Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 3

message: I quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles):  "Korean words transliterated into English should use the Revised Romanization, unless they are used in specifically North Korean context – for example, Chosŏn'gŭl (instead of Joseon-geul) for Hangul."
The word 급 is spelled "geup" according to Revised Romanization.  The alternative of "gup" is specified in the article.  However, the Revised Romanization version should be the standard, per the Manual of Style.  In this context, it doesn't really matter what spelling any individual organization might use, as there is naturally variation in such matters.  Omnedon 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The exception to this rule are English words borrowed from Korean and frequently used in a non-Korean context, whose irregular spellings have crystallized in English. Examples of such words include Hangul, kimchi, and taekwondo [which should be spelled as "Hangeul (or Han-geul)", "gimchi", and "taegwondo" respectively in Revised Romanization -- 'Gup' is the crystalized spelling in English, and is used in official documents in TKD by both the WTF and ITF. Calling it Gup is the correct spelling, in the context of the Taekwondo article. 75.31.171.215 08:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "gup" is hardly as widespread as the use of "taekwondo".  Usually words need to nearly be loanwords before a nonconventional romanization is preferred to a correct romanization. (and "gup" is really only used in taekwondo - therefore, used only in a Korean context, as opposed to the rule, which only applies to words "frequently used in a non-Korean context")  An encyclopedia should be more precise than everyday usage, not merely reflect common usage.  And incidentally, the taekwondo organization I was involved with for a while used "kup".  In any event, in most cases a word needs to pass the "dictionary test" for its unconvential romanization to be preferred.  Essentially everyone, including non-martial artists, are familiar with the spelling "taekwondo", while the word "gup" or "geup" is totally unknown outside taekwondo practitioners. A word that is completely unknown outside of a very small group can hardly have been "crystallized" in English, just because a few of the governing organizations have used it.  Also, use in official documents is not the same thing as an official version.  Finally, an "official" version implies that a deliberative process was engaged in, and a conscious decision was made, as well as some kind of codified rule or guideline was enacted. I think the WTF and ITF simply romanized the word without using the same care that a scholar or linguist would.  That is the kind of care that an encyclopedia should be written with. Bradford44 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be widespread in the American community -- it needs to be widespread in the Taekwondo community. If we were using the word Gup somewhere outside the context of TKD, then you would be correct. However, since both the WTF and ITF have chosen to call it Gup, then that is the spelling we should use in an article on taegwondo. 75.31.171.215 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bradford44, that was very well-stated, and I agree.  75.31.171.215, as to the changes I just restored -- aside from the "geup" issue, they fixed broken links (like "dan" linking to the name "Dan" instead of "Dan rank").  They also made the article more grammically correct, and (I feel) made minor improvements in formatting consistency.  As to the "geup" issue, I can see what you are saying, but nevertheless, a Tae Kwon Do organization isn't primarily about how Korean words are Romanized, but rather about Tae Kwon Do itself.  Whether it's "geup" or "gup" or "kup" or "급", the meaning is the same.  I'm pretty sure the WTF and ITF don't attempt to set standards for Romanized versions of Tae Kwon Do terms; you are taking their usage as gospel when, in fact, I suspect it's simply that they used commonly-used Romanized versions of words which existed at the time.  However, the South Korean government standardized on Revised Romanization in 2000; see http://www.korea.net/korea/kor_loca.asp?code=A020303 for some of the reasons.  Wikipedia uses RR as a standard too.  Omnedon 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's akin to the Wikipedia guidelines on when to use British English and when to use American English when spelling differences arise. When writing on a topic in England, the British spelling is correct. When writing an article on Tae Kwon Do, one should use the same spelling that the official organizations use. Similarly, we should use terms that most TKD practitioners will recognize from their own official forms. 75.31.171.215 04:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not what the Manual of Style states.  The Romanization of "급" as "gup" has not crystallized in English, as Bradford has already stated.  Therefore it should be Romanized with the official method of South Korea and Wikipedia, and the result is "geup".  This is an encyclopedia, not a Tae Kwon Do manual.  In any case, in my opinion, Tae Kwon Do practitioners will mostly be concerned with the sound and meaning of the word.  It should also be noted that "gup" and "kup" are both listed as alternative spellings; so "gup" does appear in the article.  Omnedon 11:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you're wrong. We're in a TKD article, therefore we must use the conventions that the official organizations use. 70.136.38.153 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia states you should use the most common spelling of a word within the context of the article. In a British article, you spell color colour. In an article on TKD, you spell Taekwondo Taekwondo and not Taegwondo. You spell gup whichever way the official organizations do, and copy their standard. RR is only used when there's not an established standard. This is the way wikipedia works, sorry. 69.105.150.73 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also note that you cut out the part on using a non RR spelling, which is kind of bad. 69.105.150.73 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Bigzilla, as for the South Korean government, as I mentioned, they have already accepted Revised Romanization as of the year 2000 for a variety of good reasons.  As for the Kukkiwon, where does that organization set specific standards for Romanization?  The fact that the Kukkiwon uses "gup" in its own documents is not the same thing as the Kukkiwon specifically stating, "gup is the only standard and correct spelling".  They're simply using one of several alternative spellings, and one that was (and still is) commonly-used.  It's not a problem, but it doesn't establish an official standard.  Schools or organizations might use "gup", "kup", "geup", or whatever; but here in Wikipedia it needs to be "geup".  Omnedon 17:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Romanization and "geup" 

message: It is probably unnecessary to have a narrative description of the WTF- and Olympic-style sparring rules, as well as the bulleted list which is a summary of the rules from the official website.  Perhaps the paragraphs should be removed, ensuring that any relevant information not already in the bulleted list is integrated into it.  Thoughts? Omnedon 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sparring rules 

message: It's my opinion that "Taekwondo" should be capitalized, as it is a name and not just a word.  Right now it's not consistent in this article; sometimes it's capitalized and sometimes not.  Is there consensus on which way to go?  The same situation applies to "Subak", "Taekkyeon", et cetera...  Omnedon 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the WP:WPMA it has been the convention to treat names of martial arts as common nouns (not capitalized), and not as proper nouns.  Where the word "taekwondo" is part of a proper name, such as an organization, it should be capitalized along with the rest of the name, such as Rhee Taekwon-Do (where it is also written according to the "official" name of the organization).  So the first line of that article might read: "Rhee Taekwon-Do is a school of taekwondo." Bradford44 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WPMA is pretty clear on the subject.  I was unaware of that, and no one had pointed it out; thanks.  Omnedon 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I have just completed some edits in an attempt to improve the readability of the article without changing the meanings of the statements.  In particular, the sections on sparring rules and on color belts contained useful information but could have had better grammar or been a bit more clear, and sometimes contained non-neutral statements.
Other fixes involved ensuring that the "references" section contained nothing but actual footnote references; before, there were five links to animated GIFs that illustrated particular kicks, which is useful but not really footnote material, and of course external links are not supposed to be provided in-line, so I moved the link to the "external links" section, and removed some superfluous external links as well.  I hope this will help to resolve the "consistent citation" issue.  If so, perhaps that tag can be removed.
The lists of Korean commands were converted to tables so that the three items for each term (the Romanization, the Hangeul version, and the English meaning) were easier to read.  Hangeul versions of titles were included in the relevant existing table for completeness.
There was also no mention in the article of the uniform, belt (in relation to the uniform), or "dojang", so I added a small neutral paragraph about them.
Some other edits were trivial but improved consistency, such as ensuring that "Subak" is consistently italicized, removing "self-defense" from the "sparring" bullet when "self-defense" already had its own bullet, and changing "kukkowon" to "kukkiwon" in two web references.
The goal is to improve the article so that it can successfully be nominated for "good article" status.  More needs to be done, of course, especially in terms of citations (which I'm working on, offline).  If anyone disagrees with the edits I've made, let's discuss them.
Omnedon 13:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Omnedon, this is not your article. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
Hits for 'Gup' on the internet: 724,000
Hits for 'Geup' on the internet: 46,700
Hits for 'Gup TKD' on the internet: 25,600
Hits for 'Geup TKD' on the internet: 918
Gup Wins.
:You forgot to include "kup".  "Kup taekwondo" returns 101,000 hits compared to 31,200 for "gup taekwondo".  But a Google search does not define the standard here.  The established WP rules define the standard here. Omnedon 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, kup is in first place (more than triple the usage of gup), so based on 75.37.61.47's own test gup clearly doesn't win.  No evidence I've seen suggests that gup is the "official" form of the word, or indeed that there *is* a single official form that TKD practitioners agree on -- all the above are used by many people. Huwmanbeing 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're violating the Wikipedia rules by reverting it to Geup when Gup is the preferred spelling. 75.31.169.243 08:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh.  Since you have no meaningful response to any of the facts I presented, I guess this debate has effectively ended. Huwmanbeing 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Test for Crystallization 

message: Due to the major style differences between traditional Taekwon do as seen in General Choi Hong He's encyclopedia of Taekwon Do and the sports style currently practiced by WTF i recommend splitting the article into seperate wiki's, one for Traditional (ITF) Taekwon Do where the use of hand and elbow techniques are as prominent as foot and knee techniques; and one for WTF Taekwon Do, where kicking techniques are much more prominent, and striking with the hand is nearly completely removed.
````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.23.10.41 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary, just state the differences in subsections if needed or just within the text.melonbarmonster 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose There are much more similarities than differences, there's no need for separate articles - Nmnogueira 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also be against splitting the article.  Whether it's ITF or WTF, it's still Tae Kwon Do.  I don't think that hand/arm techniques are as prominent as foot/leg techniques in the ITF; and I would also question the assertion that in the WTF the hand/arm techniques are nearly absent.  But in any case, I think it would be inappropriate to divide the article along organization lines. Omnedon 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see more evidence cited in this topic to support the similarities of WTF and ITF systems, i mean no disrespect but a simple assertion without evidence isn't enough for me.  As i hold instructor ranks in both WTF and ITF systems i believe the style differences are significant, the organizations are merely the names that are given to the styles, and i feel that the difference is sufficient to consider WTF the olympic recognized sport style, and ITF the recognized traditional style.  However if it is against the popular vote i will accept.
````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.23.10.41 (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that in fact there may be more variations within ITF and WTF style schools than between them. It is true that WTF style emphasizes kicking more than ITF. ITF style is more balanced -- both kicking and punching. Both styles emphasize kicking more than any other martial art except, perhaps, kickboxing. Partly that is because the kicking causes a more vigorous conditioning workout -- and also because someone who has developed the kicking well has both a strong attack and defense. But -- again -- it depends upon the individual school and its lineage. And also -- often the schools are not pure TKD but may incorporate Hapkido as well -- that is not uncommon at all. Therefore -- I vote not splitting the article. SunSw0rd 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Schools fighting 50/50 hands and feet are alive and strong in the US. The Kinney Karate Association is one of the biggest Tae Kwon Do Associations in Oklahoma, and are a clear example of this. The American Karate Black Belt Association would be another good example of Taekwondo schools training to fight 50/50 including grappling in the US. User5802 08:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't see a need to split this article. But there could also be separate articles on the WTF and ITF that go into detail about those specific groups. There are MANY Taekwondo schools with NO affiliation to the WTF or ITF, so a main Taekwondo article must exist. User5802 08:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already separate articles for the ITF and WTF; moving more of the organization-specific information into those articles might help the main article move toward "Good Article" status without losing any information.  As for the two organizations you mention -- they both appear to teach a mixture of arts, not just Tae Kwon Do.  Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.  Omnedon 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both the KKA and the AKBBA are composed of different groups united under one banner. Master Bob Kinney (10th Dan) head of the KKA initially studied his Tae Kwon Do under Jhoon Rhee, and not only is the entire association's emphasis on 50/50 hands and feet but the throws Jhoon Rhee initially taught are still included in the curriculum. Many of the schools do teach as pure a Taekwondo system as you'll find anywhere, it's just the surroundings from Texas "Blood and Guts" bareknuckle karate never allowed the Taekwondo taught in that part of the country to become over-commercialized, 95% high-kicking, ineffective kiddie daycare systems you see all over the place now. User5802 12:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: User5802, I guess this is all an example of the "divergent evolution" of TKD that the article mentions. :-) In any case, everyone, it seems to me that the consensus here is that we don't need to split the article even though we agree that there are differences among various groups within the art.  Does that capture it?  Omnedon 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Omnedon I think you are right on in the direction you want to take this article. Probably worth considering Kukkiwon vs. ITF's style instead of WTF vs. ITF... have to think more on that one. User5802 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recomend spliting article