Talk:Tang Soo Do

Alleged copyright infringement does not exist
Peter Rehse blanked the page on June 4, 2012 claiming copyright infringement from http://www.btsdi.co.uk/tanghistory.html. He also archived the entire talk page of this article. The page he listed very clearly states the source of the material being in the creative commons i.e. public domain. Most likely, the website copied the material from wikipedia. More care should be given before indiscriminately deleting articles on wikipedia. Now we have to investigate if any other articles were improperly deleted by this user. Gx872op (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored although there is a clear statement of copyright to Jeff Cockram at the bottom of the page.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The website copyright has "Unless otherwise stated" in itty bitty font and the "otherwise stated" citation was located at the top linking to the creative commons. So we should be able to get rid of the warning box on the article now? 67.165.86.197 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure - removed. I still think both the History and Ranking sections could do with a re-write. Right now both read very heavy.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

HA. Thanks for removing... I think the whole article is crap. I try to make edits on source material and people revert it back. I've given up. Hell, even the guy who put himself up as a notable practitioner has linked his own name to a page about someone else..... Thanks for putting effort into it, the TSD world isn't ready for it yet though! 67.165.86.197 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood but I also will take the cowards way out and just limit myself to nudging in the right direction. It really is hard for some people to understand what is good in an encylopedia and what belongs in a manual or club website. I choose my battles and this isn't one of them. Cheers.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tang Sou Dao
I have recently, with my son, joined a Tang Sou Dao club near our home in Oxfordshire, UK. 'Tang Sou Dao' is the spelling used by the club, or rather, family of clubs. One thing that I noted to my surprise - because I had constantly encountered T.S.D. referred to as Korean martial art, and had assumed as much for the first few weeks - is that this specific style lays emphasis in its (indirect) Chinese heritage, via Korean T.S.D. In particular, as stated in the link below, there was a deliberate aim to re-introduce Chinese techniques and ideas into Korean T.S.D.

http://www.tangsoudao.com/history.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.175.183 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Although you can pronounce the Hanja/Kanji for Tang Soo Do in a Chinese way, this school is basically a descendant art of Tang Soo Do. This concept on the history page that the art owes everything to China is a stylistic creation of the website you mention, and isn a one-sided misrepresentation of the history of Tang Soo Do. This school teaches Tang Soo Do with some additional changes, and then calls it's art "Tang Shou Dao Ren Yi Yu Kwan". Rees (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Funakoshi changing Kara charachter from Tang to Open
The section attributing the change of Karate from Tang to Open is inaccurate or misleading at best. Although Funakoshi was a proponent of this change, he was not the only one to suggest it. During a meeting in 1936 of Okinawa's most elite masters, they supported the idea that Karate should become more universal and a world wide practiced art - and supported the notion that Karate was more than just kicking and punching. Hence they agreed with the motion to change the meaning of "Karate" by changing the first Hanja or Kanji to Kara - "Open".

Furthermore, this division between "Tang" and "Open" can be seen in the fist Kwan's in Korea: Some like Hwang Kee supported Won Kuk Lee's use of "Tang Soo Do" while others that were Toyama's students seemed to have preferred using "Kong Soo Do". This is a strange irony, as I believe Funakoshi began using "open hand way" before Toyama did!

I believe this section gives the impression that Funakoshi regarded the Tang/China reference as "degrading" is misleading. It gives the impression that he was referring to the Chinese people or their culture, or had a political motive for the change, but instead to the idea that Karate as simply a punching/kicking art instead of a way or "do" was degrading as it did not fully capture the essence of the art as being a path to enlightenment.

See this groundbreaking translation of the 1936 meeting minutes between the Okinawan Karate Masters: http://irkrs.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-1936-meeting-of-okinawan-karate.html

I think it's important to make sure that mistakes are not made as many of Funakoshi's students were Korean and studied at universities in Japan (Won Kuk Lee for example). Others were Kanken Toyama's students (Yoon Byung-in) and were hugely important in post-WW2 Korea.

Rees (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Romanization
Why is it Tang Soo Do? I can see why for historical reasons in the school itself, but to properly romanize it, it should be Tang Su Do or Dang Su Do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:8600:4E20:DD3F:92AD:4EA9:9B39 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * JohnM.jpg

Under-the-radar names
There's recently been persistent attempts by anonymous editors trying to put TSD practitioners of lacking notability. Particulary one User:74.94.200.49 is hell-bent on throwing names like John Mogart Jr, who - while is a somewhat reputable TSD artist - I'm not convinced of this and other names should be thrown in here. Per practises of wikipedia, it'd be prefferable if these names like John W. Mogart Jr and others would have *good entries* to justify there inclusion on the notable practitioners list. Otherwise me and others are simply forced to remove these over and over again, even at risk of admins getting involved. TrickShotFinn (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant material
A large amount of material in the 'History' section (about the development of the kwans and taekwondo) is not directly relevant to the history of tang soo do, which has now evolved largely independently of taekwondo. In the section 'Present', a subsection labelled 'Other' is garbled to the point of incoherence. It seems to be a puff piece, designed to promote the agenda of an unnamed practitioner and to belittle taekwondo and traditional tang soo do. Billtkd (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)