Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 29 August 2008

Korea Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

	Martial arts Start‑class
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Copyright problem

This article is a copy of . It is against the copyright law. So I rewrote it. 15:54, 1 March 2006 Michael Friedrich

"The present form, combining inner strength (gi), the absolute and unbounded swing of the sword (geom), and the use of one's lower back and body (che) is a recent development, and is known as "kikomchae". In tournaments one does not receive a point when striking the opponent unless the blow is accompanied by all three components of kikomchae." This is still a copy of and is against Misplaced Pages:List of guidelines#Guidelines. Michael Friedrich 08:47 24/04/2006

Removing wholesale isn't rewriting. I'll restore that lost information, but phrased in my own words and relating it to ki-ken-tai-ichi. — AKADriver ☎ 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you misunderstood. I rewrote the whole article on the 1st of March and removed the copied sentence on the 24th of April. Thanks.Michael Friedrich 11:01 28/04/2006

The name of this article: Kumdo, Geomdo, or Komdo

As of 1987, there were 32 Romanization proposals published in English articles according to an academic source that I have lost since. Not one of those 32 Romanization proposals included a rendering of "u" for the vowel in "검." This rendering is what has been called the American-enlisted-man's-back-of-the-envelope Romanization as a slap against the ignorance of international spelling conventions that is reflected. Misplaced Pages guidelines indicate a preference for the Revised Romanization or the McCune-Reischauer Romanization. Without getting into the shortcomings of the Revised Romanization - such as its rendering of this vowel as a historical mistake based on an erroneous assumption about a French spelling (reported in an academic journal edited by David McCann) - it is very clear that the rendering "Kumdo" cannot be used, even if it is favored by certain Korean Komdo teachers in the U.S. who have no knowledge of these issues and give an "off the top of the head" rendering based on phonology idiosyncratic to American English.

The page should be moved and re-directs created. -DoctorW 19:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My rewrite

The article as I found it was a horrible mess; the English was often too obscure to be understandable, and there was a lot of rather obvious PoV material. I've tried to rewrite it so as to retain everything that was relevant, NPoV, and understandable. I hope that at least it gives a decent starting point for future (constructive) edits.

Incidentally, in some of the discussion above I couldn't really make out what was going on, as no-one was signing or indenting their edits. the impression was of a private argument being carried out in public. Could editors please sign their comments (with ~~~~)? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If the anonymous editors continue to insist on reverting the article to what is clearly a PoV state, especially without having the courtesy to discuss the issues here, they're heading for being blocked from editing and/or the protection of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

About removing the photo

I've removed the photo("Image:Kendo.JPG|thumb|300px|Komdo") from this page because it has only been copied from the Kendo page.Please be fair.Nobu Sho 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frequent non-NPOV edits from anonymous user(s)

The frequent edits from 220.105.x.x and 221.189.x.x IPs adding the link to "WHY DOES KUMDO TELL A LIE?" are getting ridiculous. Will the real slim shady please stand up and explain why you keep adding a link to a clearly biased source? The article already states that modern Kumdo is derivative of Kendo forms brought to Korea during the occupation. Citing a source which unabashedly attacks Kumdo, and Koreans in general, does not add to the quality of the article. Unless someone can come up with a good reason to keep it, I'm going to revert the edit again or possibly ask for mediation. AKADriver 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted this section

A part of information on the net of South Korea and the apprenticeship of Kumdo insist on the lie when Kumdo is an origin of the kendo.

When the evidence of their insistences was verified in Japan, a lot of counterfeits were admitted, and the South Korea origin theory was denied completely.

Moreover, the plagiarism problem of this kendo was taken up in the Japanese kendo league (International_Kendo_Federation), and fixed as an international fact that it was a Japanese origin.

There are some major problems here, namely:

• While my Japanese is probably worse than the author's English and no insult is intended, we should probably discourage people from indiscriminately adding poorly machine-translated content like this unless they have some new revelation.
• As of now, this whole controversy has been done to death by people who are native or fluent in English. This specific legal battle mentioned is documented in clear English at Haidong Gumdo#Legal controversy.
• NPOV doesn't mean presenting every view (See: WP:NPOV#Undue weight). To this outsider and to anyone reading the version of this article (minus the quoted section) it is very clear that Kumdo began as a local variant of Kendo. It's also very clear to me that only a minority of ultra-nationalist Koreans believe the opposite. Please, please, understand that by giving lip service to this so-called controversy you are only lending legitimacy to these otherwise obscure claims.

I have gone back through the history of this article and, past the original badly-written and short-lived version from 2004 (which only described Haidong Gumdo rather than the entire Kumdo family), every revision since has presented the facts as they are. You are not presenting NPOV. You are manufacturing a controversy that, at least as far as this article is concerned, doesn't seem to exist. — AKADriver ☎ 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Identity Politics

Is it appropriate to write an encycropedia article based on identity politics? I accept that origin of Tekkondo is disputed. However, what is the point of writing an article which try to insuniate that Komdo is a Korean when Komodo side even admit that Komdo is Kendo? Because I don't care to engage in edit dispute about "turth", I propose to delete anything which is not sourced properly to verifiable sources. Vapour

4.23.83.100's edit

I don't believe this edit is unreasonable.

• First, kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Japanese kendo without doubt. If it is not so, why KKA is a member of IKF? Simply saying "Kumdo is a modern martial art of fencing in Korea." is not enough.
• 4.23.83.100 changed "This belief is not commonly held outside Korea" into "This belief is not commonly held in Japan," but the former sentence was made after a long discussion (see "Merger", which was somehow deleted).
• "the Japanese invasion of Korea in the early 1900's merged Kumdo with Japans version Kendo."

This is not the case. The word kumdo was not used befor Japanese kendo was introduced in Korea. Korean fencing, which Koreans believe to existed in ancient Korea, was not called kumdo. So, "merged Kumdo with Japans version Kendo" is not true. Besides, if it is true that kumdo was merged into kendo, Korean kumdo should have been more different from kendo, which was not mixed with kumdo. But as 4.23.83.100's also admits that "1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese kendo", kumdo and kendo was very identical during Japanese occupation. In other words, Korean fencing was not merged into kendo but it was completely ignored. It is more true that after 1945 Koreans merged Korean fencing into kendo and made it kumdo.

• "The reason for this was in 1910, Japan outlawed all Korean martial arts and either absorbed the Korean martial art or tried to eradicate it."

Do you have any information sources for this sentence? It may be true that Japanese occupation caused disappearance of some traditional Korean cultures. But as for "Japan outlawed all Korean martial arts" "absorbed the Korean martial art" "tried to eradicate it", I've never seen any reliable sources.

• "In the aftermath of the Japanese Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of traditional Korean martial arts, the 1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese kendo."

Editing Agency of Korean History is not an organization which can outlaw anything. Do you have any reliable sources for this information?

• "Up until the the occupation in 1910, kumdo developed in parallel with kendo."

There's no reliable source for this either. As I said before, there was no such a thing "kumdo" before Japanese occupation even though there may have been something like Korean fencing. This sentence is also contradictory to the sentences "Later in Korea, warriors were regarded as secondary to scholars during parts of the Goryeo Dynasty (908-1392) and much of the Joseon Dynasty, due to the heavy influence of Confucianism, martial arts other than traditional Korean archery were little practised except by members of the military. As a result, the popularity of certain martial arts waned without many successors to carry on its traditions. Today, there are only two remaining documents that refer to ancient Korean martial arts".

• "1910 Japanese Editing Agency of Korean History and the outlaw of Korean martial arts"

As I said before, Editing Agency of Korean History is not an organization which can outlaw anything. Do you have any reliable sources for this information?

• "The impact of the Editing Agency of Korean History and the outlaw of Korean martial arts by Japan was to create a system where the rules and the equipment of Kumdo are almost the same as those of kendo." "The impact of Japans Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of Korean culture is still felt today, as you can tell from above" Do you have any reliable sources for "Japan outlawing Korean martial arts"?

4.23.83.100's edit is not the truth but it is only what s/he believes to be true. There's no reliable source for his/her edit.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Korea-related articles
• Unknown-importance Korea-related articles
• WikiProject Korea articles
• Start-Class Martial arts articles