Talk:Karate/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article Cleanup 2007
To get an overview of this article, I have used an editor to count the bytes in each section:
Introduction 1481 Practice of Karate 724 Kata (Forms) 1621 Kumite (Sparring) 1062 Dojo Kun 2061 Kokoro (Attitude) 1015 Courtesy 1200 Traditional Concepts 1656 Kobudo/Weapons 727 Conditioning 293 Sport 2258 Rank 2928 Etymology of "Karate" 452 Chinese Hand 1363 Empty Hand 1848 The Way and the Hand 651 History Okinawa 5021 History Japan 7259 History Korea 1543 History USA 242 History UK 541 History Soviet Union 1323 History International 798 Film and pop culture 1264 Sports and Olympics 1113 Negative issues 937
jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Introductionis ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Practice of Karate could have better text. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Kata (Forms) could have better text. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Kumite(Sparring) : remove 'Basic Footwork' from the article. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. jmcw 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Dojo Kun, Kokoro (Attitude), Courtesy, Traditional Concepts: create a separate budo philosophy article. For example, 'Go no sen' does not belong exclusively in karate. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Kobudo/Weaponsdoes not belong in the karate article. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. Added link to Okinawan kobudo article
Conditioningis much too short with not enough information. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. Added Okinawan and sport karate material. jmcw 10:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sportshould contain the information about Olympics. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. Olympic info integrated and WUKO mentioned.
Rankwith its list of ranks and list of qualities should have its own wikki page. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. Lists removed and links to existing wikki kyu and dan pages. jmcw 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Etymology of "Karate" is weasel worded; merge with Chinese Hand and Empty Hand. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Way and the Hand and the discourse on "do" would be better in the philosopy section. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- History should have its own wikki article. A time line of 'In 1492 A taught B' might be more style neutral. History Okinawa should have more information. History Japan should have less style info. History Korea is ok. History USA is too short and lacks style info. History UKis too short and lacks style info. History Soviet Union: are there other styles than Shotokan? History International: delete. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Film and popculture is ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sports and Olympics: merge with sport; mention WUKO JKFA etc. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- Done. jmcw 11:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Negativeissues is ok. jmcw 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)- I'm not sure the "negative issues" section needs anything more than a link to "McDojo" as none of the issues are relevant only to karate. They can apply to Taekwondo, Kempo, Jujitsu or any other martial art or sport. Shinji nishizono 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, nice review, Jmcw37! I wrote the subsection on the history of Karate in Soviet Union, and I do remember a couple other styles, but I've got to dig up reasonable references to be certain. If we end up having a separate "Karate history" article, I'll be sure to do that. --Cubbi 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be away for a training week July 16-21 - will continue later. jmcw 11:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started revising the article for grammar, readability, and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. Janggeom 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have had a look through the article and revised parts of it. I plan to change all names to the 'first name–surname' format since that seems to be the more common usage in this article. I plan to retain American spelling since that seems to be the common usage in this article. Janggeom 05:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I myself would prefer consistent Japanese order of family name/given name but there is a wiki standard Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names. Before 1868, Japanese order; after 1868, western order. jmcw 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the reference to Taido and Taijutsu is a bit misleading, since Taido does not have a historical connection to Taijutsu. The founder of Taido, Seiken Shukumine, was an Okinawan schooled in traditional Okinawan arts, and never studied Taijutsu, AFAIK. I'm not sure if the names even have the same kanji for "Tai". --81.197.8.116 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Lots of info on other versions of wikipedia
I found much info regarding Karate and its history on the Japanese and German versions of Wikipedia the only problem is I cant get a full translation of them because google translate will only translate part of it sadly.
German article- http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKarate
here are the original links if you can find a translator that is good,
original Japanese article- http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A9%BA%E6%89%8B%E9%81%93
original German article- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karate
--Kaiser (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Allegations of Political Motivation in Lead Paragraph
The lead paragraph has been changed asserting political motivation to the change in name from "China Hand" to "Empty Hand".[1]
Draeger writes that the Japanese wished to develop the combat form in Japanese style. Maurey I. Levitz, head instructor at the New Paltz Karate School,[2] writes that is was politically motivated.[3]. This appears to be a club website: I see no mention that Levitz has qualifications as a martial arts historian.
I feel uncomfortable with less reliable sourcing in the lead pararaph. Could I ask for more opinions please? jmcw (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is what I have read and what I believe to be true--that the name change made it more palatable to the Japanese in a time when the Ryukyuans were adjusting to the fact that they would never be separated from Japan and must make the best of matters. It was a conciliatory gesture to Japanese nationalism. I'm at work and don't have a source handy, though. JJL (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a source published in 'Martial Arts in the Modern World, 2nd Edition', 2010, which refers to Funakoshi (1975) and says "for reasons that were essentially nationalistic". --Espoo (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Japan was attempting to colonise China during this period, so political motivation for playing down Chinese origins is hardly surprising.--Ninja Shewolf (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I'm sure the link i provided to Martial Arts in the Modern World fulfills WP:V. 2) As explained in WP:LEAD (The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies...), something as important as the meaning of the lemma, especially if it says something essential and controversial, definitely belongs in the lead section. (sorry about editing your comment, but otherwise it might confuse others) --Espoo (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion The section on Etymology needs a re-write. As under the 'Korea' entry (See also: Korea under Japanese rule), we could provide a link to Japanese nationalism in the Etymology section. Then the statements about politics could be removed from the lead. I do not want to hide issues of Japanese Nationalism - I do not believe that it belongs in the lead of karate. jmcw (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't had a chance to look at the Korea article, but it sounds like its lede needs to be fixed according to WP:LEAD. --Espoo (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, concerning the site academia.edu, I have add the department of Hoplology to the University of Kansas and registered as Donn Draeger. Shall I upload a paper? It would be best if someone could find the reference direct from Funakoshi. jmcw (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand this at all. Are you saying you registered under the name of another person, in this case the author of a source cited here? --Espoo (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It's kind of funny reading this discussion. this seems to be a classic case of westerners who know what they have been told by their teacher in the martial arts, but no knowledge of the culture of japan nor Okinawa, reaching wrong conclusions when they read something about karate. IMHO, this is rampant in martial arts articles in Wikipedia.
The Japanese have historically had a strong disdain for other Asian cultures. This is something you don't really need a reference for because everybody who understands Japanese culture know this. It's a lot like saying that blacks were discriminated in the south. you don't need a reference for that, everybody knows it.
Okinawa was also looked down upon by the Japanese. Until the mieji restoration, it was never a part of japan, rather a captured territory. not only did the Japanese look down at china, but Okinawa also. Okinawan were thought to be redneck hicks. so the term 唐手 Chinese hand (meaning from china) was totally unacceptable to the Japanese. the main reason for changing 唐手 (Chinese hand) to 空手 (empty hand) had nothing to do with Japanese militarism, rather with acceptability. Read Funikoshi's book (I forget which one) and he tells you exactly what his reasons were. and He was if not the first, one of the first to make that change.
having said that, it is true that the spread of all martial arts in japan had to do with militarism, judo, kendo being the main two, and karate (once it was changed to 空手) being the third.
Know your culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.187 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are not allowed to write what 'we know': that would be WP:ORIGINAL. We are allowed to write that for which we have a reliable reference. jmcw (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking for the historical tradition handed down to this westerner, I was taught the name was 沖縄手 (Okinawa-te), which changed to 空手 (empty hand) by the Japanese because of their distain for the subjugated Ryukyuan people. AnkhAnanku 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My edits on the word 'karate'
Why do my edits on this article keep getting deleted? The Chinese word for Karate is: 唐手 "Táng shŏu." which does mean "Tang Dynasty Hand" and the Korean name for Karate is 唐手." They are true, but they keep getting deleted. Karate (and many other martial arts) was invented in India, and was spread to China before it was introduced to Japan. The same thing happened with Buddhism. --User:Brianhardy44 February 11, 2010 18:57 (PST).
- Hi Brian! I suggest that you put this information in the section Karate#Etymology rather than in the leap paragraph. There is already some information there about 'Tang Dynasty Hand'. It would be useful if you could add the Chinese pronunciation with the IPA template like {{IPA-en|kəˈrɑːtiː|lang}}. And a reference to a Chinese-English dictionary would be excellent! jmcw (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
while the kanji 唐手 does mean tang dynasty hand, that is not the meaning of the Okinawan word. the fact that each kanji has a meaning, means nothing when you combine them for instance, Tanaka is just a name, and does not mean that that particular person is in the middle of a rice paddy. its just a word.
唐手, means from china, not from tang dynasty.
공수도 is the Korean spelling for 空手道, the title of one of funakoshi's book. Which is what some korean practiuners who learned karate in japan called. they quickly had to change the name from chinese kanji to Korean, or go out of business, because nobody in korean in the 1950 wanted anything to do with the japanese after WWII.
The minutes of the meeting that caused the change from ToTe to Karate are a matter of record and are available. It was attended by all of the leading msters/practitioners at the time. The record of that meeting clearly indicated that, in a time of rising Japanese nationalism, it was considered both patriotic and appropriate that the name be changed to reflect a Japanese vs Chinese meaning.Burns MacDonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.141.133 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC) As for the Chinese influence on karate, there are two theories on the shuri-te branches, and a third for the naha-te branches of karate.
first the 1392, 36 families immigrated from china (Fukien province) to Okinawa. some trace the Chinese influence to this event. note that this is not during the tang dynasty, but after.
the second is that after the Japanese Shimuzu concured okinawa in 1609, there were further contacts with people like kusanku and chinto (notice the kata names)
most likey both are true.
the third has to do with the naha-te branch when Chojun Miyagi and Kanbun Uechi traveled to china and studies the Chinese martial arts. these are both well documented, but occurred long after the 唐手 (Chinese hand) term had been in use, and of course had nothing to do with shuri-te nor funakoshi's karate
on a side note, if one reads Morio Higaonna's book and the history of karate, there is nothing about the shuri-te history there. He does a good job on HIS lineage, but completely misses the rest. He is not alone, all the okinawan masters do this (typically cover only 1/2 the story). IMHO, it is very important to know where the writer comes from, to understand what he is describing.
IMHO, this article seems to completely miss the separate but concurrent developments of naha-te and shuri-te, leaving the ready with little understanding of the true history of karate. 64.134.168.187 (talk) 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- As noted above in 2007, I believe that the history of karate should be removed from this article and have its own article. I agree that senior proponents of martial art often see only their own history. I recently bought a copy of Shoshin Nagamine: his history seems as skewed at that of Morio Higaonna. jmcw (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Isshin-ryū under Japanese karate?
I see no reason that "Isshin-ryū is a style of Okinawan karate founded by Shimabuku Tatsuo" should be in the section about Japanese karate, since it is an Okinawan karate. so I have removed it from the Japanese section.
and there are no mentions of styles under the Okinawan section. So i have not added it to the okinawan section. I also note, that on the island of Okinawa, it is a somewhat obscure style, and is mainly practiced in the us. The four main styles on okinawa are shorin-ryu (chibana-ha), matusbayahsi-ryu (sometimes mistakenly called shroin-ryu), gojo-ryu, and uechi-ryu. that covers 90% plus of the okinawan karatekaq. Isshin-ryu is not a significant delvelopment in karate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.61 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Phoenix7777
Please stop reverting my edit and explain your objection in the talk page. The subsection in question deals with karate's influence in TKD's formation and doesn't belong in the larger section for Karate outside of Japan. A proper subsection for Korea under Karate outside of Japan would be about Tangsoodo and Taesoodo which you're free to write.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any rationale to create a dedicated section for Korea even if it talks about the influence of Karate. However I make a concession to change the section name from "Karate outside Japan" to "Karate and its influence outside Japan". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Phoenix7777. I removed the first sentence "Due to past conflict...the influence of karate on Korean martial arts is a contentious issue." It contradicts the reference #37. The linked source says "Taekwon Do is actually only about 40 years old, and for most of that time, it was simply an imitation of Shotokan karate." I also removed "See also: Korea under Japanese rule". Because it's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Undue weight. The link in the main body is enough. Oda Mari (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a long-standing argument at Taekwondo. The quality sources are pretty unambiguous that Taekwondo originated wholly from Shotokan (since modified heavily), but there it's-5000-years-old-and-pure-Korean crowd is still quite vocal. JJL (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- JJL, once again you misrepresent the situation. I'm not aware of any editors involved in the discussion who have claimed that Taekwondo is purely Korean with no outside influences. Who are they? Omnedon (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- You might begin by checking the article. The first origin story given is "Some believe that they taught martial arts that were based primarily upon the traditional Korean martial arts taekkyon and subak" and the refs. say things like "The martial art Taekkyon [Taekwondo] had been secretly handed down only by the masters of the art until the liberation of the country in 1945." and "However, if we recall that the mural paintings of Taekwondo in the ancient tombs of Koguryo belong to the period 3 A. D. to 427A. D., it cannot be said that the Korean Taekwondo owes its origin to the Chinese Kungfu.[...]It may be concluded that the [Okinawan and hence] Japanese Karate, in turn, derives from Taekyon or Subak, the primitive form of Taekwondo." and "TAE KWON DO is a 2,000-year-old form of martial arts that originated in Korea. Early Koreans (and other Asian nations) developed unique martial arts for unarmed self-defense to complement their skills with weapons. The first recorded evidence of tae kwon do, according to the World Taekwondo Federation Web site, is a mural painting found in a tomb from the Koguryu kingdom (37 B.C. to A.D. 66) depicting figures practicing martial arts techniques." So, I don't think I'm off-base in my description. If you think that the material from those web sites is inaccurate, I encourage you to remove that line from the article and hence improve it. My recollection is that you and MelonbarMonster2 have insisted that this material must remain. Am I mistaken? JJL (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- You might begin by reading what I said. I stated that I was not aware of any editors involved in the discussion who fit your description (being "quite vocal" about Taekwondo being "purely Korean", for example). What you are talking about is the content of the article; and sources do exist to support the idea that Taekwondo was based on earlier Korean forms, just as other sources suggest otherwise. As has been acknowledged by many involved parties, there are conflicting sources, and that can be problematic; it's our job to present the various views to the reader as clearly and fairly as possible. Again -- I don't know of any editors that fit the "it's-5000-years-old-and-pure-Korean" description you used. Who are they? Omnedon (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- You might begin by checking the article. The first origin story given is "Some believe that they taught martial arts that were based primarily upon the traditional Korean martial arts taekkyon and subak" and the refs. say things like "The martial art Taekkyon [Taekwondo] had been secretly handed down only by the masters of the art until the liberation of the country in 1945." and "However, if we recall that the mural paintings of Taekwondo in the ancient tombs of Koguryo belong to the period 3 A. D. to 427A. D., it cannot be said that the Korean Taekwondo owes its origin to the Chinese Kungfu.[...]It may be concluded that the [Okinawan and hence] Japanese Karate, in turn, derives from Taekyon or Subak, the primitive form of Taekwondo." and "TAE KWON DO is a 2,000-year-old form of martial arts that originated in Korea. Early Koreans (and other Asian nations) developed unique martial arts for unarmed self-defense to complement their skills with weapons. The first recorded evidence of tae kwon do, according to the World Taekwondo Federation Web site, is a mural painting found in a tomb from the Koguryu kingdom (37 B.C. to A.D. 66) depicting figures practicing martial arts techniques." So, I don't think I'm off-base in my description. If you think that the material from those web sites is inaccurate, I encourage you to remove that line from the article and hence improve it. My recollection is that you and MelonbarMonster2 have insisted that this material must remain. Am I mistaken? JJL (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- JJL, once again you misrepresent the situation. I'm not aware of any editors involved in the discussion who have claimed that Taekwondo is purely Korean with no outside influences. Who are they? Omnedon (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a long-standing argument at Taekwondo. The quality sources are pretty unambiguous that Taekwondo originated wholly from Shotokan (since modified heavily), but there it's-5000-years-old-and-pure-Korean crowd is still quite vocal. JJL (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Phoenix7777. I removed the first sentence "Due to past conflict...the influence of karate on Korean martial arts is a contentious issue." It contradicts the reference #37. The linked source says "Taekwon Do is actually only about 40 years old, and for most of that time, it was simply an imitation of Shotokan karate." I also removed "See also: Korea under Japanese rule". Because it's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Undue weight. The link in the main body is enough. Oda Mari (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be ignorant of fundamental citation rules WP:CIT. Editors need to respect citations and not try to espouse personal opinions. The reason why views are reflected in the article is because they are referenced. That's how wikipedia works.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any rationale to create a dedicated section for Korea even if it talks about the influence of Karate. However I make a concession to change the section name from "Karate outside Japan" to "Karate and its influence outside Japan". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Melonbarmonster, welcome back! It has been quite quiet here while you were away. Oda Mari, the two items you removed were earlier compromises to present the difficult historical relationship of Korea and Japan. I hope we are not going to (again and again) lose a lot of time over this relationship - we have no chance to resolve it in a Karate Talk page. jmcw (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- You gotta love the karateka masters trying to passionately claim tkd as being karate. As a Korean it's really flattering but unfortunately it's as silly a position as Koreans claiming TKD is 2000 years old.
- If it's references you want Oda Mari, I just went through more than 20 references from the TKD article that support all and any variation of TKD's origins you want. If you want me to fetch them for you I would but I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole so can we please just assume good faith and be reasonable and agree on a middle of the road solution?
- This is a tangent comment but from tracking down references apparently the pro-karate crowd among the early martial arts school masters in Korea were politically opposed to Taekkyeon and Shotokan trained Choi Honghi. The former wanted to call TKD Taesoodo or just Tangsoodo whereas Choi wanted to emphasize Taekkyeon kicks and came up with the name TKD to emphasize Taekkyeon roots. Obviously the pro-karate masters lost. You can read the entire account here [4] Google translate works excellently.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi jmcw! Earlier compromises? Was I there? But I think this should be resolved The article is not a place to compromise like this and satisfy Melonbarmonster. Or are there any other editors who want the material should be included? I want to assume Melonbarmonster's good faith but it's difficult to do so. It seems to me he is not neutral. He has been wikipedia long enough to know this. Yet he edited like this. And he restored again and again an unsourced material added by an anon and was warned. Melonbarmonster, please provide the source in English. The former version makes readers puzzled when they go to the linked ref. page. And I think that should be avoided. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a tangent comment but from tracking down references apparently the pro-karate crowd among the early martial arts school masters in Korea were politically opposed to Taekkyeon and Shotokan trained Choi Honghi. The former wanted to call TKD Taesoodo or just Tangsoodo whereas Choi wanted to emphasize Taekkyeon kicks and came up with the name TKD to emphasize Taekkyeon roots. Obviously the pro-karate masters lost. You can read the entire account here [4] Google translate works excellently.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Calm down Oda Mari, I gave that link for FYI for those interested. If you are interested use google to translate. It works surprisingly well.
As for references you might want to check out the TKD article. There are literally over 20 references that cite all possible accounts for the origin of TKD. What I am asking you is to stop being so unreasonable and stop arguing for your ridiculous POV that TKD is just a copy of karate and restore that portion of the text. If want to be argumentative about this and push that POV then I will have no choice but to insist on adding alternative POV accounts for origins of TKD with their corresponding references. It's my opinion that this is unnecessary. So stop pushing POV and restore the text.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are many web sites arguing all sorts of things, but the strongest sources all confirm a Shotokan origin for TKD. Unfortunately there is much resistance at the article to this. JJL (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion. Unfortunately, personal opinions are irrelevant for editing purposes. The fact that references exist that verify all different claims means you should respect the diversity in opinion and citation and cease your POV pushing.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I asked for ref. in English. I've read the linked pages in Korean through machine translation in both English and Japanese. The quality of both translations were terrible. The translation of "● 가라테 본딴 초창기 태권도 " was totally different in result in two languages. Japanese translation says "空手真似した創始期テコンドー"/The earliest tkd was an imitation of karate and there were two versions in English. "Karate modeled after an early Taekwondo" and "Karate Taekwondo mimic early" [5]. It is impossible to know which models/mimics which. The English translation of page 8 looks different and supports ref #35. But it's too terrible to understand what the original page really says. No. The linked pages in Korean cannot be used as a reliable source. Melonbarmonster, do not do the same thing as you did on Korea under Japanese rule. Please provide an appropriate source in English.
If tkd has nothing to do with karate, the current material in the subsection is not needed.
If tkd is influenced by karate, it should be mentioned in this article but whether it was influenced heavily or lightly and if it's a contentious issue or not are matters of tkd and they should be dealt in the tkd article. Not here. What is needed in the subsection here is, as Phoenix7777 pointed out in his first post, information on karate in Korea, not tkd.
And please do not edit the article till this matter is settled. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)- I don't know if English is a second language for you but that reference was given for interested editors here and not as a edit proposition. Can someone with Japanese language skills explain this to Oda Mari please???Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack but simple matter of fact. There are obviously editors here with limited English language skills. I've translated and explained things to Korean language editors due to their limited English and I don't see anything wrong with that.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
www.martialarthistory.com
Does anyone know anything about this web site? I have tried to find the authors but the site is totally anonymous: it leads back to PrivacyProtect.org without a single mention of a person or an organization. jmcw (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit in addition to the unreliable source you mentioned above. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Karate sport organization kata list under "japanese karate"?
Why are there a list of which styles kata are recognized by WKF and WUKF (it was WUKO, but I changed it to reflect current organization name) in the "Japanese karate" subsections?. It is out of place. Such list belong (if they belong here at all) in the "sport" subsection, possibly in a separate subsection on kata as sport. 06 October 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.103.244 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
MMA in the karate article
I removed many of the entries in the list of MMA competitors because they had no references in their own articles (or something silly, like 7 year old black belts or low kyu rank). I have the opinion that MMA people who have substantial references to their karate experience in their own articles should have a place here: they are part of karate's connection to the current world. jmcw (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- But articles should be written mainly in prose. Very long lists which are of little interest to the lay reader are one of the curses of the wiki. I would prefer to mention two or three of the most notable in a text paragraph and have a separate list for others, as with the list of karataka.--Charles (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The longish list is gone, due to lack of backing references. I have no problem with either a paragraph or a list of three people. jmcw (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi guys, i agreed with Jmcw37 on a short list of people. But i beg to differ on the "no references" & "like 7 year old black belts", reliable references has been added, and i suppose Machida received his black belt at the age of 13 is still practicing karate.ThomasSim (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- The longish list is gone, due to lack of backing references. I have no problem with either a paragraph or a list of three people. jmcw (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the current paragraph with mentions of the leading MMA competitors looks good. What about moving the complete list (and the references) to the MMA article and using a "See also" in the karate article to refer to it? jmcw (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Film star table
why ain't Chuck Norris in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSim (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool down
I've protected the article. Kindly cool down, stop your edit warring, and start discussing changes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been unprotected on discussion with unprotecting admin. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There are two sentences in the lead paragraph which provoked this edit war. The first begins 'Karate is a striking art' and the second 'Grappling, locks, restraints, throws, and vital point strikes are taught in some styles'. A new user (during their first 24 hours on Wiki) repeatedly insisted that all karate kata and all traditional karate include grappling. These two sentences are both referenced by Bishop's book, with the second sentence supported by an extended inline footnote. I believe that this presents a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See Talk:Karate/archive3#New.2C Longer Introduction for the last discussion from 2009. jmcw (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm taking Karate classes. Not all kata have grappling moves in them. Sounds like a "no real Scotsman" deal to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The basic Pinan/Heian katas practised by beginners and coloured belts were designed for teaching to Japanese schoolchildren in the 1920s and "hide" the nastier techniques. Although they appear simple there are locks, throws and grappling techniques in there if you have the imagination and knowledge to look beneath the surface. It is better not to get involved in grappling in case there are other attackers but we still train in escape techniques in case it is unavoidable.--Charles (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Verfiability is not about truth, but about reliable sources. If any of the editors have reliable sources to back their statements, then they should put their points. Opposing points of view can be put and should be put side by side for maintaining a neutral point of view, which is a pillar of Wikipedia. But like I said, that can happen only if you have reliable sources. Have them? Put them! Wifione ....... Leave a message 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
---
there was a ref source posted by one of the editors and it was deleted with his posting. it was the one with the ip address he ref a book with there statement.
155.212.85.37 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Grappling
Karate has always had some form of grappling, in the book the bubishi by Patrick McCarthy it refs to this as well as the books "the way of kata" by Lawrence Kane, "Barefoot Zen" Nathan J. Johnson, "Shotokan's Secret: The Hidden Truth Behind Karate's Origins" Bruce D. Clayton, Iain Abernethy has several article on his website about this as well http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/article/basics-bunkai-part-1
Jmcw made brought several good points to me the other day, which were as follow "When Okinawa introduced karate to school children(1900), many techniques were hidden or removed." "When karate was brought to Japan (1920-1930), even more was lost. Japanese karate became very hard." "Modern sport karate (1960-present) forbids holding and certainly gives no points/rewards for it."
all karate techniques are in kata, techniques were not lost or at least not completely. hidden i can agree to, but even if the technique is hidden it is still part of the kata and kata is in essence your style all techniques come from kata. any karate style is the sum of its kata.
kata is the manual for the style, the old masters may have pasted on but techniques are still in the kata, and can still be brought out and re-discovered,
Modern sport competition sparring- this was brought out by the jka and it was a failed attempt to remove grappling from karate back in the 50's or 60's. they attempted to make karate a striking art only, and later changed there minds about it. and even in the sports version there is still kata. and while in the sports part they may not emphases the grappling in the match in the training side in kisa kumite does, or in the bunkai training. kata bunkai is still there even if you dont teach it. all kata contains some type of grappling even if its only basic levels of throws or fundamental locks. SenseiJ (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good that you found your way here - it is a better place to discuss the article. From your talk page:
- Shuri-te, Naha-te and Tomari-te (in the 1800s) certainly had grappling. The Bubishi was known to karate people in this time.
- When Okinawa introduced karate to school children(1900), many techniques were hidden or removed.
- When karate was brought to Japan (1920-1930), even more was lost. Japanese karate became very hard.
- Many karate sensei died during the war (1940-1945): more knowledge was lost.
- Modern sport karate (1960-present) forbids holding and certainly gives no points/rewards for it.
- The Wikipedia article describes some of the past and very much the present. People who practice Japanese karate for a few years might never learn about the other techniques. If you are lucky to have an Okinawan teacher, you might have a different experience. I feel that the two sentences in the lead paragraph ('karate is striking...Some styles have grappling...) presents both Points of View and therefore a Wikipedia:NPOV. jmcw (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
--
all because there dont stay in the style long enough to learn the techniques doesn't mean there not there, or because one instructor doesn't know whats in his style and the other instructor does know and teach the technique doesn't mean the techniques isnt there.. to say grappling doesn't exist does karate in a particular style an injustice.to say it is only in some is completely inaccurate.
in all the books i have referenced it shows in every kata there is grappling. I cant think of one kata that does not have this. even in Funakoshi books its states there is grappling in kata.
It is western thinking that karate is only striking.
my main issue is with the word "some" it basically telling me that almost no style of karate has grappling. when every single style does. SenseiJ (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's somewhat misleading to say that "modern sport karate forbids holding", Jmcw37. Under USANKF (and, I am guessing WKF, which it's a part of) rules, holding with intent to throw is permitted and a well-executed takedown scores three points, same as a jodan kick (although there are tight time limits on both the hold and on the time from ground contact to the finishing strike). It is only the actual extended grappling that is not allowed. Cubbi (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is very dependent on the taste/style of the referees and the organization. I was required to take some ref courses and spent two years doing an 'apprenticeship' as a WKF referee. At each event, the head ref gave a lecture on how the rules were to be interpreted in 'this' event. A well-timed foot sweep and a good following technique was always good for sanbon - a take-down by itself was/is worth nothing. The fulcrum of the throw must be hip-level or lower and the following technique must be within 2 seconds : that is a lot of room for interpretation by the referee. See [6] page 9 and Article 8 "PROHIBITED BEHAVIOUR", Category 2, Item 5: "Clinching, wrestling, pushing, seizing or standing chest to chest, without attempting a throw or other technique." I don't think that grappling is a winning strategy in WKF kumite. jmcw (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't argue lack of grappling, I argue "holding is forbidden". The line that you quoted, "without attempting a throw", is what was stressed at the referee courses I took. Although yes, in practice sweeps are used a lot, while throws are rare, but going strictly by the book, holding and throwing is allowed, with restrictions. Cubbi (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Without attempting a throw" is quite subjective. If you enter smoothly, quickly and with control bring down your opponent and deliver a following technique, yes, you get sanbon. If you enter and the opponent struggles, you are open to Category 2 penalty. If you enter and the opponent falls badly, you are open to Category 2 penalty. In a foot sweep, you have no exposure in these cases (it is written in the above manual). jmcw (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't argue lack of grappling, I argue "holding is forbidden". The line that you quoted, "without attempting a throw", is what was stressed at the referee courses I took. Although yes, in practice sweeps are used a lot, while throws are rare, but going strictly by the book, holding and throwing is allowed, with restrictions. Cubbi (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is very dependent on the taste/style of the referees and the organization. I was required to take some ref courses and spent two years doing an 'apprenticeship' as a WKF referee. At each event, the head ref gave a lecture on how the rules were to be interpreted in 'this' event. A well-timed foot sweep and a good following technique was always good for sanbon - a take-down by itself was/is worth nothing. The fulcrum of the throw must be hip-level or lower and the following technique must be within 2 seconds : that is a lot of room for interpretation by the referee. See [6] page 9 and Article 8 "PROHIBITED BEHAVIOUR", Category 2, Item 5: "Clinching, wrestling, pushing, seizing or standing chest to chest, without attempting a throw or other technique." I don't think that grappling is a winning strategy in WKF kumite. jmcw (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Grappling and NPOV
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
- If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
To get back toward the center of this problem, with properly weighted points of view, what is karate? At two extremes, historically, karate had grappling (te) and contemporary sport karate does not have grappling in a major role. At two more extremes, upper-level bunkai uses very effective soft control techniques (which demand skill at ukemi); beginner-level karate is often hard and striking techniques. Two more extremes: historical karate is poorly documented; film and sport karate are pervasive in our culture. Where do we want to move the WP:Weight? jmcw (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- IMO, we must say that karate has grappling but most people are not exposed to it. IMO, karate now is not what it was in 1890 in Okinawa and we must write the article from a modern POV but we must inform the readers of the greater depths available to karateka who study. IMO, we should not preach a return to 1890 and Okinawa. IMO, I respect and study the classical karate and I think sport karate is extremely limited. How can we change the lead and the article itself to get a more WP:NPOV? jmcw (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation, again
I notice that there is both a Japanese and an English pronunciation listed. Which is good. However seems to me the English pronunciation is off or at least it's not the English pronunciation I'm familiar with. If my phonetics skills haven't completely failed me yet /tiː/ stands for the same sound as in the word "tea". I've never heard anyone pronounce karate with a /t/ unless they are trying to go for the original Japanese pronuciation. My impression is that English speakers tend to change it to /kəˈradi/ with a /d/ sound. However, I may be wrong and the /d/ could just be an American feature (by the way, I'm Finnish and we say ['karate] but that's beside the point). In either case I think it should be mentioned with the other two pronunciation forms. --TheHande (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Semiprotect?
Looking over the edit history, I see that this article seems particularly plagued by IP vandalism and linkspam (16 IP edits in the last 50, all reverted immediately). I propose requesting semiprotection to save us all the trouble of constantly undoing these disruptive edits, anyone second that? Yunshui (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I feel neutral about this. Occasionally an IP makes a useful edit - perhaps a first step to being a regular editor. The trivial, silly edits are quickly reverted: many people watch this page. jmcw (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
McDojo
McDojo appears to be something that's getting reverted back and forth. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamCaputo (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- A quick google search shows the term McDojo in common use on the net. Plenty of online sources if not peer reviewed academic studies. We have all seen them infesting the schools, teaching low quality stuff, giving the art a poor reputation because it has been badly taught to so many.--Charles (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)