Talk:American Kenpo

message: The early history section is confusingly written. It starts by talking about immigration to the US, then goes back to talk about Ken Fat spreading in Asia, which makes the chronology of events confusing. Maybe someone with more subject knowledge could rearrange so it makes more chronological sense?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychopompConvention (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Early History

message: While I understand that Ed Parker Sr. is the Senior Grand Master of American Kenpo,  I think his background information should be limited to the Wikipedia entry about him.  It's OK to include a little, but let's try to keep the American Kenpo page a description of the art and not of Mr. Parker.Charleca 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed Parker's Background 

message: Is this a direct quote? If so needs sourcing also possible copyvio needs a clean up before considering putting back & not in the header. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added seciton 

message: They haven't put in the way the system goes for juinors for the brown belts, since there's 5 brown belts for the juinors. Techo 20:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  childrens ranks 

message: A recent modification to the article removed the mention of three degrees of Brown as not common enough among different schools. There is a philosophical question involved here. Should the article try to list different variations of belt structures or find some least common denominator for different belt systems? I think not. Mr. Parker created a system with three degrees of Brown.  I think it is best to go with Mr. Parker's belt system as the baseline and add the caveat that belt systems can vary from school to school and organization to organization, especially since the Mr. Parker's death and the demise of the IKKA. Vantelimus (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are too many variations in different schools today.  Let's stick with Parker's original plan. -Charleca (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt ranks 

message: There are two articles, both of which are small and require a fair amount of cleanup, that I think could be merged into one section in this article.  Could someone check Dragon Kenpo and DragonKenpo and see if any of the material there can be included in this article?  I don't think the text of these two articles combined would stand on their own.  Livitup (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure those two are notable. They should certainly be redirected here. There's little worth merging but something can be said. JJL (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that there is nothing in those articles worth merging into American Kenpo. The second of the two looks as though it is self-serving marketing literature for Dragon Kenpo. If every instructor who broke off from the Parker lineage and declared their personal interpretation a new style were added, this article would turn into an insignificant list of nobodies. American Kenpo itself might have been an insignificant offshoot from Prof. Chow if Parker hadn't continued to develop it and promote it worldwide. Only time will tell if Dragon Kenpo becomes something notable. Consequently I vote against merging them into this article. In fact, I think it would be better if both articles were deleted. Vantelimus (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone already nominated DragonKenpo and I just nominated Dragon Kenpo based on your feedback.  Please follow the debates at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DragonKenpo and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon Kenpo if you are so inclined.  Livitup (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Much of the American Kenpo article now has references cited for controversial facts. It is true that individuals involved in the creation and evolution of American Kenpo are cited, but these are the most reliable sources of information. It is unlikely any third-party source exists or will exist that could convincingly clear up the points of controversy or provide historical information that will be more authoritative than Mitose, Chow, Parker and Tracy. Indeed, it is likely that additional authoritative sources will only spawn more controversy. Since these sources sometimes disagree, the only responsible way to document the subject is to include the disputed points and reference the sources of the controversy.
How do other editors feel about dropping the sources notice at the top of the page? The policy notice itself says primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. For a subject like Kenpo, third-party sources will only repeat information passed on by primary sources. This is not science where we can find independent validation. Indeed, since the primary sources disagree, there is little chance a third-party source will do more than offer a non-authoritative opinion. So, while Wikipedia may have a general policy about the insufficiency of these sources, this is a particular instance in which these closely affiliated sources are the most appropriate and perhaps the only appropriate sources.
As an aside, in my own questioning of first-generation students of Parker about historical facts (including Messers Trejo, Wedlake, Planas, and Palanzo), there is much about the history of Kenpo that has never been and likely never will find its way into a written source. Vantelimus (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to remove sources notice? 

message: Hi, all. I made some pretty bold structural changes to the article, in order to make it read in a more linearly accessible fashion. For instance, much of the content between "origins" and "evolution" was repetitive.
Also, there seemed to be a lot of naval-gazing in this article not in line with Wikipedia's style guide or other good example martial arts wiki pages. (And I'm saying this as a huge fan of naval-gazing and American Kenpo!)
I also added a note about kenpo/kempo Nomenclature (a common source of confusion) which could probably be clarified by someone more expert in linguistics and history of Japanese romanization.--☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold structural changes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on American Kenpo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201142427/http://www.blackbeltmag.com:80/archives/380 to http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/380
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The fact that I do not see Bruce Juchnik's name mentioned in this article is quite disturbing. Do you not know who he is?
If you are going to create a page on Wikipedia about American Kenpo it should have some reference to 
HANSHI BRUCE JUCHNIK! 
Tracy J. Scott  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracy J. Scott (talk • contribs) 02:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Juchnik 

message: The first paragraph here seems to be favorable toward the martial art and not impartial as it should be. My opinion at least. 
Pokeswap (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para. 1 

message: I removed several references that referred to “ignorance” or “ignorant people”. Not a good choice of words when discussing an art loved by so many.
For the Etymology and nomenclature section. While I believe understanding what kenpo means, I believe this is to detailed and more opinionated. Can be shorter and more to the historical point. Overall the section is a great idea and thanks to whoever put it together in the first place.
The history section should be about the history and lineage of American kenpo. To much detail into the personal lives of people in the section. People want to hear about the art. I also believe trying to ignore James Mitose doesn’t do the art justice. It is part of the lineage. Would be good if we could go back even farther. Again, don’t need more detail other than who the historical folks are. If people want to know more about mitose, chow or Parker, or even Tracy, they can go to their wiki pages
The features section is very well written, perhaps some bullets on sparing, freestyle and lock flow. I believe those with the basics and self defense technique training are what make the art a complete self defense system
I like the notable practitioner section. However I do not believe Bruce Lee was a practitioner. I could be wrong. I am a Big fan of Steve Wonderboy Thompson. However I believe he studies and teaches Okinawan Kempo, which has a different structure entirely. 
Should we add a sister art section? Something that points to Kajukenbo
Just some thoughts 🙂  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.222.37.197 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it about American Kenpo 

message: You all are the biggest idiots iv ever seen! What makes any of you qualified to decide on an post this "list"? The guys u cut from the list are the most well known 1st generation black belt kenpo instructors IN THE WORLD! The ones you talk about, except Speakman are practically unheard of. And also I've trained with Speakman in person several times and he's a self absorbed egotistical asshole! Wich s why he's been a 6th black since Parker died! You are incredibly dumb! Lol🙈🙉🙊 76.29.161.30 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  You all are the biggest idiots iv ever seen!