Talk:Choi Kwang-Do/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This 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. |
Information
12 December 2005
04:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
04:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia Of Taekwondo
Kwang Jo Choi did not write the Encyclopedia of Taekwondo, General Choi Hong Hi wrote the Encyclpoedia of Taekwondo. Kwang Jo Choi wrote a book on "Choi Kwang-Do".
Vandalism
Vandalism occurred on this article by user 220.235.66.205
Master P
There are several Masters in Georgia, as that is the home of the International Headquarters and over half the schools in the United States. Master P may be one of the highest in belt rank and second highest in status, but he is far from the only Master there.
Master P is a 7th Dan. Grandmaster Woo is an 8th Dan Grandmaster and so is higher than Master P
Rank wise Master P isn't the 2nd most senior, he is the 3rd. He does run the HQ school however and has more influence over school owners in Atlanta and worldwide than GM Woo who isn't as widely known at the moment.
Re: Used Car Salesmen
"He has often been likened to a used car salesman or an insurance saleman (sorry for offending the salesmen)."
Think what you want to think about the man, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox.
IACP - International Association of Choi Professionals
You've violated the neutrality of Wikipedia by editing this page to reflect negatively upon CKD and Master P, while shamelessly promoting your new organization. IACP does not appear to be a credible or functioning organization, perhaps it will become one someday. However, if your behavior in Wikipedia is an indication of your integrity or professionalism, I seriously doubt it.
Ranking system
Although the ranks may be listed in the "ranking system" section, there is no indication of the way in which the ranks go (so which is higher than which). I *guess* that it is low to high from the top of the list down? --Oldak Quill 11:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
comments moved to talk page
The following comments were posted in the article and belong on the talk page.
- Please note. This article has been written by a person with a personal bias towards CKD. The author has brought GMC pedigree into question before claiming that he was not a master of TKD. In fact you can find a video of GMC on a video of past masters of the ITF. The author is well aware of this, but allows his own personal vendetta to get in the way of recognising the truth.
- Also, it would be very prudent to note that the author claims to be 3rd Dan in Choi Kwang-Do and also a master of his New art (Which seems to be CKD with add ons). However, from discussions with examiners in the area and HQ, there seems to be no record of his 3rd Dan ever being recieved at CKD HQ and thus he is only recognised as a 2nd Dan (whatever tag he tested to in 2nd). And upon creating his new art granted himself a 5th Dan.......
- Those in glass houses should not throw stones is a good phrase that comes to mind.
All these edits and rivalry are getting very tedious. Why don't you all just agree to put POV tags on the articles, archive the discussuions that have taken place to date. Come up with a position you can all agree on (ie, that somebody left somebody else's academy. party a claims he was expelled. party B says it was for whatever other reason. maybe explain what the differences were, and then just agree to leave each other alone?? Is it really that hard?? -- Adz 13:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of TKD, Hybrid Styles
The article never stated that Grandmaster Choi WROTE the Encyclopedia of TKD, it simply compared it with his work.
Secondly, a section concerning Hybrid styles is in no way mudslinging on those arts. It simply states a fact: that several styles have, in fact, broken away from CKD. If the Tae Kwon Do page contained a similiar section and placed Choi Kwang-Do within it few would take offense.
Please do not change
The section on Hybrid styles has been re-included, now written in completely soft terms so as to not offend anyone at all. Nothing but bare facts is represented; such information does not deserve to be removed.
I placed the section previously known as hybrid styles on a new page called CKD Breakaway Styles. I believe this is a more accurate description of the organizations listed. Hybrid, implies synthesis and improvement, which are subjective assessments - publius2006
- Actually, hybrid merely suggests multiple influences, and classing them all as breakaways looks like an attempt to inflate Choi Kwang-Do's importance. Some of them definitely dispute the description of being breakaways, and it appears what they really have in common is simply that they're all part of the general universe of taekwondo variants. --Michael Snow 04:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with this article looking like a sales pitch
The comments: "Choi Kwang-Do has schools in the US, UK, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Canada, France, Greece, India, Nepal, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and, most recently, Georgia, Maylasia, and Germany..." reads like an ad for which countries they service and sell their products in.
Wouldn't a better way be to read something like "Choi Kwang-Do has schools all over the world." ???
The removal of the link to the "Choi Professionals" shows that the "official" choi kwang do people don't want anyone to know that there is two (2) CKD organisations. A quick glance at Brasilian Jiu Jitsu, Taekwondo and a few other martial arts, shows that there is more than one "official" organisation centred around that "style" of karate.
People researching CKD may well like to contact both organisations for their research, and it would be a shame if they didn't know that there were any alternatives out there. [comment inserted by Cairnsckd on 16 December 2005.]
Choi Professionals according to what I see isn't just Choi Kwang Do styles. I remember seeing a link where BJJ people etc were shown as part of it. How can you be a CKD professional if you dont teach and have never teached the art?
Also - you can have more than one Tae Kwon Do and Karate organisations. Tae Kwon Do and Karate are translated as thigns like way of hand and foot - empty hand etc. Choi Kwang-Do is, as has been said, Way of Kwang Choi. i.e. it is the art and way of one individual, who still happens to be alive and driving the development of his art. So how can you have another Choi Kwang Do organisation, without a Kwang Choi in it???
In the UK im sure that would fall foul of trading standards description if you went to them about it.
[comment inserted by Dale Miller on 04-05-06 2005.]
The term 'Choi Kwang Do' (CKD) is a bit of a misnomer. In Korea that term being used for a martial art is ridiculed because it is a common male's name, and that arguably could be the reason why the style is not practised in Korea.
Members of the 'Choi Kwang Do Martial Arts International' (CKDMAI) organization (eg. Dale Miller) have become very possessive about the term 'Choi Kwang Do'. The founder, Kwang Jo Choi said himself, he wanted to release a book for many years about CKD, but he wanted to wait until the copyright on the term CKD expired, so that with 'Choi Kwang Do' being an uncopyrightable term, it wouldn't really matter about martial artists 'plagiarising'.
CKD could very well have been kept as its original name 'Kwang Duk Kwang', and you would still have the same issue of the first organization trying to take ownership of the term. Taekwondo was founded and named by General Choi, yet it still formed multiple organisations, with General Choi being in only one of them.
The CKDMAI organization is presided over by the CKD founder Kwang Jo Choi, whose philosophy is very much against mysticism. So it is very ironic that CKDMAI members have tried to convolute the term 'Choi Kwang Do' into some 'new age' meaning.
It has nothing to do with "new age meanings" or mysticism. The point being that Choi Kwang Do, when literally translated is the art of Kwang Choi. Thats it, and the person who added the above commentry knows that. How can you have a "way" (in the martial art terms) of someone that doesn't have that person in it. If Rod Cook left CKD and called his new art Cook Do or Advanced Cook Do then fair enough. There would be no arguments there. But how can you have "advanced" Choi Kwang-Do when Kwang Choi has nothing to do with it. General Choi did indeed found and name Tae Kwon Do (Way of hand and foot if i remember the correct translation). But it was never named after him. If it was then the other break away arts wouldnt have called themselves TKD.
Now im not at all very knowledgable when it comes to copyright law, but the point above about CKD being a common name in Korea and issues of copyright does not make sense to me. Is it not the case that you cannot copyright something that is so common? So wouldnt that be the case that the name CKD is uncopyrightable in Korea? Wouldnt that make the following quote a moot point"The founder, Kwang Jo Choi said himself, he wanted to release a book for many years about CKD, but he wanted to wait until the copyright on the term CKD expired, so that with 'Choi Kwang Do' being an uncopyrightable term, it wouldn't really matter about martial artists 'plagiarising'. " There is something fishy about that point above also, correct me if im wrong, but doesn't copyright last for many years after the death of the holder? (Im thinking aboutthings like J Barry passing on the copyright to Peter Pan in his will to the great ormond street hospital, which has profited from that copyright for many years after his death) And if he were waiting for the copyright to expire then surely he wouldnt have called his art CKD in the first place as he would then be in breach of copyright. I think that whole paragraph should either be edited to more clearly reflect what the poster is trying to say or delete it as it seems to be confusing and misleading in my opinion.
I havent convoluted the term CKD into some new age meaning. I simply have issue with someone trying to trade off of an established name when they have left the company. Its like having a burger king employee leave the company and open a new place called advanced burger king. Now why would someone do that? Surely the only benefit to do something like that is to trade off of an already established name? Surely that in itself isn't legal, or at least is immoral ;)
[comment inserted by Dale Miller on 23-05-06 2006.]
Actually Dale, Choi Kwang Do does not translate to "art of Kwang Choi" or "the way of Kwang Choi", grammatically if makes no sense and if you asked any Korean they would have no idea what you were talking about. So in fact you have given the term your own mystical meaning, of which you try to take ownership of. Also when you talk about names in Korean 'Kwang Jo Choi' is a name and 'Kwang Do Choi' is a completely different male name. --Ashley
If there is two organisations they should both be heard out. 60.241.1.90 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the second point about there being two organisations. i see no reason why the article can't mention this.
- On the second point about it being practiced "all over the world" - it's not really 'all over the world', yet, i agree that the list appears excessive. Perhaps instead of listing the north American and European countries, just say Europe, North America. - that will get rid of the bulk of them. -- Adz 03:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Two Choi Kwang Do organisations......?
How can there be two organisations?, It would be like saying there are 2 rival Coca Cola corporations! Lets disect this.
1. Choi Kwang Do
Do = Way of, Kwang = First Name, Choi = Second name (or Surname).
Lets see an English comparism on Clint Eastwood = Eastwood Clint Do, the way of Clint Eastwood!
What would Clint Eastwood have to say about someone else using his name, it would be a breach of law would it not? It is no different for Kwang Choi.
As Kwang Choi is alive leading and developing his art or "WAY" (or "DO") and as it is his ""way"" that means he decides on the direction and path the art takes and as litriture states it is a "developing system" not a "set system". Can there be "another WAY of Kwang Choi?, can there be 2 ways of Kwang Choi?
2. Secondly Choi Kwang Do is a licenced and incorporated business & international organisation holding international copyrights pertaining to names and logos used by the organisation anyone claiming and using their copyrights would be in breach of many laws including but not only copyright law.
Clan
are some discussions here out of correct order or trying to emphasis by going top of page?
Could there be two McDonalds Stores?
Could there be two organisations that use the base principles of Choi Kwang-Do? Could there be two Gas Stations that use Leaded or Unleaded Gas? The same formula, but different marketing and strategic organisations? We know so. It's a fact. Shed negative light on it, go against the alternatives, deny it all you want "Clan" AKA Bruce Andrew Cairney (www.choikwang-do.com.au info@choikwang-do.com.au ) but face the facts, you know NOTHING about "Choi Professionals" and what you say has a negative impact on another (non-profit) group.
Maybe because of nagative energy portrayed against the spirit of Wikipedia, this article should be deleted until the followers/authors grow up and realise that the world is a big place, and people studying martial arts aren't interested in one-sided petty bickering or biased articles. JDB
15:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
SHORT ANSWER - NO THERE CANNOT BE 2 MCDONALDS ORGANISATIONS - (with no common parent co.) There could be a McDonalds and then there could be a Hungry Jacks ;-)
'Clan' 23 Dec, 2005
Culmination of his work?
The text reads:
"The culmination of this work so far has been the release of a book on Choi Kwang-Do, a la the Encyclopedia of Tae Kwon Do (written earlier by a different TKD Master)..."
If the "a la Encyclopedia of Tae Kwon Do" was written by another TKD Master, then how can this be a culmination of "Kwang Jo Choi's" work?
It sort of reads like he wrote it.
01:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
===================================================================
Yeh I thought this was not relevant or clear either. Returned information re this to 15th Dec edit. "clan"
Article to be listed for locking or deletion?
This article seems to be the centre of dispute between certain martial arts factions, and for some reason, very negative towards "hybrids." Either agree to leave the article alone, or risk having it removed from wikipedia.
05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.173.150.193 (talk • contribs) .
- Well, I've had a look at it, and have done some editing to bring it more in line with the concept of an encyclopaedia, as it read like an advert before. It is a notable style, and Choi is quite deservedly famous, but we have to stick to our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. --Fire Star 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- REPLACED HYBRID FOUNDERS RANK INFORMATION
I feel the rank information for hybrid systems is relevant to the article and view it as a point of interest. I cannot understand why it was edited out? Would the contibutor who edited it out please explain so that we can avoid entry / deletion / entry / deletion roundabout.
No answer as to why dead links in hybrids so have remooved them (there is nothing more annoying than following links just to get no page messages over and over)
Rank Edit
Seems that "clan" (clanwebwarrior@hotmail.com) or Bruce Cairney (info@choikwang-do.com.au) or ProofPolice (proofpolice@hotmail.com) or whatever other alias he may have, is hell bent on discrediting ex-CKDMAI members. These personal attacks are not in the spirit of Wikipedia.
A quick check online, will show that CKDMAI did accept Rod Cook's upgrade to 3rd DAN, on their own computer system, despite what they may now say. CKDMAI CHECK HERE to see what their own secure server said! Could the author (who keeps on changing only the ranks on the hyrids founders area and has had no actual interest in the rest of the article) please refrain from adding discrediting information about ex-CKD members, and contribute something worthwhile to the article?
':::::::::: for the record "cairnckd", the author you refer to HAS contributed to many other areas within this article as well as some other articles on wikipedia, seems its YOU who just can't stay nuetral and hence accurate! Read your own links :: Clan. 11 Jan, 2006 :::::::::::
Read the Abortion debate and the NPOV section on that article, and on Hitler and Saddam Hussein before making any further comments. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL, not POLITICAL. cairnsckd 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
=========================
ROD COOK AKA CAIRNCKD OR CKD CAIRNS OR WHATEVER, IT IS A PITY THAT YOU CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF ACCURATE AND PERTINENT INFORMATION AS "ATTACKING AND DISCREDITING PEOPLE" - READING YOUR DISCUSSION ENTRIES.. SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE ATTACKING PEOPLE.
ROD COOK YOU WRITE THIS RUBBISH ABOVE AND DO NOT ANSWER THE ENTRY BEFORE IT WHICH TRIES TO WORK OUT A WAY TO STOP ALL THE ENTRY / DELETION PROCESS. WHEN YOUR JUNG SIN YUK ARTICLE GOT THE FOLLOWING "POV" MESSAGE POSTED TO IT: "The neutrality of this article is disputed because: It is suspected that this article has mostly been written by the creator of Jung Sin Yuk-Do or another interested party. The article may therefore contain bias. For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page." ----------------- YOU WERE QUICK TO THROW IN A SMOKE SCREEN WITH "accusations of martial arts rivalry" (A TERM YOU PICKED UP FROM MARTIAL ARTS PLANET BEFORE THEY SHUT YOU AND YOUR THREADS DOWN FOR BREACHING COPYRIGHT AND POSTING PAGES CONTAINING DEROGATORY COMMENTS YOU WROTE !!) - THE FACT IS STILL THAT YOU REPRESENT INNACCURATE INFORMATION IN YOUR ENTRIES. MAKE YOUR ENTRIES ACCURATE AND TRUTHFULL AND IT WILL SAVE YOU WHAT SEEMS TO BE MUCH ANGUISH. THERE IS MUCH THAT YOU CAN DO WITH A PC ROD, SEEING THAT YOU ARE A QUALIFIEND COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYST AND YOUR LITTLE LINK ABOVE PROVES NOTHING SHOW US A LINK TO A (FORGED) 3RD DAN CERTIFICATE AND THEN MAYBE SOMEONE WILL STAND UP, TAKE NOTICE (AND TAKE ACTION). FURTHER A STATEMENT PROVIDED BY YOUR PARENT SCHOOL IN CKD AND YOUR FORMER INSTRUCTOR WHO YOU TRAINED AND LEARNT CKD UNDER STATES THAT YOU WERE NOT DUE TO SIT YOUR 3RD DEGREE BLACK BELT PRIOR TO BEING DISHONOURABLY EXPELLED FROM CHOI KWANG-DO AND NOT DUE FOR SOME TIME AFTER.
IF YOU CANT LIVE WITH THE REAL YOU, THE WHO YOU ARE, THE REAL WHAT YOU HAVE DONE/ ACHIEVED THEN STOP EDITING WIKI..... (it is against the rules anyway, so why is it that you can still get away with doing it, is it because you own 4 pc's + a laptop and have 2 internet accounts registered to you and 1 available that is at you partners work?)
JUST STOP MAKING WILD CLAIMS, I AM NOT OUT TO DISCREDIT ANYONE AND IF YOU WOULD STOP CHANGING ALL THE EDITS AND TOOK THE TIME TO READ THEM YOU WILL FIND THEY ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE, READ THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND ANSWER THEM, GETTING THE TRUE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION - THAT IS WHAT MATTERS HERE. THERE ARE MORE HONEST PEOPLE OUT THERE THAN DISHONEST YOU KNOW GIVE IT A TRY. PS/ STOP CALLING ME 'BRUCE CAIRNEY, PROOF POLY AND OTHER THINGS - ANYONE WHO CHOOSES TO IGNORE YOUR ATTACKS AND READ THE INFO CAN SEE THERE IS SOMETHING ODD IN THE WAY YOU EDIT AND START JUST USING THE ONE PC SO YOUR IP AND LOG IN CAN MATCH ... EVERYTIME ! KEEP IT ACCURATE AND AVOID YOUR PERSONAL ANGUISH. CLAN
QUICK EDIT when it comes to the link provided. The link shows that Rod Cook has access to the CKD Syllabus up to 3rd Dan. It doesnt prove that he attained that rank. The syllabus can be manipulated to show higher than the persons rank which I have made HQ aware of. What he should show is the Cert History link next to prove it. Also it would have needed to be paid for to make if valid - and the author noted in a previous web site article that he did not keep up with his payments to CKDMAI HQ prior to his expulsion/resignation of CKD. If need be I can quite easily show you a JPG of the syllabus for 9th Dan (Happy to do so if you dont mind me editing out the link as i dont want to show how to hack the site). Unfortunatley im no where near that rank, BUT i can get it. However I cant forge my cert history and I can also prove my rank by posting my certificate online. Dale
Let's end this
Prior to the seperation of the Choi Professionals there were never any problems with any part of this entry. Things seem to be getting out of hand, especially with lines like: "Choi Kwang-Do uses biomechanical movements to generate power" being changed to "Choi Kwang-Do participants believe that if they use biomechanical movements they will have more power", and the apparent refusal to call Grandmaster Choi "Grandmaster" more than once, despite this being his official title. Currently there is nothing more than pure fact on the site... if there's dispute on ranks of former members, let's just take that information out completely and leave it! Or perhaps instead of focusing on Dan just say a former Chief Instructor, or such. After that, I propose we lock the article and remove the POV tag suggesting that anything other than bare facts are represented within, and go on our merry ways.
- A statement like "Choi Kwang-Do uses biomechanical movements to generate power" is a conclusion, not a report. As such, it is what we call POV, for "Point Of View" and making such a statement violates our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, or so much free advertising. We have to report what was said about any martial art (or religion, or band, or politician, or figure-skater, etc.) by reputable, verifiable sources. We can say that a certain school says this or that, that their critics have published this or that, and that this or that scientific study suggests whatever to whomever, and then report who the "whomever" is. We can't assert that "Choi Kwang-Do uses biomechanical movements to generate power" categorically. That is why the article was changed to: "Choi Kwang-Do participants believe that if they use biomechanical movements they will have more power". As for the "Grandmaster" thing, in the George W. Bush article, we don't call him his full title: "George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States" every time we mention him in his article, either. We know you worship your teachers, but not everyone does. This isn't supposed to be an article deliberately written to make him look good. If, with a well written, neutral article, he ends up looking good, it will be because he has made himself look good by the life he has led and that the people he has helped were evidently so. Fortunately, Choi is a more respected and much less controversial figure than Ashida Kim! That splinter schools want to argue things out doesn't concern us here, if it concerns you, you'll still have to follow the rules to edit here like everyone else, regardless. --Fire Star 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cute, but we don't 'worship' our teachers. I didnt suggest calling him Kwang Jo Choi Grandmaster 9th Degree. I suggested calling him Grandmaster Choi, like saying President Bush. The Taekwondo article, which is lucky enough not to have been hijacked, refers to its founder repeatedly as 'General Choi', per his right and recognized title. As for biomechanical movements: if you use biomechanical movements you get more power. That's a statement of a fact, not one even truly related to CKD. Every martial art uses biomechanical movement to some degree to gain power, usually from the hips. CKD simply focuses more on this particular aspect of martial arts. What verifiable source would you like? A science book? A dictionary definition of 'biomechanical'? My point is no one had 'POV' problems with this article till those who already had issues with CKDMAI discovered it. It never made claims like 'CKD is better than all other martial arts' or anything like that. It stated facts about the martial art and made polite reference to its founder and nothing more. From the TKD entry: "Although there are great doctrinal and technical differences among Taekwondo styles, the art in general emphasizes kicks thrown from a mobile stance, using the leg's greater reach and power to disable the opponent from a distance." How about we change this to: "Taekwondo students believe that if they throw their kicks from a mobile stance they will use their leg's greater reach and power to disable the opponent from a distance." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?64.192.74.126 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have any issues with CKD or TKD. I think they are both fine martial arts, as are Korean martial arts in general, IMO. It doesn't sound ridiculous to qualify a statement. If someone were to put "Taekwondo students believe that..." in the Taekwondo article it wouldn't look out of place to me. You say CKD works more on the hips than other styles, I say my style works at least as much on the hip. We can't say that in articles, as it goes against Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:NPOV. This is non-negotiable. Claims of martial arts schools, any schools, are just that, claims, unless they are backed by verifiable independant scientific studies (as in the case of Taijiquan's health benefits). Sure, biomechanical principles generate the leverage to do work, but it is a matter of opinion what biomechanical principles are the most efficient, and a matter of opinion whose interpretation of biomechanical principles is most accurate. Maybe some Taekwondo people don't believe Choi improved on what they do? Should we let them say CKD is a distortion of TKD? that is the same as saying outright that CKD is better than TKD. No, we have to say that in the opinion of CKD practitioners, their biomechanical movements are an improvement in efficiency. We have to have the qualifying language. There are many similar instances of this sort of thing at the Jeet Kune Do complex of articles, too. Also, compulsively using the English title "grandmaster" in an article is off-putting, a usage that some could see as a weasel word, or if you prefer, backdoor advertising. Others won't. This isn't supposed to look like an article written as advertising copy by the school itself. Many of our other martial arts articles don't mention such titles at all, Yang Lu-ch'an, for instance, was theoretically a "grandmaster" of 4 different schools founded by his students, yet he isn't called that once, he is simply referred to by his name. There is, however, a lot of room for interpretation with this. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions, especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). --Fire Star 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cute, but we don't 'worship' our teachers. I didnt suggest calling him Kwang Jo Choi Grandmaster 9th Degree. I suggested calling him Grandmaster Choi, like saying President Bush. The Taekwondo article, which is lucky enough not to have been hijacked, refers to its founder repeatedly as 'General Choi', per his right and recognized title. As for biomechanical movements: if you use biomechanical movements you get more power. That's a statement of a fact, not one even truly related to CKD. Every martial art uses biomechanical movement to some degree to gain power, usually from the hips. CKD simply focuses more on this particular aspect of martial arts. What verifiable source would you like? A science book? A dictionary definition of 'biomechanical'? My point is no one had 'POV' problems with this article till those who already had issues with CKDMAI discovered it. It never made claims like 'CKD is better than all other martial arts' or anything like that. It stated facts about the martial art and made polite reference to its founder and nothing more. From the TKD entry: "Although there are great doctrinal and technical differences among Taekwondo styles, the art in general emphasizes kicks thrown from a mobile stance, using the leg's greater reach and power to disable the opponent from a distance." How about we change this to: "Taekwondo students believe that if they throw their kicks from a mobile stance they will use their leg's greater reach and power to disable the opponent from a distance." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?64.192.74.126 19:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Biomechanical: Biomechanical: the physics of movement of the body. ref http://www.health.qld.gov.au/diabetes_chd_resource/resources/glossary/glossary_b.html
“Biomechanics is the science concerned with the internal and external forces acting on the human body and the effects produced by these forces.” http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=25458
My point im trying to make here is that if you move your body in any way your using biomechanics. That is a FACT. Not what students of some martial art or another believe. Saying "Choi Kwang-Do participants believe that if they use biomechanical movements they will have more power" completly confuses the issue. What you could say is that CKD believes that its art uses biomechanic to generate more efficient movement with its techniques than other traditional arts. Hence they believe that we generate more power.
Then we can get into proving it or not. There is an article on a scientific study done many years ago comparing a TKD punch with its equivelent CKD punch and that is found in the CKD book. I could look at getting that section copied and put up as something to support this article but would need to clear it with the copyright owner first.
Dale Miller - CKD Instructor
- Greetings Dale Miller. Thanks for your message. Myself, I am concerned that we have a nice, informative and fair article about CKD or any other martial art. Your proposition: "What you could say is that CKD believes that its art uses biomechanic to generate more efficient movement with its techniques than other traditional arts" works for me. As long as you can reference a work by GM Choi or a senior instructor of CKD that says that. FWIW, every style believes that about itself, so we have to have qualifying language. If I believed, say, Judo had better body mechanics than my style, I would switch to Judo. But, in my own opinion I believe that my style teaches better body mechanics, so I stay with it, even though my belief doesn't have a place in the article about my style (at least because there aren't any notable instructors of my style who have ever commented as such). If you look at the other martial arts articles, you'll see that we try to list distinguishing features of styles, but we don't argue to prove them relative to each other. Bruce Lee, for example, founded his style by disrespecting all other styles. We can say that, but we can't say he was right about it, as so many JKD editors have tried to do at Wikipedia over the years. We can say that CKD has disagreements with the way TKD is taught and trained, but we can't say, implicitly or explicily, that they are right and TKD or anyone else is wrong. Also, we shouldn't argue the case in articles, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We historically list pertinent information and let the reader decide. If you have a link to the article, I would recommend putting it in without much comment. --Fire Star 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
--Fire Star What do you do when you know (& can provide proof) that information being added to wiki is blatent lies?
The heading says it all who does a person send information to or how does someone provide the information that can have someone stopped from (vandalising) editing articles POVfor their own person gain or ego? CLAN
- I'll let Fire Star answer the question since s/he is an Admin and probably more experienced that me, but in the meantime you might like to look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Adz 11:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Where I would recommend is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You will hopefully get a cross section of opinion as to whether your position has enough weight to be addressed in the way that you'd like. --Fire Star 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks --Fire Star I will be following through on this soon.
-
Larry Key?
According to his own website, Larry Key was only a second degree in CKD.
Bias & Vandalism
This article contains continual vandalism from Choi Kwang Do members on ex-CKD members. The article should either be locked, removed, or have another link area created for ex-Choi kwang-Do members and their histories, theories, etc.
This entry has been added to top of page instead of the correct entry position at bottom of page for 15th December. Entry date for this Bias & Vandalism entry was 15th Dec, 2005. Entry done by 202.173.179.152 a.k.a. Cairnsckd, a.k.a Rod Cook
Lazy'D'aisy
You created a login name almost exactly the same as mine (except for the capital 'D') and used a very innocent sounding comment to maliciously remove a paragraph about Master Periera...If you have problems with the factual accuracy of the article, offer up contradicting proof. I didn't write the statement, but I've seen the same quote in a magazine article.
My advice to you - get a life! You left (or were kicked out of) CKD, you are bitter...let it go, move on, show some class, focus your energy on developing your new martial art, and stop wasting your time trying to malign CKD.
""Lazydaisy"" , HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS USER IS ABLE TO CONTINUALLY ATTEMPT TO
SUCCESSFULLY (AND UNSUCCESSFULLY) MANIPULATE WIKKI TO THEIR OWN ENDS?,
(I AM SURE YOU
HAVE ALREADY CHECKED OUT THEIR CURRENT USER HISTORY AND THE PAGES THEY HAVE BEEN
ACTIVE
IN, AND I AM SURE YOU HAVE CHECKED THEIR PREVIOUS IP LOGINS TOO
THIS USER IS
OBVIOUSLY A HABITUAL ABUSER AND HAS BEEN LINKED TO VARIOUS IP LOGINS AND HAS RECIEVED
NUMERIOUS WARNINGS FROM OTHER MEMBERS (see Adz.)
AND EVEN HAD AN ARTICLE THEY WROTE
ABOUT THEMSELVES (IN WIKI) DELETED.
IT IS DISHEARTENING
TO SEE THIS TYPE OF ABUSE CONTINUEING ON FOR SUCH AN EXTENDED
PERIOD OF TIME.
I HAVE LONG NOW BEEN CONSIDERING
BECOMING A MEMBER AND HAVE BEEN PUTTING IT OFF BECAUSE I HAVE CONTINUALLY WITNESSED
THIS MANIPULATION OF WIKI GO ON AND ON.
AS A MEMBER YOU WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH AN ACCUSATION UNLESS YOU COULD PROVE IT SO I
FIGURE YOU HAVE OBVIUOSLY MATCHED THIS PERSON WITH OTHER ABUSE AS WELL? WHY WOULD
NOTHING BE DONE ABOUT THIS?
I PERSONALLY HAVE COME ACROSS THIS SAME PERSON ASSUMING
THE IDENTITIES OF MANY OTHER PEOPLE ON THE WEB,
WRITING COMMENTS AND SIGNING THEM OFF
WITH SOMEONE ELSES NAME
NOW THIS PERSON IS EXPERIMENTING WITH MEMBER PRIVILAGES
AND FURTHER SEEING HOW THESE MEMBER PRIVILAGES CAN BE MANIPULATED
TO SUIT THERE OWN ENDS - TO WHICH THEIR OWN ENDS APPEAR TO BE "MISINFORMATION'
AND MALICE
- SURELY IT IS ABOUT TIME TIME SOMEONE TOOK ACTION TO AT
LEAST STOP HIM FROM DOING THIS ON WIKI?
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ME CONTACT YOU
PLEASE LET ME KNOW HERE AND I WILL BE HAPPY
TO DO SO.
Here here, I absolutely agree, Wikipedia should not be used solely for the use of publishing ad hominem slurs. -60.240.243.154-
Mmm, AD HOMINEM SLUR.... , DO YOU MEAN "ANY" RATHER THAN JUST SOLEY? I MEAN IM SURE
MOST WOULD AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT IF IT WAS "ANY", IS THAT WHAT "YOU"
REALLY THINK??, WHATS IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WP:POV ON WIKI?
PS/ ""Lazydaisy"", IS THIS THE USER YOU REFER TO? (JUST CURIOUS, :) )
In thousands of articles, throughout wikipedia, a welldisposed user will quite often inadvertently offend a faction or organisation. You can see examples of this in at least 10% of articles, in the discussion pages. When a user contributes to many articles and martial arts projects on wiki this is bound to happen; However, its very inappropriate when a user only contributes to a few articles, all linked together, with the purpose of using wikipedia as a vehicle to slur someone or something. Admin have at their disposal the means to recognise users like this.
so..., WHATS IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON WP:POV ON WIKI?
....?
Maybe Bamac would like to quote their reference source for the "8th DAN" that they keep on putting back there. I have just googled and Yahoo'd for a certificate, and been through most "official" choikwangdo sites, and cannot find any justification for this statement.
Ok, the anonymous user is obviously vandalizing this page. Perhaps he has a point on choi's TKD rank, (I have no idea), but he doesn't offer up evidence to rationalize a change from 8th to 4th dan - in the interest of fairness, I've changed it to read master without dan designation, perhaps someone can find a reference to clear up this point. As for changing the external link from the official home page of CKDMAI to choi professionals, it is a clear case of malicious vandalism (I suspect rod cook) Lazydaisy 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is believed that choiprofessionals.net is a CKDMAI site. Read it. Surely Rob Cook would not change the page to this one. Like one organisation said about the antics of it rival, be proud of the work you do, and be prepared to stand up for the claims you make.
IP 220.235.253.231, IP 220.235.254.170 -register as user - you should sign your edits
Maybe Bamac would like to quote their reference source for the "8th DAN" that they keep on putting back there. I have just googled and Yahoo'd for a certificate, and been through most "official" choikwangdo sites, and cannot find any justification for this statement. (unsigned entry by 220.235.254.170)
Ok, the anonymous user is obviously vandalizing this page. Perhaps he has a point on choi's TKD rank, (I have no idea), but he doesn't offer up evidence to rationalize a change from 8th to 4th dan - in the interest of fairness, I've changed it to read master without dan designation, perhaps someone can find a reference to clear up this point. As for changing the external link from the official home page of CKDMAI to choi professionals, it is a clear case of malicious vandalism (I suspect rod cook) Lazydaisy 02:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It is believed that choiprofessionals.net is a CKDMAI site. Read it. Surely Rob Cook would not change the page to this one. Like one organisation said about the antics of it rival, be proud of the work you do, and be prepared to stand up for the claims you make. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Choi_Kwang-Do" IP 220.235.254.170 -
======
IP 220.235.254.170, do you care to provide justification for the edits you are making ie/ reverting rank to 4th Dan and vadalising the external weblink? I suggest that you should not be commenting on subjects that you have little or no understanding and knowledge about. If you register as a user, existing users will be able to help you to learn the correct use for wikipedia and you could particpate in the rewarding activities that users experience when making positive contributions to a worthwhile project. Bacmac 04:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism by 150.101.180.102
Corrected clear vandalism by 150.101.180.102, I suspect it is Rod Cook once again. Lazydaisy 14:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Moved to Discussion
Edited the examiner details. Took out the word International from the (Elligable to become International Examiner). There is no official "International" Examiner rank in CKD. Just Examiner. moved to discussion because it seemed like a comment Lazydaisy 22:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
removed vandalism -
Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, not the place to indulge in slur and here say", User Njl35 has already drawn attention to themselves for inappropriate editing, please familiarise yourself with the wiki guide for users Bacmac
