Jump to content

Talk:Aikido

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAikido is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 20, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 8, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

World Games Programme

[edit]

The template {{Sports of the World Games program}} has recently been added to the page. Whilst the World Games organisation does list aikido on their site, it is apparently only ever part of the Invitational Program, rather than featuring in the main sports categories. I personally am unconcerned about the addition of the template, but give PRehse's recent edit summary, I thought it worth bringing here for discussion. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the whole story of Aikido being included is something to tell. Aikido as represented by the IAF being essentially anti-sport - whereas the one style that regularly holds international competitions was completely blocked. Aikido was "demonstrated" and then only once. I think the template itself is just too inclusive.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely featured more than once - I've found records of demonstrations from 1998, 2007 and 2007 at least. You're right about their anti-sport interpretation of it, though, and it's never been part of the main series of events (you'd think they'd have found a slot for Tomiki aikido, though!). I'd agree that the template is a bit indiscriminate in its content; perhaps it should be restricted to the official program only. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by the years listed in the link (not sure what the * means) and what I remember. So do we keep the link in the Aikido article? Peter Rehse (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd veer towards getting rid of it - aside from a link in the infobox the World Games Program isn't mentioned in the article, and so it's hard to envisage a situation where a reader viewing this article would think, "ooh, I must read more about the other sports in this World Games thing," and thus find the navbox template useful. It would probably be good to get a few other opinions, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be dropped - it doesn't add any value or understanding that I can detect (not that the other templates at the bottom do much better). Good to see you active again, Peter. —Mrand Talk • C 13:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed it but I will say that the other templates do help put Aikido in the larger context.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: the world knows of the existence of Aikido only every 4 years at the World Games because it's sports program. You supporters ashamed of this fact and want which is not specified. So we should delete the Aikido from Template:Sports of the World Games program. This seems crazy, but if you say that it should be, so be it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea was that the template did not add anything useful to the Aikido article. There is no SHAME or CENSORSHIP or any other reactionary terms you want to throw around. The usefulness of links don't go both ways - Aikido does not link to all articles that mention Aikido both in this case and many others. The world games are just not very important in the context of the article. No comment on whether Aikido should be included in the template beyond the fact that it was only invitational and there was no competition.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, now in {{Sports of the World Games program}} Martial Arts are four: Ju-Jitsu, Karate, Sumo, Wushu. To the Official site of the World games are five. No problem, really, in Italy we say: «Contenti voi, contenti tutti» (Glad you all happy) ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

The section was removed by an IP editor, but restored with the rationale that a criticism section is "integral part to a Featured article", but searching on this matter found nothing backing up that assertion, and contradicts what is written on the subject in essays and in policy. The section is also poorly sourced, placing way too much reliance on a self-published Wordpress blog. - SudoGhost 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True - I just remember that during the Featured Article/Good Article process one of the major critiques was the lack of a critism section. If that has changed fine but it does remain a feature of Aikido that critism of training method and effectiveness do exist and the section attempts to address it. Better to improve references than just to delete the section without discussion. The initial feeling was the motivation was more of an attempt to whitewash rather than improve the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If better sources can be found, it would be appropriate to include the content in the relevant sections such as this, but not in its own criticism section. As it appears currently it has no place in the article per WP:STRUCTURE: "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." - SudoGhost 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it would be better to fold the debate into the narrative, but until that is done, we need not be in a hurry to throw what is there into the garbage. Note that WP:STRUCTURE doesn't say you can't have a separate section - just that it is best to try to include them in the narrative. As Peter mentioned, this was one of the critiques (rightly or wrongly) when it became a FA - so I'd like to see the current wording and sources still be available for those that have time to fold some info into the main body of the article - then the section can be eliminated. —Mrand Talk • C 23:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until reliable sources can be found, it doesn't belong. The source used is a self-published wordpress blog, not the most reliable source for a section that shouldn't even be there in the first place. If similar content belongs then it needs to be integrated into the article with actual reliable sources, but what currently keeps getting reintroduced into the article does indeed need to be "thrown into the garbage" because it is garbage. It's poorly sourced content unduly placed in its own criticism section, and I don't think hanging onto problem-ridden content is helpful to the article. According to every relevant policy and guideline, keeping this section in the article is a step backwards in improving the article. I read the FA discussion, there was no critique that suggested a criticism section; integrating any appropriate criticism into the article was what was suggested, and this section does not do this. - SudoGhost 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is well sourced, but it might indeed be worth considering restructuring so that the first paragraph goes into the section on the roles of uke and nage (or even a new training subsection on realism), and the other two paragraphs go into the section on ki. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Cesiumfrog - I believe the sourcing is acceptable. Maybe not great, but acceptable. Aikido Journal is not your everyday random web blog. —Mrand Talk • C 00:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion during the articles evolution I am going from memory which usually is pretty good. It might have been at the GA stage or Peer review or elsewhere. That said I also remember being a bit annoyed that it was asked for but (shrug) what can you do. Firstly I don't think the references are that unreliable (Stan Pranin) is a very well know historian of aikido with access to original material and Aikido Journal is actually published with additional on-line access as a service. The long and the short of it I don't think section blanking without discussion is appropriate especially for long standing articles that have undergone numerous peer reviews. If this talk generates changes in structure and a better article I am all for it.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the by - you all had me questioning my memory and a simple search of the article history found this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aikido which was the origin of the Criticism section. Again I have no real issue in keeping it or not as a separate section but also feel that at least some of that information should be retained.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure who is listening here anymore, but the first line of the criticism section ("The most common criticism of aikido is that it suffers from a lack of realism in training.") does not accurately reflect the content of the cited sources. The sources do not direct this criticism at aikido, but rather toward certain individual practitioners. Conflation of the two things is intellectually flaccid. Jdvonnahme (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have yet to read a strong case made regarding this that could not be applied to other katageiko-based methods of trainingAikitech(talk) 05:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the criticism is valid (debatable) or not, or whether it applies only to aikido is not the point - it certainly is an argument directed by some specifically to aikido. I think that is why it was included and for the sake of WP:NPOV why it should remain. Certainly there are aikido styles and practitioners out there that recognize the validity of the argument and try to address it. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is not about the inclusion of criticism but that information is accurate and nonbias. A Criticism section would be at best redundant and likely in direct opposition to WP:NPOV. Any criticism/s should be handled through the editing process in relation to the information sourced. Any criticism not directly related to the information provided is redundant because the article is not claiming aikido to be anything other than what is sourced. Thus, the addition of a criticism section would not be designed to counter the explanation of aikido provided upon the page, but only be included to criticise others beliefs of what aikido is not. Criticising something for being something it never claimed to be is by any reasonable standard bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hakama trousers?

[edit]

Hmm, the hakama I wore back in the day was more like a skirt. Certainly nothing like trousers as it didn't have legs. And like a long skirt, it was really conducive to falling down when you caught your big toe in the seam. Lol, good times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.115.30 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido is sport

[edit]

In order to be member of the sport organisation 'SportAccord', the sport organisation 'INTERNATIONAL AIKIDO FEDERATION' must document that their sport activity falls under SportAccord’s definition of sport. Reference: http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/application-procedure/

The SportAccord Council has developed a definition of sport to help them determine whether an applicant federation qualifies as an international sports federation Reference: http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/definition-of-sport/

INTERNATIONAL AIKIDO FEDERATION has been admitted by the SportAccord: Reference: http://www.sportaccord.com/en/members/

Best regards, - Kontoreg (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse the reference above so read following books instead:

  • http://books.google.dk/books?id=_o73NOjb4p4C&pg=PA139&dq=draeger+aikido&hl=en&sa=X&ei=scN-UqXZIqjJ4gTYpoH4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=draeger%20aikido&f=false Draeger, Donn F. and Robert W. Smith (1969) Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts. Kodansha International Ltd. Page 139. ISBN 0-87011-436-0<

Best regards, - Kontoreg (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for International Aikido Federation to join SportAccord has to do with the fact that certain countries (Russia comes to mind, but I am sure there are other), wanted Aikido to become a state-recognized sport with an eye to join the Olympics. Since IOC will only deal with a single international body representing an activity, and they use SportAccord to determine who it is that represents an activity internationally, it was decided that by IAF joining SportAccord, it is possible to block other groups from attempting to use the name "Aikido" for any kind of sport.
I'll quote from http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2012/09/13/international-aikido-federation-announcement-anti-doping-standards-for-aikido/
"the fact of the matter is, if a sport or martial art is not a member of SportAccord, then the name of sport can be hijacked, and original creators can be pushed aside, and sued for infringement. And even if they manage to defend themselves in the court, it costs a lot of money, nerves and time."
Thus the fact that Aikido is a member of SportAccord has very little to do with it being or not being a sport, and has everything to do with retaining control over the name.
Urokugaeshi (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can the term of sport and iaikido be hijacked? SportAccord is NOT the owner of the term 'Sport' besides the International Aikido Federation is NOT the owner of the term Aikido! - Kontoreg (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A similar discussion came up in Talk:Kendo#Sport Accord.2C doping and weight. If you look through the list of members you see that the The International Lifesaving Federation is also a member. We have to beware WP:SYNTHESIS just because a body is a member of larger body does not imply Aikido is a sport. Rather than use membership of other organisations to define whether it is a sport I would be happier to go with how the major Aikido organisations describe the art.
The Sport Accord definition of sport is rather week basically that it includes "an element of competition" and does not rely on any element of luck.[1] Now if we look at the British Aikido Board's description of aikido[2] we have "Traditional Aikido has since its conception been non-competitive, however several styles have developed including Tomiki Aikido, which has introduced competitive aspects."
On the whole I've no objection to using the term "sport" in its appropriate place, there is a section at the end. However usings it in the first sentence introduces unnecessary controversy and undue weight.--User:Salix alba (talk): 18:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two references above are really week the first has "Aikido is neither simply an exercise, a sport, a combat form, nor purely physical education. But in some sense it is all these things though it aspires to higher ideals". I can't see how an author struggling to describe aikido can be taken as a definition. The second is specifically about Tomiki Aikido.--User:Salix alba (talk): 19:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More about Aikido as a SPORT - see the paragraph below. - Kontoreg (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A standard definition of "sport" is: "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." (Even "The SportAccord Definition of Sport" currently lists competition as its first element.) Most aikido expressly renounces competition (and this is also inherent in the uke/nage roles). Despite the IAF having joined SportAccord, both make very clear [3] this is exceptional (participating in games only as demonstration rather than contest). Kontoreg, even the most cursory research on this topic shows that the categorisation of aikido as a sport is controversial (and widely rejected by aikido experts), and surrounded by extensive debate (such as the level of "resistance" that maximises both learning and safety whilst also preserving the integrity of both the martial aspect and the philosophical-growth aspect). So no, I don't think wiki should summarily categorise this topic in this way (and not broach in the lead, especially not granting undue weight to one POV). Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and the Aikido article

[edit]

The point of the article is not to be heavily weighted to one style or group. The idea that Aikido is not competitive is very important to a large number of practitioners and so although there should be mention of Shodokan and competition most of what was added regarding the the Shodokan system should be on the Shodokan page and not given undue weight in the Aikido article. The Sport Accord/International Aikido Federation (which is the International Organization of the Aikikai not a separate organization). I do Sport Aikido - I am a member of their home dojo and ran clubs for them in Japan. Its a great style but minor in the scheme of things. The IAF and Sport Accord have no relationship to the Sport Aikido style.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of effort has been put into getting a Featured Article on Aikido that was not style specific. One would hope any further edits would add improvements rather than push a particular point of view.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido is also SPORT. This article did not described Aikido as a sport prior to my edittings. - Kontoreg (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the opinions that I have heard, people[who?] believe that Aikido is not a sport. Reliable references would help here. jmcw (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The founder's son, his grandson, Michio Hikitsuchi, Mitsugi Saotome and countless other practitioners would tend to agree with you. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section contains information which is style specific. Shodokan Aikido for the Tomiki stuff and Aikikai for the Sport Accord information. Together it is confusing and providing undue weight for a general article on Aikido. I will remove the section.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sport aspect of Shodokan Aikido was meant to enhance budo training, not to create a large organized sport. So it's kind of complicated. Judo was the same way - Kano laid the groundwork for Judo to become the combat sport that it is, but he always meant for that to be a piece of Judo training and not the whole story. 2001:420:270D:1310:5548:FEC9:5250:73E8 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a past student of Aikido, it's my impression that Grand-Master Ueshiba's goal was to create an ultimate and invincible martial art. Protecting the attacker from injury and having a concern for the attacker's well-being was upheld as a moral and ethical belief, but this was not the goal of this martial art, nor was there any sentimentality behind it. As a martial art the goal was to prevail over any opponent of any size.

Grand-Master Ueshiba took the art of war full circle and through it's final step. After mastering the martial arts of his era, he modified those techniques in such a way that, through an integration of mind/body, similar techniques are applied in harmony with the opponents' force. His revelation was that the only way to ensure victory over any opponent was by harmonizing with all opponents, and that love and harmony are the ultimate weapons for victory in any situation, even in the martial arts.

--Richard rogachevsky (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting set of comments. There could be a place in the article for this as an opposing viewpoint IF you can locate a written source (or better, several). It's challenging because much of martial arts history is oral tradition, but we can't write an encyclopedia article based on that.--Karinpower (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, thank you very much for your welcome on my behalf (Specially Yunshui). The edits I deemed necessary in the article on Aikido are based on practical and theoretical sources, not my subjective appreciation. My Teacher was a student of Tamura Sensei, Arikawa Sensei, Kobayashi Sensei and Nonaka Sensei (who in turn were direct students of Ueshiba Sensei). That Aikido is, according to the founder's philosophy, essentially non-competitive is not something that I invented myself today. It is a demonstrable fact that practically all the traditional styles of Aikido, except that of Tomiki's or the "Real Aikido" of Vracarevich, are non-competitive. And this is also explainable taking into account the biographical and traumatic events that the founder lived in his youth and older, World War I and the experience in Manchuria as a prisoner in risk of death, and then, in addition, the events of the Second World War, which were also a Japanese national trauma (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Aikido's non-competitiveness is a direct consequence of the history of Japan and the biography of Ueshiba. Aikido is defined numerous times by the founder and a large part of its main students (who later became teachers, some in their own lines, others staying in Aikikai) as the Art of Peace, Love and Non-violence, even being an effective and powerful Martial Art that could be applied in a very violent and lethal way (and precisely for that very reason). I cannot speak for other Martial Arts, but Aikido is not a sport even if there are physical exercises. ¿Is Yoga a sport? I do not think so. If this is something that some independent styles from Aikikai or other traditional styles do not please, it is perhaps necessary to create additional articles that derive from the main one about Aikido, and name them as Tomiki Aikido or Real Aikido (from Vracarevich). Since Aikido is of great importance in my life (because it is one of my current sources of income) I will keep abreast of the article and plan to contribute in the future respecting the rules and methods that I know exist on Wikipedia. But also respecting the objective facts about what kind of Budo Aikido is. That said, again, thank you very much for your welcome and advice. Sincerely, Artem Badassian (Archie3333)Archie Archie (Artem Badassian Davtian) 15:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to clear up a source question

[edit]

Appeal to clear up a source question issue asked on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Fumiaki_Shishida that affects other aikido articles, therefore, an appeal for a current JAA member with current insight, who is able to definitively clear up the question of, is the source http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 listed in the fumiaki shisida article sound ? The question is raised in so much as the source states that shishida is " Currently a member of the Board of Directors and a technical director of the JAPAN AIKIDO ASSOCIATION." And when this statement was used recently in an update of another aikido article, then the update was readily undone and the reason given for its undoing was that it was incorrect information. The question isn't about the undoing of an update as I have no issue with the update being undone, but in the action of the undoing of the update for that reason it raises the question of, if the information is indeed incorrect, then the http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 source is not a sound source and its inclusion therefore, in the fumiaki shisida article and any other wiki article is questionable. But if the source is sound and the statement is correct, then there can be no objection with it remaining. Chunlinc (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

misleading redirect

[edit]

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Japan_Aikido_Association&redirect=no

I don't know who has created or allowed this redirect, but it takes whoever clicks to search for "japan aikido association" to an article that is supposed to be a neutral article about a style of aikido.

It is blatantly misleading and promotes only one of the two main organisations of that style of aikido, i refer to it promoting the JAA, this redirect gives the suggestion that the JAA is shodokan aikido

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Shodokan_Aikido&redirect=no

and this is not only incorrect but it grossly puts at a disadvantage the other main organisation, i refer to the SAF shodokan aikido federation. And as the article that the redirect leads the searcher to, again is supposed to be a neutral article that is about the style known as shodokan aikido and not an article that is about any specific organisation, therefore, action needs to be taken and the available options that would be in the true spirit of both aikido and the wikipaedia site would be to either remove the redirect altogether or alternatively and purely in the interest of balance and fairness then the creation of a redirect that allows any searcher who is searching for the "shodokan aikido federation", to be redirected to the same article that this redirect takes the searcher to. Chunlinc (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video

[edit]

There have been a number of videos serially added to different sports - some fit and others do not. Not sure about the aikido video. Quality is good but it is suwariwaza and in my mind very style specific - in other words not completely representative of aikido. Not sure what could replace it that would not have the same issues. Should we leave it? Generally I like the idea of a video and don't need it to be perfect.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that video appear on Wikipedia. It is unclear to me who owns the rights but I suspect that SportAccord does. Did anyone seek their permission? I am also concerned about the fact that the techniques presented are not really representative of the whole art. I would like to offer an unbranded version of a video of Waka Sensei that I shot at the Nippon Budokan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjZ-o8InNYo) that I feel would be more appropriate to represent the art. I am not however sure in which format to create it as my editing software does not allow WebM and Ogg Theora Aikitech (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the page on commons for the video commons:File:Indonesia and Malaysia Aikido Demonstration (Block 3.3) at WCG 2013.webm there is a note that its licence was reviewed by an admin on common so it looks pretty sound legally. If you are owner of the other footage you could upload it to common under an appropriate licence. --Salix alba (talk): 21:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded a video with no branding that displays a more diverse representation of Aikido performed by Ueshiba Mitsuteru, the great-grandson of the founder. It seems more appropriate to illustrate the article. I hope that this is suitable. Aikitech (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is branding just in Japanese and it does not get more style specific than that BUT it is a better video that covers a range of technique so thanks for finding it.PRehse (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand what you mean "there is branding just in Japanese"? There is no branding, nor any watermark. I shot it myself so I would know. Anyway, I'm glad if it fits.Aikitech (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was being tongue in cheek and thought I saw a banner in the back (but I didn't). Mitsuteru gives a very good demo that in my opinion transcends style.PRehse (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks! Aikitech (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aikido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Aikido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aikido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aikido. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Hey, uh... is it just me or do the photographs illustrating this article give the uncomfortable impression that aikido is something that began in Japan but is now practiced primarily by westerners? All but two of the "famous practitioners" listed in the infobox appear to be Japanese, but all the photos outside the "History" section are either of westerners or of Japanese with their faces concealed, which makes this feel very much like a whitewashed, Iron Fist-like "white people are better at being Asian than the actual Asians" thing... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning House

[edit]

Hey, just to let anyone who's reading this know, I am currently undertaking a big project on many of the Japanese martial arts pages. Just to make it perfectly clear as to what I am and am not (currently) doing:

  • What I am NOT doing: I am not changing the information and/or content in these pages. Maybe in the future it can be looked at, but currently, that's not going to be changed (with two minor exceptions on the Aikido page). The main reason for this is that, as an article with an eight-page archive on the WikiTalk section, it's clear that this subject tends to be the victim of warring edits. Therefore, at least at first, all of my editing will be (hopefully) mostly just grammatical/linguistic cleaning up. That way, if an edit war DOES happen later over the information/content, the grammar changes themselves won't be undone, and regardless of the information contained within, the grammar will be mostly correct.

-What I AM doing: Cleaning up this article! Current major revisions include:

  • adding modifiers/articles (primarily a and the) where it is appropriate to do so (ie- the tori and the uke instead of tori and uke)
  • adding parenthesis, commas, semi-colons, etc., wherever necessary to bring this page back to a more proper English structuring/avoid run-on sentences
  • cleaning up the language section; it seems that many of the changes throughout the pages history are by a non-native English speaker, so many of the word choices are a bit odd, and there many instances where a different word is much more common and/or appropriate
  • shoring up the format of the Japanese translations, so they are consistent throughout the article (this is gonna take awhile, I think)

The exceptions to the 'no-changed content' MO:

  • and is a way for the practitioner to receive, safely, what would otherwise be a devastating strike or throw. to and is a way for the practitioner to receive an aikido technique safely and minimize risk of injury.; '"what would otherwise be a devastating throw or strike" is incredibly POV, first off, and unquantifiable. Is every technique in Aikido 'devastating'? Are some techniques 'devastating' but not others? Does 'devastating' refer to a specific form of bodily harm? The phrase has got to go.
  • Thus, from fewer than twenty basic techniques, there are thousands of possible implementations to From these few basic techniques, there are numerous of possible implementations.; Aside from being incredibly POV, it's too debatable to list an exact number. What if the possible implementations are in the hundreds? In the tens of thousands? Can you quantify every possible technique/combination/implementation to come up with an exact figure? I don't think so, so I'm keeping it ambiguous and saying numerous

Beyond that though, I don't expect to make any major revisions.

Let's get this article cleaned up! Lanner Hunt (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definite articles for the words uke and tori

[edit]

Lanner Hunt and I have found ourselves in a disagreement over the use of the definite article with regards to the instances of "uke" and "tori" in the article. There's a discussion on my talkpage that expresses the two viewpoints more extensively, but in essence, Lanner Hunt believes that we should follow the practice of applying English grammar rules to Japanese words in en-wiki, whilst I believe we should follow the format used by sources (at least in cases of specialised technical terms like these). I'm bringing this here to give the community a say; this isn't a formal RFC (I'm hoping we won't need one) but other people's opinions would be welcomed to help break the deadlock. Yunshui 雲水 08:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


My arguments for adding 'the' and 'a' where necessary:
- It is grammatically correct English when denoting a noun's place and function in a sentence. In this case, the words uke and torii are nouns.
- Uke and torii do not inherently imply the words 'a' or 'the' any more than any other noun in Japanese does; Japanese functions very differently than English does, and does not contain any equivalent for 'a' or 'the'.  ::Therefore, in most translations, these are added in English; see the wikipedia article about 'Dojo', which freely uses English articles with a Japanese word.
- Uke and tori, while technical terms in the concept of martial arts, are not specific to aikido. If these words were used in the concept of judo or kendo, I'm not sure there would be an argument made to not use 'a' or ::'the'.
- As an English speaker and a Japanese speaker, I can't think of a single reason why uke and torii, as run-of-the-mill nouns, would not have 'the' or 'a' when appropriate.
- Most sources I can find that use the words torii and uke were written in the seventies and just don't seem to have been updated to reflect modern language norms
- A lack of using 'the' and 'a' also seems to reflect nothing more than the fact that native Japanese speakers have an incredibly difficult time learning when and when not to use articles in English sentences; it's arguably ::one of the hardest parts of learning English for Japanese speakers; I don't doubt that, when teaching foreigners aikido (as it was becoming popular in the decades following), there was a tremendous amount of English being spoken ::that erroneously lacked a proper use of 'a' or 'the'
- If we are using 'a' and 'the' for other Japanese nouns when appropriate, there seems to be no reason to me as to why they shouldn't be used for uke and tori. If uke and tori don't have 'a' or 'the', then no ::Japanese noun should, because there is no reason other Japanese nouns should have 'a' and 'the' but uke and torii should not.
- Less of a specific point, but instead food for thought: previously, the Aikido article was one of Wikipedia's featured articles. While lacking these grammatically correct articles in primarily-English sentences, would it be ::considered for that again? I would say probably no, it would probably not be considered due to these things, and to me that reflects that deleting 'a' or 'the' is not consistent with what is generally accepted as a way to write ::a quality article.
-I've discussed it a ton with Yunshui over the last couple of days, but I'm legitimately interested in everyone's opinion about this.Lanner Hunt (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I preface that I am not particularly familiar with Japanese, but somewhat with linguistics. For most inflected languages the representation of an article (a/the) in inherent in the conjugation of the verb. When you are using a word from another language that doesn't include an article to English you would typically insert an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onalaska46 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

[edit]

Just a note that this article is very far from featured criteria due to unsourced statements and other defects. If no one is interested in improving the article it will end up at WP:FAR sooner or later. buidhe 19:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant arts

[edit]

User:Oranjelo100 appears intent ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) on including a section in the infobox on arts that are descended from aikido. So far, none of the entries added have been sourced, but in order to prevent ongoing disruption, it might be worth discussing here which modern martial systems can unquestioningly be said to be descended from aikido (as opposed to simply containing similar techniques, or having had senior practitioners who cross-trained). Are there any arts that are described in reliable sources as being descendant arts of aikido? Yunshui 雲水 07:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourced on the Krav Maga page and has been for nearly a decade. You made a change on that page and noted "none of the sources cited indicate that Krav Maga was derived from aikido, only that Avikzar trained in it after Krav Maga had already been developed by Lichtenfeld" However when the sourced articles about krav maga makes reference to the future head of the IDF studying aikido and returning to work with the founder all with in the same paragraph it is connecting those two things to indicate that the martial art (aikido) influenced the discipline (krav maga). Most of these articles state that Avikzar was studying krav maga, left to study aikido and then came back and worked with Lichtenfeld instructing. This addition makes no sense out of the context that the sequence is meant to indicate that he was instructing his newly acquired knowledge of aikido. In Avirm's book "Pure Krav Maga" he talks about how much influence Avikzar had on the creation of Krav maga, the influence of aikido in defensive techniques, and in the lineage part of krav maga he talks specifically about Avikar's aikido expertise. The assertion that Krav Maga "was already created" also ignores other information noting that Krav Maga was still being developed, specifically with the inclusion of Japanese martial arts a fact again noted in Avirm's book "Pure Krav Maga." The claim that the articles don't say that aikido was integrated by Avikzar is being selectively dismissive by ignoring the context of the articles in leu of specific wording that isn't generally how articles communicate; because they are narrative not just a list of facts. That being said I don't think a descendent tag is appropriate. The purpose of the Aikido article is to define Aikido and I don't see how a tag with other arts that Aikido may have influenced does that. If this was noteworthy enough to be part of the narrative of the article then there may be some relevance, but otherwise noting that aikido was part of the foundation of these arts are part of their history, not aikido's. Bverji
I've no issue at all with stating that Krav Maga was influenced by aikido (and please do feel free to reinstate claims to that effect in the Krav Maga article if you wish). However, "influenced by" ≠ "descended from"; what I'm trying to avoid here is a protracted list in this article of every modern martial art where a senior practitioner or two cross-trained in aikido. To that end, I think we are in agreement; while aikido might be part of Krav Maga's history, Krava Maga is not a meaningful part of aikido's history (and I mean no disrespect to Krava Maga when I state that!). Yunshui 雲水 22:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think distinguishing between influenced and descended is being overly semantic, but essentially yes I agree that I don't see krav maga having much if any relevance to aikido, but aikido is certainly relevant to krav maga. Bverji

The Criticism Section

[edit]

This section needs extensive work. The understanding of the purpose of the Art of Aikido is to narrow, Aikido is much broader than other Budo. Having a critique from a external Martial Arts perspective is not needed, as although there is a limited amount of styles that are competition based predominance of training effort is non competitive in nature with the emphasis on internal victories over ones own nature and not the tamming of another's. Namu Amida Butsu 南無阿弥陀仏🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of a criticism section of a Martial Art is redundant. Anything in the article that is incorrect should be modified through the editing process and any "criticism" of the art about things not in the article is redundant because the article isn't claiming anything contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change the first photograph immediately

[edit]

How disgraceful that Wikipedia, an organization that supports diversity, would have a photograph of two white males performing a Japanese martial arts move as the top photo for this article. It's disgraceful, it's disgusting and it's pushing cultural appropriation and white washing. I demand that it be change showing Japanese/East Asian martial artists performing the move, as you could definitely find dozens of them with no copyright issues.76.102.86.232 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's such a big deal to you and so easy to find appropriate pictures, do it yourself. This picture was just taken by an editor at his local dojo. Calling it cultural appropriation is entirely ridiculous. 143.146.38.247 (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal and replacement of criticism section

[edit]

Removal and replacement of criticism section, this section is redundant as introduction of a style section is a better fit for aikido. Judgement and competition is the same in traditional thinking. Best for us to not reflect this to others. I have searched wiki and have not found another Art form or Martial art that has a Criticism section, I expect for good reason. ShodoSuzuki (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this conclusion of redundancy. Any criticism/s should be handled through the editing process in relation to the information sourced. Any criticism not directly related to the information provided is redundant because the article is not claiming aikido to be anything other than what is sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA icon

[edit]

@Finnusertop: According to WP:GACR, "a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality." This delisted FA is also no longer a GA, unless and until it passes another GAN. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: got it. I was confused here for a while. I've set all WP ratings to unassessed so that someone familiar with/interestd in the topic may give it a regular assesment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the room

[edit]

Anyone's willing to address the fact that until the late 80s Aikido was widely unknown? Hollywood brought Aikido to the world, not the failed attempts of the Aikikai to popularize the art by sending shihans abroad. It's quite appalling that the main article does not come close to mentioning this well-recorded fact. Hate him or love him (yes, the elephant), the Tenshin Dojo was a very respected dojo in Osaka and later in Los Angeles, holding seminars with the 2nd Doshu, Isoyama sensei, Abe sensei, among others, not to mention that "the elephant" was also deeply connected to Oomoto-kyo. Truth of the matter is, if it wasn't for his movies, God only knows where Aikido would be today (and Daito-ryu for that matter) - probably in some small forgotten unknown dusty corner of Tokyo, with a handful of practitioners. Time is passing and people are aging. Time to give credit where credit is due. The Hombu Dojo never stopped supporting this lineage which is still up and running in California, and was recently recognized by the Aikikai, despite the elephant's absence, and despite the bitterness of other very jealous shihans and organizations. At least a small paragraph dedicated to the man's contribution to the worldwide dissemination AND preservation of the art should be written. The man brought hoards of practitioners knocking on the doors of many dojos, all dreaming of flipping their opponents in mid air with cracking wrist locks, while their pony tails fluttered around. His contribution to Aikido is akin to that of Bruce Lee to Kung-Fu, like it or not. Many shihans in the West benefited from his contribution - fact! Even you, yeah you, the one with a well established dojo, with your good 30 something years in Aikido now ... will you not admit that you too once watched (and loved) the goddamn movies? Come oooooooooooooon!!

Signed: Musashibo Benkei 113.36.118.253 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International dissemination change suggestion

[edit]

In order to address the issue pointed out on the post above (Elephant in the room), I would like to suggest the following change to the “International dissemination”, which currently reads:

“Aikido was first introduced to the rest of the world in 1951 by Minoru Mochizuki with a visit to France, where he demonstrated aikido techniques to judo students. He was followed by Tadashi Abe in 1952, who came as the official Aikikai Hombu representative, remaining in France for seven years. Kenji Tomiki toured with a delegation of various martial arts through 15 continental states of the United States in 1953. Later that year, Koichi Tohei was sent by Aikikai Hombu to Hawaii for a full year, where he set up several dōjō. This trip was followed by several subsequent visits and is considered the formal introduction of aikido to the United States. The United Kingdom followed in 1955; Italy in 1964 by Hiroshi Tada; and Germany in 1965 by Katsuaki Asai. Designated the "Official Delegate for Europe and Africa" by Morihei Ueshiba, Masamichi Noro arrived in France in September 1961. Seiichi Sugano was appointed to introduce aikido to Australia in 1965. Today there are aikido dōjō throughout the world.”

Before the last sentence “Today there are aikido dojo throughout the world”, it would be accurate to express that, despite the attempts to disseminate the art, Aikido was still fairly unknown to the general public until the late 1980s, when it saw a rapid worldwide growth due to its depiction in Hollywood movies, bringing the art to all continents, reaching a far greater public than that intended by the mentioned introducers of the art abroad. Today there are Aikido dojo is most countries of the world. 118.3.226.203 (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, we need sources. Are there any books or articles that describe this.--Salix alba (talk): 13:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there isn’t a text specifically covering this topic per se, printed at a magazine or book, describing this event. But the main text says: “Aikido was first introduced to the rest of the world in 1951”, but then mentions only 6 countries (France, the US, the UK, Italy, Germany and Australia), and that is far from being “the rest of the world”. It’s not even a 20th of the world. It’s not even a quarter of Europe. Clearly the art was not brought to the rest of the world as the text misleadingly affirms. The text then affirms that “today there are Aikido dojo throughout the world.” That is true, but the text needs to clarify how Aikido arrived at countries such as Azerbaijan, Egypt, India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, Uruguay, Indonesia and so on. It was clearly not through the instrumentation of the mentioned shihans abroad. The broad dissemination of Aikido through Hollywood though is not denied by the Honbu dojo in Tokyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.3.226.203 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aikido&oldid=1193882489"