Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 2

message: Do we need this section?  This sounds like an opinion piece.  Wiki isn't a soapbox and this section doesn't flow with the rest of the article.  It's void of any references.  MMA efficacy of TKD isn't important enough to deserve its own section in my opinion.Melonbarmonster 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits made since no one responded one way or the other.  Comments, opinions welcome.Melonbarmonster 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude you need to read WP:A, WP:V, WP:OR.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the martial art. MMA adds no value to the "credibility" of any martial art, and since MMA is a form of sport, one which is far removed from the art of Taekwondo, the addition of the MMA section would only spark an unnecessary argument. Melonbarmonster pretty much says exactly what I have said. I agree completely.Ubershock 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Success in MMA Section

message: Please don't make unilateral edits to this site when administrators and editors have clearly stated their disagreement with your website promotions. You are violating WP:EW by ignoring other people's disagreement with your edits.  You need to seek consensus before making edits that multiple users disagree with you on. Looking at your wiki contributions, most of your edits have been inserting links to your site in various tkd related articles. That kind of website promotion on wiki as far as I know. If you disagree, please resolve this with the admin who alerted you to this on your talk page. You can't just ignore admin and other editors and make these edits unilaterally. Thanks.Melonbarmonster 06:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web Site Promotion for TKD Hall of Fame

message: Please feel free to correct to the authentic Korean pronounciation. I only remember this by ear but don't know for example the actual written form.--Jondel 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean commands

message: Wow. Way to completely leave out the Goryeo(Koryo) Dynasty in the history section... That's pretty much the most important dynasty to mention concerning Taekwondo.  If I'm not mistaken, there is even a style called Koryo.  You should definately do some research about its history in Goryeo and its travel to Japan & influence on Japanese martial arts.
Goyeo was of no influence on Taekwondo, aside from lending it's name one pumsae of Kukki Taekwondo. Errant108 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goryeo?

message: References going nowhere? Is there a reason for having references but no References section? → Icez {talk | contrib} 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the original edit summary said, to encourage people to add references. --Gwern  (contribs) 01:38 12 February 2007 (GMT)
I tried to edit the references section to remove the link to S KIM's Taekwondo school, which is disguised as "Taekwondo History" but links to http://www.sjkim-taekwondo.com/History.html.
But I found out the references are locked. How do we get this edited out?--Bigzilla 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I see no entry there for the heel kick or the twist kick, surely they're not under "advanced kicks"? 150.199.110.146 01:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oversights in the Kicking Portion?

message: I added a criticims section to the article.  I think such a section is important in order to have an overall objective article on Tae Kwon Do.70.127.5.141 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subjective criticisms are inappropriate and certainly doesn't deserve an entire subsection.  Please check WP:A if you're not familiar with wiki policies on attribution.  Previous attempts at adding this were summarily rejected and nothings changed since then. Thanks. 168.216.66.107's mysterious deletions were also returned. melonbarmonster 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that subjective criticisms can be innapropriate.  I read the attribution section on wikipedia as you suggested.  If similar criticisms to the ones I posted could be attributable to a reliable published source then I think the criticisms should be added.  I'm not talking about Jow Blow from a blog either.  As I stated before I think criticisms of a particular martial art are important if you are to have an objective, informative article. Rockpyle26 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms section added

message: Not a peeve, but an observation and comment - they only kick shown on the pages for a front kick is a snapping / thrusting front kick. At a minimum, there should be about seven kicks that could be classified as a front kick : snapping / thrusting, rising, crescent, hooking, pick-shaped, downward, and checking. This actually leaves out a few more that can be performed in a front 'direction' but may confuse the issue, such as turning or twist. 
I have been trained, and I encourage my students as well, to make sure you know which kick is required. A front snapping kick could be done thrusting (with the ball of the foor), pressing (flat footed, and as opposed to a checking kick), or piercing (with the heel) as legitimate front kicks. Foot swords and some other foot tools would be a little goofy, and probably wouldn't contribute anything of value.
--Mgorsha 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front kicks 

message: On the page it says this about the ITF system:
*1st Dan - 4th Dan: "Instructor" (Boo-Sabum)
*5th Dan - 6th Dan: "Master" (Sabum)
*7th Dan - 8th Dan: "Grand Master" (Sahyun)
*9th Dan- 10th: "Great Grand Master" (Sasung)
As far as I know this is completely incorrect and should be:
*1st Dan - 3rd Dan: "Assistant Instructor" (Boo-Sabum)
*4th Dan - 6th Dan: "International Instructor" (Sabum)
*7th Dan - 8th Dan: "Master" (Sahyung)
*9th Dan: "Grand Master" (Sasung)
And there is no 10th Dan within the ITF.
But since it's a relatively big change and I might be misinformed I'll see if anyone objects to this change.
113 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Taekwondo Federation page agrees with you. SunSw0rd 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan titles?

message: After reading through the Taekwondo page I feel that there is way too much tribalism. There is too much information from the POV of either the ITF or the WTF in general sections. It's quite confusing the seperate the information between the ITF and the WTF, I think that should this information be included that the page be divided as having all it's general sections, avoiding too much reference to any POV materials such as the promotion table, then below the general sections have two more sections, one for WTF and one for ITF which is then divided into sections about belts, promotions, titles etc. --Michael Hall 14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what information you're proposing to include.melonbarmonster 14:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll draw up a sketch of what I mean when I get the time so you can see. --Michael Hall 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay maybe ignore the part about the WTF and ITF sections as now I'm looking around Wikipedia more I see they already have pages. Still, the taekwondo page is far too tribalized. I'll still come up with a quick sketch outlining what I think should be sorted out. --Michael Hall 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - Tribalism 

message: I removed a lot of fancruft from this section [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taekwondo&diff=136475367&oldid=136346672, since it essentially became a trivia section. An indiscriminate list of every fighting game character that uses this style adds nothing to the article. All of the characters mentioned have their own articles that state that they use taekwondo. Including that info here adds nothing to the understanding of taekwondo's actual development and use. I think a comment on the page source may be necessary to help discourage future editors from bringing it back. I also removed the movie mentions since it was mostly unsourced claims and didn't at all feel enecyclopedic. --75.2.64.186 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media depiction