Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 1

message: One subtle point to someone who asked the question: TKD is widely practiced in North Korea. General Choi made a tour of N.Korea, introduced, and popularized it there. That was the reason why he could not return to S.Korea. After visiting N.Korea, he was no longer welcome in S.Korea. N.Korea has amazing martial artists, universally practicing ITF TKD (they are quite opposed to S.Korean WTF TKD). In N.Korea, this is sponsored by the government (in a totalitarian regime, more or less everything that's done is done by the will of the government). I've known a couple of martial artists who have gone to train under the rather impressive N.Korean TKD instructors. 
TKD also very directly derives from Karate and Kung Fu. General Choi, who coined the term TKD and brought together the ITF (before it split off into the WTF and ITF) was a black belt in Japanese Karate. Plenty of the other founding members were trained in kung fu. In fact, the name of one of the major school, Chung Do Kwan, directly comes from a mispronounciation of Shotokan. 
If you trace back virtually all of the original TKD masters, they came from Karate and Kung Fu backgrounds. The influence of earlier Korean martial arts is much more weakly documented (although some of the techniques, for instance, the high kicks, demonstrate a very probable influence). Many of the earlier techniques were significantly influenced by China and possibly Japan (the fighting style of the Hwarang-Do was derived, largely, from Kung Fu). 
That said, the Orient is a small enough community that you would expect influence from one culture onto the others.
:Not sure if having had kungfu, karate, jujitsu training, etc., means that foreign martial arts provided the sole basis for early korean ma schools and masters.  Most claim to have been trained in indigenous korean martial and although this is hard to verify since since korean martial arts didn't exist as formalized systems, Subak and Taekyon tournaments(probably similar to ssirum tournaments) were held well into the 18th century and it was ingrained into folk culture where it continued to survive.  It makes sense that those with interest and experience with indigenous Korean martial arts would seek Japanese, Chinese martial arts training when abroad.  Melonbarmonster 07:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  N. Korean TKD, TKD origins 

message: I am not sure whether it is right to translate "Do" as "way of life".
"Do" is more a "spiritual way". --zeno 04:41 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
:Do , 道 , simply means 'way', road or street. It can be interpreted as above. --Jondel 09:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of 'Do' 

message: 67.72.135.235, you seem ignorant of Korean literature written in Classical Chinese. If you believe that Samurang is not a fabrication by Haedong Kumdo but is a historical fact, show me primary sources such as Samguk Sagi, Samguk Yusa. --Nanshu 01:32, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought primary sources weren't allowed on wiki.  Even academics don't go around citing primary sources for reasonable claims.  Samurang is historical fact and there are too many sources that cite this.  If you have any sources for their non-existence, let me know.  Whether Haedong Gumdo can claim lineage to it is where it get ridiculous but back to TKD.  Melonbarmonster 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean literature in Chinese 

message: *Taekwondo Demo Team Movie(Awesome)--Jondel 13:18, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome Taekwondo Demo 

message: Seems to me that there's a significant amount of subtle trolling in most sections of this page. Stuff like
"A focus on discipline, honor, good manners, self-confidence, and monthly payments."
"which techniques are taught vary from instructor to instructor, but you can best believe it will never be up to par"
and
"It is used in unarmed combat training in some armies (the French army, for instance, which is a horrible example for proving someone can fight, isn't it?)."
doesn't need to be there, surely? --Anonymous
:Agreed.  It's called NPOV.100110100 04:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trolling? 

message: There are several problems with the text as it stands. I have fixed some of the most glaring problems, e.g., the failure to give a true martial arts benefactor even a minimal measure of due respect by capitalizing and properly spelling his name.  There is no consistency in the way that the various forms of Korean martial arts are handled. Some are capitalized and some are not capitalized.  The whole article needs to be gone over with attention to such issues so that it is consistent both within itself and is also consistent with Wikipedia standards.  P0M 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for standardization 

message: "If you want to join the Martial Arts to learn how to defend yourself and that of your loved ones, Taekwondo should be the very last art you look into. As it states above it is a great sport. Its great for kids, and for fun, but dont be fooled into thinking it even ranks *average* when it comes to combat viability."
Someone scrap it. The anony user is still on right now, I don't want to do it, lest he revert. --24.76.141.237 03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your postings. (Use ~~~~.)
The explanation above is a little imprecise.  The original kanji that were written were different from the kanji that Funakoshi Gichin himself changed to.  The original characters were the ones for the "Tang" dynasty (and so acted as a stand-in for China since Tang times was when Japan borrowed lots of new stuff from China) and "hand."  The first one was changed by Funakoshi san to the kara that means "empty."  Funakoshi san was Okinawan and he learned his karate from his teachers who had already modified the "Tang hand" that they had learned from the Chinese. There were probably some inputs from Japan at this early time even though a main reason for the development of Karate was that the Japanese maintained control over Okinawa and forbade them from possession of swords and other weapons. (That's also the reason that so many agricultural implements get used in this martial arts tradition. Spears were forbidden, but a farmer might a flail or a sickle.)  The only real "contribution" from the Japanese side that I know of was that the Japanese on Okinawa could have swords and other such weapons and the Okinawans could not -- so many karate techniques are for use by an unarmed person defending himself/herself against an armed person. The only thing that I can think of that might appear to be of specifically Japanese origin are some controls used in Aikido, but those controls are also present in Qinna (ch'in-na), and probably came into Okinawa directly from China.
Now whether the kata of Karate went from Okinawa to Korea or from Okinawa to Japan to Korea seems to me irrelevant except in one possible respect. The Japanese treatment of some of the open-hand martial arts, e.g. Shaolin quan or, as they call it, Shorinji kempo, places more emphasis on the esthetics of the movements. It may be that the Korean interest in things like side thrust kicks that are aimed so high that they give the defender a perfect shot at the testicles of the kicker betrays a Japanese shift toward the esthetic and away from the practical.
One other thing: Okinawan style differs from both Chinese and Japanese in that in the latter two cultures fights were more likely to be hand to hand or weapon to weapon, and in either case the technically superior fighter had the luxury of being merciful to an opponent by, e.g., trapping, controlling, and giving a headstrong opponent time to consider the error of his ways.  In a situation where an unarmed person was defending against an armed person the tendency would have been to be very conservative in offering the attacker a good target, and very much geared to disabling if not killing outright at the first opportunity.  That's the origin of the "one-strike kill" ideal of karate. P0M 17:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not encyclopedic writing style 

message: It seems that this page would be much improved with an addition (or a seperate page) devoted to the rules of WTF Olympic sparring. For anyone not familiar with the sport aspect of TKD, this would be very helpful. I know 2008 is a few years away, but hopefully there'll be more media coverage and it'd be great if there was a resource for anyone trying to figure out what's going on. Any refs/coaches/competitors out there who want to take on the task? I'll be glad to help out though it's been a while since I've competed and the rules have changed recently...
:This would probably be best on a separate page.  The rules change frequently, so a complete listing of rules is probably not practical or desirable, but general formats and rules -- i.e., scoring, judging, penalities, match structures -- could be covered.  I suppose it would be a good idea to more strictly define what the main entry should be for.BCampbell 14:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic sparring rules 

message: The rules that were present sounded as if they were ripped straight from the rulebook, and thus were hard to read for the layperson.  I tried to make them easier to read and reorganize them.  It's still a very long section, considering what's in it and that it may be worthy of it's own entry. BCampbell 20:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, needed some help with that. i did shorten it a lot, but it reads much better now. article could use still more cleaning up, i think. i thought about a separate entry, but what would it consist of, except a cut & paste of the actual rules? unless someone with olympic sparring experience can add some insight, which i can't. Appleby 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, it would be relaly tough to write without editorializing.  We'll see if anyone else stumbles across this and thinks it needs changes.  I don't see any reason this couldn't eventually be a featured article. BCampbell 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic rules 

message: i think the recent wholesale changes to the history section are for the worse ... much too centered on one individual, when many others can claim large contributions. the previous version was much more objective, factual, concise. Appleby 14:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: history changes

message: First, if Taekwondo "refers to Korean martial arts as a whole", why do you call Taekyon as Taekyon, Ssirum as Ssirum, Soobak as Soobak, and Gumdo as Gumdo, while you can call it all as "Taekwondo"? It's nothing but self-contradictory nonsense. Taekwondo is not a general term for martial arts(there is a term for it as Moosul), but a proper noun for the name of one kind of martial arts.
Second, there is absolutely no relation between Taekwondo and Taekyon, except the similarity in the name. The name "Taekwondo" is actually stealing of sound from Taekyon, to create a make-believe of Taekwondo as a traditional martial arts. Choi Hong Hi's autobiography and testimonies of other surviving founders of Taekwondo verifies this fact. It was completely Choi's idea of changing name of Karate of their style(I'll explain this later).
The only person who claimed to learned Taekyon among the founders of Taekwondo is Choi Hong Hi, and the only fragment of Taekyon applied *only on ITF Taekwondo* is Jjae-Chagi, which is kicking from inside to outside. It is also known that early Taekwondo(1950~60's) didn't have this kind of technique, which emphasize the doubt that it is added later to make false connection between their martial arts and the traditional martial art.
Taekyon was completely forgotton during the end of Japanese occupation, only found as name in the book "Man Mul Bo" and some other materials. Japanese prohibited Taekyon and Ssirum during these times. Movement of finding Taekyon was started in 1961 by Shin Han Sung(also known as Shin Sung). Only two people(Song Duk Ki/Kim Hong Shik) could perform Taekyon, and Shin Han Sung learned from them. Song Duk Ki and Shin Han Sung was the only people who could perform Taekyon when it got the classification "Important Intangible Cultural Asset No. 76" in June 1, 1983.(Kim Hong Shik died before that) It is the only korean martial art which possesses such a classification.
Third, every person of the founders of Taekwondo is Karate black belt. I can even tell their style of Karate; they were all black belts in Shotokan Karate. In the Masutatsu Oyama's biography, he tried to merge Taekwondo and his Kyokushin Karate. If Taekwondo was not Karate, how could he think about merging two different martial arts? Have you ever thought about merging Taichi with Kickboxing, or Capoeira with boxing? Also Oyama Matsudasu's Karate books were used for teaching people in early Taekwondo. Can you teach Kendo with Boxing books? If you ever seen Taekyon, You'll never think about it.
I've been learning Taekyon, and I can't bear this kind of falsehood running around people's head.
:if you're new to wikipedia, welcome. not that i'm exactly a veteran myself. please be sure to type ~~~~ at the end of your comment, to sign & date.
:i think you can get the general sense even from browsing this talk section, a lot of people have detailed knowledge of a certain aspect of tkd, but nobody really wants to get down to doing the hard research to make this a scholarly, professional article. you can see from history that i tried to do a lot of work on it, not by researching from scratch, but at least cleaning up the wording & organization of the article. 
:the problem is, as an encyclopedia, this article has to consist of info from citable, reputable sources, & there just aren't that many, if any. like most martial arts, there are official organization sites, fan sites, commercial sites, & "anti" sites, but virtually no objective, scholarly sources. i'm not doubting your information, but if you start major editing of the article, you will find that other people are just as convinced, with as just as much detail, that a different version is true. unfortunately for us, but for very good reasons, we can't cite personal knowledge, or even personal original research, for wikipedia. see wikipedia policy on verifiability & no original research.
:unless you are ready to back up major changes with authoritative citations that will convince people who don't share your views, i think the best we can do is basically maintain the current content, the result of countless interested people fighting it out for a long time. 
:having said that, by no means am i discouraging you from contributing. i made some moderate changes myself, having done some serious googling, & my changes were not objected to. if you do have convincing sources & can defend it, "be bold," as they say. but remember everyone's entitled to their convictions, the problem is verifying it under wikipedia policy. Appleby 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of nonsense on history section 

message: i think this is a much better photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taekwondo_Fight_01.jpg
anyone who knows how, could you replace one of the existing images? Appleby 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  found a nicer photo; anybody know how to link it? 

message: A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:
:
Shawnc 11:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial arts category for Wikipedians

message: An encyclopedia is not the appropriate place for links to a single club (New Hampshire/Massachusetts; Montreal; or Mendoza, Argentina, etc.). The Singapore club justified its presence by saying links could be found on their site to General Choi's Encyclopedia of Taekwondo; I changed it to the correct link to go directly to the encyclopedia. 
If someone can tell me why there are 3 "official" ITF sites, and why their international headquarters seems to be in 3 places (Canada, Austria, and England), I would appreciate it.
The "Scholarly history" was a dead link.
-DoctorW 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia not the place for single club links

message: "Tang Soo Do" and "Tangsoodo" are incorrectly spelled. It doesn't matter whether the error is widely committed; an encyclopedia has to use a spelling that can be defended as correct. This rendering is what has been called the American-enlisted-man's-back-of-the-envelope Romanization as a slap against the ignorance of international spelling conventions that is reflected. Eventually all the spellings on Wikipedia will have to be corrected, even if they don't agree with the the way some martial arts instructor from Korean first jotted it down on the corner of schedule. -DoctorW 06:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please see above. language by its nature involves corruptions and illogical evolution, as american english demonstrates. wikipedia policy is to use the most common english word, balanced with the official rr system that korean wikipedia article editors have adopted at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). personally, i think Tang Soo Do can be characterized as a loanword. Appleby 17:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: ::Plus, when the official governing body and TKD instructors (who's pbobably been lied to as well) are prepared to propagate such blatantly factually incorrect narrative, how much credibility can you give to narrative of Subak, Taekyon, Yusul and Hwarang?
:::I studied Wado for a while with Kurubane San, a good friend of my Shotokan teacher. There were little differences between Wado and Shotokan, but they both traced their techniques back to Funakoshi San. There are some things in Shotokan that derive from Okinawa tradition that I never liked very much when I was learning, but I could not understand them at the time. My critque was that everything was "one strike kills" -- a plan of action that you don't want to implement when dealing with an out-of-control teenager in a disciplinary school.  For those kids some of my Crane teacher's techniques, some qin-na techniques, some aikido techniques, were preferable.  There are actually some qin-na techniques in some Shotokan kata, but you'd have trouble spotting them from the sidelines. My point is just that special circumstances in Okinawa made their definition of kata, techniques, etc., different from what they got from China. By the same token, my Shotokan teachers would disapprove of many of the Korean modifications, and I think that Aciel is right to say that present-day Taekwondo has morphed quite a bit.  
:::Some of the things that you see in aikido are also present in qin-na, but some are not. I would be fascinated to know the history of aikijutsu. I suspect that it may have come from qin-na, but, on the other hand, my neighbors and I invented on aikido technique on our own (I guess). It's just that the human body can only bend and twist so many different way, and if you start experimenting around with what you can do to a person who aggressively gives you a hand you can easily discover a few of the vanilla qin-na or aikido techniques. On the other hand, lore of the field says that much of aikido came about by trying to figure out how an unarmed person can overcome an attacker with a sword.  
:::My memory is that at least some of the post World War II masters in Korea openly credited Shotokan karate. There must be books somewhere that detail their accounts and could be cited in the Taikwondo article.  I know that Mr. Charles Bewley told me that he knew the old Taikwondo forms that were like my Shotokan forms, but I think he said he had only learned them when he went to Korea, and that they were not being taught anymore, at least as an active part of the beginning curriculum. P0M 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to Chong Hi, Taekwondo was a mix of Shotokan and Taekyon, and there was also a great controversy about the naming.
Everybody liked the name, but they felt it might have been disrespectful of Taekyon. So they asked the president of South Korea, who gave his OK. So I'm not going to say ITF has nothing in common with Shotokan, but it's a different MA, and should be treated as a different MA. Oh, and Hwarang-Tul is not from Shotokan, although the other Tuls were. I do not know how this has changed though. And there are a lot of things in TKD, which are not in Shotokan, like the Down-Up-Down movement. Also, the flashy kicks that were not good for actual fighting were discussed, and was pointed to older Korean history, where people competing in Taekyon would try not to hurt eachother so that they wouldn't end up facing the harsh rerisals of the day. To overcome this problem, they created contests that would exersize skill, as well as not being dangerous. Thus they made patterns, and did kicks that were difficult to do. This was also one of the reasons of including patterns in TKD, and also a reason to train in difficult kicks, like the now infamous 540 kick. It is more an exersize in skill then a real combat kick. To be able to pull it off, you need a lot of speed, agility and skill. Just as an example of Taekyon/Older Korean thinking influences on TKD HaakonKL 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ====================================================

message: Excuse me, but is it just me, or are all the images on this page from WTF? ITF have two patches on our doboks (I think thats how you spell it) and none of the people have that. It would be good to have a image of WTF and an ITF one side by side to show the discintion. 220.239.150.90 05:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF 

message: pardon my being a stickler, but isnt the first syllable of 태권도 pronounced like 'stay'? i dont know why it bugs me so much to hear it prounounced like 'tie'
-Lordraydens 16:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Any info on him who pioneered Taekwondo in the Philippines would be highly appreciated. Very little to no info on the net.--Jondel 06:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Man Park

message: I've attempted to clean up some sloppy grammar and spelling in the belt section.  I have no particular knowledge about the belt system beyond the most basic understanding, so I have tried not to change the meaning of any of the statements.  A few sentences in here were garbled run-ons with no clear and decipherable meaning, and I omitted them.  Somebody wiser can hopefully fill in the blanks, especially in the 4th Dan testing paragraph.  I intend to do some more work on this section to clean up typos and poor grammar.  This section is very large, I'm considering ways to break it down.  I already organized it by Gup vs Dan belt, but a lot of the information in here has less to do with "belts" than the rules for testing and advancement.  I may re-org along those lines.  Feedback welcome. Bjsiders 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedits on the belt section

message: Would it be a silly idea to seperate the belt sections, protocol, naming history etc into WTF and ITF specific sections? It seems the styles are fairly different, despite being grouped under the umbrella of Taekwon-Do.
This may also clear up some of the inconsistency that seems to plague this article with respect to naming conventions people, places and similar.
cJ
:I considered that while editing it but I ultimately decided to leave it alone and let somebody more knowledgable tackle it.  I'll try to re-write today along those lines and see how easy it will be to divide it up.  I'll post it here before updating the live page, not all of the material is clear on what applies to ITF vs WTF vs both. Bjsiders 12:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ITF and WTF treated seperately?

message: I'm still going through, section by section, and cleaning up the article.  This article is liberally polluted with good but disorganized and sometimes inappropriate information.  There is a great deal of unnecessary detail, confused statements that contradict each other, and much cheerleading on behalf of WTF vs IFT taekwondo practitioners.  I've removed large swaths of excrutiating details that are unlikely to be interesting or relevent to a typical reader, these details more appropriate belong in more specific articles, such as articles specific to the WTF, ITF, or even the kwan.  Please discuss here if anybody feels I've taken too much liberty in what I've elected to remove, I'd be glad to talk about it.  I'm trying to get this article to the point where somebody who knows little to nothing about taekwondo can quickly read through the article and understand it, as well as dispel some myths (like what exactly it means to have a black belt vs a blue belt vs a yellow belt, etc).  Right now a casual reader who didn't already know most of what's in here would become hopelessly lost just trying to understand taekwondo's origins. 
My next task will be to separate the "history of Korean striking arts" into two sections - one on the history of the development of taekwondo as a martial art, and another on the history of the administrative bodies of taekwondo.  I plan to remove a lot of name-dropping and cheerleading. Bjsiders 14:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about any of these people.  Choi has his own article on Wikipedia, nobody else in the article did, so I kept that one.  As I said, the history section had become a big list of names and places and kwan and for a typical reader of this article, that level of detail was unnecessary, and more appropriately belongs in another article, perhaps an article that focuses specifically on the kwan. Bjsiders 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've re-written the history section, drawing on various sources.  Among the sources I used were the articles about subak and taekkyon, other web pages, the official WTF web site, and the information already contained in the article.  I have shortened the section up immensely, it contained a lot of dates and lists of names and places that didn't flow at all with the prose and made the section incredibly difficult to read.  I also tried to re-write it as more of a flowing narrative that explains the history of the art in an organized manner.  This means a lot of names and details were omitted.  If that level of detail is desired to be in the history section, I think a separate "history of takewondo" or "history of korean martial arts" article may be appropriate.  The only "todo" I have left is to properly link the reference to Choi.  Again, somebody who is more knowlegable should scan it for factual accuracy.  The Korean sources I looked at were either in Korean (of which I speak very little) or computer-translated English which is often unintelligable, and many of them contradicted each other.  I tried to rely on Wikipedia's other articles first and foremost, and support with additional material from other web sources.  As always, discuss here if you disagree or have ideas for improvements.  Or just make your changes and I'll discuss them. :)  Bjsiders 15:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't find any ITF slant or propoganda when I re-did the section.  My tae kwon do career has taken place entirely in World Taekwondo Federation schools, and I tried to include as much ITF information as I could, but I don't know much about the ITF. Bjsiders 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I read through the article and its well informed. I suggest writing a more informative section on how it developed and formed. I also suggest applying this article as a featured article candidate. Showing taekwondo on the main page will help make it more known. Good friend100 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As somebody who has put some time into this article recently, thanks!  I think it has a long way to go before it's featured article material, but we're working on it.  The 'history' section is still a little pockmocked with gaps, and I think more could be done to organize the section on gup ranks.  Give it a few more weeks. Bjsiders 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice article 

message: We had gup used universally in the page for a long time, and somebody went in and changed about half of the gups to kups and now the article is inconsistant.  Let's pick one and stick with it.  I vote gup simply because that's what we've always used, but I don't really care which one we use as long as we don't alternate. Bjsiders 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that, and cleaned up the Kups in the belt section to be uniformly Gups. Wkerney 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kup vs Gup 

message: I've recently came across this website; I'm not sure if it's been brought up.  It has a nice bibliography at the end, so maybe it's factual?  The case is: 'A renowned martial art book of the days, called "muyedobo-tongji" said; "Taekwondo(the art of hand-to-hand fight) is the basis of martial art, enabling one to build strength by means of using the hand and foot freely and training arms and legs as well as the body to be adaptable to any critical situations, which means Taekwondo was already prevalent in that age.'.  This contridicts the fact in the wikipedia article: Taekwondo that says taekwondo was coined in the 1900's.  So who's right???100110100 23:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/ancienthistory.htm#1 

message: I have failed this article primarily because the references were too thin, improperly formatted and not consistent with each other to boot (we should not mix plain old footnotes and inline external links in an article). Otherwise it's fairly good.
I would also consider taking a long hard look at the External Links section, which seems to be getting near the spam event horizon. Daniel Case 03:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nom

message: Wikipedia is not a collection of links - the links of this article are far too many - this is unacceptable.  It does establish a good information hierarchy however - the article should have a list of styles (WTF, ITF, etc) and link to articles on each of them, those articles can contain lists of "National Organizing bodies" (USTU for WTF in the US, etc) in them with articles for each.  the "general" links should be trimmed down to at most 10 links. I may start doing this stubbing out myself. Lordkazan 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Too many people have been editing the article changing things to reflect how their school does it in the belt section. Please don't do that. The section is correct when it says that the odd numbered belts "vary" from school to school. Putting a random belt that your school uses into those slots is wrong, as there really is no consensus between schools on how to set ranks to colors, especially on the odd gups. You're doing no one a favor. 64.203.50.95 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: Rv if I made a mistake.100110100 04:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Quotation Marks For What? 

message: Gup is the standard spelling for class grades in the Kukkiwon (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/examination/examination08.jsp?div=01). The article mentions Kup is also allowed. It is not necessary for whoever it is messing up the page to change half the Gups to Kups. It doesn't help, and just makes the page look confused. For your average English speaker, it just makes the article harder to understand. 75.18.223.68 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kup Vandalism 

message: Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion  Article 8 : Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion	Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion  Article 8 : Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion	Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion  Article 8 : Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion	Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion  Article 8 : Time & Age Limits for Poom or Dan Promotion
                                                                                                    	                                                                                                    	                                                                                                    	
Poom/Dan                                                                                            	Minimum Time Requiredfor Promotion                                                                  	Age Limits for Promotion                                                                            	Age Limits for Promotion
Poom/Dan                                                                                            	Minimum Time Requiredfor Promotion                                                                  	Start from Dan                                                                                      	Start from Poom
                                                                                                    	                                                                                                    	                                                                                                    	
1st Poom                                                                                            	N A                                                                                                 	N A                                                                                                 	Less than 15 Years Old
1st to 2nd Poom                                                                                     	1 year                                                                                              	N A                                                                                                 	15?
2nd to 3rd Poom                                                                                     	2 year                                                                                              	N A                                                                                                 	15?
3rd to 4th Poom                                                                                     	3 year                                                                                              	N A                                                                                                 	18?
1st Dan                                                                                             	N A                                                                                                 	15 years and above                                                                                  	N A
1st to 2nd Dan                                                                                      	1 year                                                                                              	16 years and above                                                                                  	14 years and above
2nd to 3rd Dan                                                                                      	2 year                                                                                              	18 years and above                                                                                  	15 years and above
3rd to 4th Dan                                                                                      	3 year                                                                                              	21 years and above                                                                                  	18 years and above
4th to 5th Dan                                                                                      	4 year                                                                                              	25 years and above                                                                                  	22 years and above
5th to 6th Dan                                                                                      	5 year                                                                                              	30 years and above                                                                                  	30 years and above
6th to 7th Dan                                                                                      	6 year                                                                                              	36 years and above                                                                                  	36 years and above
7th to 8th Dan                                                                                      	8 year                                                                                              	44 years and above                                                                                  	44 years and above
8th to 9th Dan                                                                                      	9 year                                                                                              	53 years and above                                                                                  	53 years and above
9th to 10th Dan                                                                                     	N A                                                                                                 	60 years and above                                                                                  	60 years and above
I have studied this chart and realised almost instantly, that it's wrong! I acheived my Black belt within eight years of training, one less than this graph shows. In my Tae kwon Do school we didn't have to wait a year before we could get promoted or whatnot. We could get promoted every three months if we had the skil,, which i often did. So i beleive this chart should be removed effective immediately. Jasca Ducato 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that's taken right from the Kukkiwon web page, dude. Not all schools follow Kukkiwon protocol, but the information is certainly accurate. And as Jackal says, you're probably thinking of Gups, not Dan. Wkerney 08:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i know what i'm thinking off. And its not Gups. Jasca Ducato 12:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate information

message: Hi.  I'm a Muay Thai guy, so I don't have too much background in TKD.  Found this page on a supposed "father of Tae Kwan Do", Bok Man Kim, while wiki-surfing.  This seems suspiciously like an advertisement for his dojos (as it is lifted verbatim from his dojo ad sites), but I don't know enough about TKD to know if he actually *is* a notable figure or not within the TKD world.  Would someone with more expertise on the subject take a look at the page? Djma12 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Djma12, as you have personally admitted, you have little, background in TKD. I've participated in and watched Taekwondo grow in my country, the Philippines. Please don't suggest that the Kim Bok Man article is advertisement. My teacher , Paul Cabatingan was one of the first blackbelts of the country. Kim Bok Man was one the very early bonafide pioneers of Taekwondo in the Philippines and in many South East Asian Countries. In those days, Taekwondo hardly had any prestige and was referred to as 'Korean Karate'. Another early pioneer which I wish I had more info on is Young Man Park. --Jondel 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TKD Fraud?