Martial Talk Project - Tae Kwon Do Needs Help!

[Jonathan Randall]

This is the entry for Tae Kwon Do on the Martial Talk Wiki:

http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Tae_Kwon_Do


This is my recent addition to the entry:

"Major Tae Kwon Do organizations include the World Tae Kwon Do Federation, The International Tae Kwon Do Federation and the American Tae Kwon Do Association. However, a large segment of the Tae Kwon Do community consists of independent, non-affiliated schools."

Alright Tigerwoman, Gemini, Terryl965 and all the other great MT TKD stylists! Let's fill this entry up!

[terryl965]

I really do not understand what the WIKI is for and how it is different from MT. that is why I have not posted on it already. If someone can explain in my simple way of thinking and how I can help, I would be glad to offer a lending hand.
TERRY

[Bob Hubbard]

The MartialTalk Martial Arts Encyclopedia (or wiki) is a community created/edited/expanded encyclopedia and semi-dictionary of the martial arts. It uses the same software as the Wikipedia but focuses on a more concentrated area. This allows us do be a bit more than the Wikipedia (which isn't a dictionary).

It differs from the MartialTalk Discussion Forums, in that it is a resource, not a forum. On a discussion board, you can play point-counter point, debate, etc. On the MTMAE the contents should conform to a preferably non-political 3rd person view. Anyone who registers can edit the entries. We work together building the entries, correcting and expanding each others comments. The key test all content there must pass are "credible", "verifiable" and "Neutral Point of View".

From the Wikipedia these are defined as:

Credible content is defined simply as "articles should use reliable published sources"
What is and is not credible is outlined in great detail here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources).

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For that reason, it is vital that editors rely on good sources.

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.

This is joined by the "No Original Research" clause.
Neither Wikipedia nor the MTMAE are the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

[terryl965]

Ok so you just want facts about the Art or sport of TKD not ones opinion correct.
Terry

[Bob Hubbard]

Bingo. :)

Now, each entry has a "Talk" page. Personally, I find them annoying as it's hard to follow if people aren't familiar with the 'style'. They are a good place to decide if something should or should not be included in an entry though.

Another thing to keep in mind - ALL!!!! content contributed must be able to be contributed. The MT Wiki uses the same copyright licence as the main Wiki, so anything here can go there, and anything there can come here. But, if you wrote an article for a magazine, and the magazine holds the copyright to the article, you shouldn't post it to the Wiki. Anything posted to the Wiki is available (under certain terms) to anyone to use elsewhere (as long as it's properly cited).

[Jonathan Randall]

Ok so you just want facts about the Art or sport of TKD not ones opinion correct.
Terry

I didn't add more than a paragraph because I wanted more senior MT TKD members to add much, but this thread can also be a sounding board, perhaps, for additions.

Bob, are you able to keep people out who are likely to vandalize/politicize entries?

[Bob Hubbard]

If someone vandalizes entries and refuses to participate in the editing process, we can block them. It can get tedious, but we can. There are currently 6 sysops on the project, and more will be added as it grows.

[FearlessFreep]

The more time I study Taekwondo the more I find there is more to know than I every thought, and the less of it I actually know...

[Gemini]

The more time I study Taekwondo the more I find there is more to know than I every thought, and the less of it I actually know...
Ain't that the truth. Those who try to see the end of the road tend to either get frustrated and quit or just say they've "arrived" and circumvent the system. Personally, I shy away from these type of things because though my training has probably been more intense than you average practitioner's (My wife says I suffer from TKD insanity) and I've learned much, I still see myself very much as a student and am always eager to learn more. I'll be glad to contribute what I can.

[Jonathan Randall]

Ok so you just want facts about the Art or sport of TKD not ones opinion correct.
Terry

I really like your additions. Please forgive me, but when I corrected a couple of typos, the highlight came off - I'll try to figure out how to put it back on and your points are unchanged. The information on the Kukkiwon is a great addition as well as the part about sport and art! :)

[terryl965]

I really like your additions. Please forgive me, but when I corrected a couple of typos, the highlight came off - I'll try to figure out how to put it back on and your points are unchanged. The information on the Kukkiwon is a great addition as well as the part about sport and art! :)

Thamks maybe you can tell me how to start a new thread or do we just keep adding on to this one.
Thanks
terry

[Jonathan Randall]

I added this Kukkiwon link to Mr. Stoker's additions. However, it works but I couldn't figure out how to hypertext directly from the word Kukkiwon to the link. Instead, I put the link after the word.
http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/eng/introduce/insa.asp?div=1

Postscript: this is the right Kukkiwon link to use, isn't it? If not let me know and I'll correct.

What do you folks think of adding links to the WTF, ATA and ITF? I would have done it, but there's a political question here and right now there is more than one ITF "official site". What should we do? If we all put our heads together, the MT Project Tae Kwon Do entry should be one of the best, IMO.

[terryl965]

Yea that is it Johnathon also it should be set to the Home page.
terry

[Jonathan Randall]

Thamks maybe you can tell me how to start a new thread or do we just keep adding on to this one.
Thanks
terry

I think this thread would be a great repository of communications regarding the MT Project (Tae Kwon Do0. That way, we have all the points, suggestions, corrections, etc. all in one place.

[Jonathan Randall]

Yea that is it Johnathon also it should be set to the Home page.
terry

Thanks, you're right. Done.

http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/eng/main.asp

[Bob Hubbard]

Couple of pointers:
- Think 3rd person viewpoint.

To create an internal link (and allow for the linking to an existing entry or creation of a new one) sandwich the term between [[ and ]]

Before creating a new entry, check and see if it's not already there, but under a different spelling or punctuation. This THIS and this are 3 different terms.

Consider linking the different ways to say the same thing together. Example "TKD" and "Tae Kwon Do" and "taekwondo" should all go to the same entry.

Redirecting a link is done by creating an entry for the alternate spelling and simply entering #REDIRECT [[correct spelling]]

[Jonathan Randall]

This is where we presently stand. Thanks for correcting links and correcting style (phrasing, third person, etc.).

"Developed by General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive South Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea) Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) was created from the ancient art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan). It focuses on high, strong and spinning kicks and strikes. Introduced into the Olympics (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php?title=Olympics&action=edit) in 1988. Considered to be the most followed Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) today.
Major Tae Kwon Do organizations include the World Tae Kwon Do Federation, The International Tae Kwon Do Federation and the American Tae Kwon Do Association. However, a large segment of the Tae Kwon Do community consists of independent, non-affiliated schools.
The governing body of TKD is the Kukkiwon (http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/eng/main.asp) located in Seoul, South Korea and the US main body would be the USAT which is the governing body for the USOC.
Even through Tae Kwon Do is practiced by millions all over the world, it is an Art that is only about 60 years old. The sport aspect is the most practiced, but the tradition of TKD is still alive and well here in America.
Not just a sport, but rather a discipline and a way of life, Tae Kwon Do strengthens moral values of both young and old. The tenets of TKD are Courtesy, Integrity, Self-Control, Perseverance and Indomitable Spirit."

[Marginal]

The question of the founder tends to breed hot debate among many...

[Jonathan Randall]

The question of the founder tends to breed hot debate among many...

Yes, I know, and I thought of editing it to read differently but I didn't want to change someone else's content - unless of course it was absolutely incorrect. At this point, I personally am just adding (and correcting for punctuation). Now if it had said that TKD is a 2,000 year old martial art...

[Bob Hubbard]

Some questions:
- Is it incorrect? In doubt? Debated?
--What are the 'alternatives'?

What are the other organizations that exist for TKD?


You're permitted to change others content, but it's preferred that if you do so, that it's based on verifiable and credible information. (You'll see me and a few others use those terms alot.) :)

[Jonathan Randall]

These are my most recent changes (in bold, italics and highlighted in pink). TKD seniors, please check to see if my take on Taek Kyon is correct:

Developed under the leadership of General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive South Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea) Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) was created from the ancient art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan) - although the level of contribution of techniques from Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) is disputed. It is more likely, in the view of many Tae Kwon Do historians, thatTaek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) had more influence on Tae Kwon Do's propensity for kicking rather then contributing specific techniques. Tae Kwon Do focuses on high, strong and spinning kicks and strikes. Introduced into the Olympics (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php?title=Olympics&action=edit) in 1988. Considered to be the most practiced Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) today.

[Jonathan Randall]

Some questions:
- Is it incorrect? In doubt? Debated?
--What are the 'alternatives'?

What are the other organizations that exist for TKD?


You're permitted to change others content, but it's preferred that if you do so, that it's based on verifiable and credible information. (You'll see me and a few others use those terms alot.) :)

Good points. Gen. Choi's founding of the art of TKD is definitely in dispute and theoretically incorrect. He led the unification of the post-war Korean Karate styles into the new art of TKD. I compromised and edited the original entry to read: "developed under the leadership of General Choi". That statement itself could be considered controversial in itself by some, but he did have a pivotal role in the development of TKD and it would be political to cut him out or reduce his role substantially.

On edit: it's great to see so many knowledgeable MT members contributing! We now need to add a section on forms. I haven't because I'm only familiar with the ITF forms (and at one time, ATA forms to first black).

[Zepp]

As far as the history goes, I think The Modern History of TaeKwonDo, by Won Sik Kang and Kyong Myong Lee, is the best possible resource. There's an abridged version of it here: http://www.martialartsresource.com/korean/korframe.htm.

(Because of the way the frames are set up, I can't link directly to the page, so you'll need to scroll down and click on the link.)

I'd like to write and submit a short paraphrased history of TKD, but if someone wants to beat me to it, go right ahead. Personally, I think the Wiki entry needs to have some mention of the early kwans.

Edit: I found a direct link to the page: http://www.martialartsresource.com/anonftp/pub/the_dojang/digests/history.html.

[arnisador]

I like how the entry handles the Taek Kyon contribution.

[Gemini]

Developed under the leadership of General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive South Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea) Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) was created from the ancient art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan) - although the level of contribution of techniques from Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) is disputed. It is more likely, in the view of many Tae Kwon Do historians, thatTaek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) had more influence on Tae Kwon Do's propensity for kicking rather then contributing specific techniques.

Couple o' things.

North Korea practices ITF style, and the ATA is American only. How's this.

Developed under the leadership of General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea)Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art)'s origins are cloudy due to the Japanese occupation of Korea between 1910 and 1945. It's roots however, are generally believed to be based in the ancient Korean art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Japanese Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan) - How much either art contributed and what other arts held influence in its development remains disputed to this day.

Because its origins are so disputable, it leaves a little more room. Waddaya think?

Depending on how deep into this you want to get, we could timeline it from the original KKA to the WTF, ITF, ATA and so on. We would need to separate out the Kukkiwon unless this is done because it doesn't hold sway over either the ITF or ATA.

[terryl965]

Developed under the leadership of General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive South Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea) Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art) was created from the ancient art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan) - although the level of contribution of techniques from Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) is disputed. It is more likely, in the view of many Tae Kwon Do historians, thatTaek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) had more influence on Tae Kwon Do's propensity for kicking rather then contributing specific techniques.

Couple o' things.

North Korea practices ITF style, and the ATA is American only. How's this.

Developed under the leadership of General Choi Hong Hi (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Choi_Hong_Hi) in 1955, this highly competitive Korean (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/South_Korea)Martial Art (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Martial_Art)'s origins are cloudy due to the Japanese occupation of Korea between 1910 and 1945. It's roots however, are generally believed to be based in the ancient Korean art of Taek Kyon (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Taek_Kyon) and Japanese Shotokan Karate (http://www.martialtalk.net/wiki/index.php/Shotokan) - How much either art contributed and what other arts held influence in its development remains disputed to this day.

Because its origins are so disputable, it leaves a little more room. Waddaya think?

Depending on how deep into this you want to get, we could timeline it from the original KKA to the WTF, ITF, ATA and so on. We would need to separate out the Kukkiwon unless this is done because it doesn't hold sway over either the ITF or ATA.

Gemininsounds good to me what about everyone else if so make the changes.
Terry

[terryl965]

The kukkiwon needs to stay but we also need to put info. about the original Kwan that was part of the beginning as well, what do you ladys and gentleman believe.
Terry

[Gemini]

The kukkiwon needs to stay but we also need to put info. about the original Kwan that was part of the beginning as well, what do you ladys and gentleman believe.
Terry

I agree, given it's the "official" controling body of TKD, but then the ITF and ATA will require the same unless you wanted to point out that fact alone, specify other orgs don't recognise them and leave it at that. Such as:

The Headquarters for modern day TaeKwonDo, is the Kukkiwon, based in Seoul, Korea and recognized world wide. Established in 1972, Kukkiwon then organized The World TaeKwonDo Federation that same year.

Then, if you want to add the same for ATA and ITF.... just thinking out loud here...

General Choi became disheartened by the visionists of the KKA and defected, starting the ITF...add more here... I'm pretty vague on the exact times and dates but if no one from the ITF chimes in, I could finish it up if you like where I'm going with this.

[arnisador]

I don't think any disinterested party believes that Taek Kyon was a significant contribution to the art other than that the Shotokan was modified to make it appear more like what they thought Taek Kyon looked like. Isn't that so? The usual nationalistic refusal for any Oriental nation to acknowledge contributions from another, as with Japan and China too?

[bignick]

I like where this is going and the lack of politics showing up...I'll try to contribute here and there as I have time. Let's keep it up...

[Gemini]

I like where this is going and the lack of politics showing up...I'll try to contribute here and there as I have time. Let's keep it up...

Trying to word things in a way that gives an accurate description while at the same time avoiding conflict yet still leaving room for anyone's beliefs to be entertained is a bit tricky. I agree, I think we're gettin' it...

Given your knowledge of the art and your ability to write, hurry up every chance you get! :)

[bignick]

I think every possible effort needs to be made to give as realistic a viewpoint of the art and it's history as possible. No 2000 year old lines...were people fighting using their hands and feet in what is now known as Korea 2000 years ago? Absolutely...does it have anything to do with Tae Kwon Do? I doubt it...

I'll try to contribute where I think I can help, but I'm just a whippersnapper here and my knowledge and experience pales a bit in comparison with people like Miles and Terry around.

[Jonathan Randall]

Yes, I think we from MT have done a good job of making this as non-political an entry as possible. I went on tonight and removed "This article is a stub" because it no longer is. Good work all. :asian:

Now we need, IMO:

1. Forms information
2. Kwan information
3. Someway to make it clear that ITF and ATA are not under the Kukkiwon without making it appear that this either makes these groups illegitimate or in any way diminishes the very real influence of the Kukkiwon.

[terryl965]

I agree, given it's the "official" controling body of TKD, but then the ITF and ATA will require the same unless you wanted to point out that fact alone, specify other orgs don't recognise them and leave it at that. Such as:

The Headquarters for modern day TaeKwonDo, is the Kukkiwon, based in Seoul, Korea and recognized world wide. Established in 1972, Kukkiwon then organized The World TaeKwonDo Federation that same year.

Then, if you want to add the same for ATA and ITF.... just thinking out loud here...

General Choi became disheartened by the visionists of the KKA and defected, starting the ITF...add more here... I'm pretty vague on the exact times and dates but if no one from the ITF chimes in, I could finish it up if you like where I'm going with this.

No gemini your right we need to include the other orgs. just to be far, The ITF I can but the ATA I'm not to familar with.
Terry

[terryl965]

I think every possible effort needs to be made to give as realistic a viewpoint of the art and it's history as possible. No 2000 year old lines...were people fighting using their hands and feet in what is now known as Korea 2000 years ago? Absolutely...does it have anything to do with Tae Kwon Do? I doubt it...

I'll try to contribute where I think I can help, but I'm just a whippersnapper here and my knowledge and experience pales a bit in comparison with people like Miles and Terry around.

Yes Big Nick your right But without you and the younger guy the Art cannot be, we need input from everybody. To really make this work.
Terry

[Miles]

It's coming along, albeit slowly. Too late for me to think coherently..will work on it a bit tomorrow if I get some time. It's a fine start.

Miles

[rmclain]

Yes, I think we from MT have done a good job of making this as non-political an entry as possible. I went on tonight and removed "This article is a stub" because it no longer is. Good work all. :asian:

Now we need, IMO:

1. Forms information
2. Kwan information
3. Someway to make it clear that ITF and ATA are not under the Kukkiwon without making it appear that this either makes these groups illegitimate or in any way diminishes the very real influence of the Kukkiwon.

One of your best non-political resources of the early days kwans (especially Chang Moo Kwan and Kang Duk Won) is Kim Pyung Soo. He has openly taught and discussed what was being taught during those early days (1950 on). He is not a member of ITF, WTF or anything else, though some of his junior friends and students went on to be on the board of the WTF (example: Kum Hong Lee).

Kim Pyung Soo was very well known in S. Korea during the 1960's because he was the only Korean correspondent for Black Belt Magazine. He is very open about the Japanese influence on the arts taught in Korea following WWII. His e-mail is: kimsoo@ev1.net

http://www.kimsookarate.com/gallery-old-days/1stdemo.html

R. McLain

[Miles]

Sort of off topic, but Black Belt magazine recently ran several of GM Kim Pyung Soo's early articles. Very neat with incredible photos!

Miles