only Korean sources are mentioned as the fact?--220.99.139.54 (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, I've suggested editors interested in the topic to take this to broader venues like WP:3O, WP:RFC, and WP:WikiProject Martial arts to get neutral inputs from more people or present "reliable" sources to end the dispute. However, none of the both party are willing to do so. I've never said that I only accept Korean sources. Any "reliable sources" are welcome, but "adding such unsourced claims" to this contentious article just prolongs the dispute. Your baseless accusation based on ethnicity is just "vicious", so please refrain from saying so.--Caspian blue 16:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems discussion is over. What I called "stupid Korean POV" is not on the page any more. Neither is what Caspian blue called unsourced Japanese POV. What do we have left to discuss? So, the discussion is over. Actually, it didn't even start to begin with because we were talking over what did not exist.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand you. I can find reliable English and Korean sources on the relation of kumdo and kendo beside sources from the Kumdo association, but you are just complaining but doing nothing. You obviously appear to be able to read Korean language.[48][49] even though you wrote your opinions in Korean with a translation tool's aid. If I were you, I would just add sources instead of making others' time wasted. As I've said, cleaning up and implementing the article is your job since you are so unhappy with the status quo.--Caspian blue 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It's OK you don't understand me. Neither do I understand you. I don't want you to understand me either. I don't understand what you want.
>>If I were you, I would just add sources instead of making others' time wasted.
If you think your time is wasted, why are you here?
>>As I've said, cleaning up and implementing the article is your job since you are so unhappy with the status quo.
You really don't understand me. For the time being, I am not complaining about the status quo. That's why I said the discussion is over and that it did not even start to begin with.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa YAMANKAYA

Mustafa YAMANKAYA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.31.89 (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ HOUSE OF DISCIPLINE MARTIAL ARTS GROUP GUM KIDO Retrieved September 3rd, 2008
  2. ^ Alexander Bennett, Korea - The Black Ships of Kendo, Kendo World Retrieved September 3rd, 2008
  3. ^ http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/asuka-art.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kumdo/Archive_1&oldid=1136263954"