Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:53, 6 September 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 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".

• "In 1895 the Empress of Korea was murdered by the Japanese, which were a sign of thing to come for Korea."

What does it have to do with kumdo or kendo? It is true that the Empress was murdered, but it has nothing to do with kendo. You need only to know Korea was occupied by Japan from 1910 to 1945.

• "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? Besides, the Agency was established in 1925. How was it able to outlaw Korean martial arts in 1910?

• "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)

• • If you look up Japanese occupation of Korea, this is discussed. In college during east Asian studies I remember learning about Japan trying to eliminate Korean Culture. I believe that is why the Korean Palace was dismantled by the Japanese. I remember discussing the outlaw of Korean language, martial arts, poetry. I also remember the class talking about how alot of the script on the palaces which had poems dedicated to the rulers of Korea were changed to be dedicated to the Japanese rulers. Their was a section on how Korean culture was being devoured by the Japanese culture. I remember learning that all the family coats of arms were destroyed by the Japanese. And you can only find old text on what they looked like or modern descriptions on what they think it looked like, but if you ask Korean families who were members of the upper elite class, none of them have a family coat of arm. They had them before the occupation but not after. They moved some monuments from Manchuria to Pyongyang in orders to justify the Occupation. I know there were lots of references in Japanese and Korean, but I can not read either one fluently. The american Asian history book only has one or two paragraphs and the professor had someone translate the asian books into pamplets for us. So if you can read Korean or Japanese just get a college level history book and their should be a few chapters dedicated for this stuff. I also remember discussing how Japan was conflicted on how to outlaw Korean culture, at one point if it fit their needs, they would bring aspects of it back then later they would outlaw it again. (Side note: I hate it when people keep bringing in foreign references that are not translated, I've noticed this alot especially in ancient Korean history sections on wikipedia, why are there so many Japanese references on ancient Korea, that doesn't even makes sense. This question wasn't directed towards you, I was just wondering outloud)

• • I think the writer is trying to point out that you can't outlaw something then say then didn't have that at all and they learned it from Japan. That wouldn't make any sense. Your contradicting yourself in the article if you leave it like that. If swordsman didn't practice fighting sword techniques, why were there even swordsmen in Korea. Why is their a book from the Silla period on sword fighting? Why were the Korean even making swords before the Koguryeo, Paekje and Silla period? Why would a culture make swords, have books on sword fighting techniques, only to learn how to use a sword from Japan in 1900's? That does not make sense to me. Please let me know how you would like to change this article to compromise. We know the editing agency existed in 1925 and they were modifying material from the past, so 2nd Century or 1895 or 1910, all these periods can be modified. Wokou or references about them could be modified.

• • Is it terminology you do not like, would it be better if they used Korean sword art and not Kumdo, even though Kendo was not the term used in the past I believe Japan's Kendo article starts when the sword arts begin in Japan not when the term Kendo appears, do we need to edit that article also. Since both Japan and Korea are using Chinese terms as a generic way of saying sword arts I don't know how to change this Chinese term.

• • The ancient martial arts books have references to the Korean sword arts even before run ins with Japan, but if your obsessed with terminology I don't know how to change it in a simple way.

• • I believe the impact of the Japanese occupation must be kept in. People need to get a comprehensive idea of this time period. Also, I believe the empress being murdered is in there because some people in Japan still believe Japan did nothing wrong during this time. It is pointing out that if the Japanese would murder the empress of another culture, they would have no problem Editing some points in history (Why even create a Editin Agency?) I think the empress part is in there just in case someone says the Editing Agency did not exist or had no power. --Objectiveye (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that your edit is an original research. You only REMEMBER what you disscussed in your college. You have no detailed information sources. It is happening ONLY in your mind. Your memory cannot be used as an information source. You must say WHEN, HOW, BY WHOM, WHAT kind of Korean culture was outlawed. You only saying "I BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!" You absolutely have no information sources at all. Your edit cannot be in wikipedia.

I'm not saying Japan did not do anything wrong in Korea. I know Koreans were discriminated and I think what Japan was a hurt to Koreans' pride. But what you think of the period should not be in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not your blog. You say that you believe the fact that the empress was murdered is in the article because some people in Japan still believe Japan did nothing wrong during this time. In other words, you're saying that you want to keep the sentence because you want to tell people what Japan did was wrong. This is not what wikipedia should do. Misplaced Pages is not a blog or an essay. What people in Japan thinks does not matter.

Besides, you're English is very hard to understand...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim all these things but I just realized you have no references. Two points we agree on is Yes Koreans made swords and they had books on swordmanship prior to contact with Japan. After the Occupation, the two swords styles became very similar.

I think we need to work to not modify these two points and we can agree on the article. I also believe things need to be put in the correct timeline. You can't start with the 16th cent then jump back to the 2nd cent and forward again to 1910.

So Since you have no references showing that Korea did not have swords or swordsmen prior to meeting Japan, you can't change it to this weird version.

I know alot of Japanese pride is hurt when people keep saying to them their entire culture seems to be borrowed. I know that is why they spend 100s of millions on trying to prove rice cultivation didn't come to Japan from Korea, I know it hurts their pride when the Japanese Imperial family states he has Korean lineage, (Emperor Kammu) what emperor Akihito said etc. But because you think Japan already borrowed too much from Korea and would like to say Japan showed Koreans something is just your blog.

You have no references backing your claim. Find me the reference which states Koreans didn't have swords/swordsmen prior to meeting Japan.

If you have a terminology issue, with the Chinese generic term for sword arts, start by fixing the Kendo article to not include past sword art history in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectiveye (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I read the few references that are on this site, one of the references has Japanese references as it's reference. Again I'm going to have that question: Why are their so many Japanese references on ancient Korea (like when talking about Paekje or Silla swordsman etc. and again I'am going to ask why even have an editing agency?)

Thanks --Objectiveye (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it! It is YOU who have no reference. I did not say Korea had no swordsmanship before being under Japanese influence! What I did was to revert information without sources.

What you're saying is completely irrelevent to the article! No Japanese is trying to prove rice cultivation didn't come to Japan from Korea!!! People are trying to prove what route rice took, but they are not doing so in order to prove "rice did not come through Korea"! It is your delusion! Emperor Kammu has nothing to do with Kumdo! What you are saying is completely irrelevent and only your delusion! But I wonder why Koreans are trying to say everything Japanese are from Korea and deny Japanese influence... Some even say that Man'yōshū is written in Korean, and that Sharaku was Korean, and that the word Samurai is from ssaulabi, and so on...

You're saying nothing! I don't say Koreans didn't have swords/swordsmen prior to meeting Japan! My edid never says Korea did not have swords! It is you misinterpretation! As I don't say Korea did not have swords or swordsmanship before being under Japanese control, what more reference do you need?

What I deny is Korean swordsmanship was merged into Kendo during the occupation. This article, which is very favorable to Kumdo, also says "Kumdo is a Korean translation of the Japanese term." "The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart. In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts."

It is YOU who shows no reference for your edit AT ALL! You never answers what I pointed out above! You talk nonsense! And you change the subject! (What do rice and Emperor Kammu have to do with Kumdo!?)

You never show the evidence that Editing Agency of Korean History outlawed Korean martical arts.

Adding the information about the Empress is you POV. It is fact, but it has very little to do with the article.

You only Remember or Believe things and show no evidence.

Please DO NOT revert until you show evidence!!--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

About your question.

"Why are there so many Japanese references on ancient Korea?"

I don't get what you're talking about at all. Which article are you referring to? Does this question have anything to do with this discussion? It seems like to me that you're changing the subject again.

"I'am going to ask why even have an editing agency"

Please use understandable English. Your English is very hard to understand... Are you asking why Japan had the Agency for Editing Korean History? I also think this question is irrelevent to the article, but I will answer it.

To govern a country, the goverment has to know the country in detail. Knowledge of history is essential. It is very natural that Japan tried to know the history of Korea in order to govern Korea and established an Agency to know Korean history systematically because no systematic study on Korean history had been done before the Agency was established although there were many historical documents. This website says the Agency was established in order to compile information on Korean history and to collect Korean historical documents.

Are you by any chance thinking that Japan established the Agency to outlaw Kumdo? It is not an organization with political power. The sentence "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" is absolutely nonsense. It says "aftermath of the Agency" but what did the Agency do to Korean swordsmanship? When, how, who outlawed which traditional Korean martial arts? In 1945, Kumdo was not practiced but what they were practicing was Kendo because Korea was a part of Japan at that time. The 1945 Kumdo was an equivalent of Japanese Kendo not because of the Agency but because Kumdo was nothing but Kendo itself.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no references and the version of the article you were trying to write/push was difficult to interpret. It jumps from the 16th cent, then to the Japanese occupation and then back to the Silla period. This article seems to have the same feel as the arguement with 16th cent Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo. Things that you can carbon date are easier to deal with when it comes to Japan, but if you look on the Sumo page, eventhough the rules and techniques are identical to Korean, Mongolian and Chinese wrestling, it is still claimed as Japanese. For the Koreans, Mongolian and Chinese the relative time is not that far apart in terms of when this style of wrestling was practiced but Japan is 500 years later, so ancient history for Japan is a touchy subject. and

The Editing agency and the Japanese Occupation impacted almost every aspect of Korean life, swords were confiscated and history was modified to fit Japans need. If Japan wanted to study Korea like you stated above, then they would have left the Korean Imperial Palace alone they would not have confiscated certain books, they wouldn't have tried to get rid of sections on wokou. Japan wanting to older than Korea has always been an issue, Japan trying to find a way to eliminate Korean culture and edit history so that the edits will show Japan was some how older than Korea is still an odd complex for Japan. Look at Fujimura, this was the biggest case of fraud in archaeological history, but it only happened because the Japanese people wanted to believe the Japanese culture was older than it actually was. And as far as your comment on no systematic study being done, have you seen all the history books Korea has, all organized from the Koguryeo, Paekje and Silla period. Then they had volumes of history organized for the following periods that came after. Koreans were writing before Japan even knew the concept of writing. That was why the Editing agency was needed. In order for Japan to justify its actions, Korea had to be younger than Japan.

If Japan only wants to know how rice cultivation reached Japan or what route it took, why is all the focus on Non-Korean routes.

I was looking at this Kumdo article and one of the references has a list of references in the back as it should, but when I tried to read the references I realized all the references were Japanese. Even the ones that had Korean names as the title. If you click on the link, Japanese pops up. Then I started to wonder about that, which got me to look at other articles. I was asking why there are so many Japanese references in topics about ancient Korea, just go check out the Japan page look at the references and you will see Japanese articles on Zen Buddhism, rice cultivation, writing, etc and it all has to mention Korea. Then it also spills over into the ancient Korea topics, there seems to be alot of Japanese language references when we are talking about a point in history prior to Japanese history.

Please DO NOT revert until you show evidence!!

Anyways you have no references and your version of the article in not in chronogical order, at least fix that first. --Objectiveye (talk) 20;58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What you say sounds very odd. "It jumps from the 16th cent, then to the Japanese occupation and then back to the Silla period. This article seems to have the same feel as the arguement with 16th cent Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo." Did I say anything about Silla period? Did I say anything about Japanese pottery and origin of Sumo? What does the Japanese pottery have to do with Kumdo? Are you referring to Imari porcelain by any chance? Japanese people know Imari procelain is originated from Korea. Were you thinking by any chance Japanese people claimed that the porcelain was originated in Japan? I know nothing about about Sumo, but you sure like to change the subject.

About the society (agency) what you say is happening only in your mind. To which sentence are you referring to? I could not find anything about the society (agency) in the websites you broght.

Rice? You changed the subject again. You seem to be possesed by a persecution complex. In your head, all the Japanese culture MUST have been brought by Korea. Japan only wants to know how rice cultivation reached Japan or what route it took. According to the Japanese wikipedia, DNA of Japanese rice could not be found in Korea and in Manchuria. But how rice cultivation reached Japan is still disputed. Please do not change the subject again.

"All the references were Japanese."?? I do not understand what you're talking about... Which reference are you referring to?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of terminology seems to be at issue. The Chinese term for way of the sword is being used literally here and you want to use it to mean Japanese way of the sword. We need to think about how to fix this.

You can't just leave out the Editing Agency and the Occupation, it impacted every aspect of Korean martial arts/culture. That impact is still felt to this day.

Look at the blackship article. The references that author uses are all Japanese. I went to the Korean references (the references he used on his blackship article and when I clicked on it eventhough the references had Korean names on them it turned out to be Japanese interpretations. The link sends you to a Japanese site.

I'm also just pointing out all those past issues which seem to have similar problems as this one. The pottery, buddhism, Sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system, they all have arguements like this page. I think these two links sum up the issues a little. and

When I have time I'll try to modify this article so we can both agree. I have other things to do right now. Thanks, --Objectiveye (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of terminology seems to be at issue. The Chinese term for way of the sword is being used literally here and you want to use it to mean Japanese way of the sword. We need to think about how to fix this.

I don't get why you say so. The term, way of sword, was not coind in China.

>You can't just leave out the Editing Agency and the Occupation, it impacted every aspect of Korean martial arts/culture. That impact is still felt to this day.

You still have not show any reference for this comment. What impact is it? What the agency did to Korean martial arts? It is only happening in your mind. You only "REMEMBER" your discussion at college. It is a typical original research. It is not possible to keep the information of the agency without any sources.

>Look at the blackship article. The references that author uses are all Japanese.

It sound like you're saying no Japanese references are reliable, which is very sel-righteous. I cannot agree with you. In spite of the language in which it is in, a source is a source.

>The pottery, buddhism, Sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system, they all have arguements like this page.

You changed the subject again. I still do not understand what you're referring to. It seems like you think pottery, buddhism, sumo, sword making, introduction of Chinese writing system are all from Korea, which is self-righteous and Korean nationalistic. As I said above, Japanese know that Imari porcelain is from Korea. Buddhism is not from Korea, but it came to Japan from India via Korea. All the Japanese know it. I've never seen any reliable sources that prove sumo is from Korea. I know Koreans believe the technique of making swords came to Japan from Korea. I don't know where sword-making technique itself is from, but I've never seen any reliable sources the technique of making Japanese katana is from Korea. Koreans believe samurai is from Korea and even coined a false etymology, Ssaurabi and Samurang. I don't know whether Chinese writing system was introduced to Japan via Korea or not. Maybe it was. But I know some Koreans even think hiragana and katakana are from Korea, which is rediculous and nationalistic.

>When I have time I'll try to modify this article so we can both agree.

As long as you insist on the Agency and show no sources, I will not agree with you.

You even removed sources I added. I cannot understand it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Why are there two articles, Kumdo and Korean swordsmanship? They have some sentences in common and they are mostly saying the same thing. I believe that Korean swordsmanship should be merged into Kumdo or the other way around.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Korean swordsmanship be merged into Kumdo#history.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. it is different. Manacpowers (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese user's POV pushing

sorry i revert it. this edit is a POV pushing without any source.Manacpowers (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you're saying at all. All you concern is not whether it is sourced or not, but whether it is favourable to Korea or not. Your edit is full of Korean POV.

My edit is sourced. Which sentence are you saying is not sourced?

In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two artsHOUSE OF DISCIPLINE MARTIAL ARTS GROUP GUM KIDO. Although there are some slight differences between the two today, "most people accept that they are doing essentially the same thing, and train and compete in the same environment."Alexander Bennett, Korea - The Black Ships of Kendo, Kendo World

See? I added two sources.

And it is your edit that is an original research.

The impact of Japans Editing Agency of Korean History and outlaw of Korean culture is still felt today, as you can tell from above.

You still have not showed any source about this information. When, how, what did the Agency did to Korean martial arts?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This edit is a inappropriate.

1. founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts

who founder say like that? who is the this document author? this document credible?

2. "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. It is also romanized as kǒmdo, gumdo, or geomdo. The name in hanja is 劍道, equivalent to the Japanese 剣道, literally translating to "the way of the sword"."

you delete this sentence(other user's contribution), without any consensus)Manacpowers (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Korea Kumdo orginization says, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'Template:KoTransclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable. Later, Japanese Kendo also influenced to Korea.

Until you show any reliable history record, Keep korea Korea Kumdo orginization claim. Not Japanese POV. Manacpowers (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying? Your edit makes no sense at all again.

>1. founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts

The cite says "The Korean art of Kumdo is a direct interpretation of its Japanese counterpart. In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts." (see the bottom of page 1)

>you delete this sentence(other user's contribution), without any consensus)

As I said, the society (agency) is not an organization which has political rights to outlaw anything. You talk like you know much about the society at Talk:Club for Editing of Korean History but you have never show any source at all.

>Unfortunately, Korea Kumdo orginization says, "Kumdo Originated from China.(not Japan)"'Template:KoTransclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{langx|en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. 'China -> Korea -> Japan' is root. Chinese and Korea's record is more earler than Japan. so it is reasonable. Later, Japanese Kendo also influenced to Korea.

This is your misinterpretaion. The name "Kumdo" was not used befor the occupation ( According to the text, the term gekiken was changed to kumdo in 1910). Even if Korea had long history of swordsmanship, modern Kumdo form as a sport is from Japan without doubt. KKA admits that.

"오늘날 우리는 일본에서 경기화, 스포츠화 된 검도를 하고 있습니다. 이 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실입니다."

"서양의 기사도를 대표하는 무술로서 현대 스포츠로도 각광을 받고 있는 '펜싱'을 우리는 잘 알고 있다. 그시작은 이탈리아였고, 스페인 · 영국 · 프랑스 · 독일 등에서 수백 년간 계속 발전시켜 오늘에 이르렀는데, 비록 경기용어는 모두 프랑스어로 되어 있고 경기명칭도 나라에 따라 ESCRIME, SCHERMA, FENCING 등으로 각각 다르게 호칭되고 있으나 경기방식은 똑같다. 그리고 그들 국가들은 모두가 자부심을 가지고 국제적인 규칙에 따라 나름대로의 기술개발을 하면서 함께 이 경기를 즐기며 키우고 있다. 돌이켜보면 현대의 검도경기가 시작된 것은 불과 100여년, 처음에는 명칭도 격검이었다. 대한제국은 일본이 개발한 경기방식을 바로 받아들여 군과 경찰에서 교과목으로 채택하고 군사훈련에 적용시켰으며 당시의 사립학교에서도 청소년들에게 보급, 권장하였다. 우리의 선각자들은 어렵던 시절 일제치하에서도 그맥을 이어 오늘에 이르게 한 것이다."

If Kumdo were as different from Kendo as you say it is, why KKA belong so International Kendo Federation? KKA admits Kumdo is the Korean equivalent of Kendo although there're some slight differences ("오늘날 우리는 일본에서 경기화, 스포츠화 된 검도를 하고 있습니다. 이 것은 부인할 수 없는 사실입니다").

So, there's no reason to remove the sentence below. It is cited as it is, though.

In fact, some of the early founders of Kumdo claim that there is absolutely no difference between the two arts. Although there are some slight differences between the two today, "most people accept that they are doing essentially the same thing, and train and compete in the same environment."--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kumdo.org/community/read.php?tb=col3&no=35&fid=23&p=12

sorry, funny. that is not a official state of KKA.

your reference is a board of KKA site. this written by one internet user. unreliable source. this is not a KKA official claim. sorry, this is not personal attack. but your edidt serious kidding? Manacpowers (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1. HOUSE OF DISCIPLINE MARTIAL ARTS GROUP GUM KIDO Retrieved September 3rd, 2008
2. Alexander Bennett, Korea - The Black Ships of Kendo, Kendo World Retrieved September 3rd, 2008

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