Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 6

Mediators are not accept JJL's POV edit
JJL. you have a big mistake. Most mediator NEVER accept your edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo

involved parties

1. JJL (talk · contribs) 2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) 3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) 4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) 5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs)

2. Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs) opposed your POV 3. Appletrees (talk · contribs) opposed your POV 4. Omnedon (talk · contribs) is neutral. He was not accpeted your POV. 5. Manacpowers (talk · contribs) it's me. I'm opposed your POV

even Omnedon said, "JJL, I'm suggesting no such thing; I'm involved. What I am saying is that I don't like the attitudes displayed by either you or melonbarmonster. I'm also saying that I feel a compromise could be reached, and I've said so several times; but you seem to insist more and more stridently that, in a nutshell, Taekwondo is essentially Japanese. It's not. That has not been demonstrated. There must be something between "Taekwondo was influenced by non-Korean martial arts" and "Taekwondo is Japanese" that we could agree upon, even if grudgingly." He was not accpeted your POV.

also he said, "The present dispute started in late 2007 over JJL's edits which were designed to reduce what he described as Korean POV in describing the history of Taekwondo. Some other editors, myself included, felt that his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV."

Cleary, 4 member declined your edit.(1 member is neutral. but He never permit your POV edit)
 * mediators rejected your POV edit. 

read carefully Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4. no one permit your POV edit. if you still rv from your POV edit. it is cleary violate of rule of wiki.

your POV edit is possibly Content forking.
 * "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

What forking is
 * POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. 

Manacpowers (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. involved parties are NOT permitted your POV edit.
 * 2. His edit is possibly Content forking


 * Mediation was your chance. You didn't take it. I consider the matter settled as you didn't dispute it then. I have provided disinterested academic sources to back up these claims. I don't care to discuss this matter further unless you have a new source that bears on the issues involved. Your disruptive edits and rude comments are not appreciated. JJL (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL, the meditation was failed because the primary disputer such as Melonbarnstar, did not show up (not me, you just urged me to sign up it), however the failed meditation does not mean that your insistence is settled down. Your disruptive edit does not excuse or explain as well. None ever agreed with your-so-called academic resources. The one was questioned because of not really an academic field. Besides, I don't think your way of speaking is close to "civility" but just rudeness. I'm not interested in this dispute as much as you and Manacpowers, but you're speaking for yourself. Consensus never has been reached. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mediation was the opportunity for those who disputed those sources to have the matter addressed. If you didn't participate then, despite having been invited to do so, please don't complain now. JJL (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one who has been complaining the origin, not me, or others. So please be civil. Well, a meditation can be always open again if people need so. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again. there is no one accept JJL's disruptive POV pushing. and your disruptive JPOV logic is nonsense. you cut and paste from your only convenience source for you. and make false logic. you use Content forking. Wikipedia is not your diary. Every mediators opposed your POV. There is no need that article keep by your disruptive POV. Manacpowers (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I saw no benefit whatsoever from mediation in this case. JJL provided a summary, I provided a summary -- and as far as I know, that is where it stopped.  Consensus was not reached, and no further discussion took place at the time.  That does not mean that those that did not participate no longer have a voice on the subject.  However, as with subjects like religion, evolution, and the like, there are competing views, and the simple fact that there is disagreement is part of this martial art's background.  So, as a compromise, and to present the very real controversy to the reader without undue attention, here is what I would suggest:  in a situation like this, I believe the article can reasonably (and briefly) describe more than one view.  It could be something along these general lines:


 * "Some hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art that was adopted and modified by Korean practitioners. (Source) Others believe that it was based primarily on earlier indigenous Korean martial arts. (Source)  Still others see it as an essentially Korean martial art that was also influenced, more or less, by martial arts from other countries, especially neighboring Japan and China. (Source)  The Japanese occupation of Korea from 1910 through the end of World War II in 1945 meant that documentation was sometimes lost or sometimes purposely not kept; and the martial art that is now called Taekwondo began to emerge during this time, so that solid and incontrovertible information regarding its origins can be difficult to find. (Source)"


 * In this way, each view is presented, no view is denigrated, and as long as the view is sourced, it's not mere opinion. On the other hand, no particular view is stated as absolute, unvarnished fact.  The reader can decide.  I would be glad to provide some additional sources to help with this.  Omnedon (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although there are competing views, only one view is sourced in academic journals. We've been through this before. Mediation was the next step in the WP resolution process. Those who declined to participate have indeed opted out of the matter. Since 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC) you have claimed to be "labouring to come up with some (sources)". On 06:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) you stated that "I hope to provide a couple of additional sources soon -- I'm waiting on one book to arrive via interlibrary loan." You'll understand that I despair of seeing such sources anytime soon. In the meantime, some people may well believe any number of things; but there is no meaningful disagreement among WP:RS on this matter. The only disagreements are from websites. I don't care to re-hash this; that was what mediation was for. Until a WP:RS stating that TKD is a 5000 year old indigenous art is brought forward, there's nothing more to discuss. JJL (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Some hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art......"
 * that is 'not' some, only JJL's opinion.
 * "Some Karate teacher hold the view that Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art......"
 * i think this need more scientific data. actually, JJL's give source s are heavy POV pushing.(some sources are from karate dojo's teacher. this is not fair.)
 * some karate dojo teacher's said, tkd is a essentially a Japanese martial? he pick up this style source.
 * if you think Taekwondo is essentially a Japanese martial art. then show me scientific data. We don't need karate dojo teacher's claim and some pro-karate guy's personal essay. actually, your(JJL) given sources are totally null and void.
 * for example, one of his sources is like this,
 * "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."
 * but who is the David Mitchell? actually, he is a karate teacher.
 * and don't forget. JJL, your edit is rejected by mediators. Manacpowers (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense. JJL (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you're sense already rejected by mediators. Manacpowers (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL. your source is not academic journal. it is a personal essay. also your source author is not permitted by tkd. those author contribute TKD? they are no relation with tkd. their "blah blah..." is not working to TKD. if you think your source is reliable, please show me scientific data. we don't need personal opinion without evidence. for example, some people say, "USA belong to africa!" then, USA really belong to africa? their(including you) opinion can not be a established theory. Manacpowers (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, "your source author is not permitted by tkd" you say. I allow for the language issue. Still, what's amazing to me is how many of your fellow TKDers support your reversions based on your logic. I can see why they'd want to avoid mediation, where disinterested individuals would judge the claims based on their strengths. JJL (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * cleary you are heavy POV pusher. this is no doubt to mediators.


 * How about this source? I think this source is more moderate than you and me.


 * He would seem to have a vested interest do not be a neutral source see are their any independent (i.e. non TKD affiliated) sources? --Nate1481(t/c) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise attempt mk 1
Ok I've tired to include both sides as opposing arguments, which should at least be satisfactory as an interim version comments? --Nate1481(t/c) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I confess I'm not very familiar with TKD, but attempting to fairly present the debate is certainly the right course. The passage that begins with "the history of Taekwondo had been controversial with two extremes..." may be a bit strong; admittedly there are differences, but saying that people fall into diametrically opposed camps probably overstates the case.  Personally I think the earlier passage that Omnedon drafted reads quite well, since it points out that the facts and history surrounding TKD's early origins are not unequivocal, and that there are differing opinions about it, which sounds fair and reasonable.


 * There seems little doubt that people do hold differing positions on this subject; that this is so makes it particularly egregious for certain users to assert that only a single position deserves to be advanced. That these users appear intent on resisting compromise (in favor of advancing only their own views) is unfortunate and isn't in keeping with the spirit of cooperation that WP encourages.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried (after attempting to discuss sources here failed) asking for informal mediation, asking for help at the WikiProject, and asking for mediation. I'm open to suggestions. The Koreancentric views are dogmatically held. The compromise edit has academic journals on one side and TKD websites on the other--a classic case of "teaching the controversy" (but it's still a good idea and I welcome the attempt). JJL (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

JPOV is bit strong. i suggest that "basically, Taekwondo rooted from tekkyon. but, some unique claims also exist." this is more moderate. Manacpowers (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits by Manacpowers are mislabeled (e.g., re-introducing grammatical errors while claiming to remove them (21:05, 17 June 2008)), break references (e.g. the Mitchell ref. that I fixed and indicated the issue with), and remove significant elements of one 'side' of this issue (e.g., the block quote). I am open to suggestions as to how to "work with" and "compromise with" this editor and his several supporters here. JJL (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Huwmanbeing: I know it may seem strong, but I was trying to represent the extreme ends as these seem to be the two versions argued over. There are of course intermediate positions from traditional with a japanese flavor to essential japanse with odds and ends form tradional styles to a complete blend of the two (and this middle ground is the most likely in my view) i.e. some kwans were essential japanese others tradional so merging them brough both sides evenly. A comment this effec should be included to balance it
 * JJL on the types of source, there are acadmic sources that will argue the oposing view but that kind of source is harder to find quickly. As you seem well versed in the area i'm sure you could pull up a couple of them to support that it is a strongly held view, as it is disputed the article should just report and not try to draw conclutions. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your efforts here and I hope you'll continue. I've tried to work with your edit but have found those attempts blindly reverted--even fixes of typos and grammatical errors. But...I think there's a good reason why it's hard to find academic sources that say TKD is originally Korean, while it was easy to find several that supported an almost entirely Japanese origin. This is not one of those cases where the truth lies in the middle--the Japanese were brutally efficient at stamping out indigenous Korean arts (of many kinds) in their half-century of occupation. How many people practice Okinawan sword-and-shield arts? They too were largely lost due to Japanese weapon restrictions there. If other academic or similarly high-quality sources exist, I'd be happy to see them. In the meantime, it appears that the Korean origins belief is a widespread myth, much like that of the Okinawan karateka sending samurai home dead by punching through their wooden armour. JJL (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL's disuptive edit already rejected.
 * I already said, David Mitchell is a Karate teacher. This source is a born to be a Karate Pushing. His source is already null and void.
 * also your Capener, Steven D. source already pointed out that "it's not. That has not been demonstrated", "his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV." by neutral mediator. 2 sources are only your logical base? well, i have 100 times more reliable academic source than you.Manacpowers (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and do not delete documented source quoute from Glen R. Morris. Manacpowers (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Capener, Steven D, and David Mitchell soures are "NUll and Void".
 * David Mitchell is a Karate teacher. and his book is a karate book. It is not neutral. so it is not suitable that his source apply to TKD page.
 * You quote from Capener, Steven D. Well, I can't find any evidence. I still doubt his claim is real or not. if you think TKD is essentially karate.
 * first, show me reliable source that Testimony of TKD founder.
 * 2nd, show me reliable scientific data that How TKD simiar with karate. Manacpowers (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Only JJL complaining the origin of tkd. others are not. please, shall you remove this source? David Mitchell is a Karate teacher(POV problem). it is not acceptable in this case. Capener, Steven D' source is still dispute. and remeber, Only JJL complaining this. Manacpowers (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted it as the whole quote was not needed and not helpful. Summarise what he said then source it. The Morris source is defiantly not neutral but can be used to show that that view exists. Please could you also read Wikipedia's policy on sourcing --Nate1481(t/c) 11:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.s. I would add that I think BOTH extremes are inaccurate but i'm trying ot be neutral in the matter


 * actually, he believe only 2 sources. repeat.. and repeat.. he can not show us more reliable source and scientific data or something. David Mitchell who karate teacher book is nonsense. and We need criticize Capener, Steven D's document. (his claim is not true) Steven D is a only one person who claim that root of tkd from karate.(according to his documents, He did not proved from evidecne. it is a some personal essay or opinion) however, there is no one claim like him. it is unreasonbale conclude that tkd root from karate by one or two source. I suggest to you all mediators, How many sources are support each side claim?(Quantity of My sources vs. Quantity of JJL's source) We must distinguish minority report(assumption) from mainstream reports(esatablished theory). Manacpowers (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

<-Manacpowers, several points: --Nate1481(t/c) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Calling someone a POV Troll (internet) is not helpful (and in this case is inaccurate please read What is a troll? and WP:NPOV).
 * 2) The sources appear to be reliable published sources which, at the very least, show that there a debate as to the origin of TKD, this should be mentioned.
 * 3) The standard here is not truth but 'verifiability. Regardless of the real origins of TKD. the fact that it can be clearly shown that people claim both sides needs reporting.
 * 4) Currently YOU are the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely Korean' POV. The initial complaint over JJL's edits was that they were wide ranging and over stated the case. This was improved in the later version but it still had a distinctly non-neutral POV, which is why I attempted a merge to be a starting point. PLEASE READ some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before continuing as you are currently being a far worse POV warrior than JJL

hmmm.. this debate start from JJL. no one make this disrupt. you have some mistake. i'm not a TKD is purely Korean POV. even I, quote from, 'THE HISTORY OF TAEKWONDO By Glen R. Morris'. read Glen R. Morris's claim. When he said, "TKD is purely Korean?" after long debate, i think Glen R. Morris's quote is more moderate than JJL and me. JJL's edit is purely Japanese(Karate) POV. Currently JJL is the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV.

He debating by only 2 sources. However, various reports admit that his claim is not true. read Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 Manacpowers (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1. This debate start from JJL. 2. previous edit is well done by various ediotrs.. but since 2007, JJL make a JPOV edit. 3. frist, he inserted sentence, "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems." 4. debate start. if you see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4 you can find many ediotrs are protest his POV editor. even totally neutral edior(Omnedon) said, "his edits went too far and produced a Japanese POV." you can read it. Manacpowers (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * anyway, I think best way of this resolution is... delete history section of this article. if JJL pushing same POV by same sources again... and again... I will continually provide sources that TKD root from Tekkyon. However, I do not deny TKD influenced by karate and kung fu. TKD influenced by grade system of karate. Just one simple question, When TKD art developer said "I developed karate based martial arts!" TKD arts developer did not think so. They developed TKD. not karate. for example, When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher? Your success belong to mathematic elementary school teacher? Manacpowers (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that my suggestion is being applied and that compromise is emerging. However, as it is presently stated, the introduction to the history section isn't accurate.  It says, "proponents of the art state that it is entirely derived from traditional Korean martial arts"; but not all proponents of Taekwondo necessarily believe this.  I'm going to restructure it a bit and also add the middle-of-the-road statement that Nate mentioned. Omnedon (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can determine, Glen R. Morris is an airline pilot who started TKD in 1992 and who then wrote a brief essay on the history of TKD for his black belt test in 1994 . He's webmaster of the World Martial Arts Academy TKD web site. His brief report cites a total of four secondary/tertiary sources. I am unimpressed. These are the "sources" placed against the peer-reviewed academic journals such as  Korea Journal and Journal of Asian Martial Arts to support the Korean origins claim of Manacpowers and his followers to justify "teaching the controversy" on this matter. It's true that there are many opinions on this, but I have yet to see evidence that the (mostly) Korean origins side has more going for it than the Okinawan Karateka who claim their art has little to no Chinese influence and was used to defeat sword-wielding samurai with empty hands. It's more bullshido--martial arts myth. JJL (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * funny. according to your logic, David Mitchell who karate teacher is neutral then? for example, When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher? Your success belong to mathematic study of elementary school teacher? answer me please. and JJL, Currently JJL is the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV.Manacpowers (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion. The Taekwondo name was not accepted by the Kwan's until August 5, 1965. Before that time, it was basically divided between the names Kong Soo Do and Tang Soo Do, both of which translate into the Japanese language as Karate do. Early Kwan founders learned from the following Okinawan Sensei:

Gichin Funakoshi Sensei taught; Won Kuk Lee - Chung Do Kwan - Sang Sup Chun - Jidokwan (Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu) - Byeong Jick Roh - Song Moo Kwan -

Kenwa Mabuni Sensei taught; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan - Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan -

Kanken Toyama Sensei taught; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan - Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan - Ki Whang Kim - Moo Duk Kwan affiliated -

The following of the above men, also had various training in ChuanFa Chinese/Manchurian/Taiwanese; Byeong In Yoon - Jidokwan/Chang Moo Kwan- Kwai Byeong Yon - Jidokwan- Sang Sup Chun - Jidokwan (Choson Yun Moo Kwan Kong Soo Do Bu)-

The curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo was originally the same as Shotokan/ShitoRyu/Shudokan and some with a bit of ChuanFa (JooAnPah), this curriculum did not really begin to make big changes until the mid 1960's

According to the most senior students of the above men, and the leaders of Taekkyon in Korea today, non of the above men had any Taekkyon experience. I was personally told this by the senior students of the above me, and the leaders of Taekkyon in Korea today. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.142.143 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo was originally the same as Shotokan/ShitoRyu/Shudokan and some with a bit of ChuanFa (JooAnPah), this curriculum did not really begin to make big changes until the mid 1960's"
 * huh? well. show me sources, please. i want see curriculum of the Kwan's/early Taekwondo. basically, your claim is no sources and no evidence. Manacpowers (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts.

for example, Car invented by German(or france?). However, Nowdays success of Toyota and Honda, Lexus belong to German?(or france?) Because German(or france), Lexus can build a car? Japanese do not have their own skills? Kaizen, Kanban, Hybrid car... all of skills are derived from German(or france)? huh? nonsense. Like JJL's logic, you can say, "Japanese car is a essentially German. in old days, Japanese company learned manufacturing skills from German. So, Kaizen, Kanban, Hybrid car are essentialy belong to German." Basically, JJL's logic in unreasonable. and He picked up souce from extemist.

and you must know that Karate derived from Chinese Tang Dynasty Martial Arts. it invented by China.(not Japan) even karate learned korean did not say it invented by Japan.(they called as a "China Hand". They think it is a Ryukyu version Chinese martial arts.) Manacpowers (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is one written source posted at Stanford University. You can read it yourself. I can also e-mail to you anything you would require, including scans of the original book, whatever.

A Modern History of Taekwondo by KANG Won Sik and Kyong Myung Lee Published in March 1999 by: Bokyung Moonhwasa at 389-22 Seokyo-dong, Mapo-ku, Seoul, Korea 121-210. tel no. 82 2 325 8833/325 7211 fax no. 82 2 325 7213. ISBN 89-358-0124-0.

Note: Co-author KANG Won Sik, the current President of Song Moo Kwan, is a students of Byeong Jick Roh who trained under Gichin Funakoshi Sensei at Chou University in Japan before and during WWII.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/Taekwondo/documents/tkd_history.pdf

Kyo Yoon Lee, student of Sang Sup Chun, another student of Gichin Funakoshi at Takushoku University in Japan during that same time, also has a history section that reflects the same information in his book Global Taekwondo, ISBN 89-952721-4-7, Hamni Publishing Co., January 15, 2003, Korea. This book is hard to find, but I have scans of the history section if you would like to see them.

Interview with Chong Woo Lee, student of Sang Sup Chun who studied under Gichin Funakoshi and is considered to be the founder of Jidokwan.

http://www.taekwondojidokwan.com/page6.html

Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) 76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

One more note in regard to Taekwondo's roots being from Karate. Have any of you ever seen Dan certificates from Korea before 1965? In Korean Hangul, Korean Hanja (Chinese), and in English, they all state "Karate", written out exactly as Karate. No mention of Kungfu or Taekkyon.

Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com)76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

--- is 76.205.123.118 another IP of JJL? Well. you still do not show that source of curriculum.

and.. i already said, I am not denied some TKD founder learned karate(when they were young). so, your sources are already known source in this discussion.(JJL's claim is same.)

but TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. "some TKD founder learned karate when he was a young, so TKD is a karate." this is nonsense logic. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts.

This is simple. I already said, "car invented by german. However, Success of Lexus is NOT belong to German." I already said, "When elemenary school period, you learned mathematic from elementary school teacher, later, you graduate Havard Univ. then, Your success caused by elementary school teacher?"

"TKD developed from their own traditional martial arts skills. it can't be a karate. TKD founder did not say it is a karate." '''TKD essential techniques are still basically same with tekkyon. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.'''

Taekwondo's roots being mainly from Tekkyon. but also influenced by Kungfu and Karate.

This is good evidence that TKD rooted from korean traditional martial arts tekkyon.
 * This is actual evidence.(video)


 * Karate Fighting style video
 * TKD Fighting style video


 * Karate 540 degree kick
 * TKD 540 degree kick (even 540 degree kick skill is different with karate)
 * Karate 900 degree kick? none.
 * TKD 900 degree kick

and your question 1, "Have any of you ever seen Dan certificates from Korea before 1965?". my answer : maybe 'dan system' influenced by karate or any sports. however, it can't be a evidence that root of TKD is karate.

and your question 1, "In Korean Hangul, Korean Hanja (Chinese), and in English, they all state "Karate", written out exactly as Karate." my answer : well, i never heard such a thing. show me evidence. they called as "China hand" or Tang soo do. also before 1950, subak-do and tekkyon(korean own martial arts. root of TKD) were existed, too.

These 'dan system' were introduced only after their countries' modernization under the influence of western sports' system.  Manacpowers (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See what I wrote, and my sources about Taekkyon below. You think Taekwondo is from Taekkyon? Please list the names of the Taekwondo pioneers who learned Taekkyon, and who they learned Taekkyon from, and the sources for your information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.143.218 (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Korean's not only used the name Tang Soo Do (Karate do), they used Kong Soo Do (Karate do), and they used it from 1944 until 1965-1966-1967. Taekwondo name was not accepted until 1965.

Dan system was added to judo by Jigoro Kano in the late 1800's and had nothing to do with Western sports. Before that, Dan system was use in the Japanese game "Go", hundreds of years before Kano used it. From Judo it went to Karate, then to Taekwondo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.143.218 (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you take the time to read the links I provided for you. Good luck!

Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com)76.205.123.118 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

you do not know well. they called tang soo do as "China hand". Kong soo do is maybe karate do. also before 1950, subak-do and tekkyon(korean own martial arts. root of TKD) were existed, too. and i recognize that karate grade system influenced to tkd. however, it can't be a theory that root of tkd is karate. i laready prove by actual evidence.(video) Manacpowers (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times! Everyone knows that Karate was first called by China Hand Way, then later changed to Empty Hand Way. In Korean language, China Hand is pronounced Tang Soo. Empty Hand is pronounced Kong Soo. Both translate back into Japanese as the sound Karate. Try reading Wikipedia article on Karate where it states the following:

"Chinese Hand

Karate was originally written as Chinese hand in kanji. It was later changed to a homophone meaning empty hand. The word karate was used for some time orally before it was first written.[citation needed] The original use of the word karate in print is attributed to Anko Itosu. He wrote it with the kanji (Chinese characters) ??:??? (Tang Dynasty hand) rather than the present usage of ??:??? (empty hand). The Tang Dynasty of China ended in AD 907. The kanji representing it remained in use in Okinawa as a way to refer to China generally.[14] Thus the word karate was originally a way of expressing "Chinese hand," or "martial art from China."

Where is your sources to prove that Taekkyon and Subak are roots of Taekwondo, I am waiting still.

Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.241.143.218 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Where is your sources to prove that Taekkyon and Subak are roots of Taekwondo, I am waiting still." Well. read my sources at below. i do not want typing twice. and book of hwan kee, choi are evidence. I think you possibly are another id of JJL. Manacpowers (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the outcome of this is that you have changed the Tang Soo Do entry to reflect your unsupported beliefs. JJL (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

unsupported beliefs? well.. my edit based on various official site of tang soo do. and already proven sources. Manacpowers (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Whang Kee and Choi are not good sources. #1. All the leaders of taekwondo and Taekkyon say they lied, they say it in books and they told me in person. 2. Taekkyon movements are not found in their martial arts. #. You never trained in Taekkyon, I did, and I tell you it is completely different. Al Cole(MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.133.168 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me any academic sources please. What is the completely different? Well... Yeah, According to Your logic, TKD is a completely different from Karate. and I already leraned TKD and I have a 1 Dan. I learned TKD since i was age 8. I do not believe your claim.(are you Taekkyon learner?) well.. I already proved by actual evidence. 

Manacpowers (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers, you have not provided your sources. So far you have been wrong on every issue and keep repeating yourself. You say you have a 1st Dan? I doubt that very much. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

76.227.133.168, you still not provided academic sources. I already proved by various academic sources. So far you have been wrong on every issue and keep repeating yourself. You even learned taekkyon? You and JJL are not same person? I doubt that very much. Manacpowers (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism
This term was excised in a recent edit. The term is taken from Henning, as I indicated here: "The traditional Korean martial arts are but a vague memory and taekwondo a symbol born in the cradle of modern Korean nationalism(...)" (Stanley Henning, "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000):). The Dohrenwend series of articles says much the same thing in slightly different terms--referring, like Capener, to a broader set of political and social influences including and related to nationalism/Korean ethnocentrism. So, I think the use of this term in the article is well-supported by WP:RS. JJL (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * but a vague memory? it is not true.
 * taekkyeon and subak survived through underground teaching and folk custom. (eg. Song Duk-ki)
 * It seems like a He think Korean do not have their own martial arts. but this is ingorance. See Muyejebo, Muyedobotongji, Shippalgi etc. not vague memor. it recorded by BOOK.
 * I think it is not WP:RS. it is WP:QS.


 * sorry i am not good english. But JJL's edit rejected by mediators.
 * maybe We need more moderate. but your edit is very heavy Japanese POV pushing withour evidence.
 * and remeber. you are only one person who making disruptive edit of TKD's orgin.


 * JJL's edit #1.
 * "While some state that the art essentially vanished"
 * This given source is "Page not found" So i removed it.


 * JJL's edit #2
 * "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."
 * but who is the David Mitchell? actually, he is a karate teacher.
 * It is not neutral. so it is not suitable that his source apply to TKD page.


 * JJL's edit #3
 * Steven D. Well
 * Steven D. Well can't represent to all TKD. it is a personal essay.
 * I can't find any evidence. I still doubt his claim is real or not. it is still dispute.
 * first, We need reliable source that Testimony of TKD founder.
 * 2nd, We need reliable scientific data that How TKD simiar with karate.
 * it is nonsense that that is a acadmic journal.
 * Let's analyze this. Steven D. writed that document in 1995 winter. but upper title name is "Student forum"
 * in that time, He was a studnet. it's funny thing that report of univercity student can be a "eastablished theory"

JJL's edit is purely Japanese(Karate) POV. Currently JJL are the only person pushing that 'TKD is purely from karate' POV. Manacpowers (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * here is another academic journal of TKD. This source is more moderate than JJL and me. I found it from "scholar.google.com." and this is not favored source. this source is more close to Karate POV. However, even this source mentioned, "it can`t be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only."


 * And the others trained martial arts in Manchuria Therefore it can`t be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only.
 * the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk, so we know that the current TKD seems to be affected by Korean traditional martial arts.
 * I think this is a point of this matter. TKD do-jangs teached Korean folk. not karate. so "TKD is essentialy karate." is very unreasonable claim,


 * it would be objective view that TKD had been shaped by Karate mainly and by Manchurian and Korean traditional martial art. Manacpowers (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's from the abstract (and largely agrees with the previous sources)...can you give a full citation for this paper? To say it was "affected" by KMAs is vague but hopefully the body of the paper is more detailed. Karate in Korea was intentionally modified to conform with images and memories of older Korean arts, as the sources previously given indicate, but had little if any direct borrowings from such living arts. It was affected in that it was driven towards that remembered ideal. JJL (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * you make no sense. this is summary. also there is no wiki rules that "summary should not be accepted."(According to WP:RS, this is suitable as a Sources.) what is the abstract? do you know curriculum of tkd do-jangs? i just curious "what dojang teached Japanese karate skills?" There is NO dojang teaching Japanese karate skill. and.... According to your logic, TKD founder trained martial arts in Manchuria Therefore TKD is "koreanized" kungfu? huh? Manacpowers (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Un Yong Kim, past President of KTA, Kukkiwon, WTF, KSA, GASIF stated that he had to tie Taekwondo to Taekkyon in written history because Karate lobby was strong because of Judo in the IOC, and he feared that Karate would lobby to make Taekwondo go under the Karate umbrella. There is no evidence that any of the Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon, as a matter of fact, the evidence point out that they did not train in Taekkyon. Taekkyon kept good records, and the record shows no Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon. They only watched some Taekkyon, and heard the legends of Taekkyon, and that influenced the Kicking of Taekwondo. In actuality, the kicking of Taekwondo and Taekkyon are radically different, so different that it is hard to imagine they are even related. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.142.143 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * is 76.241.142.143 another ID of JJL?
 * "There is no evidence that any of the Taekwondo founders trained in Taekkyon?"
 * Well... show me evidence please.
 * Your claim is not true. for example, Choi Hong Hi leanred tekkyon 9th grade.
 * and some founder learned karate and kunfgu. however, TKD arts developer is not improved TKD arts from Karate skills. Basically, TKD arts developer seek their skills from tradional korean martial arts sources.

Here is the another acadmic journal sources,


 * their essential techniques are still basically same. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
 * Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
 * (repeat)Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
 * well... if you think TKD and tekkeyon are totally no relation each other... you must prove it by a academic souce for break this academic journal's logic. Modern TKD root from Tekkyon. some Kungfu, Karate.. etc...  influenced to TKD. However, it is unreasonable conclude that TKD is esstentially karate. JJL says,  "some TKD founder learned karate when he was a young, so TKD is a karate." this is nonsense. and this claim is not valid by TKD.(it means that his edit have a POV problem) also his source is not a widely accepted claim.(it means that his edit violate WP:RS, WP:V)  Manacpowers (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From the book "Taekkyon Kyobon", by Yong Bok Lee (leader of Taekkyon in Korea), Daewonsa Publishing Co., LTD. Korea 1995 ISBN 89-369-0162-1-00690

"All the records handed down of Taekkyon Practitioners show that from before the times of Song Duk Ki and recently, Shin Haeng Sang, that none of the pioneers of Taekwondo, or of the pre Taekwondo Kwans, trained in Taekkyon. Song Duk Ki, the patriarch of Taekkyon in modern times made this clear in his interview published in the Seoul News, on August 1, 1979."

From the book "Taekkyon Instruction Guide" by Yong Bok Lee, Published by Taekkyon Yunsuwon, (not for sale) 1997 Korea.

"CHOI Hong Hi's (Taekwondo Oh Do Kwan founder) claim to have learned Taekkyon has never been substantiated by him. It is a baseless claim as there is no record of the teacher he claims as Han Il Dong. It is also a fact that Taekkyon was a unique activity around the area of Seoul, and never existed in the North (Korea). Song Duk Ki and Shin Haeng Sang also refute Choi's claim and make notice that Taekwondo related to CHOI Hong Hi displays no elements of Taekkyon".

From an article in Taekwondo Times by Robert Young, Korean martial arts researcher and historian.

"It was not until 1968 that the public (of South Korea) was able to receive any exposure to Taekkyon. It took that long for Song (Song Duk Ki) and Shin (Shin Haeng Sang) to completely organize and systemize the art and their teaching method. It was also in that year that a kind of martial art feud erupted between the followers of Taekwondo and Taekkyon. Practitioners of both styles sought government approval as Intangible Cultural Assets, and both claimed to be the only true traditional martial art of Korea. Taekkyon proponents declared that it was the original creation, while opponents insisted Taekkyon was merely a subset of Taekwondo. In the end, an impartial board (Ministry of Culture) that the two arts were, in fact, different, but neither one was proclaimed a cultural asset." (until 1983, when Taekkyon was awarded that title [#76])

From my own personal experience as an American Taekkyon student of Yong Bok Lee. My World Taekkyon HQ member #002-63. Yong Bok Lee told me directly that no Taekwondo pioneers were students of Taekkyon. My practice of Taekkyon made it very obvious that there is no relation between the motive and the outcome of the two martial training methods. They are very different and not directly related.

I hope this helps to understand the truth. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.123.118 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"CHOI Hong Hi's (Taekwondo Oh Do Kwan founder) claim to have learned Taekkyon has never been substantiated by him. It is a baseless claim as there is no record of the teacher he claims as Han Il Dong.
 * still no evidence. Read Book of Choi Hong Hi, Cleary recorded that He learned Taekkyon. Here is the another source from ITF taekwondo.
 * "young Choi’s father sent him to study calligraphy under one of the most famous teachers in Korea, Mr. Han II Dong. Han, in addition to his skills as a calligrapher, was also a master of Taek Kyon, the ancient Korean art of foot fighting. The teacher, concerned over the frail condition of his new student, began teaching him the rigorous exercises of Taek Kyon to help build up his body."
 * you try to cut off relation with Taekkyon by your assumption. but my source is clear. if you do not believe book of general Choi, then what is the more reliable source, huh? ITF, WTF all TKD federations admit it. and WTF TKD is based on Taekkyon. Manacpowers (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

and you think there is no element of Taekkyon? well....... See this actual evidence. Manacpowers (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I am not JJL. Google "Al Cole Taekwondo" to find out who I am. I use my real name and my real e-mail, that way you can base what I say on my experience, not hiding. Someone told me about this page, so I checked it out, and there is a lot of confusion.

OK, I don't believe Choi, he was a liar, about many things. So you still have no evidence. You need better evidence than that. More reliable sources are found in Korea. You should go to Korea and experience Taekkyon. I believe the leaders of Taekkyon when they say Choi did not learn Taekkyon, and I believe my experience in both Taekwondo (ITF, KKW, etc) and Taekkyon. Have you ever trained in Taekkyon? Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.133.168 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't believe Choi, he was a liar?" Choi's book admit by Orginization of TKD. On the contrary, i think we dont believe karate pusher's fringe tehory.(actually, no evidence) well.. if you don't believe one of the TKD founder, that is your free decision and your own will, However, "your doubt" and "your assumption" must not apply to wikipedia. it can't be a established theory. and i still doubt you are JJL are not same person. Manacpowers (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * and i already proved by evidence. However, You still no evidence. well. you just believe your experience only. sorry to offend you. sorry, but true.Manacpowers (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL's Questionable sources
According to WP:RS says,
 * "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
 * "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"


 * by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article. Manacpowers (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:V says,
 * Questionable sources
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties. Manacpowers (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.Manacpowers (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I have requested page protection so that you will have to talk to get a compromise version up. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My attempts to talk have for the most part drawn only a single interlocutor, who largely just parrots my words back at me. See e.g. my attempt to discuss the removal of the word "nationalism" (Nationalism section above). Something stronger than this is needed. Since talking here, informal mediation, and formal mediation have all already failed, page protection is unlikely to accomplish much, I'd think. JJL (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit Backlog

 * Worth mentioning that in the ITF a head guard may be worn only in the Juniors division. (That comes from a (pre-existing) reference to their rules.) Gherson2 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

EDIT WAR
PLEASE will both of you stop deleting sources! From what I have seen most of both are valid, to support that people hold that view. Manacpowers: please understand that just because a link is broken it not a good reason to delete the entire source, especially when it cites a published journal and the link was for convenience., there are also ways of seeing what was there, also saying "Capener, Steven D, and David Mitchell soures are "NUll and Void"." is not constructive in the least as you are refusing to acknowledge that someone can hold a different point of view even if they are wrong. JJL: While I appreciate your frustration your edits still have a distinct POV to them if you could re phrase them as statmens of opinion rather then fact it would be most helpful in attemptin to find a compramise. I put a 3rr warning on both your talk pages, please read the policy, it states that 3 reverts is an 'electric fence' and that persistan dispruptive edditing can end in ablock even if the letter of not reverting more than 3 times in a day has been kept to. As neither of your edits, however disruptive, fall under Wikipedia's definition of Vandalism the exception dose not apply. Please can you at leas stop edit waring on the page and leave it to other editors to pic up on your comments here and read the sources to impove the article. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am presently working on a compromise version of the entire "Modern Taekwondo" section and expect to have it online later today. Naturally, several parties will wish to revise it; but hopefully it form another new starting point for a compromise.  The general principle involves avoiding extensive direct quotes, referring rather to the various sources and making relatively bland statements based on those sources.  Given the current charged atmosphere, I would suggest that both sides refrain from making strong statements that are characterized as incontrovertible fact.  I realize that both sides believe their strong statements are factual and justified, and neither side wishes to have those statements "watered down".  However, under the circumstances that will not resolve the present conflict.  I think that we need to consider the interests of the reader here; naturally the reader should be presented with accurate information, but the reader should not have to deal with an article that is in constant flux due to a conflict that presently involves only a handful of people.  To put it simply, it doesn't look good and doesn't help anything.
 * I would also suggest that everyone try to assume good faith and not be accusatory; let's focus on the data, not the personality issues. Omnedon (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also renamed the "Modern Taekwondo" section to "Development", to be more in line with other sections like "History", "Organizations", et cetera. "Modern" is a bit redundant, since Taekwondo began in the 20th century, and "Taekwondo" is the title of the article and probably doesn't need to be in the section heading as well. Omnedon (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL. your 2 source are absolutery ludicrous soures. well.. your source have a heavy POV problem(TKD do not recognize your extremist sources. and not wisely accept), my acadmic sources are wisely recognized sources and NO POV problem. (only one person who karate POV user protest it) Manacpowers (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote #7 (In Uk Heo)
What is the source here? A journal or publisher isn't given, and the link goes to a bibliographic entry for a paper entitled "Effects of Slit Configuration Factor on Heat Transfer Characteristics of Heat Exchanger with Slit Fin". JJL (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the hyperlink. I can't parse the special characters in the bibliographic entry in this link. Is the linked garbled English paragraph an abstract, an extract, a review, or a promotional blurb? Is this object a journal article or a textbook or an essay or a magazine article? Can you give a proper English language citation (journal name and number or book publisher and location) for the purpose of WP:V? I assume from the form of your reference that you're citing the source itself, not just this ambiguous automatically generated web page. Have you reviewed the article/book/essay? Frankly I hope it's a good source because it says "In conclusion, it would be objective view that TKD had been shaped by Karate mainly..." which is exactly the point I have been making, but I find it very hard to judge from what's been given here. JJL (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL, I didn't provide the source myself -- Manacpowers did. I presumed you had seen and read this before, since it has been in the article before, including this past week when the article was protected.  The summary is partly in Korean and partly in English.  I have included some of the references he provided as well as some of yours, as part of the compromise effort, and have added a new one of my own dealing with Korean history.  I would point out that you are quoting only a portion of a sentence from that page; that sentence goes on to refer to the influence of Manchurian and Korean martial arts, and an earlier sentence reads, "Therefore it can't be described as TKD is developed by influence of Karate only."  Omnedon (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you edited it in, it's your source. Once again, the references that you and Manacpowers put forward are overwhelmingly random stuff found on the web. You inserted this one and cannot even identify what it is! You don't know what type of document you're citing, you haven't read it, you can't say how to locate it for ILL, and you have only a poorly translated--summary, review, abstract?--of it to go by. I congratulate you on adhering rigourously to your consistently low standards for references and documentation. For any disinterested individuals who may be reading, this is exactly what's so frustrating (and why I sought mediation)--anything found floating on the web is given equal weight with "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCES) such as the ones I've cited (e.g., from the Journal of Asian Martial Arts and the Korea Journal, and other sources defended at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 4, esp. at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4). Mediation from someone conversant with WP:RS and WP:V and who was willing to look at the sources would be very helpful. JJL (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL: Calm down and be polite. Combativeness seems to be at the source of the problems that have lately surrounded this page, so I'd like to strongly encourage you not to immediately leap to attack any material that's not your own or that might be perceived as running counter to your own position. Calmness and an assumption of good faith can only help improve matters here, while rudeness and confrontationalism will only drag it back into edit warring. Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting good faith. I'm doubting familiarity with WP:RS and WP:V. Asking for a proper cite isn't an attack; it's basic to how WP is intended to work. Verifiability is the standard, and I'm asking that it be met. Given that the person inserting that source declines to provide details on it or defend it, it's clear that discussion is not an option here. JJL (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL, it is not my source. It is someone else's.  I combined and edited existing text from both sides, leaving existing sources in place; I didn't feel it would be helpful simply to remove other peoples' sources as you and Manacpowers have continually done, especially as part of an effort to reach compromise.  The one new source that I personally added, as part of today's work, is a published work available through the library that deals with Korean history generally and supports the fact that the Japanese subdued Korean culture during their occupation.  Omnedon (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you edit it in...it's your source. You're going to need to take responsibility for your own edits. This is just a continuation of the refusal to engage in discussion that led me to ask for an RFC and for mediation. JJL (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, it's not my source. The new compromise version of the section is a moderate combination of both sides, including sources from both sides that have been provided before.  You two would not compromise, preferring to simply engage in an edit war, insulting each other all the while; so I provided a compromise version from which we can move forward.  Your sources are not mine; Manacpowers' sources are not mine either.  They are both present in the article.  Omnedon (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:V for WP:RS indicate that WP:SOURCES may be "owned". They're either reliable or not. You inserted an unidentified source; whether you did it on your own behalf or that of your like-minded colleague is immaterial. Since you're not contesting that the source you inserted is unacceptable, I've removed it and the sentence for which it provided support. Again, mediation would be helpful here. The fundamental problem is a refusal to adhere to (or failure to understand) WP:RS and WP:V. In particular, not all sources are equal. Asking people to cite their sources is basic to how WP is meant to move forward. Willingness to rely on WP standards for sources would settle this matter almost immediately. JJL (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So why do YOU keep saying it was his source? Look please could you just not edit for a few days and let a neutral version get a chance to emerge. --Nate1481(t/c) 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He added it. Shouldn't he specify it? Do you realize that no one is able to specify whether it's a article, book, essay, etc.? We don't even know what it is. We don't know whether the web entry on it is a summary, abstract, or review. Does that seem like a reasonable source to you? This is throwing out the goal of an accurate, or at least verifiable, entry in order to placate those who have a vested interest in maintaining a myth. Look at WP:SOURCES: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses...". That's what I'm supplying. Omnedon has added in a mystery source and cited it. Regardless of whether or not he's responsible for it, all I'm asking is that we go by the usual WP standards. JJL (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * JJL, no one said sources are "owned"; instead, as Omnedon explained, he restored sources that both you and Manacpowers had previously cited in an effort to achieve a compromise version both sides could agree on. The wanton cutting and recutting of sources is part of what's been so contentious here, so please don't delete cites because you have a bad opinion of them.  You've already gotten a warning today on your talk page about such activity.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When a person edits something in and cites a source, it should follow WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, and WP:V. How did Omnedon get a pass on these fundamental rules of WP? To "please don't delete cites because you have a bad opinion of them" I say again that a read of WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, and WP:V makes it clear that choosing the best sources is an important part of what editors do here. I seem to be alone in not being willing to accept any random web entry as a valid source. As to "You've already gotten a warning today" that appears to be just an edit made by another editor, not a warning from an administrator--or am I mistaken? JJL (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * JJL, you're keeping saying that you've done everything to resolve the contentious edit warring with the other, but actually, you have not. You're repeating all the same (tedious) arguing along with Manacpower. You refused to either file another meditation or listen to other people's meditation. Omnedon is doing great jobs to resolve the issue on a neutral point position. He does not side any party, but why are you so aggressive against him? That kind of behaviors is disruptive. --Caspian blue (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think when you have to say "You refused to...file another meditation" that it rather goes to my point. I made the RFC, I filed the mediation. I would be delighted to have disinterested, informed observers comment on the quality of these sources and a fair way to present them. I'm trying to discuss sources here, which is encouraged (e.g., it's a goal of the the page protection), but when I try to do it, those without adequate sources stonewall again. Omnedon is hardly neutral (see the Talk archive). He's on a side of this and has repeatedly promised to provide sources to support his opinion, though they have yet to materialize. I don't intend to refrain from editing while a partisan editor edits.


 * I've always tried to work with attempts at compromise--this latest one, the previous one by Nate1481, and so on--and usually have been repaid by blind reversions from Manacpowers and sometimes others. But working with other editors doesn't mean not removing ludicrous non-sources. JJL (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is no one willing to discuss the quality of various sources here? Do people really believe that all sources are created equal? That's not WP policy. JJL (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

All sources are not created equal. Most of the sources I see listed here, the few actually, are terrible. To know about Taekwondo history, you have to talk to, or read from the men who were actually there, not some guy writing a paper, or some fame seeker writing a book. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) 76.241.143.218 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL. your 2 source are absolutery ludicrous soures. well.. your source have a heavy POV problem(TKD do not recognize your extremist sources. and not wisely accept), my acadmic sources are wisely recognized sources and NO POV problem. (only one person who karate user protest it) and, you think tekkyon was essentially vanished before 1950? well... then, how can modern tekkyon still exist? huh? modern tekkyon fall from the sky suddenly?? huh? you claim is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. TKD mainly influenced by tekkyon. this fact proved by various academic sources. Manacpowers (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Taekkyon is growing in Korea today at a rapid rate. There are hundreds of training centers all over Korea and hundreds of thousands of students. There are also training centers in France, Canada, Khazakstan and soon in the USA. The Korea Taekkyon Association and the World Taekkyon Federation both disagree with you, they state there is no influence on Taekwondo by Taekkyon. I know, I train in Taekkyon. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.241.143.218 (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well... sorry your claim is not accepted by TKD. TKD headquarter OFFICIALLY admit that their root is Taekkyon. need more explain? Manacpowers (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between claims and admitting. Example, Kukkiwon claims Taekwondo comes from Taekkyon, however, all of the current Kwan leaders admit that - that story, is not accurate.

I have already showed you links to these examples, and I can show you another.

Taekwondo Han Moo Kwan President and one of the authors of the Kukkiwon Textbook you read that story in, Kyo Yoon Lee wrote in his book Global Taekwondo, Hanmi Publishing Co. 2003, page 3 Taekwondo After Liberation from Japan August 15, 1945

"The times before the liberation are thought to belong to the history of ancient martial arts [Taekkyon], not to the history of Taekwondo".

So what we have is a group of Korean masters who learned Karate, and a few that dabbled in Kung Fu (Chuanfa), and none that learned Taekkyon.

Taekwondo has it's roots back to Karate, however, today, Taekwondo is very different from Karate. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TKD root from Taekkyon, and TKD influenced by Subak, Kungfu, Karate, Shaolin... etc.(karate is one of them) May Grade system borrow from karate. the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk. so we know that the current TKD seems to be affected by Korean traditional martial arts. Manacpowers (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The curriculum of the 9 Kwan Dojangs was centered around the Pyong Ahn Hyung, or in Japanese language, the Heian Kata and their accompanning advanced Kata like Bassai (Balsek), Jite (Sisoo), and many others. All from Karate. I recommend that you try reading more about Karate history and study some of the Karate forms and compare. Good luck. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is very frustrating--anyone familiar with early TKD knows that most early TKDers were originally wearing Karate uniforms, practicing Karate kata, and in general doing literal Karate. JJL (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I already recognized that dobok and Grade systems similar with Karate. Possibly Karate system influenced it. but if you think TKD is essentially karate. then you MUST prove by scientific or statistics data. not only karate but also taekyon, kungfu... etc influenced to TKD. (root is Taekkyon)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manacpowers (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You still do not show any evidece. show me curriculm of TKD. I do not deny some karate system influenced to TKD. However, it can't be a support your hyperbolic position that TKD is "repackaged Shotokan". According to your logic, Karate is not Japanese martial arts. It is invented by China.(actually, this is true) not only root of their skill but also many skill name and karate name("The way of Chinese hand") derived from China. it is a "repackaged Kungfu" OK? even karate learned korean did not say, It is Japanese martial arts. It is Chinese martial arts modified by Okinawan. even 19 century Japanese recognized Karate is "foreign" martial arts. every martial arts influenced by each other. Manacpowers (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo 121.135.161.47 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
 * Author : In Uk Heo
 * Date : 2004
 * Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
 * Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
 * Keyword : Taekwondo

Moving Forward
I feel that mediation is the best way to move forward. That's why I requested it. Unfortunately several of those who said they'd participate did not do so and it was ultimately closed with no resolution. I still feel that formal mediation is the best approach here. Those who feel that TKD is (mostly or purely) of Korean origin are strongly invested in that. It's clear to me that the sources say otherwise, as it is clear to other editors who have posted here that Karate is the root of TKD (e.g., 76.241.142.143 and Ptkd).

It's been my intention from the beginning to discuss the various sources available and summarize them in encyclopedic fashion. I am attempting to follow WP:SOURCES, WP:V, WP:RS, with an eye toward WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I've made many attempts to seek consensus; e.g., Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4. No one is willing to actually discuss the matter here. That's the problem. I am always met with stonewalling.

I don't see how things can progress short of mediation or formal dispute resolution. However, I'm open to ideas. See the previous archives to see that editing holds etc. have all failed previously. Until someone is willing to discuss the sources for both sides in light of WP:SOURCES, WP:V, WP:RS and give those sources fair weight, I fear that this is going nowhere. Too many people have too much invested in the myths told them by their instructors. JJL (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well. current moderated version is not my style, too. however, i recognize that Omnedon did a great effort. I know He is a neutral editor. well, you are only one person who make disruptive edit war. and i still doubt that you and 76.241.142.143 are not same person. (sock?)

This is Widely Accepted OFFICIAL information of TKD. However, JJL's edit is making TKD is 'purely karate' from extrimist sources. again, by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.


 * their essential techniques are still basically same. Especially, their foot skills are exactly same which nobody can tell the differences.
 * I think these 3 sources are more moderate than JJL and Me. These 3 source do not say, TKD is purely from Korean tekkyon. root of TKD is tekkyon. but kungfu, karate... etc... also influenced to TKD.(like grade system from karate) Manacpowers (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL's Questionable sources
According to WP:RS says,
 * "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
 * "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"


 * by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article. Manacpowers (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:V says,
 * Questionable sources
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties. Manacpowers (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. Manacpowers (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL, the solution here can begin very simply: be less extreme, less hostile, and more open to compromise when it is offered. When mediation was started, I did participate, and provided an additional source in my summary, but nothing came of the mediation. When the article was protected last week due to you and Manacpowers engaging in repeated edit warring, the goal was a cooling-off period so that you two could discuss and compromise; but instead, you said almost nothing until the protection was lifted, at which time you immediately began reverting again and have repeatedly been uncivil in your comments.

I have never personally claimed to be neutral, although I do take a middle-of-the-road position, seeing that most sources point to taekwondo being a Korean martial art which was influenced by other non-Korean martial arts (which was probably inevitable, given Korea's proximity to Japan and China, and the fact that Japan actually occupied Korea). Naturally, I have a view and am involved. Clearly, however, some see me as relatively neutral since I am willing to work toward compromise and since I am able to discuss without resorting to ad hominem arguments.

None of the current participants is insisting that karate had no influence on taekwondo; in fact Manacpowers has clearly stated that his own sources tell him that karate influenced taekwondo. I agree, as I have repeatedly stated. I believe Nate has also indicated agreement with that general idea. The article presently indicates this influence clearly, citing (among others) the Capener source upon which you depend (the neutrality of which has been questioned here). Here is a quotation and source that has not yet been used in the article, but now will be:

"The turbulent years that spanned the first half of the twentieth century found many Korean martial artists whose lives were in jeopardy by virtue of their art, emigrating to Japan or China where they were assigned work or worse, conscripted to serve the very military machine that was actively crushing their homeland. Here in these foreign lands, Korean masters were not only permitted to practice the martial arts forbidden by imperial rule back home, but to earn advancement and teaching credentials as well.  Pivotal figures such as General Choi, Hong Hi, Won Kuk Lee and Hwang Kee were beneficiaries of this dubious yet practical historical aberration.  Borrowing from a variety of provincial styles, these pioneers and others would later return to Korea then under a different sort of domination albeit more benign, to launch or create martial arts and enduring organizations of their own with a distinctly Korean flavor yet colored by cultural impressions and method accumulated abroad." --

And another quote from the same chapter of the same book: "Compiling an accurate history of this period, when taekwondo was in its formative stages, is difficult at best given the erratic nature of its documentation.  Major occurrences were seldom committed to paper and when they were, risked destruction at the hands of opposing forces."

So here is a recently-published work which includes a bibliography section of its own and clearly indicates that the founders of taekwondo were Korean martial artists who also learned other non-Korean martial arts during the occupation, and that taekwondo is not simply repackaged karate. The current "Development" section indicates this, is straightforward, avoids most or all of the earlier POV statements, and cites various supporting sources. Omnedon (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Manacpowers, I appreciate your positive comments about the present version, but you say that it is not your style. Can you describe what you do not like about it?  It's only a first effort and undoubtedly will need some changes to make it as acceptable as possible to all involved parties. Omnedon (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Omnedon. i know you did a great job as much as you possible. I appreciate your mediation effort and your polite behavior.


 * but, i think "some believe" is not a good word. because, according to OFFICIAL website of TKD, various academic reports, Song Duk-ki and his martial arts skill books, orginization of Tekkyon site, many various evidence prove that tekkyon was not a essentially vanished. also tekkyon martial arts still exist in nowdays.(if tekkyon was a essentially vanished, then, what is the modern days tekkyon? is it fall from the sky suddenly?) None of the evidence is insisting that tekkyon was essentially vanished. i think this word "some believe they were still practiced in secret" change to "taekkyeon' survived through underground teaching and folk custom".Manacpowers (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No one insist that Tekkyon is not a tradinial korean martial arts. and no one insist that Tekkyon is a essentially vanished. someone say, TKD and taekkyeon are totally no relation each other. i think this is a only JPOV claim. JPOV claimer try to cut off relation with TKD and Korean tradional martial arts. but, actually TKD arts are very similar with Taekkyon. and TKD arts developer seek their skills from their own tradional martial arts. And considering the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk. and one of the TKD founder Hwang Kee, learned not only Taekkyon, but also Kungfu, karate, subakdo. one of the TKD founder Choi Hong hee, learned not only Taekkyon, but also karate. after founding, many TKD skill developer seek their skills from Korean tradional martial arts.(also, it is unreasonable conclude that TKD shaped by founder only. after founding, many successors developed their skills by their own way) After all, TKD is cleary distinguished from Kungfu, karate. so, it is unreasonable claim that TKD is a influenced by karate only. Root of TKD is taekkyon(seek their skills from taekkyon), but also some systems influenced by kungfu, karate... etc... I think this is reasonable conclusion.Manacpowers (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer this question. Who were the Taekwondo seniors who learned Taekkyon, and who were their teachers?

Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.241.143.218 (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

76.241.143.218(possibly JJL?) Answer this question. you still do not show that source of curriculum of early TKD. TKD founder Hwang Kee, learned not only Taekkyon, but also Kungfu, karate, subakdo. one of the TKD founder Choi Hong hee, learned not only Taekkyon, but also karate. read the book of CHoi Hong hi, and Hwang kee. "my own personal experience..." we do not need believe your rumor.Manacpowers (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Taekkyon, the circular kicking art, was still popular at this time regardless of the fact that gang members were busily corrupting its defensive nature by using it as a form of physical harassment against their fellow citizens. Despite this unfortunate use of the discipline, on September 1, 1946, Grandmaster Byung In Yoon founded a taekkyon club at the Kyung Sung Agricultural High School in Seoul." --  Omnedon (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Manacpowers, I understand why you don't like the "some believe" sentence about taekkyeon. However, to be fair, autobiographical accounts and sources from TKD-related websites would need to be backed up by other independent sources.  It is at least true to say, "Some believe they were still practiced in secret."  That much is sourced and cannot be questioned; so since this is a compromise situation, it shouldn't be stated as absolute fact without more sources (in my opinion). Omnedon (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Cook is not a good source. He was on a discussion list that I belonged to and it became plain to everyone that he collected a lot of misinformation. First, YOON Byeong In did not learn Taekkyon. He learned Chuanfa and then Karate from Toyama and Mabuni Senseis. He is listed in Toyama's book as a Shihan (Sabum). People who were not there should not write books about what happened. Doug Cook is an example of that. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. According to your logic, then, Dohrenwend, Burdick, Henning's sources(proved by JJL) are not good, too. They did not learn TKD. Capener, Dohrenwend(karate affiliated), Burdick(karate affiliated), Henning(karate affiliated) collected a lot of misinformation.Manacpowers (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

None of them are good sources. And you are wrong, Capener is a Taekwondo person rom Montana who taught for many years at Ewa Women's College in Korea. Again, you have no clue to what you are talking about. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.133.168 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You still do not show evidence. According to your logic, Dohrenwend(karate affiliated), Burdick(karate affiliated), Henning(karate affiliated) collected a lot of misinformation. Those are not good for source. They did not lerned TKD. and karate side author. Capener source is personal essay without scientific evidence. Manacpowers (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * and Capener's document made in 1995. In 1995, Capener was not a Ph. D. of Ewa Women's College. In 1995, he was a Student in Korea. This student thought, "some TKD founder learned Karate when he was a young, so, TKD is repackaged Karate." He talk nonsense. One of TKD founder, Hwan kee, learned Kungfu, He said His martial art heavily influenced by Kungfu. Karate is just passing through of Kungfu. (of course, He learend Subak, Taekyon, too. after that, He seek his main skill from Korean tradtional martial arts BOOK Muyedobotongji, developed his TKD skill) and I already said, TKD is not shaped by Founder only. not only founder but also many succesors improved their skills. Many TKD arts developer seek their skills from Korean traditional martial arts. they did not think "I developed Karate!" OK? Capener's claim is debase TKD's dignity. and,.... the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk. Manacpowers (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Al, it is frankly absurd to suggest that one may not write about something if one was not present at that time and place. Do you know how many valuable historical works would have to be discarded if that was an actual rule? It's all about research. Of course, Wikipedia isn't about doing original research, but rather about citing existing research to establish verifiability. Doug Cook did his research and provided a bibliography in his book, which includes three chapters on Korean and Taekwondo history -- not just a few pages. You have made a claim about his reliability based on some personal knowledge you say you have; however, your personal opinion of him is not a basis for excluding his book as a source. Omnedon (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Oops, I apologize. I was hoping to add real life experience to the debate.

I agree it sounds absurd to you and possible many others. However for me, it's a bit different. I personally know, and have conversations with the people who were actually there. I get the information mostly first hand, or as first hand as it gets. Who did Doug Cook, Dakin and others have discussion with in order to gather the information in his book? I know you don't know me, but a little research and you could find out. I'm letting you know who I am so that you know from what experience I speak. Does that mean I am always right, no, I constantly find out new information and change my point of view, however, the sources of that change tend to be the people that were present in the formation of Taekwondo, not an author of a book who got his info from a book, who got his info from a book and so on. I use to believe that Taekwondo came from Taekkyon too, just like the Kukkiwon Textbook states. That all changed when I began to practice Taekkyon, and when I had a long discussion with Chong Woo Lee. Do you know him? I don't just go to Korea myself and make things up, I like to share what I learn. I even take many people with me when I go, so they can experience things first hand.

www.lacancha.com/jidokwangreats.html

I'm the westerner without the glasses in the back

www.lacancha.com/jido3.html

I'm the only westerner in the photo up front

www.lacancha.com/alcole.html

If you ever want to go experience Korean martial arts in Korea e-mail me. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Al, I was referring to your statement that one may not write about something if one was "not there". There are modern works being written about events throughout history.  The people that write them were not involved in the Civil War, or the Renaissance, or the Jurassic period, or whatever.  By your logic they should not write about them.  That is the absurdity to which I was referring. Omnedon (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said, "may not", I said should not. Go back and read it. Very different meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.105.20 (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

People do make guesses about the Jurassic Period and the Civil War, and then write books about it to amuze those of us who are interested.

But we don't have that problem with Taekwondo. Men like Chong Woo Lee, Soon Bae Kim, Kyo Yoon Lee, Nam Tae Hi, Um Woon Kyu, Hae Man Park and Byeong Jick Roh are still alive and we can ask them directly. Even until just a few years ago, people were asking Won Kuk Lee directly about Taekwondo history. Are you familiar with the men I mentioned? Do you consider the men above to be credible sources of information on Taekwondo? Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.133.168 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

History
The third and fourth paragraphs in the history section appear to discuss the same thing, though they are not identical. They probably need to be merged, including the information from both present paragraphs. Omnedon (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

''The oldest Korean martial art was an amalgamation of unarmed combat styles developed by the three rival Korean kingdoms of Goguryeo, Silla and Baekje.[17] Young men were trained in unarmed combat techniques to develop strength, speed, and survival skills. The most popular of these techniques was subak, with taekkyeon being the most popular of the segments of subak.''

The oldest Korean martial arts were ARMED combat styles. Unarmed techniques were taught only as a means for training. In the Muye dobo tongji (1791) the author quotes the Chinese general Qi in saying: The author considered that although this type of training had little value for large-scale battle, it was nevertheless useful to train bodily flexibility, reflexes, hands speed, quick yet solid footwork and jumping capacity, all of which were very valuable for a warrior. Now remember that the book in which general Qi says this, the Ji Xiao Xin Shu (1561), was also the source for the Muyejebo.

I am not denying that Korean didn't have some sort of unarmed combat, but I can't agree on 'the oldest Korean martial art was an amalgamation of unarmed combat styles'. Korea's oldest martial arts were an amalgamation of ARMED combat styles. Kbarends (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Taekwondo: Core Techniques, History and Philosophy
This is a technique book full of photos, by a practitioner of the art, that has a section on history at the front of the book. It contains such partisan statements as "resulting in taekwondo assuming its rightful place as a global martial art" (emphasis added; pg.29) in the history section, and later a section on "Practices cultivating the Ki flow" (on pg.43 we have the well-documented scientific fact that "this posture encourages a free flow of Ki, or internal energy, to circulate...""). From here : "Doug Cook holds a 5th Dan Black Belt in the Korean martial art of taekwondo and is certified as an instructor...Mr. Cook owns and operates the Chosun Taekwondo Academy located in Warwick, New York – an institute specializing in traditional martial arts instruction and Ki, or internal energy, development.". In describing his work on the previous book, he states "...I almost felt I was being guided by an external force that was using me to disseminate this knowledge." (TKD Times, March 2005, pg.67). (Incidentally, on the same page he says: "Like it or not...Tae Kwon Do owes much of its pedigree to foreign influences, some of which are rooted in Funakoshi's Shotokan Karate-do and, to a lesser extent, Chinese Kung-fu. Consequently, [early TKD] contained a complete palate of defensive techniques..." (emphasis added).) There's no indication that he has an academic background in history, or that he speaks Korean. He's an instructor of the very art, writing in history (outside his area of expertise) in a photo book of TKD techniques. Please, I beg you, take a look at WP:SOURCES: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That page indicates that peer-reviewed sources such as the ones I have repeatedly provided are to be strongly preferred over...well, Taekwondo instruction books by TKD school owners. It's likely true that, as suggested above on this Talk page, there are as many sources that support one side as there are those that support the other; that's why WP policy is to take superior sources primarily, as outlined in detail in the pages I have previously cited. The Cook book is not a good source. JJL (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well.. then, David Mitchell who karate teacher's source is neutral? huh? also Steven D source is still dispute by his extrimist opinion. and his personal opinion is Questionable sources(WP:QS). actually, TKD affiliate know TKD more than any other people in this planet. i think Omnedon's edit is limit of moderated edit. there is no need change modern taekwondo history section more.(but i still do not 100% agree with his edit) I already pointed out that  your edit is not suitable edit in wikipedia. you just repeat one sided POV rv... rv... repeat... even mediator Caspian blue said, "JJL, you're keeping saying that you've done everything to resolve the contentious edit warring with the other, but actually, you have not. You're repeating all the same (tedious) arguing along with Manacpower. You refused to either file another meditation or listen to other people's meditation. Omnedon is doing great jobs to resolve the issue on a neutral point position. He does not side any party, but why are you so aggressive against him? That kind of behaviors is disruptive." Manacpowers (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * and JJL, your sources are only 3.(not various)


 * 1. "While some state that the art essentially vanished"
 * Tekkyon was not a essentially vanished. Taekkyon still survival. I can't read whole artice.. but this claim is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. and most important thing is...... This given source is "Page not found".


 * 2. "According to David Mitchell, "All taught Japanese-influenced systems."
 * but who is the David Mitchell? actually, he is a karate teacher. It is not a neutral. He do not know TKD well. so it is not suitable that his source apply to TKD page. we do not need karate teacher's POV pushing source.
 * and most important thing is.... we can't read whole article from your source. you pick a only one sentence from book. by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. and, by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.


 * 3. Your only valid source is Steven D's source. but still dispute. No TKD federations admit his claim. by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on such sources." Manacpowers (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to discuss the Cook book in this section. JJL (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard
Hope springs eternal, and so I have started a section at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on the Heo and Cook references. If anything comes of it I'll do the same for Capener etc. later. JJL (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo, In Uk Heo
 * Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
 * Author : In Uk Heo
 * Date : 2004
 * Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
 * Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
 * Keyword : Taekwondo Manacpowers (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's helpful. JJL (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a second entry for the Capener etc. sources. JJL (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources at Taekwondo--Burdick, Capener, Dohrenwend, Henning References.
I've been arguing at Talk:Taekwondo that the following are highly reliable sources, at least in comparison to other available sources which in comparison lack independence and peer-review, and that these should be given relatively greater weight. I'd appreciate feedback on that. See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 and other parts of that page for further discussion and details.

Capener: Steven D. Capener, Ph.D. (formerly a professor at Ewha Womans University, Korea), "Problems in the Identity and Philosophy of T'aegwondo and Their Historical Causes"; in the (peer-reviewed, ISI--indexed) Korea Journal (Winter 1995 ), also available here. The article was written while he was completing his doctoral studies.
 * Steven D. Capener source is still dispute by his extrimist opinion. Most importan thing is.... No TKD orginization admit his claim. It mean this source have a serious POV problem. This fringe theories should only be used as sources about themselves. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.
 * According to WP:QS says, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
 * According to WP:QS says, extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
 * Last, final moderated edit version(made by other user) use Steven D. Capener source as sources about themselves. Check TKD article and see Reference 9.

Dohrenwend: Robert Dohrenwend, Ph.D., "The Truth about Taekwondo (Parts 1,2)", Dragon Times #22-23 (continued in Classical Fighting Arts #1,2 ); excerpt here. Dragon Times and its replacement Classical Fighting Arts are well-respected, serious magazines with academically-trained editorial boards. Classical Fighting Arts is endorsed by the The Library Journal.
 * well, given source is "Karate Dojo News". This source have a heavy Karate POV problem. author is Karate affiliated. and author is not a neutral editor. He said, TKD history is 'RUBBISH!'. I think this expression is not in a acadmic sources category. It is not suitable in wikipedia. in fact, his fact is karate sided fact.
 * Last, final moderated edit version(made by other user) use Burdick source as sources about themselves. Check TKD article and see Reference 13.

Burdick: Dakin Burdick, M.A., "People & Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years," volume 6, number 1 (1997), in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Asian Martial Arts. The article contains a great deal of additional information. For more on JAMA see here, including the Library Journal recommendation of it. Expanded version of the article here.
 * same as above.
 * Last, final moderated edit version(made by other user) use Burdick source as sources about themselves. Check TKD article and see Reference 14.

Henning: Stanley Henning, M.A., "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000): On Prof. Henning's credentials and the regard in which his work is held see, ,.
 * We already discussed in here.
 * I answered by These source.

JJL (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well. He picke up from His convenience POV sources. I think those sources are not neutral. (little bit POV problem) However, These sources are already use in main Article as source itself. so, it is worthless discuss.

According to WP:RS says,
 * "extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources."
 * "fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), should only be used as sources about themselves"


 * by the WP:RS, Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources. It should only be used as sources. JJL's sources must remain as a sources.(not in article) It must not contain In main body article.

According to WP:V says,
 * Questionable sources
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties.
 * by the WP:V, Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves as described below. Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources.

Point is... '''"Articles should not be based primarily on extremist sources." "fringe theories should only be used as sources about themselves"'''

On the contrary, JJL delete TKD Academic source without consensus. This action opposed by various users.
 * opposed by Nate1481
 * opposed by Huwmanbeing Manacpowers (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL, you seem to dislike any sources except the ones that you use to support your own position. Doug Cook researched his subject and included three chapters on history in his book on taekwondo, the title of which includes "history and philosophy", thus taking it beyond a work that deals only with techniques.  Various sources of various types are currently used in the article.  They all have value and should not simply be ignored because someone feels that one is superior to another.


 * The article, as it stands, states that taekwondo was influenced by karate, and includes your sources. What is there that you cannot accept?  You seem now to be arguing simply about what sources should be allowed to be cited in the article; but it already includes the essence of your position as one possibility.  However, not everyone agrees with you on that, and not all sources support your position; so it is not stated as incontrovertible fact, and other positions are also described.


 * You have consistently failed to abide by the basic rules listed at the top of the talk page: be polite, assume good faith, no personal attacks, be welcoming.  To be fair, so have some of those who disagree with you.  I would just suggest that everyone focus on the data and not engage in attacks. Omnedon (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "You seem now to be arguing simply about what sources should be allowed to be cited in the article..." Yes, this is my understanding of how things work. Editors don't put in their personal views--they report what's in WP:RS, adhering to a standard of WP:V. What you are disparaging is what we should be doing. If we do finally have an academic source that says that TKD is Korean, then that can be included...but to my knowledge no one has read that source, just a poorly translated web review/summary/abstract/? of it, which isn't sufficient. My frustration is due to your and Manacpowers' unwillingness to engage in discussion of the sources. This refusal to discuss, beginning in the most recent Talk archive and through here, prevents things from moving forward. We seem to disagree as to whether every document is of equal value and must be given equal weight. Perhaps if you read the WP articles on sources that I have repeatedly cited you'd understand my position on this. As to being uncivil, I feel another user here has surely eclipsed me on that, but as he agrees with your POV you seem to see that as less of a problem.


 * I created a section to discuss the quality of the Cook reference at Talk:Taekwondo. You didn't respond. Apparently your intention is to ignore criticism of this source and plow on as though it represents "research". JJL (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... there is no rules that summary of academic journal must not citing as a source. if you want see full text, you must pay a fee and download it, or i can prove this by a PDF file. However, I don't have a Server. JJL, your edit is not a equal value. as i see, current edit is very equal and contained each stance. so, you can't complain this. (even i still do not 100% agree with current edit) Manacpowers (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and JJL, Wikipedia is not your blog. cleary, your stance is "My source are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. others are NOT" It seems like you want removing other user's sources as possible as you can. Look their are people in the world who do not agree with you, whether they are right or wrong, they exist, there are people who believe that the world was created in 7 days by an all powerful supreme being, agree or disagree they exist. THAT is what is not in dispute, most obviously as you are aguing with one of them who can point you by means of sources at several others. It is incredably frustrating talking to someone who already thinks they know what you are going to say, and refuses to acknowlage that you have not. Manacpowers (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

JJL: The book Omnedon cites seems a perfectly legitimate source, with only your assertions that the author is biased or unqualified standing against it. It may not be a flawless source, but no source is, and problems can be found with anything if you try hard enough. For instance:


 * Steven Carpener: His degrees are in "sports science" (not history) from the University of Montana and "sports philosophy" (again, not history) from Seoul National University — he therefore has no authority to speak on the history of the art. He's been a practitioner and ardent competitor in TKD for many years — he therefore can't be considered an unbiased third party.


 * Robert Dohrenwend states, "As the martial arts were often developed, transmitted, and practiced in secret, precise historical conclusions are impossible." If it's impossible to draw precise historical conclusions, then he can't speak authoritatively.  He also writes in ways that strongly suggest bias: "The ITF founder and president is not only determined to have a sport, he is equally determined to gain fame as the originator of Tae Kwon Do. His comments reveal an ego problem unbecoming to a martial arts master."  He's also a contributor to "Dragon Times Magazine: The Voice of Traditional Karate in America" and can therefore be considered biased toward karate.


 * Stanley Henning's focus is on Chinese martial arts, not Korean, and admits to "floating on the periphery of the martial arts community". His MA is in "Overseas Operations", he teaches English, and is an "assistant professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies" — I'm not sure how this relates academically to Korean martial arts history.  Presumably both biased and unqualified.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not attacking these writers or their work, but merely making a point that practically any writer can be attacked as being biased, unqualified, etc. (And easily too -- the above results were from just a few minutes of Googling, so I'm sure much stronger objections could be posed with more time.) However... such wrangling is unproductive, unseemly, likely unjust, and at odds with Wikipedia guidelines.

I'd like to think that all the contributors here share the goal of producing a good article, collaboratively produced, that clearly and fairly describes the history and practice of Taekwondo. This will never happen if you persist in seeking to attack or tear down any source that opposes your position. I urge you to work cooperatively and accept compromise. Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, it's good to look at WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Cook book isn't footnoted, isn't peer-reviewed, etc. Despite any objections against the authors of the other items, they are published in "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (i.e., peer-reviewed journals). They are footnoted and hence their claims can be verified, and they're peer-reviewed to weed out biases and incompetence. They're the best available sources so far. This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history...". Those are the types of sources I've provided. The Korean sources may be of comparable quality, but not even those editing them in have checked the articles themselves, only translated web-summaries of unverified quality. That isn't enough--to cite a source, you must check it. (Academic historians get in lots of trouble for citing sources they haven't personally examined.) The difference seems quite clear to me in light of WP:RS. Shouldn't WP:RS control here? JJL (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL, your intent with the section on the Cook reference seemed to be to get other input from other people. You already know my views on that source.  You claim that somehow your sources are better because the people are somehow more independent; but in fact all of them have ties to the martial arts, and their mode of writing indicates a bias.  I'm not saying the sources should not be used; and they have been discussed, despite your dogged insistence that they have not.  You can see the discussion taking place on this very page.


 * The point I was making is that you don't seem to be discussing the contents of the article, but only the sources and which are "allowed". The sources are vital, but are a means to an end, which is to improve the article (ideally to good article and ultimately to featured article status.  What is in the article, as it now stands, that you cannot live with?  Let's move forward.  Omnedon (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This probably merits a new section. I'll start one below. JJL (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL: Where does WP:RS say that a source must be footnoted to be an acceptable WP cite? Where does it say it must be peer-reviewed?  You seem rather oddly to be of the opinion that only journal articles are acceptable, or that if you have a journal and a book (even one with good bibliographic citations, as Omnedon's has), that you must dump the book.  Nowhere does WP:RS say this.  If you can find that passage, I'd enjoy seeing it.


 * I have no interest in disputing your sources — as far as I'm concerned, they're fine. However, as I've already illustrated, objections of the sort you so easily throw toward others can easily be raised to question the appropriateness or neutrality of your own authors.  Dragon Times, for instance, doesn't strike me as a scholarly journal.  Note too that the Journal of Asian Martial Arts publishes poetry, fiction and is "copiously illustrated" (which was one of your objections to the Traditional Taekwondo "photobook") — this may be kosher, but it does suggest that a) it's rather different from many scholarly journals, and b) you're applying your standards inconsistently.  Personally questioning other authors' credentials while arguing that your own are immune from such questions also underscores this.


 * Again, I don't want to get dragged into a huge argument about the relative merits of specific sources, since that's the whole problem; suffice to say that WP:RS does not forbid sources other than journals from appearing in the page, and you need to respect that. Your sources appear; others will too.  To suggest that only yours are reliable and only yours should be used isn't supported by any policy I've found, and flies in the face of guidelines than encourage cooperation, collaboration and an assumption of good faith.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since a cursory perusal of what I wrote shows that I didn't say the things you're attributing to me ("must be footnoted" etc.), it's difficult to argue with you on this. Your objections aren't grounded in WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, or WP:V. The point is that some sources are more reliable than others, and WP:RS lays that out in a way that seems clear to me. I'm suggesting that precedence should be given to the more reliable and more valued (per WP:RS) sources, and lesser weight to the less reliable sources (e.g., Cook). If you're unwilling to discuss the merits of varying sources, then you're taking all claims to have equal standing. They don't. The page should reflect the prevailing view of disinterested, peer-reviewed scholarly publications--TKD had its origins primarily in Karate--while also acknowledging the fact that proponents believe otherwise. (Do we have any non-TKDers holding that view? All the cites I've seen to that have been from Korea and/or TKDers.) Let me ask you a question; when WP:RS states that certain sources are "are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources", what if anything is meant by that language? JJL (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't quoting you, only expressing your position (which repeated outright cutting of sources supports). Still, if you agree that other sources are indeed admissible and reliable, then that's fine and we have no problem on that front.  I see you suggest that I give all claims equal standing, but I don't.  Sources do need to be judged for their credibility.  However, your position that the book Omnedon cites is unreliable isn't supported by WP:RS.  Where does it state that such publications aren't reliable?  Peer-reviewed journals tend to be reliable, yes, but other sources can be reliable too.  It's inappropriate to assert that only your own sources pass muster in this regard; if this isn't your position, then we're cool.


 * As for what's meant by the statement that "certain sources are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources", I presume it means what it says — that certain types of sources tend to be reliable. I wouldn't argue that it means that all such sources are equally reliable, though, or indeed that it's clear what publications should be considered in this class.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward (part 2)
Omnedon asks about my objections to the article as it currently stands. Focusing only on the "Development" section: The Morris reference is fully unreliable and should be removed. The Heo reference is misleading as it appears to cite the source document but in fact only uses a poorly translated web summary--Manacpowers grants that he has not read the article--and hence is also inadmissible until the underlying article is actually consulted; the same for Choi Young-Ryul and Jeon Jeong-Woo.

The triple "Some believe..." construct is the biggest problem for me. It grants equal weight to all sides, yet the best sources (per WP:RS, which values some sources more highly than others) clearly support the "evolved from an overwhelmingly Shotokan base" position. I'd like to see the best-supported view given prominence with the other two documented views mentioned, including a return of the Capener quote:

"This process of development can be broadly outlined as follows: Japanese karate called kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors. Well after these schools became established, the need to 'Koreanize' was felt. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and development within the historical flow of Korean civilization."

This summarizes best-supported position well and concisely. I'd also like to see a return of more discussion of the role of post-occupation Korean nationalism, per Henning and others. JJL (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If this debate is ever going to be resolved (its been running what 6 months now?) then can you live with it? We could then ask some uninvolved editors to clean up the wording & see if we have a viable article. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Well, at least, NOBODY say that "Capeners source is 100% JUSTICE. no acadmic source denied Capener."
 * fist of all, What (public trusted) encyclopedia(britanica or something) say, "TKD is a Koreanized Karate?" That is your side truth. wikipedia don't need your sided truth. and you still do not show me any Scientific data. We don't need personal opinion and personal essay.(also this document made in 1995, in 1995, Author was just a student in s.Korea) cleary, This is NOT a mainstream history.
 * Well. Let's analyze this sources.


 * Japanese karate called kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. 
 * THAT is not true. Not only Karate but also also Taekkyon, Kungfu introduced to Korea. The 5 original Taekwondo kwans founders learned Taekkyon, karate, Kungfu, various martial arts. Karate is just one of them.
 * Song Moo Kwan founder learend Karate, Hapkido, Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, Kumdo.
 * Chung Do Kwan founder learend martial arts skills from Taekkyon, Karate, Kungfu.
 * Moo Duk Kwan founder learend martial arts skills from Kungfu in China. He did not learned Karate. he just read the philosophy of Okinawan Karate from Gichin Funakoshi's books. We can suppose that his skills is not mainly influenced by karate. He also developed Traditional martial arts skill from Korean Traditional Martial Arts BOOK Muye Dobo Tongji.
 * Choi Hong Hi who first name maker of Taekwondo learend taekkyon, Karate.


 * Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate
 * That is not True. And considering the fact that the main curriculum of those five do-jangs was centered on Kicking technique originate from Korean folk, so we know that the current TKD seems to be affected by Korean traditional martial arts.
 * but may grade System and Dobok is possibly influenced to TKD.


 * the need to "Koreanize" was felt.
 * THAT is the author's personal opinion. It is NOT recognized that Mainstream history. any reliable evidence? any Testimony of TKD founder and TKD arts developer? any reliable scientific data? We do not need his "Guess" or "Assumption".

In this case, You must STOP your your dogged insistence for compromised edit. Until you stop a stance "ONLY MY SOURCES ARE 100% JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE 100% WRONG", This discussion is endless. Manacpowers (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

JJL, don't waste any more of your time. Macacpowers, you are very confused. You believe to many Black Belt Magazine and Taekwondo Times articles. Dakin Burdick and every other wannabe historian has corupted your knowledge base. I recommend that you buy a plane ticket and fly to Korea and find out these issues first hand.

I do not believe that any sources, even from the original people who were actually there will change your already made up mind. Al Cole (Mastercole@aol.com)76.227.133.168 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC) --- Here is the counterpart Theory.


 * Title : An Analysis on the various views of Taekwondo History
 * Authors : Jung Kun-Pyo, Lee Kang-Koo
 * Type of document : Academic Journal
 * Publisher : Institution of Physical science, Korea
 * Date : 2007.11
 * Publishing Info : Journal of Physical science, Korea pp. 3~12 (10 pages)


 * Name : A Study on Shaping of the Taekwondo
 * Author : In Uk Heo
 * Date : 2004
 * Publisher : Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance Homepage
 * Publishing Info : Academic Journal of physical education. Vol.9, 79 page
 * Keyword : Taekwondo

Mac


 * JJL, here are some policy quotations:


 * From WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources."


 * From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."


 * From WP:V: "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."


 * Nowhere does it say that the view which some believe is "most correct" should be given preference. Your view is reflected in the article with your sources.  Other views and sources are reflected as well.  That's the way it has to be. Omnedon (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "That's the way it has to be." Well, you asked "What is in the article, as it now stands, that you cannot live with? Let's move forward." and I responded. Rather than a discussion ensuing, You tell me that this is how it must be. That's hardly a good-faith attempt to move forward. JJL (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet "sheesh" is an entirely good-faith response? Hmm.  The post cites policy, which you yourself have been leaning on extremely heavily for some considerable time.  If you object that something "must be" according to policy, then it would seem your position has adjusted considerably. :-) Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what role you hope to play here. JJL (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say "this is the way it has to be", I simply mean that other views must be expressed along with their sources. I don't say precisely how it has to be expressed, as long as it is neutral and fair.  You didn't like the wording of one of the sentences; I have adjusted the sentence to be more neutral, after Manacpowers edited that same sentence to include more of his own views.  Your other complaints were focused on the sources, and we've been over and over that.  You don't have to like the sources that are in the article; that doesn't mean they can't be there.  And I have already stated that I disagree with your wish to give one view preference over another, and why I disagree.  Is that the key point of disagreement here? Omnedon (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The re-wording is an improvement. We haven't been over and over the sources--I've been over and over them; others have been around and around them. That's a problem. Certainly both views have to be represented in there--that isn't what concerns me. JJL (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Omnedon's effort. however, I disagree recent your change.
 * "Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate."

why you omiited this sentence? This state cleary exist, too. i can prove by various sources.
 * and another changed sentence : "whereas others"

for fairly view, this word must be change like as "whereas some others"
 * in my suggestion,
 * "TKD officialy stated that their arts based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak. However, Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate. "Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate."
 * Cleary, 3 ways view exist. this expression is more close to fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manacpowers (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Break
OK, first a summary and then a proposal:

It seems clear to me that one of the central problems that's dragged this page into such protracted argument is that certain editors' contributions have faced significant and unusually sharp opposition, with the opponent advancing other material as essentially immune to similar criticism. This has frequently manifested itself as outright cutting and repeated reversion of certain material on (at best) uncertain grounds, which isn't good practice. It's also included impugning certain sources because of the author's background, profession, isolated quotes, vague objections about the style in which a source is written, claims of irrelevance or unreliability without being familiar with the actual material, etc., which again is not good practice.

Another problem is that this kind of prolonged, disruptive behavior has been frequently justified by parsing certain passages from WP policy — this itself is not good practice, as WP:GAME makes clear. Cooperation, collaboration, a willingness to compromise, the assumption of good faith, not being combative... these things are the spirit of WP. They should not be subverted by wikilawyering or attempts to game the system.

IMHO, a reasonable compromise has been put in place acknowledging to the reader that different opinions do exist on the subject in question; it's relatively brief and doesn't unfairly assert that "x is right and y is wrong". Does this completely satisfy everyone? Obviously not. However, this is the nature of a compromise. Without concession, it fails.

To reach a dénouement in this otherwise endless debate, I'd like to agree with Nate and strongly suggest that this compromise be accepted as is, at least for the time being. After all, perhaps other editors would like to contribute but have been scared off by the incessant edit warring. Let's just take a break, step back for a bit and turn our attention to other aspects of the article. Those in favor? Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The concern here is that a lot of useful, sourced, and relevant info. has been excised from the article. Someone coming here to learn about TKD could very well be interested in where it came from; it's a natural question, and there is much legend surrounding the birth of most martial arts. It's a useful feature of an encyclopedia to discuss that. I've been reluctant to suggest a History of Taekwondo page but that could be a way to give a full airing to both sides. I still object to the reliability of some of the sources currently in use here and am hoping for more feedback at the noticeboard. JJL (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone though doing grammar fixes, no meaning changed but the wording needed improving. Added some cite tags the intro paragraph the sources should be in their already but I am not sure which to use. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nate, I appreciate the intent of your recent efforts, as I'm sure everyone else does; but in fact I'm afraid you broke the grammar in several cases rather than improving it, and also added numerous spelling errors to the article. For example, phrases like "The alternatively positions" are not correct, and "Taekwondo steamed from native Korean martial arts" is both mis-spelled (presuming you meant "streamed") and oddly phrased (in my opinion).  Right now is a critical time for the article, in my opinion; we do need to move forward, but with care.  Thank you, though, for your efforts in trying to reach compromise; you've stayed admirably neutral during this situation.  Omnedon (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant alternative, and 'steamed' was a typo of 'stemmed' as common metaphor. On the general point the article dose need copy editing by a neutral party, as the prose has suffered from the content dispute. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Describing one position as 'official(ly)' and the others as 'alternative' is already problematic. Perhaps more neutral language could be introduced. JJL (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * at least, reader must know what is the "official" position and "mainstream" view. Manacpowers (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we can agree that the mainstream view should be given prominence. However, we disagree about what that view is. In the meantime, let's change this from official/alternative/alternative. JJL (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

mainstreamview is not decide by wikipedia or your opinion. mainstream view is widely accepted view by world. Manacpowers (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

also your given source are no scientific data & only assumption with biased opinion. we do not need personal essay.Manacpowers (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

your nothing but a vague sources can't be a Karate/Japanese POV as a mainstream view. even He said, Japanese Martial arts are Chinese influence. He really know korea martial arts? i heavily doubt this. i want knwow full text from this souce. because We need checking, What reference he read. He is not qualified author of Taekwondo history.
 * Capener, Steven D - English instructor of Women's University. no scientific data & only assumption with biased opinion. He is not qualified author of  Taekwondo history.
 * Dohrenwend, Robert - article from Karate magazine.(Karate/Japanese POV) no scientific data & only assumption with biased opinion. He is not qualified author of  Taekwondo history.
 * Burdick, Dakin - Japanese aikido trainer.(Karate/Japanese POV) His Ph.D.s in American History. no scientific data & only assumption with biased opinion. He is not qualified author of Taekwondo history.
 * Henning, Stanley - He focused Chinese martial arts.
 * 1) Japanese Martial Arts, Chinese Influences On, 199-300. (101 pages)
 * 2) Korean Martial Arts, Chinese Influences On, 299-300. (but only 1 page?)
 * Mitchell, David - This Karate Teacher's handbook is definitely not qualified author of Taekwondo history.(Karate/Japanese POV)  Manacpowers (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Spreading through the KMAs
When I pointed out at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 that most KMA articles on WP agreed with the Japanese origin position, many were quickly edited away from that. I see it's now spreading further. The reason given was: "Draeger, Donn and Robert W. Smith are not historian. and this book name is 'Bushido--The Way of the Warrior' no relation source" This is in relation to their book Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts which was cited in the article. JJL (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As one example of what occurred following my 3 Jan. 2008 entry at Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 discussing the handling of the Japanese vs. Korean origins issue at other KMA pages, consider this edit of 12 Jan. 2008 . It continues through this edit of 30 June 2008 . Information regarding the Shotokan influence is being systematically removed. JJL (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Add Kong Soo Do to the list. JJL (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you really read kong soo do? Byung In Yoon who founder of kwon bub bu did not learned shotokan. He learned kung fu. and Shudo-Ryu karate. not shotokan.Manacpowers (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

--- Draeger, Donn and Robert W. Smith are not historian. and this book is a 'about Bushido'(about Japan book) not asian book.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870114360/ref=s9sips_c1_img1-rfc_p?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0HVB3S38S35PVE2YSC8Z&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=265623401&pf_rd_i=507846

Title : Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts (Bushido--The Way of the Warrior)


 * About the Author


 * The late DONN F. DRAEGER was recognized as one of the world's leading experts on fighting arts. He was more than proficient in several martial arts and was also a prolific author whose books have become the standard works on many aspects of the martial arts. ROBERT W. SMITH, well-known teacher and widely published author, is one of the world's leading experts on Chinese fighting forms and techniques, though his interests extend to fighting arts of all Asian countries.

Authors are not historian. and WE can not confirm quote is real or not.

and Hapkido is not direct link with Aikido. Japanese-origin arts is Wrong. Hapkido Founder learned Aikido. this is true. however, essntinal skill of hapkido is pretty distinguish from aikido. and according to encyclopedia, Origin of Aikido is possibly ancient martial arts of India. so, it is not clearly Japanese origin.Manacpowers (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

and no mediator agreed your edit is right. do not mistake. Manacpowers (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Korean Commands
Could we change the pronunciations of the korean commands section? The spellings are nowhere near how they really sound. I find it ridiculously pathetic sounding. Good friend100 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The spellings employ Revised Romanization of Korean, which is the general standard on Wikipedia (please see Manual of Style (Korea-related articles)). In fact the spellings do reflect the sounds of the words, if one first learns the basic principles of Revised Romanization. Omnedon (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think anyone who visits wikipedia learn "basic" princibles of the romanization. Good friend100 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that Revised Romanization is a widely-accepted standard; for example, the Korean government has chosen it as a standard. If one just chooses, on one's own, the English letters that produce something that sounds right, it probably won't be consistent, and not everyone would come up with the same pronunciation. With a standard system in place, there is consistency, and it's really quite easy. Revised Romanization is what we use in Wikipedia unless there is some strong reason to use some other method -- for example, with names that are widely recognized with older spellings, or McCune-Reischauer for North Korean terms (which doesn't apply here). Omnedon (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
I was advised to try this again: Requests for mediation/Taekwondo 2

Nate1481. I don't understand do you think TKD article need more change? It is pretty neutral. (However, i'm not agree current edit) JJL is only one person who make Karate/Japanese POV. I already provide various counterpart acadmic sources in my talk page. here TKD influenced by not only Karate but also Taekkyon, Kungfu.. etc.. so His edit is too far POV and unreasonable.

Here is the sources that i believe TKD root is taekkyon.
 * Commented out for readability --Nate1481(t/c) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. TKD influend by Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate... from various backgrouns of founders and instructors.
 * karate is one of them. 'repackaged Karate' is no evidence & POV claim.


 * 2. According to TKD orginiations and various non-Karate POV sources(academic source and any other encyclopedia(britanica or something), TKD is Modern version of Taekkyon. also, This is a mainstream view. Manacpowers (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i can prove more evidence. However, i'm very busy for one month.(7.5~ 7.29) please understand my busy situation. but i do participate this discussion as possible as i can. Manacpowers (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume mediation is most effective when all principal parties are present and active, so perhaps we should put this on pause until the end of the month. As I'd suggested earlier, a lull might actually be healthy and allow things to calm.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me but someone should put a note on the mediation page. Manacpowers do you intend to take part? --Nate1481(t/c) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is only fair if he intends to participate; however, that is not the impression I had., . JJL (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I intend to take part. Al Cole (MasterCole@aol.com) 76.241.145.184 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could set up a user name here as other wise it is hard which contributions are yours --Nate1481(t/c) 11:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Mediation was rejected: Requests_for_mediation/Taekwondo_2. The issue of the reliability of sources remains unresolved. JJL (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Henning's source

 * Others believe that these schools taught arts that were almost entirely based upon karate.[24][25][26][27][28]
 * Accordign to JJL said, "The traditional Korean martial arts are but a vague memory and taekwondo a symbol born in the cradle of modern Korean nationalism(...)" (Stanley Henning, "Traditional Korean Martial Arts", Journal of Asian Martial Arts Vol. 9, No. 1, (2000):).
 * Stanley Henning did not say "schools taught arts that were almost entirely based upon karate."
 * i think why think soure in here?
 * I think this 'reference' must be remove from relation sentence.
 * Also, Huwmanbeing says, "Stanley Henning's focus is on Chinese martial arts, not Korean, and admits to "floating on the periphery of the martial arts community". His MA is in "Overseas Operations", he teaches English, and is an "assistant professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies" — I'm not sure how this relates academically to Korean martial arts history. Presumably both biased and unqualified."

and actually his(lecturer of chinese martial arts history) opinion is definitely WRONG. i can prove it. it was not a vague memory. Manacpowers (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had gotten the impression that you, Omnedon, and Huwmanbeing were arguing that no source could be so grossly unreliable as to be disallowed. Still, it's good to see that someone is willing to discuss the validity of various sources. If we're to now follow WP rules, then the Heo source has not been checked (just a summary of some sort), and that's not OK. Most of the other sources in favor of the 2000+ year old origins of TKD are unreliable web sites by first parties (TKD orgs.). The Henning source appears to be reliable (search for the remarks by Itsmejudith in that section). Remember, the standard is verifiability in reliable sources--not truth. Henning passes that test. I have a copy of it and it was in a peer-reviewed journal, which is not just reliable but valued above most other sorts of sources. The criticisms by you and Huwmanbeing are off-base in light of WP:RS. Whether he "floats on the periphery of the martial arts community" as Huwmanbeing suggests or not is irrelevant; indeed, one could argue that that would make him disinterested. Should only veterans be allowed to write military history? Should only politicians write political history? An historian checks the documents, interviews witnesses, etc. One needn't be a scientist to write a history of classical science--indeed, such books are usually not written by scientists but by historians and classicists. Peer review is intended to help catch the inevitable biases that all humans have. It's the academic standard, and Henning's work passes that test. Saul Kripke has no higher degree than a bachelor's in math.--is he unreliable where philosophy is concerned? . JJL (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL: "No source could be so grossly unreliable as to be disallowed"? Where exactly was that asserted?  Perhaps you're thinking of the message where I point out that other sources beyond footnoted passages from scholarly journals are permissible in a Wikipedia article.
 * The conflicts dogging this page aren't going to get any better if you deliberately exaggerate or mischaracterize peoples' positions — instead they'll just get worse. I thought we were going to step away from this conflict for a while and let things cool down, but that may have been a vain hope.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am awaiting the end of the mediation process. If that fails, then we still need to resolve the matter of the sources and the fact that so very much info. has been removed. JJL (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * JJL: Incidentally, I wanted to point out that the passage Manacpowers quotes above was not an attack against the validity of any particular source, but was included quite explicitly for the purpose of illustrating that any source can be assailed (often unfairly) as unreliable if one is intent on doing so. It was posted in response to your assessment of Doug Cook which dismisses the source for reasons that included bias as the result of being a TKD instructor.  As such, it also illustrated the inconsistency of challenging one author while defending others from equal scrutiny.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't understand what point you are trying to achieve here. However, let me say this: Yes, all sources can be assailed. Luckily, Wikipedia has created guidelines. Because I had confidence in my understanding of those guidelines, I posted at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the sources I was using and at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about Cook. I regret that more discussion didn't ensue but the former was overwhelmed by a rant. You'll note however that I welcome scrutiny of all the sources and have frequently requested it. That's why I previously initiated an RFC and an attempt at mediation, as well as going to the RS Noticeboard--scrutiny of the sources in light of WP policy would rapidly settle the matter. To my mind the fact that Omnedon and Manacpowers never initiated similar discussion speaks volumes about their confidence in their sources. JJL (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand — I just made a clarification about the nature of the quote being discussed, since there were a few incorrect or misleading statements that I felt needed comment. Another is: "Whether he 'floats on the periphery of the martial arts community' as Huwmanbeing suggests or not is irrelevant;".  Nowhere do I suggest this; it's a quote from Stanley Henning himself as I previously cited.
 * BTW, most sources in WP have never appeared on Reliable sources/Noticeboard, since, as the introduction to the page states, its purpose is to solicit answers to "questions ... about whether given sources are reliable". That a source has not appeared in this context is not a mark of unreliability.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well, Stanley Henning did not say "schools taught arts that were almost entirely based upon karate." this is fact. also He did not say TKD based upon karate. this reference link is "unrelated". He mentioned "The traditional Korean martial arts are but a vague memory(<- and...this claim is pretty Wrong)" so this source is unrelated source. and Most of the non-Japanese martial arts affiliated sources do not claim like that.

again, i point out that "Stanley Henning did not say so". Manacpowers (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been through this multiple times. See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4 where I quote directly from Henning: "Taekwondo, for the most part, appears to be a post-Korean War product, developed primarily from what Koreans called tangsudo (karate) introduced during the period of Japanese rule." JJL (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tang soo do Is not exactly Japanese Karate-do. Tang soo do influenced by some karate system. and name is similar with karate-do. However, Tang soo do and Karate-do are pretty difference martial arts. their main skills from Korean traditional martial arts.(name"The Way of The Chinese Hand" is same. however, root and philosophy are difference) We still can't check Quote text is true or not.(please show me full text!) His conclusion is "nonsense". I gusee.. He do not know what is the korean martial arts. According to Tang soo do, Tang soo do made by Hwan Kee. But actually Hwan Kee did not practiced Karate. (He mainly influenced by Subak, Taekkyon, Kungfu. he just read a karate Book. it's all. he did not practiced Karate.)
 * "Tang Soo Do (Hangul: ???) is the Korean pronunciation of the Chinese characters ???. Tang Soo Do lliterally means "The Way of The Chinese Hand" and has roots in various styles of martial arts including those found in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Martial Arts. These roots started in Korean Tae Kyon, Chinese Shaolin and Japanese Shotokan."
 * "Tang Soo Do shaped by 60% Soo Bahk Do, 30% northern Chinese and 10% southern Chinese. kicking techniques."
 * Tang soo do influenced by Karate system. (Dokbok, Grade systems.) and skills are shaped by 60% Soo Bahk Do, 30% northern Chinese and 10% southern Chinese. (founder Hwan kee never learned karate)

Again, Tang Soo Do is not 100% Karate do. These roots started in Korean Tae Kyon(Subak is main root), Chinese Shaolin and Japanese Shotokan. so, this calim is pretty "dumb". author is not know korean martial arts. author well know chinese martial arts history. but not korean.Manacpowers (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Point is. '''tangsudo is not exactly karate. author(expert of Chinese martial art history) do not know what is the tangsudo.'''
 * Tangsudo (a.k.a Tang Soo Do) = Karate (X)
 * Tangsudo (a.k.a Tang Soo Do) = Subak skills and philosophy + some Kungfu skills + some Karate system(O) Manacpowers (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And, Taekondo is not tang soo do. Tangsudo is just 'part' of TKD. Not all TKD is tangsudo.
 * TKD = Tangsudo(x)

i think author is pretty "ignorance" to korean martial arts. Maybe author think like this, "name of automobile made by Daimler(German), so nowdays all cars are 'made in german'."Manacpowers (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "please show me full text!" I'm not obligated to perform ILL services for you. That isn't how it works. However, it is incumbent upon you to check your own sources, and you state you haven't checked the Heo reference, merely a web summary of unclear status. This is unreliable (and see the penultimate paragraph here ). JJL (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)