Talk:Karate/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orthographic Error?

In the following paragraph, in the History of Karate section:

In 1806, "Tode" Sakukawa (1782-1838), who had studied pugilism and staff (bo) fighting in China (according to one legend, under the guidance of Koshokun, originator of kusanku kata), started teaching a fighting art in the city of Shuri that he called "Karate-no-Sakukawa" (at that time meaning "China hand of Sakakawa"). This was the first known recorded reference to the art of karate (written as 唐手).

¿The (at that time meaning "China hand of Sakakawa") shouldn't say "China hand of Sakukawa"?

Styles

I removed them all. It made the article too long, and really added nothing to it. Of course there are styles. There are styles of teaching, and football and everything else. I kept the list here in case someone wants to make a new article

I disagree with your decision. While there are styles of teachingand football, styles of karate are essential to an understaning of Karate. There are four styles listed in the article under the label of being "traditional". While they are the only styles recognized by that particular orginization, they are not the only traditional styles. The article now reads in a highly misleading way by implying that they are the only traditional tyles and that the others are all fusions. Indeed, several of the styles listed as traditional in 3.1 are not actually as traditional as some listed below.

Styles

Within karate there are presently a multitude of different styles or schools. These include:
(A-Z)

Many organizations offer hybrids of karate styles. RogueNinja 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

oss

no reference to oss? ...well?

Isn't it there under The History of Karate in Japan as 'osu'?. It's a curiousity--I don't object to it being there but I don't feel it's necessary. JJL 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Swimming, soccer, ballet, obo, last but not least, KARATEEE!!!! --Yancyfry jr 03:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Way Too Long

Come on, guys. This opening paragraph is way too long. The Taekwondo article reads beautifully and this article is dissapointing by comparison. I'd recommend some serious trimming/condensing to make it read more fluently.

The "air hand" discussion could be entirely dropped, to my mind. JJL 17:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Anyone want to submit a request for semi-protection?

Changes (Transliteration, Manual of Style, and a few others)

I've made the following changes.
1. Consistently writing karate in all lower case letters (except for use in proper names of karate organizations, e.g. World Karate Federation).
2. Consistent use of italics for Japanese non-loanwords and non proper names. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles).
3. Proper use of revised Hebon-shiki system of Japanese to English transliteration of Japanese non-loanwords.
4. Corrected a couple of spelling and grammar errors.
5. Removed the sentence "Probably, many so called barefooters and foot fetishism people enjoy practicing Karate for the reason that they are barefoot when in many sports you aren´t." because, frankly, that's just creepy. If someone can cite something for that statement, then put it back in, but otherwise, please spare us.
6. Decapitalized a lot of other non-proper name Japanese words, including the names of kata. I debated doing this, and honestly, I think it should be discussed whether the kata names should go back to being capitalized.

In conclusion, I agree with whoever wrote the comment under the heading "Way Too Long," above. But rather than trimming, necessarily, it is the organization of the article that really needs fixing. A great deal of the material is repeated in more than one section, and the article overall has history, modern practice, technique, and other subjects mixed amongst each other without a logical order. Further, many of the paragraphs should be rewritten with better grammar and sentence structure. I suspect some of the article sections were written by a non-native english writer, which is great - I appreciate their contribution, but the next step needs to be taken where someone refines the ideas expressed. I'm considering doing it myself shortly - any objections?
Bradford44 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Elvis?

I think this article should contain a small notice about Elvis's karate.

Any information about Elvis' karate training belongs on the Elvis page, and/or a page for a list of famous people who practiced karate. Unless Elvis founded his own school of karate that somehow had an effect on the development or propogation of karate as a whole, it doesn't really belong here. I'm sure you can imagine what the page would look like if every famous person that practiced karate had a blurb about them on the karate page. I don't mean to sound harsh, and I encourage your further participation on this page, but every martial arts style page has had to go through its phase of random famous people who practiced that style getting added to it one at a time. You should have seen the reverts of the aikido page with Steven Seagal going on and off it constantly :P Bradford44 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Massive Reorganization

I reorganized the page from scratch, due to its repetitive and confusing presentation. However, I altered very little of what I moved around, and tried to preserve as much information as possible. Despite this, there were a few tidbits of information here and there that didn't fit (and maybe were surplusage to the article in the first place), and a few paragraphs I added to tie certain sections together and fill in missing information. Although I greatly wanted to, I refrained from removing the ever-increasing list of karate styles. Unless there is an objection, I am going to remove it in five days or so. Second, a section on self-defense still needs to be written. As it is, the article is far from perfect, but I hope that what I've changed is an improvement that will spur people to refine the information present, now that it is presented in a much less disorganized manner.Bradford44 18:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon User's deletions

It looks like an anon user removed huge amounts of text, and reordered the page. I don't necessarily mind, but I don't think such a drastic change should have been done unilaterally, nor do I think all of the deletion is justified without some prior discussion. It looks like the following sections have been deleted:

  • Section on Zen philosophy incorporated into the use of "empty" in karate
  • Section on weapons practice as it relates to the use of the word karate to refer to empty handed combat arts
  • Several paragraphs that in some way reference the fact that Japan had a nationalistic political climate, and a racist, ethnocentric social climate, during the early part of the twentieth century when karate was developing into its modern form. The references should remain, because they are relevant to karate's development (at least linguistically), and their removal strikes me as being a NPOV desire to revise an ugly part of history. Obviously the Japanese had very ethnocentric attitudes immediately prior to WWII, just as the Allies produced disgusting, racist propoganda vilifying the Japanese and Germans during the war.

If there are no objections in five days, I'm going to revert to RogueNinja's edit from about fourteen hours ago. Bradford44 15:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is already too long, and everyone who came along was just added links to their own personal styles and dojos. The list of styles adds nothing to one's knowledge about karate. RogueNinja 07:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I was unclear. I 100% agreed with removing the list of styles. I plan to revert to RogueNinja's edit that removed them, not before RogueNinja's edit. That is, to the edit where the list is removed, but before all of the stuff the anon user removed. I could not agree more with removing the list of styles, and I'm glad someone finally did. I only disagree with what was removed by the next user after that.Bradford44 18:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Oh, go right ahead thenRogueNinja 14:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)



The NKF? WKF?

The JKA is the original organization of Karate, but where does the WKF Come from? Is it an offshoot of the JKA. Also, the USA's committee NKF is recognized by the WKF, what are the origins for NKF?

It's a lot more complicated than that. The JKA was one of the early shotokan organisation founded by students of Gichin Funakoshi. But even that didn't last long in its original form (the shoto-kai for example, who were another branch of Funakoshi's students, have never been part of the JKA). The WKF is a sporting organisation designed to regulate sport karate and officiate over sport karate matches. It has no governance over individual classes or styles. It accepts all styles willing to compete under its particular ruleset. It has nothing to do with the JKA and competes under a completely different ruleset to the JKA. Shinji nishizono 16:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
(Original Questioner) TY Shinji, but So what would be the governance over the styles? I guess I'm still confused due to the political conflicts within each style/organization. Also, then did Gichin Funakoshi's organization JKA rise to become the organization for karate?
Hi! There is no organisation that governs all karate. There are many different bodies that govern within the shotokan-ryu another several that govern kyokushin-ryu etc etc. Karate is a pretty "catch all" kind of term to describe all descendants of Okinawan fistfighting. The JKA is probably the oldest of the karate associations, but it is only one of many associations. It has no more power than any other karate organisation (aside from the respect it has earned through being a long-lasting and traditional organisation). Gichin Funakoshi is the man usually credited with bringing "the way of chinese hands" "kara te do" from Okinawa to Japan, so he is usually revered as the father of Japanese karate. Although (I believe) he died before the JKA was formed, his son's students were involved in the making of the organisation, so they can claim direct decendance from the father of Japanese karate. In fact, the Shoto-kai probably have just as much claim (and many say that shoto kai karate is closer to what Gichin Funakoshi practiced, whereas shoto kan karate is more like the athletic karate of his son Yoshitaka Funakoshi). You will probably find that students of other karate styles such as Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu, Kyokushinkai ryu, Goju Ryu etc give no more than passing repect, if that, to the JKA. It certainly has no control over the way their schools are run. Hop this helps, happy to try and answer any more questions.
(Original Questioner) Thanks, I guess my question was worded oddly, is what would be the governance over each style? For example Wado-ryu is governed by blank, Shotokan is Governed by blank, so on and so forth. Also what would be other organizations of karate? I've only learned of the ones accepted by the International Olympic committee (WKF). I've been studying mainly Shotokan so I understand more about that, but thanks to contributions, I understand it better. But besides that fact, from what I've read, it was Gichin Funakoshi who was largely influencing into bringing Karate, an Okinawa sport, into Japan.
Ah, ok, sorry I did misunderestand your question. There are far too many governing bodies to list. It probably numbers into the hundreds. There is no single governing body for each style of karate. There are dozens for each style.
(Original Questioner)Ahhh, politics again, ok, thank you very much

Karate is highly political and there are multiple organizations for each style. RogueNinja 08:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should history section go first?

I think that the history section should go immediately after the introductory paragraph. Also, this is generally the order that most wikipedia articles seem to follow. Any objections, thoughts? If not, I'll make the change in a few days.Bradford44 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


TKD and Karate

Sections were deleted from the Karate's influence on TKD section. Repression and brutality of colonial times in Korea provides very relevant context for relationship between Karate and Taekwondo as well as explaining why Koreans were in Japan in the first place. Leaving out historical context only serves Japanese revisionist POV agenda.Melonbarmonster 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Korean revisionist POV
Melonbarmonster insisted. It was a period marked by brutal repression and the practice of Korean martial arts were banned along with other vestiges of Korean culture and identity.
This is a policy list that Japan enforced to Korea. ::[1]
Introduction of trial system, Prevention of epidemic, Protection of copyright, Handling of real estate and company, Forestry preservation...　Is it barbarous to have introduced these systems?
And, there is no law that proves your insistence "Korean martial arts were banned along with other vestiges of Korean culture and identity". You should submit evidence to prove your insistence.
Reason why Korean is in Japan
According to the Zainichi Korean's testimony, ::[[2]] Japanese Government permitted Korean people to enter a country in Japan from 1922 to 1925. As a result, a lot of Korean people moved to Japan for economical reasons. --Sir Joestar 13:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Joestar that's some wretched black van propaganda. Some serious discussion would be welcome.Melonbarmonster 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Using "karate" confusingly in the History

I think that the term "karate" should rarely be used in the history until it has finally came to the point where "ti" has evolved into "karate."

For example, this is confusing: "Matsumura taught his karate to Anko Itosu(1831-1915), among others."

Taught his karate? Matsumura taught "Karate-no-Sakukawa", or did he teach "Shorin-ryū"? Saying "karate" makes the reading very confusing.

Here's another confusing part: "Early styles of karate are often generalized as Shuri-te, Naha-Te and Tomari-te, ..."

Early styles of karate? Don't you mean styles of "ti"?

It'd make reading much easier if these were taken care of somehow. Just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.63.254 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

i need the images

Karate and Tai Chi

Before I start this discussion, first let me thank whoever listed all the different styles of Karate. It is a shame that the article itself doesn't list them and that I have to come to the discussion page to follow the links. Whoever you are, thank you.

Regarding Karate and Tai Chi, I have a few opinions to express on both arts. The opinions in question are based on Daoist thought, and the whole Ying/Yang view of the universe. It is only fair that Karate be viewed in such a light because Master Gichin Funakoshi was a Daoist. So how are Karate and Tai Chi related? First, a brief overview of both arts.

Karate uses a lot of stiff, broken motions, in its routines (Kata). It also uses a lot of muscular power, and endurance. Every block seems to be designed to be a direct attack on the opponents limbs, so it is simultaneously offensive and defensive. Included in the art is an assortment of throws, joint locks, sweeps, escapes, and evasive maneuvers that a person can not learn just from doing Kata. In other words, no, Kata all by itself is NOT Karate. Kihon involves learning basic techniques, and gradually moving to the more advanced techniques (depending on the school). Shortly thereafter, after the student has learned all the basic techniques, they are trained in basic Kata, depending on style, a given Karate style can have as little as 5 Kata, or as many as 30, with nearly endless variations in between. After mastery of Kata is accomplished, pre-arranged Kumite is taught, which includes all the throws, joint locks, escapes, evasive maneouvers, etc. Occassionally, as was done traditionally in Okinawa (although strongly discouraged) "tests of strength" were conducted between two Karateka in which they would have a no-holds barred match. The purpose of these tests was to determine the effectiveness of a given style, not for the sake of money, not for fame, and certainly not for glory or to feed an adrenaline addiction. Also, the people who engaged in these matches often had 5 or more years of experience practicing Karate, and their techniques were often polished to a point where, there was little danger of injury not because the techniques weren't dangerous, but, because the practioners of those techniques were often skilled martial artists. Tests of strength were often only grudgingly approved of because, since it was common in Okinawa to harden one's fists on a Makiwara, even a strike with little power behind could severely injure someone if it landed in the right place. Indeed, reportedly Master Funakoshi's own students said that doing pre-arranged Kumite with him was a painful affair since his forearms felt like cement. The fact of the matter is Master Funakoshi likely held back; had he blocked his student's strikes with all of his power, he could have easily broken their limbs had he really wanted to. As far as I know none of Master Funakoshi's surviving students got broken limbs from him.

Ranting aside, moving on to Tai Chi Chuan.

Tai Chi Chuan, of all the Kung Fu styles, uses flowing, circular movements. Like Karate it does have basic techniques and exercises that, for some strange reason, are no longer taught outside martial Tai Chi circles. The basics of Tai Chi usually involves Chi Kung, Zhangzhuang, and some form of stance training. These things are pretty much universal to all styles, and they form the "basics." Once a foundation has been established, training in the form itself begins, usually, consisting of 108 steps. The form itself, as with many Kung Fu styles, is divided into three routines; the beginer's form (24 steps), the intermediate form (56 steps) and finally, the master's form (108 steps). These three forms are connected, and as the student progresses one form is stacked onto the next, finally culminating in the long, 108 step routine. Once the basics and the routine itself have both been mastered, training usually began in pushing hands and the martial applications of the various techniques within a given form. From my readings, pretty much all 5 of the major styles incorporate a defensive version of Chin-Na, a complicated set of joint locks with enough techniques to give anyone a headache. In martial arts, this is what I have generally observed; the simpler the technique, the more power it requires for its execution. The more complicated the technique, the less it relies on power, and the more it relies on leverage and physics. Example; the double or single leg take downs of American Catch wrestling for instance are both very simple to execute, but, they require a certain degree of power. Generally, the wrestler in question has to be strong, or built up their strength to execute it properly. A Chin-Na throw on the other hand, will include catching a strike, moving in a circular patter which will place the opponent's arm at its very worst angle, that is, the angle in which it he has the least ammount of strenght and you have the most strength, all the while taking into consideration the force of his strike. While executing the technique, the Chin-Na throw/joinlock must work in harmony with the physics of the strike itself, otherwise it won't work. The circular routines are complex, but, properly mastered, it has been theorized that a small woman can effectively defend herself against a 230lbs bruiser using physics alone. However, like I said; simple techniques seem to require a lot of power, whereas complicated techniques require little power, but are very hard to learn.

One may joke that the simpler, more brutal styles of fighting are for jocks, while Kung Fu is for nerds. After all, if a jock is too dumb to learn complicated martial arts, he may as well learn simple ones because only a nerd has the brain power to learn something as complex as Chin-Na. lol. Stereotypes aside, that pretty much covers what I had to say about both arts. Surely enough there is a lot more to it than that, but, this is a discussion page, not a book.

Now then, why should both Karate and Tai Chi be practiced together, but never combined? Because, Ying works with Yang as seen in the symbol, but, it remains separate. Ying and Yang are separate, and distinct from each other, but, they work together and complement each other. In that same manner, Karate and Tai Chi are different as night and day as Ying and Yang are different from each other, however, in the same way Ying and Yang complement each other, Karate and Tai Chi must logically complement each other.

Broken motion is the opposite of flowing motion. Reliance on offence (because even in defense Karate is on the offence) is different from reliance on defense. Smooth, circular, flowing techniques are different from blocky, non-flowing ones. Power behind strikes for the purpose of destroying an opponent is different than actively blending into an opponents attack. The point I am trying to make is, in the martial arts world there does not exist two arts that can possibly be more different from each other than Tai Chi and Karate. Further expounding on the differences; Karate uses many routines, many Kata, whereas Tai Chi only uses, in reality, one routine divided into three. Karate routines are vigrous with occassional, brief resting, whereas the Tai Chi routines are often slow and continuous. Truly, two arts could not be more different or further apart. Therefore, looking at it from a Daoist perspective, both arts should be practiced at the same time.

As it is said in Chinese martial arts circles, the hard styles go from hardness to softness. This is to say, you train the body and work the muscles so that the mind learns to concentrate and internalize, that is, reach its center. It is said of Tai Chi, that Tai Chi goes from softness, to hardness. This means, that a person learns to concentrate for the sake of effective body control later on, the kind of body control that can make one rely entirely on the opponents leverage and position, rather than one's own strength, to effectively defend yourself against them.

So, Karate goes from hardness to softness, while Tai Chi goes from softness to hardness. If Tai Chi is trying to reach hardness, while Karate is trying to reach softness, then that means that, practiced together, both arts converge in the center, thus harmonizing Ying and Yang. At least, hypothetically.

This thinking has yet to be tested or proven. To whoever was reading this, I hope it was enlightening or if not, at least entertaining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.63.78.98 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Every block seems to be designed to be a direct attack on the opponents limbs, so it is simultaneously offensive and defensive. - this is not true for all Karate styles (and I doubt if it's true for any Karate styles, if you go above beginner levels). For example, Shito-ryu defines what you wrote as the rakka defense, one of the five basic techniques, and utilizes it only when appropriate. Cubbi 05:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Goju has a lot of circular moves, plus you are taught not to use muscle strength as it inhibits speed and power (although at times you may use tension as appropriate). In my experience, the biggest problem people have when talking about karate is that they tend to over-simplify and generalise and don't realise that the different styles often have really different philosophies and ways of doing things.
Ok, I'll refrain from commenting on the numerous errors about Karate found in your essay as they boil down to most likely trying make it the 'opposite' of tai chi as much a possible. While your idea about the meeting of the two (and thus harmonising) is intriguing on a theoretical level (though not entirely new), on a practical level it most likely wouldn't really work because the practioner will naturally begin to lean to one side - hard or soft - sufficiently to ruin the balance. In the end too, such theoretical ideas would get in the way of one of the main reasons of martial arts: self-defence. (this is why MMAs are so popular - there's less to think and contemplate over :p) Shanada 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In Tai Chi, one's goal is not to go from softness to hardness; it is to develop internal power, to remain soft and oppose no resistance to the opponent, but use his own force against him. In Tai chi, one must "Use 4 ounces to handle a 1000 pounds", always. Also, the technique is not complicated, it might look complicated to an outside observer, but it really is simple.
Someone should ask Hirokazu Kanazawa - not many people know more about karate than him and he's very into Tai Chi! Shinji nishizono 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Karate and Korea

It doesnt matter if the Occupation of Japan by Korea was marked by brutal oppression, genocide, alien abductions or scientific renaissance. Its not relavent to the history of Karate. It might be relavent to TKD, or to Korean history, but NOT to karate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogueNinja (talk • contribs) 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

What the freak happened to my previous entry??? Did someone delete it???
Historical context behind Japanese occupation of Korea is crucial to understanding Karate's influence on the formation of TKD. Huge parts of TKD culture, history, practice, personalities are heavily influenced by the repressive nature of the colonial period. Omitting this context would be FACTUALLY misleading. THis section is about Karate's influence on TKD. MOST of this influence occurred during colonial times. I don't see how you can leave out historical context of occupation.
Dude, this section is about KARATE'S INFLUENCE ON TKD! According to your logic the whole section needs to be deleted because it's about TKD and NOT karate. You're not making sense here. To accurately deal with Karate's Influence on TKD, you need to provide a little context about Japanese/Korean history during colonial times. A sentence to do this is more than appropriate.Melonbarmonster 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with you completely. The entire section should be removed and placed in the TKD article, with a internal hyperlink from this article. At best, a few sentences mentioning the influence should be here. Example: "In 1955, at the behest of President Syngman Rhee, the dozens of Korean martial arts schools were standardized and the resulting construction became Taekwondo." This has absolutely nothing to do with karate, and everything to do with taekwondo RogueNinja 21:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has been here for ages. And there are other sections about Karate's Influences in other places. No one has ever complained about these sections before and I'm not sure why you don't see the topical relevance of these sections to Karate. If the section is going to stay, it needs to provide context. Reducing it down to what you've proposed would be factually misleading.Melonbarmonster 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1) Just because the content has been here does not mean it should stay. 2) The section is on TKD, not karate, so it does not belong. 3)The article should be about karate, not Korean or Japanese history. Such things should be included, but talking about how the Japanese occupation was brutal is not pertinent to the article. Again, put it in the appropriate article at Korea under Japanese rule RogueNinja 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Karate's influence on TKD is topically relevant and interesting and fully deserves a section in this article. You're claiming that you want to delete this section and you don't have the consensus to delete this section. Furthermore, you merely reverted my edit and didn't mention wanting to delete this section until I brought it up. Nonetheless, if you want to bring in admin or follow some procedure for dispute resolution, I'm game.Melonbarmonster 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, I don't understand how karate was used to implement the brutal repression of Korean culture and identity. I don't see that a negative statement improves the quality of this article or the standing of Korean culture. I think you should gain consensus here before you continue the edit reverts. And by the way, thank you for the excellent work on the kimchi article. jmcw 10:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As you can see from this discussion page, this issue has been discussed and the text in question has been here for a long time. The unexplained, disputed reversions are being made by those who have been deleting portions of the text. Heck, you're the only one to even participate on this talk page, let alone engage is a discussion leading to consensus or resolution.
The text doesn't claim karate was used to implement brutal repression, etc..
The subsection deals with karate's influence on the formation of tkd. This influence happened in a historical context that's important to understanding the nature of this influence. The text being deleted is a cited sentence explaining the context of Korean immigration to Japan which heavily colored karate's influence in formation of tkd. Leaving out this historical context decreases factual content and accuracy of this subsection and shouldn't be deleted. melonbarmonster 16:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Factual content does not matter. PERTINENT Factual Content is what mattered. The article should make no mention of what the japanese occupation was like, that IS FOR THE ARTICLE ON THE OCCUPATIONRogueNinja 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Historical context is extremely pertinent to karate's influence in formation of tkd as well as well as being very interesting. I don't see how you can separate the two or why you would even want to. Any objective attempt at understanding korea-japan cross cultural phenomenon, issue, or whatever will have to deal with relevant historical and social complexities. The nature of Japanese colonization permeates almost all facets of karate's influence... no time but I'll explain more later.melonbarmonster 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster, clearly several people disagree with you, and nobody has come forth on your side. Go ask for arbitration, because I am reverting your POV additions. RogueNinja 19:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First, no one has come forth on your side. This discussion has been between you and me. It also doesn't help that you align yourself with anonymous Japanese editors who are making nonsensical, inflammatory revisionist rants in broken English in the edit explanation rather than contributing to this discussions section. Counting up the number of rabid, nationalistic Japanese or Korean rants as being valid would get us nowhere.
Second, you initially wanted to inexplicably delete this entire section! Your positions and arguments have been inconsistent and you haven't defended them when I've given my responses. Regardless of the topical relevance of this section and the importance of historical context of karate's influence on tkd, your sole interest seem to be to cover up, hide, delete historical context. I've taken the time to explain my position in response to your inquiry. Please reciprocate rather than avoiding the pertinent issues at hand as you did in your last post and merely reverting again.
Lastly, to restate my position, Koreans were in Japan as part of the migration of Koreans into Japanese peninsula during colonization. Please read the referenced cited and the zainichi korean article if you're not familiar. The sentence now reads that economic and social hardships drove this migration while giving no explanation for the very obvious reason for this mysterious "economic" and "social" hardships. It is factually misleading and intellectually dishonest to not mention the nature of Japanese occupation which drove this migration which the early TKD masters were a part of. The only reason for unnaturally excising this is for POV reasons. Half a sentence of this history is more than appropriate for providing background behind Korean migration. Purposefully avoiding this decreases the relevant information content and accuracy of this sub-section.melonbarmonster 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster's addition of the word "brutal" is a violation of Wikipedia's policy, WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. Plus the brutalness (whether or not it is substantiated) is irrelevant to the spread of Karate within Korea.--Endroit 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about the spread of karate within korea.melonbarmonster 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Melonbarmonster, you must be really disoriented. You're the only one talking about the details of the occupation of Korea. Everybody else is talking about Karate here. You don't need to advertise the "brutalness" of the occupation, because it doesn't relate to Karate, period.--Endroit 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to keep this civil. I think you're being a lot of things that's I'd rather not mention for the sake of civility.melonbarmonster 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edroit, this dispute has been sent to the Mediation Committee. If you would like to be involved, please list your name at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Karate RogueNinja 03:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I joined myself. I am in general agreement with RogueNinja here, that the whole passage in question is a NPOV violation. Plus, the source uses the POV words "Cultural Genocide", which is on the radical extreme. That source doesn't even mention Karate at all, so the whole bit about Japan's brutalness affecting Karate in Korea is Original Research by Melonbarmonster.--Endroit 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The cited reference is material from from University of Tokyo professors. I wish I did the research myself but it's incredibly bad faith as well as ridiculous that Edroit would accuse me of original research. Moreover, using "cultural genocide" to describe Japan's policies in Korea during colonial times is worth debate and discussion but it is not a radical view by any stretch of the imagination.melonbarmonster 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
So if the Koreans went down to Japan and Okinawa to learn Karate from the Karate masters there, how would that affect the spread of Karate in the brutally repressed Korea? Was there brutalness in the teaching process of Karate in Korea? I would think that there has to be some act of kindness for the teaching to take place in the first place. Your guess is as good as mine. Find a source that actually talks about these issues regarding Karate before you start accusing people, Melonbarmonster.--Endroit 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not even sure you even understand what we're discussing here. It's hard for me to not question your motives or assume good faith when you are obviously not genuinely interested or informed about the topic being discussed. Please read through the contents of this discussion if you want to take part in this mediation.melonbarmonster 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that this article has gone to mediation. I think that the historical sentence and the links of Melonbarmonster are ok - it is the word "brutal" to which I object. Good Luck! jmcw 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Id like to point out melonbarmonster's frequent korean nationalist edits, which are obvious if you go through his history. He has been blocked several times, he has tried to hide those blocks and I believe his edits on this page are a clear violation of WP:SOAP RogueNinja 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Those blocks have led to disagreements even among admins in both occasions with admins and involved users expressing their support for my position. If you want to make this an issue I'm more than game, but perhaps you would do better to concentrate on the actual substantive issues at hand rather resorting to ad hominem's and inflammatory labels. From where I stand you've done little to explain your position while blindly pushing revisionist POV. Let's be honest and shed some perspectives on the POV pushing that's been going on: of all the revisionist reverts that this subsection has suffered, you're the ONLY person to even participate in the talk page. This portion of the article has suffered numerous anonymous Japanese users reverting with no explanation or nonsensical or outright offensive edit explanations. Moreover, you've yet to explain why half a sentence of historical context needs to be deleted in spite of my repeated responses. Let's keep things on track here.melonbarmonster 04:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

please put up yiddish interwiki link

like this [[yi:קאראדי]] to its article in Yiddish wikipedia. thanks--yidi 15:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to an ongoing edit war on this article, I have protected it for two days.--Jersey Devil 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

mediation

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Hello my name is Razor romance and i want to be a meaditor so this is my first job. in my oponion the occoupation should be mentioned but the current way is not correct. i think you should say something allong the lines of " the Japanese occupation has had a dramatic impact on the korean culture, including in their devolpment of their martial arts TKD...." with an internal link to thje japanese occupation page (if there is one or something similar) and one to the TKD page with a mention of for a compleate history ok TkD history click link.Razor romance 15:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offense, but id rather someone with some mediation experience, who is not connected to the dispute (ie, not in wikiproject japan as you are), and with a better grasp of the english language mediate this case. Also, someone with more experience editing would be nice. You have less than 50 edits in the main namespace.RogueNinja
It would be nice to have a more experienced mediator although I'm not sure if that's an option not being familiar with the mediation process.
Razorromance, your suggestion would still be a problem for me since the brutality and the oppressive nature of the occupation is what caused the "economic and social" hardships. This obvious fact needs to be stated rather than unnaturally being left blank. It's unreasonable to leave the cause of "economic and social hardships" as an unstated mystery.
In a section about karate's influence on taekwondo, the historical context behind HOW the early taekwondo masters were exposed to karate is topically relevant and very interesting! The negative aspects of Japanese occupation in Korea(regardless of how we may personally feel about this) is what drove the immigration and should be included. I've provided a citation for this and a half sentence to explain this I believe is more than appropriate and reasonable. Besides POV reasons I don't see why we can't have half a sentence to increase info content and accuracy of this sub-section.melonbarmonster 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken RogueNinja, but please let me try to resolve this conflict. Melonbarmonster i agree that there should be a mention of the impact of the ecnomic and social hardships, and that is why you link it to the japanese occoupation page, sayin something like for a full history of the occupation clikc the link.To me the curren item under scrutiny describes the impact it had very generaly. if you want to show how it influnced korea then you must do so speficaly, by giving examples of how in TKD the addapted techqunices and made them theirs. I like this example Early taekwondo masters such Choi Hong Hi had studied Shotokan karate under Funakoshi Gichin As it stands now the impact of krate in korea is lost on me as it is very vuage.Razor romance 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to avoid vagueness by providing specific citations for specific facts.
I made it clear that I was stating existing facts by providing academic reference from University of Tokyo and Japanfocus. I also limited the text to half a sentence so that references can be used to fill in the details. I feel references are more useful than hyperlinks in this instance.
The historical context that needs to be stated is the fact that the brutality of Japanese rule in Korea is what caused the migration to Japan. For this I provided following references:
1. brutality of Japanese rule http://www.cgs.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/workshops_e/w_2004_02_23_e.html
2. migration caused by social, economic impact of Japanese policies http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/2220
The Korean taekwondo masters were part of this migration and were able to learn karate and other Japanese martial arts. This is historically interesting and relevant to the topic of this sub-section and I feel that deleting this from the text is unnatural and decreases info content and accuracy of this subsection. It seems to me that some feel uncomfortable about negative mentioning of Japanese rule in Korea period. I understand the reason for such sensitivity but we should try to focus on what an objective summary of karate's influence on taekwondo would include.melonbarmonster 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you feel it is important that the brutality is important to you to mention, but by going into detail it makes the point of how karate itself, not the japanese soldiers, impacted korea.also, by readiong the current form of the artice, i cannot discern that through the migration the learned karate. a it stands i dont see how it impacted korea outher than the( the koraeans) got to watch the soldiers train and said " hey that looks cool lets start TKD!!"Razor romance 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to butt in here (before catching my flight :)) to note that Razor romance is not a member of MedCom, therefore the MedCom request is still open and awaiting a neutral mediator from the committee. Apologies for any disrution this may have caused. Martinp23 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL.melonbarmonster 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I am Daniel.Bryant (talk · contribs), a member of the Mediation Committee, and I will be taking this case (unless someone raises an objection to my presense). Before I begin, given the "false start" above, I'd like to alert you to the fact that all mediators mediate in different ways; I, for example, will be basing the mediation out of Talk:Karate/Mediation. What I'd respectfully request is that, during the period of the mediation, the three parties listed add the Talk:Karate/Mediation page to their watchlist, so that we can begin. Because nothing further will occur on this page related to the mediation, I have archived this section. Please see that page for further details. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

"Karate always begins and ends with rei" Reference

In the Kokoro section, a citation is needed for "Karate always begins and ends with rei".

This is Guiding Principle #1 of Gichin Funakoshi's 20 Guiding Principles of Karate. In Japanese, it's "Karate-dō wa rei ni hajimari, rei ni owaru koto o wasuruna." [I have the kanji, but my computer can't enter it]. It has been translated variously:

Richard Kim: Karate begins with respect and ends with respect. Vincent Cruz: Karate begins with courtesy and ends with courtesy. John Stevens: Never forget that karate begins and ends with respect. John Teramoto: Do not forget that karate-do begins and ends with rei.

I like Richard Kim's translation best. I'd propose re-wording the quote and using him as the source.

This is my first action on wiki so I'm not sure what the procedure is, so I thought I'd just enter the comment and see what happens.

Here are references for all the translations I mentioned. Kim: Kim, Richard, The Classical Man, Hamilton, Ontario: Masters Publication (0-920129-01-3), 1982, pp. 103-105. Cruz: Cruz, Vincent A, The Twenty Guiding Precepts of Gichin Funakoshi: And other essays on the philosophy of Karate Do, New York: iUniverse (0-595-32139-9), 2004, pp. v-vi. Stevens: Stevens, John, Three Budo Masters: Jigoro Kano (Judo); Gichin Funakoshi (Karate); Morihei Ueshiba (Aikido), Tokyo: Kodansha International (4-7700-1852-5), 1995, pp. 82-85. Teramoto: Funakoshi Gichin & Genwa Nakasone, John Teramoto (translator from Japanese), The Twenty Guiding Principles of Karate: The Spiritual Legacy of the Master, Tokyo: Kodansha International (4-7700-2796-6), 2003 (Karate-dō Nijukkajo to sono kaishaku, 1938), p. 19.

Patrick McDermott 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the changes - it is great that you actually have references<g>. Feel free to edit anything - as you have seen with your photo, any error will quickly be corrected. Welcome to wikipedia! jmcw 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I can get the sources for most of the missing references, but I can't figure out how the system works. I cannot figure out why my photo was deleted. It seems to talk about copyright, but I thought I made clear that I absolutely, positively control the copyright, it's from my book. I was thinking about adding a picture of each of the weapons metioned, perhaps even make an article "Karate Weapons", but I'm reluctant to invest effort that gets mysteriously deleted... Patrick McDermott 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Karate weapons would probably come under Okinawan kobudo --Nate 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I found Redvers comments a bit cryptic: certainly not user friendly. The two links that he referenced concern the wiki legal and quality requirements of references. Read the references Redvers provided, add the material again if suitable and ask Redvers to talk here before he deletes it again. jmcw 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with karate

There will be people coming to this page who have never done karate before and want to try it.

I think it would be worth mentioning the main global karate organisations, I know that WKF is in there but what about WKC and WUKO. What about having something about the lack of a global standard (or even an association standard) for the grading system and the teaching. Different instructor teach different things and have very different levels of quality for reaching black belt status.

It is hard for people to asses the quality of a Karate club, particularly if they are a beginner. There is no globally recognised assessment system; clubs often rely on the grade, which as I said is not a great measure of the skill.

I feel like the problems faced by this not only hinders the ability to train in karate at other places, but also the slow speed to adopt Olympic Sport Karate.

138.38.32.82 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) kerspoon (12 Apr 07)

These organisations don't really standardise things at a club level though do they? I mean, the WKF has tournament guidelines in place, but they're very specific to sport-karate. I wouldn't like the quality of my club to be judged on how closely it follows WKF standards as we don't practice WKF kumite and we train in the JKA style. Shinji nishizono 00:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Karate and silat

This article makes no mention of silat's close relation to karate. We know that Okinawa traded a lot with SE Asia and most of the weapons used in Okinawa were brought from Indonesia. Doesn't anyone know about this? Morinae 09:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a valid source (e.g. something you can cite here that other people can check for themselves) then you should add a paragraph on this. I've never heard this before though (and aren't silat's primary weapons the knife and the cane, neither of which are particularly common in okinawan karate?).Shinji nishizono 11:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've known about this for a long time so it's hard to pin down sources but the influence on karate was mentioned in Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts by Donn Draeger. The primary weapon in silat is actually the keris (dagger) and the cane isn't any more common than the sai or tonfa. Read the article on silat for more on that. Morinae 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

in the begining, it states that Chinese Kenpo influenced karate formation. Due to the new Chinese kenpo formed by Parker it could be confusing and as the original art is Quan fa would be a better introduction.If anything karate is used around the world to protect people from being attacked this is a form of self defence.

rhg

Karate and Kempo

Okinawan Te draws from Chinese kempo. The current wikki articles about chinese martial arts and kempo say little about the Chinese kempo contributions to karate ( for example, no mention of Wanshu 1683 or Kusanku 1756 or Ryu Ryuko 1874). I would suggest no link to kempo at this time. jmcw 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to say anything about the influence on karate. All it needs to do is link to the article on Chinese martial arts in case anyone wants a definition of that term or to learn more about Chinese arts. I wouldn't, however, link to "kempo" as that term is generally used in the west (and this is en.wikipedia) to refer to specific American martial arts rather than as a generic term for martial arts which is the way Morio Higaonna would be using it. Shinji nishizono 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a disambiguation page for kempo would be useful. Americain Kempo, Chinese kempo, Southern Chinese kempo, White Crane kempo, Five Ancestors kempo would all be interesting. jmcw 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Belts

I came to this encyclopedia to get a "quick" listing of colours. Black is mentioned but where are the others? anon

A quick search pulled a reference from yahoo http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070528120522AAN5CrZ

Best Answer - Chosen By Voters

karate belt colours
9th Kyu - white
8th Kyu - yellow
7th Kyu - orange
6th Kyu - green
5th Kyu - blue
4th Kyu - purple
3rd Kyu - brown
2nd Kyu - brown 2
1st Kyu - brown 3
1st Dan onwards - black

Would I be correct in thinking this alligns neutral with

  • Jyukyu - 10th Kyu
  • Kyukyu - 9th Kyu
  • Hachikyu - 8th Kyu
  • Shichikyu - 7th Kyu
  • Rokukyu - 6th Kyu
  • Gokyu - 5th Kyu
  • Yonkyu - 4th Kyu
  • Sankyu - 3rd Kyu
  • Nikyu - 2nd Kyu
  • Shokyu - 1st Kyu
  • Shodan-ho - Probationary Black Belt (1st Dan Ho)

nope I see now it doesn't quite fit. In any case, a general listing of ordered colours would help any peep like myself in future if someone would like to have a bat? anon203.59.189.244 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no predefined colors for the student belts in Karate, sorry. Every school, sometimes even different dojos within one school, have their own color choices. The only thing in common is that there are 10 student grades, from 10th kyu to 1st. --Cubbi 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer even though obvious to me. My question is not how many different types of school's or dojo's there are(even though being an encyclopedia of sorts...)but more a generalization of. It would seem only fair that references made to black belts should be removed seeing as no "standard" for karate belt colours was ever implemented, as it were.anon 203.59.189.244 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The article refers to "color belts" and "black belts", that is correct for all styles. Some styles give their higher dans colorful belts, but they are still referred to as "black belts". --Cubbi 03:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems that the entire section of Rank either needs to be buffed or ripped. What is common is purely a matter of opinion and not factual enough for entry into wiki anon 203.59.189.244 03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same article? I don't see anything under Rank that is "a matter of opinion" or "not factual", except maybe the "progression of learning" paragraph, which is already duly marked with "citation needed". --Cubbi 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I am not very well understood and I apologize for that. The main article on Rank reads: In traditional schools there are ten ranks of "color belt", referred to as kyu, and five or more dan or "black belt" ranks, with ten being the most common, or eleven if the rank of probational black belt (shodan-ho) is used. It is common for extensive periods of time to be required to pass before being allowed to test for promotion, and Jyudan is frequently awarded only after a notable karateka has passed away.
-I hope this makes sense now. Furthermore Tradition has grass roots which should be referenced more appropriately which would also further our understandings if colours were referenced to those schools used in said referenced Rank article. anon 203.59.189.244 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rank: 'Traditional schools there are ten ranks of "color belt"'

The four tradition schools of karate recognized (by the Federation of All Japan Karatedo Organization) are Shotokan, Shito-ryu, Goju-ryu and Wado-ryu. Goju-ryu to my knowledge has nine ranks of colored belts. Could someone from the other styles confirm the color belt count? Shall we try to find a web reference? jmcw 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karate/Archive_2&oldid=1080942803"