Talk:Taekwondo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Romanization and spelling

There are, of course, several methods of spelling Korean words with Roman letters. For consistency, it seems to me that we should use a single method, at least within the scope of an article; and the method that would make the most sense to me is Revised Romanization, for several reasons: it is the official method of South Korea; it is the most modern method; and it was developed in part with computers and the Internet in mind, in that it does not depend on diacritical marks. Once one knows the system, Korean words can be expressed and reproduced fairly accurately without the use of special characters. I can begin the revisions if there are no objections, but I certainly do not want to make a unilateral decision. Omnedon 03:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking further, I see that in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles), it clearly states that "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.". So I will begin revisions to this end, assuming that no one will have a problem with this. Omnedon 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is standard for Korean translations into English, when writing names, for the last name to be first and capitalized. Ex. LEE, Chong Woo. If it is written as Lee Chong Woo, Western readers will think that his last name is Woo, when in fact it is Lee. Bigzilla 8-8-07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.116 (talk • contribs)

Choi Hong Hi

All of his degrees are honorary. He doesn't deserve to be at the top of the page surrounded by unfounded opinions. Quietmartialartist 15:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Bigzilla 8-8-07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.116 (talk • contribs)

Questionable edits

The last several edits to the Tae Kwon Do page from Bigzilla are all, in my humble opinion, questionable. However, since there are so many different issues involved, I'm stating my objections here first rather than simply reverting the edits. In general, most of the edits don't contribute to making the article more encyclopedic, and in some cases they move it in the opposite direction.

1. I don't think it's really necessary to question which name ("Taekwondo" or "Tae Kwon Do") is "correct". Both are quite valid. There are several alternatives shown in the article. However, this is a minor issue.

2. The name "Tae Kwon Do" is typically translated with "Tae" involving the foot, "Kwon" involving the hand, and "Do" meaning "art" or "path" or "way" or "way of life". That the arms and legs are involved doesn't really need to be stated when discussing the translation of the name; most techniques do use the hands and feet to contact the target, though of course the knees, elbows, forearms, et cetera are sometimes used as well. As for "Do", it can indeed mean "art", depending (naturally) upon how one views the English word "art". Translations from one language to another are often fraught with such difficulties.

3. I don't think the article is stating that Tae Kwon Do simply "came from" Taekgyeon. Its development was more complex than that. But at the same time I think it would be wrong to say that there is no connection at all, which is what the new statement seems to imply.

4. If there are some Tae Kwon Do leaders that question the submission of the name "Tae Kwon Do" by Choi Hong Hi, then perhaps this should be sourced.

5. Some Tae Kwon Do organizations do indeed use one or two additional tenets, exactly as was specified before the information was removed. The newly-edited sentence now has a negative feel to it, which is unnecessary.

6. In discussing titles, I'm not sure the phrase "according to the instructor's whim" is useful or helpful here. The existing sentence expressed the situation simply and clearly, as titles do vary somewhat from school to school. Again, I feel that this edit lends a negative feel to the statement.

7. Likewise, I don't believe the phrase "as most American instructors never trained in Korea" is useful or helpful when discussing modes of address.

Omnedon 13:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnedon makes excellent points, I'd like to address more specifically:

1. Whether the art is written "taekwondo" or "tae kwon do" should be determined by whichever is in more common use, although it might be instructive that "karatedo" is not written as "kara te do", and "aikido" is not written "ai ki do". Please also be aware of the WP:WPMA convention that "types" of martial arts, such as taekwondo, karate, aikido, judo, etc... are to be treated as common nouns, rather than proper nouns, and therefore are not capitalized (except of course when part of a proper name, such as an organization).

2. Unless someone can provide a reference for a different translation, its probably best to stick to the most common and simple one, which is the "way of the feet and fists". Translating "do" into "art" is a bit too much of a stretch, in my opinion, as well as potentially misleading.

Omnedon is right on with the rest of his observations, if this article is ever going to have a hope of making GA or higher, there needs to be less emphasis upon the minutia, such as listing names of techniques, ranks, or every conceivable mode of address that has been invented since taekwondo came to the U.S., and more emphasis upon the core history, principles, training methods, and philosophy. Bradford44 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Writing is as "Taekwondo" is in more common use. This debate is like debating if Baseball should be written as Base Ball. Funny. Does not everyone know that Taekwondo is the NATIONAL SPORT of Korea?

Give it respect and write it right, one word. - Bigzilla 8-8-07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.116 (talk • contribs)

Bradford, Tangsoodo is three separate words, correct? Which also happens to be where Tae Kwon Do was derived. Other than that, I agree with what you said.

Oh, and I think Bigzilla was banned but continues to post on a different computer. Quietmartialartist 15:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tangsoodo is how you say the Japanese words "Karatedo" in Korean. - Bigzilla—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.116 (talk • contribs)

空手道 is karatedo, Way of the empty hand. 唐手道 is tangsoodo, Way of the tang hand. Karate might have once been the same, but everyone nowadays knows the two are different. 12.22.207.70 07:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello QMA. Bigzilla was not banned. I am here. Any proof anyone needs for anything that I write is available, unlike for much of what I read here written by others :)

The last several edits to the Tae Kwon Do page from Bigzilla are all, in my humble opinion, questionable. However, since there are so many different issues involved, I'm stating my objections here first rather than simply reverting the edits. In general, most of the edits don't contribute to making the article more encyclopedic, and in some cases they move it in the opposite direction.

I object! - Bigzilla

1. I don't think it's really necessary to question which name ("Taekwondo" or "Tae Kwon Do") is "correct". Both are quite valid. There are several alternatives shown in the article. However, this is a minor issue.

Both are not vaild. Taekwondo is a product of South, Korea. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Kukkiwon and the World Taekwondo Federation, Korea Taekwondo Association and 182 National Taekwondo Associations around the world, along with all the Kwans, officially write it as one word "Taekwondo". The International Olympic Committee also agrees. You do not get any more OFFICIAL than that - Bigzilla

"Tae Kwon Do" and "Taekwondo" are probably the two most common variants of the Romanized version of 태권도. Both are valid and are commonly-used. The presence or absence of spaces between the syllables is not, in this case, very significant. I'm certainly in favour of consistency, and advocate use of the official Revised Romanization rules; but just as with personal names (which can be spelled however the owner of the name wishes), "Tae Kwon Do" has been around in that form for a long time, and in this case I see no problem with it, even though the Revised Romanization version is "Tae Gwon Do". Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~Writing Base Ball has been around a long time, that does not make it correct. Things change over time. Taekwondo, world wide is written as one word. In Korea, it is always translated into English as one word. What source do you have that states it is written as 3 words? - bigzilla

My source? The fact that one sees it that way all over -- on signs, on web pages, in book titles, in articles in the Tae Kwon Do Times... It is commonly used both with and without spaces. This is not worth arguing about. Both forms (and some other variants) are mentioned in the article. Omnedon 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2. The name "Tae Kwon Do" is typically translated with "Tae" involving the foot, "Kwon" involving the hand, and "Do" meaning "art" or "path" or "way" or "way of life". That the arms and legs are involved doesn't really need to be stated when discussing the translation of the name; most techniques do use the hands and feet to contact the target, though of course the knees, elbows, forearms, et cetera are sometimes used as well. As for "Do", it can indeed mean "art", depending (naturally) upon how one views the English word "art". Translations from one language to another are often fraught with such difficulties.Italic text

You are wrong here. First off, let's take a look at these meanings:

Soo = simply hand jemok = fist (many variations) kwon = lower appendage of the arm (elbow to finger tips)using this part of the arm to block, choke, grasp and strike.

Tae does not mean foot. Run down the translation and tell me what you find.

Do has nothing to do with "art". Never did. Do as used in Taekwondo, Judo, Karatedo, Kendo, etc, means simply "Path" or "Way". Not art. If you feel you have proof otherwise, let's see it. - Bigzilla 8-8-07

First of all, I never stated that "Tae" means foot. Rather, I stated that with respect to "Tae Kwon Do", "Tae" is typically translated as *involving* the foot (as opposed to the leg). The same applies to "Kwon". As for "Do", try looking up 태권도 or 검도 in some online Korean-English dictionaries (like the one at www.zkorean.com); you'll find references to "art". In this context, there is an art to the application of the techniques of Tae Kwon Do; the meaning (again, in context) is very similar to the idea of a "path" or a "way". All three words can be, and are frequently, applied and should be mentioned. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ Yes, and that typical translation is incorrect. My FIVE Korean and Chinese dictionaries never mention the word ART in any way in the translations of the Do in TKD. - bigzilla

I applied "typical" to the "foot" and "hand" issue, not to the "art" issue. Did you bother to look at the specific online Korean dictionary that I mentioned above, at http://www.zkorean.com ? Also, try looking up 태권도 on the Yahoo Korean-English dictionary at http://kr.dic.yahoo.com/search/eng/ . Omnedon 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

3. I don't think the article is stating that Tae Kwon Do simply "came from" Taekgyeon. Its development was more complex than that. But at the same time I think it would be wrong to say that there is no connection at all, which is what the new statement seems to imply.Italic text

~ What evidence do you have that Taekkyon influenced Taekwondo? - bigzilla

http://www.wtf.org/site/about_taekwondo/history/ancient.htm Bigzilla loses. 12.22.207.70 07:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever since that KIM, Un Yong wrote in his book about how Taekwondo became an Olympic Sport that Taekwondo was from Karate, but he had to attach it to ancient Korea MA's like Taekkyon,the truth as been flowing forward. Two Kwan leaders wrote a Korean language book called "A Modern History of Taekwondo" where they detail the roots of each Kwan. They clearly come directly from Karate.

My good friend, Grandmaster LEE, Yong Bok told me personally, and states in a number of his books, and on his website that Taekwondo does not come from Taekkyon. I was told that what influence Taekkyon had on Taekwondo was just from our seniors "seeing" Taekkyon kicking and trying to copy it. No one, even KIM, Soo of Texas, trained steady with SONG, Duk Ki, execpt my friend, LEE, Yong Bok. LEE, Yong Bok was a 6th Dan Kukkiwon holder from Chang Moo Kwan roots before he quit Taekwondo and revived Taekkyon. Now it is very popular in South, Korea. - Bigzilla

As I stated, the origins of Tae Kwon Do are complicated (just as with any thing of this nature). The art changes over time; it evolves, and is based partly on things that came before. The article does not claim that Tae Kwon Do came from Taekgyeon. However, to suggest that there is absolutely no connection with Taekgyeon whatsoever is questionable. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ I do not think the origins of Taekwondo, or Taekkyon are complicated at all. As a matter of fact, it is very clear. - bigzilla

If the origins of Tae Kwon Do are so clear, then why is there so much disagreement on so many points throughout the history of its development? Case in point: the present discussion, and others that have taken place on this page. Omnedon 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

4. If there are some Tae Kwon Do leaders that question the submission of the name "Tae Kwon Do" by Choi Hong Hi, then perhaps this should be sourced.Italic text

The sources are SON, Duk Song - New York City and NAM, Tae Hi -Chicago. They were at the naming meeting. - Bigzilla

Then you need to find citable sources that you can use to support this, and supply them in the article for all to see. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ OK. bigzilla

5. Some Tae Kwon Do organizations do indeed use one or two additional tenets, exactly as was specified before the information was removed. The newly-edited sentence now has a negative feel to it, which is unnecessary.Italic text

No, it's negative to make it sound like Choi's tenets apply to all of Taekwondo when in fact, it only applies to a small segment. CHOI, Hong Hi's Oh Do Kwan tenets were adopted by the ITF. No other Kwan used them. 8 other Kwans have their own Creedo, Pledge, Aims, etc. The Kukkiwon has it's own, which is a merging of all the 9 Kwan's ideas, including Oh Do Kwans. - Bigzilla

I never suggested that the tenets were used throughout Tae Kwon Do. I simply and accurately stated that some Tae Kwon Do organizations do use an additional one or two tenets. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ OK. bigzilla

6. In discussing titles, I'm not sure the phrase "according to the instructor's whim" is useful or helpful here. The existing sentence expressed the situation simply and clearly, as titles do vary somewhat from school to school. Again, I feel that this edit lends a negative feel to the statement.Italic text

Use of titles, order of titles, etc, do not vary somewhat, they vary greatly from school to school, at the whim of the instructor. The instructor makes up these titles according to his needs. The OFFICIAL titles have nothing to do with what is written on the Taekwondo page. There is nothing negative about this statement, it is factual. I have been to many Taekwondo schools around the USA, and the world, not just one or two schools. This is what I have experienced. - Bigzilla

Titles do vary from school to school, as the article states. The article doesn't refer to degree by using "somewhat" or "greatly"; it simply states that there is variance. However, the addition of the word "whim" lends an emotional and POV feel to the statement which should be avoided. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ whim does not imply emotion. It implies that it is done at the instructors fancy. bigzilla

Whim has a negative connotation in the sense that you're using it, as if it were arbitrary or capricious. If you're not a native speaker? it might not be clear to you that thats what he was objecting to. 12.22.207.70 07:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Likewise, I don't believe the phrase "as most American instructors never trained in Korea" is useful or helpful when discussing modes of address.Italic text

I train in Korea all the time, and I travel all around the USA, all the time. I can tell you that the VAST Majority of American instructors of Taekwondo and other martial arts have never set foot in thier systems nation of origin. I know, they ask me to take them to Korea all the time. What to go? :) This is an important fact when considering why there is so much confusion on a great many things concerning Taekwondo and martial arts. - Bigzilla—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.116 (talk • contribs)

It does not need to be stated, in the article, that some practitioners of Tae Kwon Do do not visit Korea. It's irrelevant to the article, and stating it actually seems to place more focus on any real or perceived division, which we don't want to do in Wikipedia. But in any case, to take a different example, lots of people in Korea speak English, but have never visited the USA or any other country where English is the primary language. Omnedon 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ Actually, a very small percentage of people in Korea speak English. Most of them that do are in Seoul. So percentages are relavant when discussing the Engish fluency of the Korean population. The same applies to the fluency of Korean Culture that American Taekwondo instructors have in general. - bigzilla

The number of Tae Kwon Do practitioners from the United States that visit Korea is irrelevant to this article. Omnedon 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(My response from earlier in the day follows, for what it's worth.) I'm sorry, but I have to stand by what I said. I may decide to provide a detailed response here later, when I have the time; but in the meantime I have reverted the edits which I feel, for a variety of reasons, do not contribute to the encyclopedic nature of this article.Omnedon 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ I feel you need to study more and that some of your changes actually degrade the facts about Taekwondo. Those I will revert back. - bigzilla

Discuss them first. Attempt to get some consensus, rather than saying "you're wrong" and "you need to study more". Omnedon 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bigzilla ~ Just wanted to draw your attention to WP:NPOV -- it's a very helpful resource with lots of good tips. I peruse it myself quite often! Note that edits may diverge from NPOV guidelines when they include over-broad generalizations lacking citation (such as saying "most people do..." or "some people say...") or weasel words (such as whim instead of more neutral alternatives like choice or discretion). Note too that WP:NOR generally prohibits citing one's own personal experience or opinion as justification for an edit. Huwmanbeing 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~ I'll check it out. - bigzilla—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.122.161 (talk • contribs)

Ugg, it's irritating searching throughout that whole thread for new comments. Please try to keep them in order and add paragraphs at the bottom of the thread. Quietmartialartist 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnedon, you need to go back and read the discussion that already took place months ago, to get the page where it currently is. We already discussed all this, for months. You did not even know Korean's have Hanja, you thought it was Japanese Kanji! Your the one running around changing things without PROOF. Stop being the Elephant in the China shop. And yes you do need to study more, a lot more. I provide you with facts, and you don't even comment. A little humility on your part would do some good. - Bigzilla 8-10-07

Bigzilla, please read the Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, as well as the four bulleted points at the top of this very page:

   * Be polite
   * Assume good faith
   * No personal attacks
   * Be welcoming

You frequently manage to break all of these at once, and yet you continue to defend your behaviour. As to the Hanja / Kanji statement you just made, I don't know what you're referring to; I didn't take part in the earlier discussions, though I did read through them. The present discussion came up because of your own questionable edits; if you fail to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, expect to get called on it (again and again, if necessary). Omnedon 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Art

Regarding the "do" and "art" issue, I want to clarify that I am not trying to say that The Korean word "do" (도) equals "art", or anything so simplistic. Translations rarely work that cleanly anyway, aside from any other issues. However, having said that, I have looked in the dictionary, and find some support for the idea that the English word "art" can express something similar to "way" or "path" in some contexts. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art/ For example, the definitions "skill in conducting any human activity, as in 'a master at the art of conversation'" and "a branch of learning" would both apply to Tae Kwon Do. Then, too, if dance is considered an art, then I think that Tae Kwon Do could be said to include a few elements that are common with dance, especially in the performance of patterns. I'm also reminded of the treatise by Sun Tzu entitled "The Art of War". It's an issue of semantics, of course, and "path" and "way" may be more direct; but I feel that "art" also works. Omnedon 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no implication in Taoism of art, in any form. Tao = Do. Nothing to do with art, no matter how you twist it about. Look at the Hanja for Do. That is what you want to translate. It clearly translates to Path or Way.

Also, Sun Tzu's book is not called the Art of War in Chinese, it is called Sun Tzu's Military Strategies. Here is the Hanja for the book you wrote about above: 孫子兵法

Bigzilla 8-9-07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.122.161 (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point, which is that the English word "art" can connote "way" or "path"; as with many words, it can have many meanings. For example, when we refer to a "martial art", it is referring (at least in part) to a method of fighting -- in other words, a "way" of fighting. And "The Art of War" is, in fact, the accepted English title of the Sun Tzu work in question. Omnedon 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Omnedon is correct, but you are both better off dropping the issue. The fact is, "way" or "path" (with spiritual overtones) is the most common and accepted English translation of 道 when speaking in a martial arts context, but it is absolutely common and proper to refer to the practice of a 道, such as taekwondo, or iaidō, or even shodō or chadō, as "arts". However, I suggest we support standardization of terms as much as possible, and try not to confuse readers with alternate interpretations. In conclusion, I suggest we agree that the following statement is the best way to use the terms in the following consistent manner: "taekwondo is an art, but no part of its name literally means 'art'." Put another way, "taekwondo is an art of striking with the hands and the feet, but it means the 'way of striking with the hands and the feet'." Bradford44 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No actually he and you are both incorrect. Get a better source of defining Hanja Chinese characters. Taekwondo in the WEST is in the category of Martial Arts. However, it's meaning in the EAST has no relation to the WESTERN category of Martial Arts. In Korea, Taekwondo is a MOO-DO. A Military Way. Not a Military Art. This ART term was given to these practices not by the very PHYSICAL men who originally practiced them, but by DREAMY pampered western writers who ended up skewing the true definitions.

With the influence Western culture has on the World, our definitions end up over-riding the originals of other cultures to the point where when Asians are searching for the word to translate it, what do they find, the most popular WESTERN version, so it gets used and Western readers - read it, and it becomes fact, displacing the real meaning.

Why do you think that you find very few Westerners in positions of influence in Taekwondo, Karate, Judo, Kendo, etc? Because Asians realize this problem and want to protect their legacy.

Why do so many Westerners (specially Americans) drop out of Taekwondo, Karate, Judo, Kendo, etc., after many years of training? Because they do not feel accepted by the Asians due to this problem. They find out that the Asians never really gave them authentic Dan, never gave them positions of influence, and never took them inside their inner circle of Asian male culture. They sudeenly feel like a tag along, and drop out, or, instead of learning more (because that sounds so insulting to Americans, right?) they disconnect from their Asian seniors. Now because they have no Dan and no understanding of their "martial art", they start to make up stuff to suppliment what they think they know. They issue there own DAN, write books and articles, form Associations, buy awards from the Soke Society.

So if you want to use the Western idea of what Taekwondo means to the Western mind, call DO the art of. However, it's completely ignorant to the truth. - Bigzilla—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.115.158 (talk • contribs)

There is probably little point in continuing this much further, as I think we have reached an impasse because we have different ways of looking at the issue. I'm certainly in favour of standardization. However, even if it results in more discussion, I do still have a few points to make.

Interestingly enough, mudo 무도 often translates as "martial art". I still maintain that the English words "art", "path", and "way" all have the same connotation in this application, and that this is not confusing; "the art of striking..." and "the way of striking..." convey the same concept to my mind. My Tae Kwon Do master (himself a native Korean speaker) always taught us that "do" meant "way" or "art". Having said that -- as I originally expressed, translation can sometimes be problematic, and this discussion exemplifies the difficulties; individual interpretations of words on both sides enter into the equation, and one-to-one mappings can be difficult or impossible to reach. I would just point out that in the thesaurus, "technique" is synonymous with both "way" and "art".

However, if we standardize on a single term in the introduction of this article, let it be "way" rather than "art", for the same reason that "gender" is preferable to "sex" when identifying males and females; the latter works and is often used, but has other uses as well, whereas the former is a much more focused term.

Now, having just read Bigzilla's latest message, and trying to avoid negative statements myself, I would just have to say that I must now question even more deeply the neutrality of any changes he might make to this article. He paints a pretty bleak picture which I personally have not found to be realistic. Though there are certainly divisions in the Tae Kwon Do and martial arts worlds, I don't feel it is the role of this article to define them, as that is too political and subjective; and it's certainly not necessary to bring nationality into it. Omnedon 20:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I concur with Omnedon. I deem this inquiry is more your misinterpretation of the English language, than "Western" practitioners "making stuff up", Bigzilla.

The Arbitration Committee should decide the outcome. Quietmartialartist 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything on which to arbitrate at this point, as I think we've reached the end of the "art" discussion, which actually has been interesting. It's just that things seem to be moving off into another direction now. I imagine more edits will be forthcoming, and we'll just have to see how that goes. Omnedon 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Bigzilla, when you refer to "misinterpretation of the English language", to whom are you referring? With all due respect, I gather (I hope accurately) that English is something you have been learning in recent times, and if so, well done. However, if that's the case, then it's probably not the best time to accuse native speakers of misinterpretation. Let's try to avoid the confrontational approach. Omnedon 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That was me, I was addressing Bigzilla. I can see how it's possible to mistake Bigzilla's writing with mine when he always signs his name without using tildas, like he's supposed to. Quietmartialartist 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:Whoops. If it's acceptable simply to remove my comment, fine; otherwise, my apologies. Omnedon 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Revised Romanization and "geup"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The WTF has nothing to do Gup issues. However, the Kukkiwon does. Here is what the Kukkiwon states on their website at: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/examination/examination08.jsp?div=01

"Article 20 : Gup Promotion Test The instructor who holds 4th Dan or higher Dan has a right to test the Gup promotion and issue the Gup certificates by his name for his students. By-laws for Gup promotion test will be made up separately."

And yes, the KUKKIWON (what you erroneously call the WTF) does set standards for Romanized versions of Taekwondo terms.

The first thing you have to know it that the Kukkiwon (and the South Korean Government) states that Taekwondo is one word.

Many terms were standardized by the "Hangul Society". A group of Korean language scholars. As far as Gup goes, it is officiall GUP, as stated above in the Kukkiwon GUP Regulation.

Kindest Regards,

Bigzilla. 76.205.85.241 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC) 8-24-07

Sorry to break it to you, Big Z, but this isn't the Kukkiwon website. This is Wikipedia and as Omnedon pointed out,

"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.' "

We're playing by Wikipedia rules here. There's no room for debate. Quietmartialartist 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Kukkiwon did make an official, written statement, standardizing terms on February 26, 1987. This statement was issued as the result of consultation and meetings with seven scholars of the Korean language who are members of the "Hangul Society", an advisory group of the Korean Department of Education, The Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Korea Sport Association, and more. They are based in Seoul. You can find this statement and a partial list of terms in Global Taekwondo, author Kyo Yoon Lee (2003), page 318 - and just the list in other Official Kukkiwon Publications like the Kukkiwon Textbook, co-author Kyo Yoon Lee (2005), and the Kukkiwon Academy's Instructor Textbook, co-author Kyo Yoon Lee (2007), which contains the complete list. On those list it shows even minor detailed changes like Poomse, was changed to Poomsae and so on. It list GUP as GUP.

This reflect common and popular uses, - worldwide in over 180 Nations - , an established standard according to Wikipedia.

So I guess, GUP is GUP.

Kindest Regards to all. Bigzilla 76.205.124.45 16:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Romanization of Korean

I've been following some of the conversations here and have a couple thoughts. Firstly, the guidelines described in the Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Korea-related articles), cited above, seem pretty clear in their support of the Revised Romanization standard. As Quietmartialartist and Omnedon point out, these are Wikipedia's rules and they must be respected in this article.

Secondly: Bigzilla -- WP's rule for using the most common form of the word within the context of an article isn't apropos in the case of geup, since (as previous discussions have made abundantly clear) there's contention over which form to use. This contrasts with your example of the British use of the word colour, since essentially all Britons agree on the spelling. -- Huwmanbeing 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The rules *are* clear. When a certain spelling is commonly used, you use that spelling in the article, even if it isn't the Revised Romanization, or Pinyin, or whatever. If Taekwondo practitioners see the word 'gup' on their official forms, that is the form the Western audience is familiar with, end of story. Both of the two main official organizations use 'Gup', so this shouldn't even be debated. 69.105.150.73 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Bigzilla made the colour argument. It also appears Omni is reverting changes incorrectly. Gup should be used. 64.203.63.21 11:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

69.105.150.73: A quick Google reveals that many schools and organizations are using geup. Clearly gup is *not* the one and only form that practitioners are likely to see, so please stop asserting it. If you need further evidence that not all TKD practitioners agree on which form of the term to use, this Wikipedia article is a good indicator.

Both the Kukkiwon (WTF) and ITF use 'Gup'. TKD practitioners will thus be more likely to see the spelling of 'gup' than any other. Therefore we should use it in this article as per wikipedia guidelines. 64.203.63.21 08:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This being the case, one could easily invoke the same rule for geup -- it's a spelling that's commonly used, so we should use the spelling in the article. I don't suggest this as the rationale, though, since I see that there's no consensus and I respect that. Instead, the decision to use geup is made by the third-party rules in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which (like it or not) prefers the use of the Revised Romanization standard.

I trust that agreement can be reached on this matter per Wikipedia:Consensus, but frankly it's not strictly necessary since what we're essentially arguing about is whether or not to apply Wikipedia's own clear guidelines as described in the style manual -- something that's not up for debate in this forum. -- Huwmanbeing 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Here again is the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Korea-related articles), where Revised Romanization is clearly stated to be the standard (though, as always, there are exceptions). I don't feel this is one of the exceptions, as I and others have stated above. Where is the rule about commonly-used Romanizations, within a particular discipline, that would override this? Perhaps I am missing it. In any case, "gup" is prominently mentioned in the article as one Romanization of "급", as is "kup" (which is also used in some schools). The various alternative spellings are not being excluded from the article; it's just that the article should use the Wikipedia standard generally. Omnedon 13:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the standard unless there is a more commonly used spelling. 'Gup' is clearly the more commonly used spelling, therefore we should use it. 64.203.63.21 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, though, where is the rule that says a commonly-used spelling overrides the WP standard? Can you point that out in the WP documentation? How do you know that "gup" is the most commonly-used spelling? Even if that was true, it would be irrelevant; Revised Romanization didn't exist decades ago, but it does now, and has been accepted by the South Korean government and Wikipedia. Also, a Google search shows that on English-language versions of Kukkiwon web pages, one can find all three common versions ("gup", "kup", and "geup"), so "gup" is clearly not used consistently by the Kukkiwon. Here is just one example: http://www.kukkiwon.or.kr/english/information/information04_03_ex1.jsp?div=04 Omnedon 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The South Korean Government, follows the advise of the Hangul Society in regards to RR when it comes to specific cultural items that are exported around the world. With Taekwondo being South Korea biggest export, there are often cases of not following RR, take for example Gup.

By the way, the South Korean Government also disagrees with RR when it chooses instead to accept Taekwondo - spelled as Taekwondo, AND, only written today as one word, not two or three.

Kindest Regards Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I once again call attention to this page from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism: http://www.korea.net/korea/kor_loca.asp?code=A020303

It makes statements such as:

• "While it is true that the old system has been widely used around the world to record the pronunciation of Korean, from a general linguistic point of view it had various shortcomings."
• "Much confusion can be expected for some time. The old system, based on the McCune-Reischauer system of Romanization for the Korean Language, is widely used overseas, particularly in Western countries."
• "Publications such as textbooks using the previous system of Romanization must follow this system by February 28, 2002."

There is indeed confusion, as we see here; but the new system was adopted for many good reasons which are set out in the document above. This is a standard. If all textbooks were required to switch, then that's pretty official, and it was obviously felt to be very important. Wikipedia accepts that same standard. Omnedon 18:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Like I stated above, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism will make exceptions for - well established - world recognized terms that follow the old system. That includes Taekwondo. The name Taekwondo will not be changed to Tae'gwondo, and neither will it's terms.

To quote from the website you posted:

"Business names

Will business and schools have to change the spelling of their names?

Just as in the case of Romanizations of personal names that have already been established, businesses that so desire may continue to use previously established Romanizations. Business names such as Samsung and Hyundai, both known the world over, will not be required to change to "Samseong" and "Hyeondae." New companies, however, will be encouraged to follow this system. Also, the government will gladly welcome decisions by companies using inconsistent names to follow the new system."

Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tae Kwon Do is not a business or a school. It is a martial art. There are schools and businesses based on teaching Tae Kwon Do, but the name "Tae Kwon Do" does not fit in the category you mention -- it is not a "business name". It is true that the name "Tae Kwon Do" itself is so widely used in the non-standard manner that it is accepted in that form; but "geup" is simply a Korean term. "Geup" is used in Tae Kwon Do, but it is not exclusive to Tae Kwon Do. The rule you quoted deals specifically with names of existing businesses that could be hurt in various ways by having to change the widely-recognized romanized spellings of their names.

As I have mentioned before, Tae Kwon Do predates RR. "Gup" and "kup" were the approximations of the time, and the Kukkiwon uses both (and also "geup"). Tae Kwon Do is about the martial art, not language; romanization is about language, not the martial art. They come together in this article. We use RR to spell Korean terms that relate to this Korean martial art, according to Wikipedia standards. "Gup" and "kup" have been commonly-used for a long time, but a better system has since been developed and is now widely accepted. Personal names and business names are exempt for good reason, but not words like "geup". Omnedon 01:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The South Korean Government disagrees with you. Taekwondo is a multi-billion dollar industry in South Korea. They even have professional teams, comparable to the NFL. To name a few: SAMSUNG's S-1 Taekwondo Team, Sorak-Mountain Cable Car Company Taekwondo Team, The Seoul Subway Taekwondo Team, Hyundai Taekwondo Team, Dae Woo Taekwondo Team and so on.

Do you have any idea how much income the Kukkiwon made in 2006?

They also list Taekwondo as their #1 cultural export, and the main SCHOOL of that export is the Kukkiwon, a registered trade name and corporation with the South Korean Government. As a matter of fact, the Kukkiwon is the Central Dojang of the Korea Taekwondo Association (Dae Han Choong Ahn Dojang), a registered non-profit corporation. It is the Taekwondo school for the world, where it trains Taekwondo practitioners at it's "Jidoja Yunsu-won", or, leadership academy. So yes, it is a school, established in 1972.

These names were standardized by the Hangul Society because it was recognized that confusion on English spelling would damage Taekwondo, since English is the official language of the Kukkiwon and the WTF.

You are guessing at all this and you are wrong. Gup is correct.

Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 02:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kukkiwon is an organization, and the romanized spelling of that name isn't being discussed, nor is the spelling of "Tae Kwon Do", which is not an organization or a business but a martial art. This is about Korean words, not names. The WP manual of style clearly states that RR is to be used. Standardization is a good thing, and the standard is RR. Where does Wikipedia state the reverse? Can you point that out? In addition, you continue to ignore the fact that the Kukkiwon website uses three variant spellings of the word in question, including the RR standard of "geup". Omnedon 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether a word or name, it doesn't matter. If there is a "misspelling" that has become the accepted spelling, then wikipedia guidelines say we use it. As best as I can tell, gup is the spelling used by the official organizations, so that is that. 64.203.63.21 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The mis-spelling on the Kukkiwon website is called an error. You continue to ignore that Taekwondo is a MULTI-Billion Dollar business in South Korea, and now worldwide. The RR does not count for Hyundai or Taekwondo, and all issues relating to it.

Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 03:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "gup" appears just once within kukkiwon.or.kr, whereas "kup" appears 8 times. That's not evidence of standardization on "gup" or of mis-spelling. In any case, the amount of money made on activities relating to Tae Kwon Do is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, not the Kukkiwon website. RR is the clearly-stated standard here for Korean words. The exception for personal and business names is for the names themselves, not "all issues relating" to them. Hyundai can use the same spelling of its name that it has always used, because it is widely-recognized; but that's as far as it goes as far as the RR standard is concerned. Omnedon 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's *very* deceptive Omnedon. Gup is used in their official rules. Kup is used in their information section. You keep ignoring the wikipedia rules that when misspellings become common, the rule is to use it, not to try to fix it and confuse people. A TKD practitioner will be most likely to recognize 'gup' in preference to 'geup' or 'kup', so the rules state we should use gup. 64.203.63.21 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, there is a Wikipedia rule that states that "mis-spellings" (your word, not mine) should be used in Wikipedia if they become common? Please let me know where I can see this rule. Omnedon 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a series of typos, since the Kukkiwon offically published a list of terms, and stated Gup is correct. And the term "Taekwondo" is widely recognized, like the term Hyundai, yet you continue to write it Tae Kwon Do, specific to your own taste. You are attempting to do the same with Gup, and write it to your taste as well. You need to get out and about. Being a big fish in the little pond of your dojang has biased your view of the wide-world of Taekwondo, so much so that you have become confused about a great many things. South Korea defines Taekwondo, not you or anyone else on Wikipedia. Regardless, in this case, RR clearly does not come into play.

Sincerely, Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

---

For the people who have been arguing against "geup", citing Tae Kwon Do people, rules about misspelling, and indeed, that Omnedon is ignoring rules, please see the rule Omnedon cited along time ago: Wikipedia's Manual of Style (Korea-related articles) Have a good look at it as this is a "Korea-related" topic.

Bigzilla, Wikipedia dictates what is written on it, not what people in any outside organization say. May I ask why you write "geup" next to your name in the martial artists listing? Bigzilla writes "Taekkyon (WTA) Geup holder". (Sixth name down.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quietmartialartist (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article currently meets both basic needs expressed in this discussion:

• Conform to Wikipedia standards by using Revised Romanization of Korean ("geup").
• Provide commonly-used spelling variations ("gup", "kup") and convey to the reader that "geup" has the same meaning.

This article is not a Tae Kwon Do manual; rather, it is an evolving attempt at an encyclopedic description of the art within an established framework. Let us stick to clearly-defined Wikipedia standards and try to move forward and contribute toward the article's general improvement. Omnedon 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Geup because that is the way it was written on the Geup Card. However, for Taekwondo, it is commonly spelled Gup. Bigzilla 76.205.124.49 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If Gup is the spelling by the ITF and WTF, that is what we should use too. Revised Romanization sets only the default spelling, but it's not used when there's an existing spelling. 75.37.61.47 04:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised Romanization is the latest and best system for Romanizing Korean, and is gradually replacing older systems world-wide. It just takes time, and it was only developed in the 90s. In any case, there is no single "existing spelling" for "급". Interestingly, Google searches for "kup taekwondo" and "gup taekwondo" show that "kup" is actually used more than three times as often as "gup" on web pages. But RR is the new standard, and the accepted WP standard. Omnedon 04:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparring rules

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)

As I look at this issue further, I guess really it should be the other way around: rather than retain the large multilevel bulleted list which summarizes the rules from the official site, perhaps there should (if anything) just be a short descriptive paragraph to give the gist of the rules. For those that are interested, the detailed rules can always be retrieved from the WTF. Omnedon 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of recent edits to the competition section is to provide a brief narrative description of the WTF/Olympic and ITF rules without entering into too much detail. To that end, the present third paragraph may be superfluous, though it may certainly contain useful information that should be retained. Ultimately the entire following section on "Olympic competition rules" could perhaps be done away with, thus getting rid of an interesting but probably unencyclopedic list. Omnedon 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

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)

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)

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)

Recent changes

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)

Google Test for Crystallization

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)

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)

75.37.61.47: I see that you continue to revert the main page. For your reference, here once more is the relevant passage from WP:MOS-KO:

"Korean words transliterated into English should use the Revised Romanization, unless they are used in specifically North Korean context... 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."

This rule (and it is a rule) only allows an exemption to the use of Revised Romanization when A) the word is used frequently in a non-Korean context and B) when its spelling has crystallized in English. Kup/gup/geup fails on both points:

• A) In what context unrelated to Korea do English speakers frequently use kup? I'm a lifelong, native English speaker and I'd never even heard the term before getting involved in this debate.
• B) Your own test clearly proves that the spelling of gup/kup/geup has not crystallized on a single form -- there are thousands of sites using each of these forms (including kup, which you ignored).

I don't understand why you consider this such a contentious point. If Wikipedia didn't have any rules on this, I'd say just use whatever, since personally I have no strong opinion. However, Wikipedia has established a rule on this matter, a rule presented clearly and succinctly, and we're obliged to follow that rule in this article. Having said that, you're certainly welcome to try to change that rule by lobbying for support from other users, but the correct forum for that debate would be the Style Manual talk page, not here. Huwmanbeing 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Recomend spliting article

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)

Unnecessary, just state the differences in subsections if needed or just within the text.melonbarmonster 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

I agree that there are clearly differences between sport and traditional TKD. I just feel that they are still both TKD and that the differences are not sufficient reason to treat them as different arts with different articles. As to the arm/leg issue, in my experience, leg techniques are always more important, usually something in the neighborhood of 70% to 30%. I know that varies; it's just that I personally don't know of TKD schools that are 50/50. Omnedon 00:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My teacher likes to call them "baby-sitting services".

Overall, I agree with Omnedon: The article shouldn't be split among organization lines. Quietmartialartist 15:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

WTF is a tournament committee. Kukkiwon is the style. We need to get our terms correct here. The comment that one is sport and one is traditional is ignorant. 76.205.94.175 03:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Bigzilla

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)