User talk:Carverrock

Welcome!
Hello, Carverrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Stop by at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts to see other activities in martial arts in Wikipedia.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

I reverted your edits in Origins_of_Asian_martial_arts because you cited no references. Especially when changes are controversial, a citation is strongly recommended: see Exceptional claims. jmcw (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to History of martial arts. The section you are editing is supposed to be a synopsis up to about 1800. My feeling is that you are adding more than is necessary since much is already covered in the links. Most important is how early and what form martial arts were codified in Korea. I'll help with flow and trimming but again it is just intended to help it fit in the overall article.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone appreciates your additions and yes, although primarily interested in Japanese martial arts I am also very interested on how things evolved. There was a lot of movement back and forth between (Korea, China and Japan) and it is very hard to say which chicken came before which egg. My only advice is to consider the overall context of articles rather than to debate a point. I know from experience that can be hard to do but generally when you were reverted that was the issue. References are good of course. By the way - I think the issue of merging Subak with Taekkyeon is something that should be looked at. If they are the same it seems two articles are not the best approach. Cheers Peter Rehse (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice - thanks for the post - really interesting stuff. One man's bias is another man's enthusiasm - so no worries.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Taekkyeon
In taekkyeon, you wrote that taekkyon was a military martial art. However, Taekkyon was and is clearly civil, not military. It was a game for children and adults. Adults also learnt taekkyon for serious combat, but not in military. Neither master Song, nor his master Im Ho nor any other known taekkyon player of that time were soldiers. I removed "military" accordingly. If you think that it was for military, please provide evidence. Best regards, --Hyeondo (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Long time no see. You wrote on my page:
 * "Also, I asked GM Ko again if Taekkyeon was a military martial art and he confirmed yes it was. GM Song while a bodyguard for the remaining Choson Dynasty members would teach military people some Taekkyeon techniques. Also his teacher Im Ho was not in the military, he was a scholar. Im HO however most likely he taught Taekkyen to the private military guards of the royal crown. This is what GM Ko said."
 * First of all, it may well be that Ko Yong-woo is right. Really, I can imagine this well. However, as long as there is no verifiable (!) reference, this information cannot be included in WP. Please consider this rule:
 * "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." See Verifiability.
 * And further:
 * " This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.""
 * Even if Song and Im Ho taught soldiers some techs occasionally, it does not make taekgyeon a military art. However, this is only my opinion, it is not relevant for WP articles.
 * The seminars about Widae Taekkyeon were absolutely great. It is a terrific fortune that Ko Yong-woo is such a good athlete and preserved what he learnt from Song Dokki!
 * Thanks, Hyeondo
 * P.S. Please understand that I do not want to undisclose my real name online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyeondo (talk • contribs) 05:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This video might be interesting to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfOVYmfzO78 Sincerely, --Vagabund (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)