"

 Anti-TKD slant 

I noticed that the article was changed to reflect a pro-foreign-influence slant.  I will eventually attempt to make appropriate edits in increments... edits made.  Comments welcome:  1. Introduction stated that TKD is an amalgamation of Chinese, Japan and Korean art.  While this may be factually true, it's a misleading introduction to TKD as many martial arts, including all forms of Karate, are amalgamations.  It serves no good purpose, other than NPOV agenda, to highlight this as an introduction to TKD.  2. Under ""development of TKD"", controversies surrounding Karate's influence on TKD was overstated once again.  This topic is dealt with quite accurately in the Karate article.  It makes sense to follow that lead in this case.  It's misleading and NPOV the way it is written now.  3. Under ""traditional roots"" TKD's foreign influence is again overstated.  Whoever, made these edits obviously had a pro-karate agenda.  The topic of foreign influence can be delt with in a fair and objective manner without being beaten to death under every subsection!  4. Under ""External Influence"" foreign influence should be appropriately dealt with. 

The article is now overstating Taekwondo's relationship with Subak/Taekkyon; do we really need several long paragraphs all about ""Subak"" (手搏) (whatever that was) and the Hwarang (whoever they really were) and Taekkyon supposedly slowly developing into Taekwondo over hundreds of years?  Taekkyon still exists today, so we can talk about Taekkyon's development in that article separately (noting that Taekkyon looks completely different from modern Taekwondo).  Japan's influences on Taekwondo are also well-documented, so why remove it?  Let's keep a neutral point of view for this article.  At this point, it sounds like the first few pages of a Taekwondo student's guide.

I think this needs to be looked into more carefully but history of Korean martial arts is a very relevant part of tkd.  Let's leave the text as is until we can sort this out.  I also have to say that your dismissive attitude isn't very POV.  Instead of blindly defending or rejecting labels, we need to deconstruct ideas and arguments and go through them with a fine comb.  Regardless of what you want to call it, Koreans have been kicking in fights and contests for thousands of years and documentation for this exists as far back as the three kingdoms era.  Chosun documentation also exists that show that Subak was part of the formal requirements for entrance into Chosun military and large Taekyon tournaments held by the populace well into the 1800's.  Most of Korean folk arts and traditional Korean disciplines existed and even thrived during the Chosun dynasty without formalization or systemization(e.g. korean wrestling called ssirum, pan sori, musical instruments, minstrels, etc.).  But the absence of formal schools, teachers and formal links doesn't mean that those arts weren't passed down or that they didn't exist.    While tkd isn't taekyon, tkd is a product of Korean attempts at formalizing a Korean martial art.  In an objective inquiry into TKD's origins, you need to understand the history and culture of Korean martial arts, culture and history.  To leave this out would be erroneously simplistic.  The martial arts aspect of Korean culture(folk culture during Chosun times) provides the basis for the formalization and systemization that Korean martial arts goes through in the 1900's.  TKD claims this, history and culture of Korean arts and disciplines provides the background for this, and the actual practice of tkd bears this out.  To ignore all this and look only for and only accept formal links between masters, students, formal schools, etc., is NPOV and more importantly wouldn't reflective objective reality behind TKD's conception.

btw.  There's a lot of crap out there about a lot of Korean martial arts but Hwarang are mentioned in Korean historical documents, Subak is mentioned countless times in military, historical records including Chosun records.  Taekyon was a part of Subak and its popularity was well documented by during Chosun times in its mention of Taekyon tournaments that were held well into the 1800's.   

To keep this (relatively) short, just a few points:

1. We know that ""Subak"" has been mentioned in the Mooyedobotongji and other sources, but we don't really know exactly what ""Subak"" actually referred to.  In China, the same word (pronounced ""Shoubo"") was used as a general term for barehand martial arts, however - thus, it is likely that Koreans used the same word in the same way (as it was a loanword).
2. Hwarang are of course mentioned in many Korean texts, but we don't actually know