Talk:Martial arts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Revamping the Article

There seems to have been some consensus among a number of editors to go ahead with serious revision of this article. To make life easier for every one (and to follow suggested WP guidelines) I have archived the old talk page. It is still available via the archive box above.

Now that we know we want to revise the article, what are we going to do about it, and how will we go about doing that? Lets try and get together on a common goal for the article before we start making edits. Specifically - we know it is supposed to be about martial arts. But how detailed should this page become? How should the information be displayed? Regionally by type of martial art, or chronologically? Or chronologically by region (and type?)? There is a whole lot of information here, and I believe picking a standard format to display it in will be crucial to overall cohesiveness of the article. Obviously, different people will have different ideas, so lets talk them out, and see if any of them end up seeming more appropriate than others. I'll chime in with my ideas at some point - I've yet to fully consider the possibilities. - xiliquiern^talk 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, something of some debate that may be at least worth discussing before we begin: What constitutes a martial art? Many dictionaries give definitions similar to this:

Martial art - any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

Obviously (and sadly), that is an absolutely horrible definition, in my opinion. It totally neglects any modern art outside of Japan and China, more or less. I would certainly like our use of the word to be both more broad, but more specific. Perhaps we should even have a section on the interpretation of the term explaining multiple definitions and uses of the term - it seems confusion in terminology is part of the nature of the subject, and might bear reflecting in the article. Some people view only martial arts involving serious intent for learning how to kill a martial art. I would say that somewhere on the opposite side of the field, other individuals include spiritual arts designed entirely for calming, relaxation, and meditation (from my own admittedly poor understanding) as martial arts. Others don't call the latter a martial art, but still place it under the umbrella term - making it a martial art, but more specifically, a spiritual art. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion here. If possible, I believe any consensus at all on this matter would certainly benefit the article. - xiliquiern^talk 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO!!! Martial- Wiktionary: 1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war warlike 2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms or military life. 3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior; having a military bearing; soldierly, soldierlike, warriorlike.

All that other stuff applies very much to DANCE and SPORT, and I have loads of respect for these other art forms, and the spiritual value- BUT IT IS NOT MARTIAL!!! The reason why Öriental forms" is often mentioned, is because European and Middle Eastern Martial Arts were based on horsemanship. Equestrian tournament events like jousting are the only activities that evolved sufficiently to be called "martial arts" without specifically becoming sports. All other althletic feats of Western activities were became part of dance or sports. Finally, the spread of Firearms throughout the West mostly destroyed the "martial" value of organized hand-to-hand combat, while in the East (and specifically Japan) the warrior classes and rebels followed a different route. I don't like the wishy-washy direction of some of this article, which equates physical movement with martial arts. Next someone will add ballet or yoga to the list!!! Maybe I should turn in my Gi and put on a freakin'tutu. Cuvtixo 23:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a comprehensive definition of MA. Personally, I like the current definition that's present in the article. It acknowledges that MA are systems of combat for the purpose of defeating an opponent, then acknowledges that this has been altered into several forms for the modern day - military arts, combat sports, performance arts, and so on.

My take is that any definition of a martial art should place a primary emphasis on demonstrated and utilized combative ability. My understanding of English usage of the term "Martial Art" is derived from the Japanese term "Bugei" - "Bu" referring to warrior things (Bushido, Budo, etc.) and "Gei" referring to elite performance of something to the point of artistry (think "geisha"). People frequently conflate artistry in terms of elite performance with "artistry" referring to things like sumi-e paintings, dance, and such. My understanding of these matters is that the emergence of philosophy, artistic accomplishment, and such came in Japanese arts when there was not as much of a need for warriors. So they devoted their pursuits to non-combative things. Martial arts was first and foremost for fighting, then for the more cerebral pleasures.

How does one reconcile a full-combat kickboxing match with a TKD point-sparring match? My sense is that the kickboxing match is representative of combat sport, whereas the TKD match is not particularly representative of martial ability at all.

I think that the presence of specific martial arts in the main article should be substantiated by prominence in peer-reviewed press and popular literature. That Aboriginal staff fighting art that made an appearance in a 2003 movie, I don't think that merits specific mention. On the other hand, karate certainly does, with brief mention to some notable styles (Kyokushin, Shotokan, etc.) For another example, Russian martial arts could get lumped in with European arts and have SAMBO and/or Systema mentioned, as those are the most popular arts from that country, though other arts may exist.

For a third example, we could mention Filipino arts like Kali and Escrima without getting into particulars about different schools and methods; just give the readers an overview of what's prominent and present, and create sub-pages for further interest. If someone is really interested in FMA, they can visit the Kali or Escrima page. For less-notable arts, they could be encompassed under a more general page. For example, indigenous arts of Africa could be on an "African Martial Arts" page.

That being said, citations and sources are key. --Scb steve 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. The guidelines are WP:REF and WP:Notability. Also, since these kinds of pages are magnet for every instructor who starts their own "complete" style by combining underwater basket-weaving with Balinese dancing, we should also keep in mind WP:OR. --Fire Star 火星 14:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you make some very good points. Along with the definition coming from the Japanese Bugei, we may wish to also stress the use of the originaly english terms in passing Kunst des fechtens and Art and Science of Defence. Obviously, an etymological lookup on the structure of "martial art" should also be done, discussing the use of Mars, god of war. I also share your desire not over specialize. This act, I believe, largely contributes to the current pages rather disconnected tone. By sticking with major styles and forcusing on general aspects, I believe we may get a lot further than trying to provide examples from a wide variety of schools. Sources and citations - excellent! - xiliquiern^talk 14:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I made a few changes that someone else can go over. I cleaned up the part of the Asian forms of address and changed the examples given for what various martial arts focus on. If the styles I put aren't good enough then replace it with a proper example. There is no reason for listing judo, aikido and jujutsu as well as hapkido to give an example of a syle based on grabbing. Wrestling was also used twice and there were three Japanese weapon styles listed. We should try to keep it neutral and not focus on just one country or area. Qin na is not a style and "kung fu" does not apply. We should also mention that not all styles focus on just one thing (like kicking). Another thing I tried to fix was the part on non-East Asian martial arts. It drones on and on with irrelevant information. It isn't necessary to say "British boxing comes from bare-knuckle boxing". Anyway, See what you think

I just want to say that I'm glad to see this page cleaned up. It was a -horrible- mess before. It needed a Great Flood sort of revision. Hopefully, with a stronger foundation, it can regrow into a better form. --GenkiNeko 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the earlier rant. Personally I don't think Capoeira belongs as a martial art. In Brazil, it is more of a dance, where dancers are given credit for particularly athletic moves, not too different from break-dancing. If a specific combat art tradition was continued in Angola, I'd like to see some historical information about this.

Why is "kung fu" listed here again as a kick-based style. I thought it was obvious and didn't need explaining but there is no such style as kung fu; it is an umbrella term for Chinese martial arts and not all of them are based on kicks. This could easily be replaced with the name of a Chinese style. Muay Thai is also not kick-based. Although its kicks are its claim to fame, Muay Thai focuses on elbows as much as kicks. Calling it a striking style would be more accurate even though it has grabs as well. Morinae 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then do as you did - things sometimes just sneak in when they really should not be there.Peter Rehse 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links

It was a good idea to trim all external links that were not referenced in the text - one (to a FAQ) remained and one was just added (to a newly created wikisite). My feeling is that we should keep these down to zero as a matter of course. Martial arts is just too general a subject.Peter Rehse 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the two - and would like to make a call for more in line citations.Peter Rehse 01:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- I removed a new one as well- there will be enough external link opportunities in the sub-pages. Alex Jackl 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

But some sites offer their own difinitions and so stay general

Martial arts information and definitions

..and references are full of external

Modern History Move

I moved the William Fairbairn data down to Military History as it was too detailed to match any of the surrounding paragraphs which, for the most part, did not mention people or styles but were providing an overview. That who section should be de-people-ified. There are many historical figures that could arguably be more significant... but I think that is not the point of those paragraphs- they are an overview piece. Always happy to discuss.Alex Jackl 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples

The examples of striking grappling & kicking arts at the top of the list seem to be getting steadily longer, should it be limited to 3 or at most 4 articles, ideally ones that are GA's or FA's if possible or high rated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts as it is new readers might not find the list helpful. I've done some edits but they probably could with checking. --Nate1481 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern history Reduction - Catch Wrestling

I took out a large chunk of detail on catch wrestling that was out of proportion to the detail on all the other martical arts here. This is a survey page. I recommend that that content be moved to a catch wrestling article if there is enough content and interest. Nothing against catch wrestling- just trying to keep the level of detail balanced.Alex Jackl 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Scb steve 15:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hung Gar

Hung Gar Wushu is not a kicking style. I repeat, it is not a kicking style. There are such attacks in this style, but they are far rarer than elaborate hand and arm motions. Hung Gar, as I know it, is an art focused on the upper body, using the lower primarily for added power to the punches, tiger claws, and various other hand and arm strikes.

142.166.228.154 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

African martial arts

I have a suggestion about how this article should be organized. First, the continents should preferably be listed in either alphabetical or chronological order. The current order of Asia-Europe-America doesn't really have any base. I would have liked to include all the major regions of the world but Middle Eastern martial arts aren't that well known. At least a part on Pacific martial arts could include Mau Rakau and Lua but more than anything, I think there should definately be a section on African martial arts. The list of martial arts has a few of these and they seem to be more widely known. I'd write it myself but I'm not much of an expert on the subject.-Morinae 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History

This sections introduction seems to make the assumption that martial arts are primarily Asian, and that they could not develop independently, is there any factual support, I.e. a source for this? --Nate 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Asian Origins

Martial Arts ARE primarily Asian in their roots. There is tons of controversy on this... there is all the talk about Alexander the Great bringing Greco-Roman fighting to China that is not bs- there is real scholarship behind it but there are also scholars who disagree. There are lots of local fighting traditions that never became formal "styles" and who were then integrated with international (and usually Asian) arts that were imported. I need to look up some references but martial arts are, I think, primarily, Asian in origin. *SIGH* Alex Jackl 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the Asian origins of boxing or fencing? Did the native Americans have a large influence from Asia in there systematisation? The common view of MA is that is they have to come from an old far eastern man (ideally with a beard) who has had it passed down by generation is not necessarily the case. People have always borrowed ideas from trade, but ignoring the possibility of parallel evolution and/or convergent evolution of ideas, is a fallacy. I won't argue that Alexander took the idea of MA to China but I will argue that the Macedonian and Greeks may well have developed some formal system of teaching combat skills without significant outside influence. --Nate 14:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

p.s. If "There is tons of controversy on this..." then would it not be best to put the uncontroversial bits in, note that there is a controversy & link to the articles discussing it such as Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts and Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection. Nate 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree By the way- I did not mean to imply (though on re-reading my post I certainly sounded that way! :-) ) that it was solely Asian. I only mean that systemized hand-to-hand fighting as an "art" or studied set of techniques was primarily asian (if you count India as Asian)- and there are clearly native arts that have sprung up elsewhere.... so no problem form me. It is only 95% of the "arts" are Asian. Alex Jackl 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, however this comes down to how you define a martial art...

The more you look emphasise the art aspect the less you emphasise the martial aspect. If you use a general definition, the wikticonary one above is good, its the 'study of combat'. Taking this, while Asian based are the most associated with the term, I don't feel that a generalisation should be the fist part of the history section. Say in the Asian section that it has spread since and is best known, but a statement that all MAs originated in India as an introduction is misleading. --Nate 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem- I can live with that. I liked all your changes but one- which is a question of emphasis. I still think the internationalization section should go lower in the article- because almost half the arts mentioned in the "internationalization" are built of Asian martial arts primarily. So I would rather see the internationalization piece go back closer to where it was before. Because it in many ways is a closing summary, wrapping up the conversation rather than an opening statement. What do other editors think?Alex Jackl 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read it I agree it fits better at the end so have move it back. Also deleted the text I hid a while back as none has commented on it. --Nate 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to just walk into this in the middle of a conversation, but if you look at any history of self defense modes, they are ubiquitous throughout human history. People in Hawaii and native americans (who basically have had no contact with the rest of the world until the last few centuries) had martial arts, weapons, wrestling before contact with the rest of the world. The whole idea of pacifistic, vegetarian monks spreading martial arts on its own is sort of ludicrous if you think about it. Most historians view that human beings all have 4 limbs and all have developed weapons and self defense (barehanded and with weapons) on their own. It's human nature. Before the invention of buddhism and it's spread to china, there is evidence of martial arts and weapons, thus making it unlikely that a pacifistic monk spread martial arts from india to china. Further, India historically shows evidence of weapons and warfare before the time of Alexander the great. Stating that one culture created martial arts (self defense) and spread it to others is like stating one culture invented warfare or crime and then spread it to the rest of the world. Kennethtennyson 23:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absoluteley correct, Kenneth. There is no question that human beings have been practicing killing each other in every culture. The reis also no question that systemic methods for the study of doing so have also arisen though surprising in small numbers given how much killing there is around the world. Also the tales of "pacifistic" Buddhist monks spreading the martial arts is also just that- tales. What there is some evidence for is that Alexander the Great did indeed reach China or at least its borders and he had trained fighters with him and that shortly thereafter you start seeing references to martial trainings in Chinese artifacts. It is slim though. You have evidence that the spread of systemic training techniques that are recognizable as CHinese martial arts spread WITH the spread of Buddhism through China. What is also clear is that the systematic study of human combat before the twentieth century was not nearly so sophisticated anywhere outside of Asia. Once we get into the twentieth century then it gets incestuous. I in no way am implying that the martial arts arose ONLY in the Asian lands- but mostly in the Asian lands - a slong as you include India. Some of the oldest martial arts "evidence" is in statuary in India. When I have more time I will dump some citations of all this here. (Not copping out - just can't do a big research thing right now) Alex Jackl 02:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Did the words 'Martial Arts' come from 'Martial Law'? If not, where did it originate? Could it be that when martial law was declared in a country, and to prevent revolution the government seized all weapons from the people (and their right to bear arms taken also), so the people used their hands and feet and household objects to defend themselves from oppressive soldiers? Does this sound familiar to anyone? Where did I hear/read that? I don't remember. 66.81.151.243 11:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

no. both derive from the name of Mars, god of war. "Martial" just means "pertaining to Mars". Whateley23 06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also remember that that is in English... in the Asian arts there is an emphasis on these skills as "arts". A prominent example is in Japan and the term "do" which refers to "way or art" as opposed to "jutsu" with is the warfare set of skills. "JuDO" is the sport or art and "JuJUTSU" is the combat skills. "KenDO" vs. "KenJUTSU" Alex Jackl 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make a note that I put back in the last paragraph of the Asian history section. It is certainly true that Judo primarily was influenced by Kendo and Jujutsu but this is the high level article - I think the article on Judo explains that pretty well don't you think?Alex Jackl 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides being garbled grammatically, your addition states something already mentioned and secondly, patently contradicted by the articles themselves in some cases. Aikido a direct mixing with Chinese arts? You gotta be kidding me. VanTucky 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE read the whole addition and don't just react. I did add in a "and others" comment so that it was clearer that Chinese was representative but not the only one. Also - I added that paragraph because it points to a general unclarity that people have about how incestuous the Asian martial art world is and how inter-related all the arts are. Aikido, by the way, does have chinese influence - you should read Morihei Ueshiba's history. He studied a lot of arts before he synthesized Aikido. Alex Jackl 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read O-Sensei's writings and biography, and have practiced both aikido and chinese martial arts exstensively. I find no root or element that is a part of the external form of aikido from Chinese arts. But anyway, your rewording makes the addition acceptable of course, not to mention the refs. VanTucky 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate by the way your civility and willingness to engage in this dialog. I didn't want to take away from your point at all but did want to keep most of those references and points because i thought they added to the article. I agree with you that there are no direct Chinese influences on Morihei Ueshiba's work but Aikido is a good example of an art forged from multiple sources and in our century- or rather the last century. :-) I have primarily studied Shaolin Long Fist (for about 14 years), but have gotten to first kyu in Aikido, and first kyu in Shotokan Karate as well. Kung Fu is my preferred study though I learned a LOT from the other two. Alex Jackl 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on consensus

I reverted back to our last version that we agreed upon. Please discuss. Alex Jackl 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the above indicating that something was agreed on. Your edit is difficult to understand and clearly inaccurate. (RookZERO 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

That is fine - let's discuss this... first read the entire above discussion. Can you please let us know what is inaccurate? I found sources, I cited them, and to my best understanding it is accurate. Please explain why you are reverting cited content. Good practice is to discuss it here before you remove it there. Alex Jackl 04:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording definitely needs help, but it doesnt seem inaccurate to me. Modern martial arts are the result of synthesis of native and foreign arts within a country. Say Taekwondo is the synthesis of Korean and Chinese arts producing a new Korean one. You just have to keep it general and be careful not to refer to specifics unless your source statements about certain arts and their origins. VanTucky 04:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, everyone be mindful of the three revert rule here please. VanTucky 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything; each change has been an edit that resulted in a change but not a revert using the old page. (RookZERO 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

I wasnt accusing anyone. Just reminding all of us to avoid an edit war that could get you blocked, which doesnt solve the issue at hand. VanTucky 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Here goes. 1. about.com is generally not considered a reliable source. 2. Kenjutsu is the art of the using the swords of Japan, and kendo the sport form thereof. Chinese swords are different from Japanese swords, the two schools of swordsmenship have been seperate for a considerable time if they ever mixed (which is uncertain). There is no Chinese influence on kendo. In fact, the http://martialarts.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=martialarts&cdn=sports&tm=14&gps=62_1_789_466&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.kendo-world.com/articles/magazine/Synopsis_of_kendo/index.php article you cited itself doesn't even mention any influence of Chinese arts on kendo (or for that matter the influence of kendo on other arts). 3. each of these arts has their own highly complex, politicized and divisive history that is best spelled out in that art's page rather than in brief here. For instance, the primary theory in aikido origins today holds that the art is a highly modified form of daito-ryu (especially the kenjutsu portion of Daito-ryu) and theories that it descends from a mix of arts, let alone a mix of arts which includes arts from outside Japan is a small minority view, to say the least. Again, such debates are better carried out in the articles for the martial arts themselves, rather than on the martial arts page, which is to be just an overview of what martial arts are, not a running debate on crackpot theories of aikido origins etc. The history of TKD is an even more contentious matter, and one that should not be debated on the general martial arts page but rather in the TKD article. (RookZERO 04:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

We are crossing like ships in the night here. Here is my response:

1. About.com is NOT a great source but is better than no source. If you are going to suggest it is wrong then please find a MORE reliable source.

2. Please read what I wrote more carefully- I did not say either Kenjutsu or Kendo were derived form other style sbut ratehr that they were feeder arts for other styles. Gichin Funikoshi said in his book on Shotokan that Kendo was EXTREMELY influential on him in designing "modern " Karate. I don't have a copy of his book on hand but I will ge tit and add a citation. I agree with everything you said about Kendo and Kenjutsu but if you look what I wrote it does not imply that Kenjutsu had chinese origin at all.

3. Each art does have an interesting history- and very political history. That is why I included citations. ALso if you go to the page son those arts you will find the WIkipedia articles specific to those arts supports what I am saying.

Aikido: NOT that contentious. The history of Aikido is pretty well understood. Ueshiba wrote a lot about it. If you go tho his work (which I will also need to dig up) there is much talk about the other arts he studied in developing Aikido. Remember this all happened in the early twentieth centruy- it isn't really shrouded in the mists of time yet. We have source documents - please don't remove material until you can replace it with better sources.

Tae-kwon-DO: The specifics are HEAVILY politicized - but the general facts are in agreement: Tae-Kwon-Do is a synthesis of Taekyon, Shotokan Karate, and Chinese martal arts. Please read the citation and the Tae-Kwon-Do Wikipedia article. If you disagree please pull out better sources than I provided.

PLEASE re-READ as well- I never said Kendo or Kenjutsu were derived- they were "source" arts, not "recipient" arts :-)

This very conversation is why I thinkl adding that paragraph is importnat because people just make up stuff about how old any particualr style is and it is just fantasy most of the time. I had someone try to argue with me that Aikido- as Aikido- was 1000 year old martial art. We need to have clarity in an encyclopedia article. Thanks! Alex Jackl 05:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish I'd bothered to look at the refs then! those are not suitable in the least. I move to revert the addition. VanTucky 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not wikipedia policy to allow inaccurate information to stand until better information can be found. 2. The origional paragraph was unclear, hence my confusion. That said, the specific contributiions of kendo to other styles, if any, should be debated in the articles of those arts, not asserted in the martial arts section. 3. Aikido's origins are still rather debated, although largely as the result of a small but determined minority who believe its origins lie in a blend of arts that O'sensei studied at various times (along with even smaller minorities who promote fringe theories like the "watered down bagua" theory). Their arguments should be raised and debated in the aikido article, not in the martial arts general article. 4. TKD's history is a political mess. The existance of, let alone the influence of Taekyon is debated and the influence of CMAs is also a frequent subject of argument on TKD boards. I don't think the Martial arts general page is the place for that debate. Rather, it should be taken up on the TKD page. 5. The fantastic (and often made up) origin myths are a great black eye to the MA community, I agree. However, the specific origins of specific arts need to be debated on their own pages, not in the general article. (RookZERO 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

I absolutely agree with RookZERO on this. The subject needs alot more than just a sentence or two, and thus is too big and controversial for the general MA article. it should be referenced on each art's article. VanTucky 18:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this absolutely fascinating as none of what I had put in there was controversial (in my mind) and was supported on the individual pages of those arts. Not to be defensive but I do not believe my references were INACCURATE information- they were merely substandard :-) and frankly better than nothing. I also had no intention to debate anything or to put forth a contested set of assertions.

I am happy with the current compromise wording and did not mean to bring up the dreaded "watered down bagua" theory in relationship to Aikido. I was referring far more mundanely to O-Sensei's own acknowledgment of the styles he had studied and had not indeed to give any fuel to fringe theorists in any way (although the way I wrote it I can see it could and would have been used that way. Is the history of Tae-Kwon-Do actually controversial or is it just political. The character's are known it has very recent origins and only a very small minority pretends that Tae-Kwon-Do wa snot heavily influenced by Shotokan and Chinese styles. Color me naive- I thought I was merely putting a stake in the ground against the fantastic and often made up origin myths. I thin kthis is now in a good place. I had never hear dit questions by the way that Taekyon NEVER existed. Is that an academically accepted question? Alex Jackl 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The contribution of the styles other than Daito-ryu to O'sensei's art are debated to no end on the internet. Aikido Journal and the Aikido forums, as well as people like Stanley Pranin and Ellis Amdur are far better authorities to consult. Taekyon pretty clearly existed at one point, likely at least up to the 19th century (although some people say it died out earlier and was revived). It may have faded out before or during the Japanese occupation (which banned Korean martial arts along with other cultural practices) or it might have survived either partially or completely. Its survival and completeness are very vigorously debated in TKD circles. It doesn't help much that a number of people have popped out of the woodwork claiming to know the origional T-K and showing completely different material. These are interesting debates, but they are best carried out on the TKD and T-K pages not on the martial arts general page. (Realize too that just because one side won out in the wikipedia edit wars doesn't necessarily mean that their view is the only one out there - and TKD/aikido/MA politics can get pretty brutal.) (RookZERO 23:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

Very interesting discussion - thanks! Alex Jackl 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Although its been a couple days since we came to an agreement here in talk (at least it looks like we have), nothing has been changed out in the main article. I'm going to make some changes soon if no one objects. (RookZERO 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Matemple.jpg

Image:Matemple.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)