Talk:Aikido/Archive 5

message: I think we were close the last time and there were a number of suggestions which were carried out.  Personally I think this article is far better than the French version which does have featured article status.  I suggest re-submitting on August 1st giving us some time for a little checking.  Please see the to do list.  I moved all the previous discussion into archive - this page was getting too long.Peter Rehse 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not have a NPOV... it is very much focused on the vocabulary, perspective, and interpretation of the main-line aikikai family of aikido styles.  I don't think it is ready to be a featured article in that format.  198.133.139.5 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy SAJ, Obviously there is a list of "Aikikai Foundation" techniques, but I see that as simply an example of the types of things one might encounter upon entering an aikido dojo - so it does not strike me as biasing the article (especially since it says that it is a sampling, and that it is Aikikai specific).  Could you point out 2 or 3 examples of your more serious concerns with regards to the aikikai perspective and interpretation?  Even better, could you suggest a few alternatives?  BTW, I have no pro-Aikikai agenda here - as my user page indicates, I am not associated with aikikai at all.  Have fun!  —Mrand T-C 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: if the writer didn't even bother to register in wikipedia, I doubt he will be back to check the progress of this discussion, and is better left ignored. With no suggestions as to how to improve the POV, it seems to me no more than an emotional knee-jerk that that person's particular style is not more represented in the article. Not everyone likes Aikikai, but its 'mainstreamness' makes it useful as a measuring stick than say, "kung fu larry's super magic aikido of South Dakota"Wwilson 1 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments
This needs a source: "Koichi Tohei's Ki Society centers almost exclusively around the study of the empirical (albeit subjective) experience of ki. Students are even ranked separately in aikido techniques and ki development.[citation needed]"
as does the "styles without weapons"...I know they're out there but we need a print source! Mike Searson 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I found one - should be good enough.Peter Rehse 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article status attempt number 2 

message: One of the comments on the FAC was that history stops in the 60s.  I propose moving the styles of Aikido paragraph to the end of the history section with small modification.Peter Rehse 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: One citation left for "Students are even ranked separately in aikido techniques and ki development."  The Ki Society page lists a series of publications - one of these should be suitable but I have access to none of them.Peter Rehse 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I found one - should be good enough.Peter Rehse 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Regards gi thickness: Normally only the heaviest gi (the "judo" syle) is used for aikido. At my dojo the thinner types (eg. for karate) are sometimes worn by beginners or even low rank graded students, as it definitely beats the plain-clothes that complete beginners are often tolerated to wear, but beyond that the lighter gi is neither encouraged nor appropriate. The article currently gives the impression that either type is appropriate for serious aikidoka: either this should be amended, or someone should reference a dojo (perhaps they do exist in equatorial regions?) where even senior students are encouraged to wear lightweight gi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.20.176 (talk • contribs).
:There are no rules regarding keikogi thickness within aikido generally - it really depends on personal preference, style of practice and weather.Peter Rehse 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judo gi are generally a quilted cotton, whereas karate gi are generally canvas, so the two types aren't really on a scale of "light" to "heavy." And in the ASU, most of the 5th and 6th dans wear Ikeda Sensei's Bujin Design aikido gis, which are canvas and much more similar to karate gis than judo gis. So there's that. Transentient 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, judo-style gis are available in more than one thickness. There are single-weight and double-weight judo gis, and also a "one and a half weight" (although I think those tend to be used more by BJJ practitioners). — Gwalla | Talk 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gi thickness?

message: KI cannot absolutely be defined as Spirit, in Japanese, Korean and Chinese spirit is completely separate word and concept from Ki, QI or Chi. To translate AikiDo or Heqido how we sometimes call it in Taiwan by "the way of the harmonius spirit" is a poetic license which betrays the true meaning of the word and the art. Ki is the force which feeds life, feeds the body and can be modulated by the spirit but is not spirit. Furthermore, the AIKI in aikido was inherited from Aikijutsu (Takeda Daito Ryu) and you all know that Takeda ryu had not emphasis whatsoever in spirit but on body energy or Ki. All know as well that Ueshiba Sensei transmitted as basical teaching "to unite our own Ki with the Ki of the attacker so to lead his Ki and in consequence his attack" and to "become one with our Ki acting by it and moving as it" . The definition used for Aikido in this article reflects a Wstern poetic view of iys true nature and not its true meaning. I suggest to change it for "the Way to becoming in harmony with Ki" equating Ki and referencing it to an specialized article about its meaning. If I may add, I learned, teach and still learn Aikido since 1955, I had very fortunate contacts with uchi-deshi from Ueshiba Sensei, I ask you in a humble and cordial way to please reflect in the definition of the Aiki Way, a definition which will be referenced by thousand, the true meaning of it as intended by its creator. Thank you and good work. TainanHao 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make the definition more accurate just a couple of days ago, however it was just deleted with no mention or discussion in this Talk page, it seems that who deleted it has a wrong scale of self importance, it is pitifull. I also tried to call the attention that even if having roots in koryu (ancient arts) aikido is not generally considered as such and where it says it is a koryu should say "with its koryu roots" (or inspiration if you prefer) to be accurate,unless someone is able to make a citation of a valid source related with Koryu which can validate the claim,  that change was also deleted with no discussion in the Talk page. It seems that there is not a martial arts project open to contributions of knowledge but only limited to the points of view (in some subjects innaccurate) of a few. Real pitty I must say, errors of accuracy are not only allowed but protected and fed to the unaware reader. Jennylen 10:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, a statement like "it seems that who deleted it has a wrong scale of self importance" is close to the wrong side of WP:NPA as it is an assumption about an editor, rather that what they say. --Fire Star 火星 13:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No - I made comments in the edit summary.  That was enough.Peter Rehse 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I also see missing references to Aiki Budo TainanHao 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please , are you speaking about Ueshiba Aiki Budo or Inoue Aiki Budo or both ? I may have some material with references Jennylen 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of references

message: I've been watching its development since the last attempt at Featured Article status, not feeling qualified to contribute but highly interested.  I think it's ready.  Very detailed, informative, and reads well.  Great job!  Get it submitted!  BWatkins 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a fabulous article!

message: Here is an essay explaining why calling people names, belittling their personalities or questioning their values instead of their contributions isn't a worthy tactic for influencing content (thanks to User:Geogre):
"The heart of an ad hominem is not that it is an insult.  It is that it is a change of topic.  When X has been in conflict, he has resorted to a discussion of the contributors rather unfailingly.  If a disputant says, "You're a socialist nazi," one's responses can be 1) deny it, 2) counter-attack, 3) remind the disputant that the subject is the article.  Most of the time most of the people will respond with #1 or #2, and that's when the ad hominem works.  (It works with compliments, as well; either way, it changes focus from the subject to the speaker.)  X's contributions are sometimes quite good, but when there is disagreement, he launches an ad hominem as a matter of course, and then we end up with insult battles, "proof" that one person is or is not a pinko subversive, etc., and the article goes the way X intended it, as those who disagree lose in a battle of attrition or are distracted by the personality battles."
I know the martial arts are a big subject, everyone respects what they have been taught and therefore everyone wants to be sure there is no misinformation going out. Disagreements in the passive academic voice are fine, they can be clarified and resolved through compromise or intellectual honesty in the course of research. Methodical, impersonal work to resolve factual disputation is the western encyclopaedic way but the wu de 武德 of sincerity, humility and respect, even if we are the only one using it, will smooth our road to that end. Thanks for your consideration. --Fire Star 火星 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea 

message: For ending the discussion about the definition of Ki and Aikido, I refer you to diverse sources in diverse languages:
:Tamura Nobuyoshi Sensei, holder of the highest rank of Aikikai and uchi-deshi of Ueshiba Sensei, in his Manual for transmission and etiquette of Aikido for Instructors, a book recommended by Kisshomaru Ueshiba Sensei, in pages 66 defines Aikido as "the art of unifying yourself with the Ki of heaven (sky) and earth". In page 94 he explains that the important to look after for knowing if a student may approve his/her graduation for Dansha is to observe if he/she can manifest the results of daily practice with a sense of unification of Ki, Kokoro(as spirit or heart), the body and the technique, making a clear difference between Ki and spirit. In page 139 he refers to Ueshiba Sensei saying "Aikido is at the point of fusion of  the Ki of heaven (sky) and Earth" ()
:J.B. and M. Ory in their Dictionary of Martial Arts considered one of the most complete existing, in page 103 define KI as "Universal Energy. Vital potency coming from de physical and mental energies concentrated in the Hara". ()
:Mitsugi Saotome Sensei, one of the principal students of Ueshiba Sensei for 15 years and known by all as one of the most important envoys to introduce Aikido in the western hemisphere, in his book Principles of Aikido, in page 222, defines Ki as "Life energy". ()
:As you can see, the original definition of Ki as (life energy) and therefore of Aikido as "the Way of Unifying (with) Ki" reflects the original intention transmitted by Ueshiba Sensei to his more close students and their understanding as this definition and the definition of Ki as "life energy" as the definition which must be transmitted.
:The definition of "the Way of the harmonious spirit" and the definition of Ki as spirit in detriment of the traditional use of Shin or Kokoro for defining "spirit" in martial arts, is attributed to later generations.
:I believe and propose that the traditional and original definition must be honored and the new generations understanding or definition can be allowed as well, therefore, I propose the following definition:
:............
:Aikido, is a a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Aikido is translated traditionally by the early students of Ueshiba Sensei as "the Way of unifying (with) Ki or Life Energy" ()  or as "the Way of harmonius spirit" () by some later students of the Takemussu period of Ueshiba Sensei. Ueshiba's goal was to create an art practitioners could use to defend themselves without injuring their attacker. .... etc etc
..............
:I believe this is the most accurate and true definition, showing respect to all Sensei and styles. I don't see any well grounded reason for not using this definition as it is well referenced in more than strong valid sources. However, if there still some resistance from the original editor(s) of this article,or even regarding this debate, I suggest to read page 207 of Mitsugi Saotome Sensei book where he transcribes a lecture from O Sensei which in one of its parts says" I want my students to observe all of life's phenomena. This includes listening to people, taking what is valuable from what they do and say and making it your own. All of this is raw material for your reflection and inspiration..." (Lectures of O Sensei, Principles of Aikido, Chapter 18, p 207, Misugi Saotome)  Jennylen 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A page number from the Saotome book cited would be helpful.  Additionally, referencing Ueshiba's Takemussu period in the lead is problematic where that term is not used in the rest of the article, and is vague to begin with. Also, isn't it spelled "takemusu" ( 武産:たけむす)?.  Finally, the phrasing "traditionally used by his early students" is potentially contradictory, where his early students' definition is not necessarily the "traditional" definition.  We would be better off not trying to judge which definition is more traditional (whatever that even means), and just leave it as the definition used by Ueshiba's early students (assuming a reference from one of his early students can be given). Bradford44 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have meant to verify what Saotome Sensei's definitions are when I am home with my copies of his book, but alas, I have been too busy training hard these past few days! :) Transentient 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome - look forward to your contributions.  Just a quick comment on with works written which you seem to need for believing or for proving to others what is.  This is wikipedia policy (WP:OR), I personally learnt much from listening to my own teachers and others but can't put it in here because I can not substantiate it with published works.  This is both a strength and a weakness of wikipedia but as an encyclopedia the policy is not to be a primary source of information.  Hope this helps.Peter Rehse 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition improved and accurate

message: Hello all. I got an invitation to go through the article for its featured-nomination evaluation.
I'm not sure I can contribute anything solid or usable to this nomination, but I can give a few impressions that I got after a viewing of the article.
My first impression is that the history section is a bit unfocused. It doesn't feel fluid. I cant find a better word to describe it. The section mentiones Ueshibas life, the roots of the technical aspects (and spiritual/mental) of Aikido and the organisations. (I should put an emphasize on mentiones). Its like someone tried to blend all three strands of information into one section but forgot some important pieces of the puzzle. I think in reality at least the history and organisations should retain seperate, more thorough, sections of their own. Not gigantic but simply thorough. I cant even find a mentioning in the history section of what year Ueshiba died and the effect it had on Aikido and his students and the orgs. (Yes his death-year is mentioned at the top of the page but not in the history-section). It feels like the organisations paragraph literary cuts off the history-part in mid-sentence and didnt get to finish what it started.
Hope I'm not too blunt. Fred26 10:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Fred - my opinion is that the article is over-streamlined in places, therefore lacking the comprehensiveness required for a (perfect) encyclopedia entry. Obviously, a balance must be struck between comprehensiveness and delving into minutia. Bradford44 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things bout the article 

message: I polished the definition for fluidity, added the page reference requested, placed the reference to takemusu in a section instead of the introduction after correcting the spelling to the more accepted (one s only) and placed the year of Ueshiba's Sensei death. I will see how can I help in the fluidity and information of the article in general, I will post anything I think that can help Jennylen 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to make the translation of aikido clearer to laymen by removing the circular use of "ki" in the translation of "ki", and adding a wiki-link for "life energy".  Neither item is something that 99% of the readers are going to understand, so we need to at least give them quick and simple way to do so.—Mrand T-C 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition polished 

message: As we all know, this article is in a sensitive time period, as it is undergoing the Featured article candidates process. The FAC director User:Raul654 has a page of humor from his experience in wikipedia. From User:Raul654/Raul's laws:
:Kosebamse's law - People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views.
::Corollary: The exoticness of an idea is inversely correlated to its proponent's respect for social norms.
:UninvitedCompany's law: Wikipedia's growth is limited by the number of people who are willing to organize facts, check references, research questionable assertions, and deal with community issues. An overwillingness on the community's part to indulge uncivil contributors risks alienating this group.
jmcw 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article candidate 

message: In all the evolution of Aikido during Ueshiba's life, his Takemusu final period was what he considered the ultimate and final essence of Aikido, it was his final creation, so much that his deepest meaning poems, songs and paintings were not only from that period but signed Takemusu Tsunamori. In those he wanted to tell the world what Aikido is or at least was for him. However, there is practically no mention of the Takemusu period neither in the history nor in the explanation of what Aikido is, I only inserted a couple of words for not risking deletion. I risk to say that Ueshiba's sensei voice about his ultimate enlightment is left silent. Does someone agree that what O Sensei tried to tell to the world as his ultimate concept of Aikido should be more relevant or at least more mentioned in the article ?  Jennylen 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it makes sense to take a few sentences to mention how it relates to the history and development of aikido, but it should primarily be discussed in detail at Takemusu, as well as at Ueshiba's article. Bradford44 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course. Anyone from the Takemusu style has a proposal ? I could have a go but someone from the style may have better grip of the concept Jennylen 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takemusu period 

message: Howdy all, I greatly appreciate all the work on dates and kanji that has gone into the history section, but to be brutally honest, I believe all that "data" is ancillary and actually detracts from being able to smoothly read the text.  I'm going to boldly move that information to other pages which discuss those topics more directly (so that that hard work is not lost, and so that anyone interested can find the kanji and dates).  If anyone doesn't agree, feel free to revert and we can discuss it more.  —Mrand T-C 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the dates of birth and death and kanji for names, those are present in an attempt to strictly follow the rules at WP:MOS-JP, which aren't completely clear on this point.  At one point, it implies that dates of birth and death and kanji, and correct pronunciation, should be given parenthetically every time a new name is introduced, and elsewhere it states that for terms, kanji are only given when the term is unlinked.  I agree that all of the parenthetical information can be distracting, perhaps we could compromise an only give it for names of people and places without their own articles? Bradford44 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Howdy Bradford44.  That was what I referred to, and that is basically what ended up happening.  There was one or two cases of a name not having a direct wiki-link, but I found a more appropriate article for those kanji to live in (that art, for example).  As for the WP:MOS-JP guidelines:In a narrative article, provide the Japanese script for the subject of that article when first introducing it (ideally  in the first line of the article). Do not repeat the Japanese for that term in the article. Where possible, provide the Japanese script for proper names as well. However, do not provide the Japanese for any Japanese term that is linked to an article containing the Japanese for that term. If the linked article does not contain the Japanese, please add it to the linked article. When Japanese terms other than proper names do not link to articles, before adding the Japanese, consider carefully whether or not the Japanese script adds to the English article.To me, the use of the word "however" implies that the previous sentences are subject to an condition(listing the kanji elsewhere).  And then we have the last sentence which summarizes the whole discussion by saying that even when adding kanji, we can use our judgment.  Lastly, I think this would be a valid case of ignoring the rules.  Thanks for the confirmation!  Anyone else? —Mrand T-C 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, good work.  And you can just call me Brad. :) Bradford44 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: This section is a really good idea for inclusion in the article, but I'm not a fan of leaving it in the article in its current state (i.e., with no citations, and incorrect syntax - possibly due to misquotation). Also, it's out of place as a top level heading, it's really more appropriate as part of "Implementations", except that the implementations section is currently located in the "Physical training" section, while the off-the-mat application described is discussing a applications that blend physical and mental training, as well as the application of ki.  I suggest that a section be added that discusses how the three different training foci (physical, mental, and ki) come together for application.  At that time, the section I just removed would have an appropriate place to go, and I encourage anyone to put together some citations and take a crack at it.  I've copied the deleted section below for convience, as well as revision and future re-inclusion:
Bradford44 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-the-mat Applications 

message: I would like to point out that in medical records, the deaths attributed to shihonage are mostly by injuries to cervical or cranial traumatism which is not due to shihonage but to faulty fall better said to resistance to fall, even if some could be because of exagerated physical strength in vertical direction. This could pertain to "errors in training" or "training risks" but it seems too extreme in the article and unnecessary unless as a (incorrect) badge of "realistic training". This is my medical-budoka opinion and with no ill intention. By the way, for the sake of accuracy, the most common injuries are in the articulations, specifically in the ligaments, not in the soft tissues in general. I am not asking for changes or so, just providing specialized comment. JennyLen 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Shihonage 

message: Hi, I'm new to the article, although I have studied Aikido a little.  I'll be happy to support the article for FAC, but I think the lead section should describe aikido more fully.  How about the following?
It might need fine-tuning from someone more knowledgable, but this might be more understandable and informative for lay-people.  Just a suggestion, Willow 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Willow - nice attempt but the thing is you are describing one view of  aikido which does not reflect the approach of a number of styles - especially some of the older ones.  One of the great difficulties about writing about aikido I am afraid.  Even the last sentence, which already exists, is difficult in my view.Peter Rehse 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Over the life of the article, this has proved far easier said than done, but I agree with Willow.  The lead should summarize the content of the entire article, essentially giving readers a road map for what material the article will cover. Bradford44 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly the lead was expanded during the last FAC also.  I see your point - perhaps someone will beat me to it (hint hint) but I will take a closer look.  I don't think it will be easy - perhaps a mention of its international spread and number of styles.Peter Rehse 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Take it easy and give us a chance.  I took your comment seriously but to do a half decent job takes a bit of thinking.  Ueshiba has nothing to do with it.Peter Rehse 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright - first attempt is completed.  I don't really think we can put much more in the intro except some citations - its an itro afterall.  I removed the sentence In addition to physical fitness and technique, mental training, controlled relaxation, and development of "life energy" or "spirit" (ki) are emphasized in aikido training. mainly because I couldn't fit in very well (perhaps someone else can) and also that Ki development per se is not a common thread throughout aikido.  I would like a mention of relaxed power and mental training but again at this point not sure how to fit it in.Peter Rehse 06:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I can appreciate what you're saying, but what you've proposed is a bit too detailed for the Lead, in my opinion.  The Lead should summarize the entire article.  When I wrote it last time using the Wikipedia Guide, I basically went through the Table of Contents and wrote a sentence or two based on each heading...then strung it all together.  Some editors thought it was too simplistic, however, and it was scrapped.  You can read more about what the Lead is and isn't here: WP:LEAD Mike Searson 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the lead

message: Hi, I think the article might be improved if we added more figures, especially to the initial subsections of "physical techniques", and to the "Uniform" section.  It would help readers to visualize the text, to bring it to life for them, I think.  Does anyone know of some good figures for those sections?  
Oh, I also added something about aikidoka seeing parallels between aikido techniques and more general conflict resolution, but I don't have a reference at hand.  Does anyone know a good one off the top of their heads?  I can probably track down some references myself if need be. 
:A similar sentence was recently removed because a good reference could not be found - or at least by me.  Good luck.Peter Rehse 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Figures?

message: I was asked through a message left at my talk page, to come to this page and provide an alternative to the use of the word grappling for defining Aikido. Perhaps instead of that, which would be to try to change a system of classification you seem to be comfortable with, it could help more if I explain how the martial arts are classified traditionally in some circles or schools. 
The grappling or striking classification obviously describes how the oponents use their bodies towards each other. Aikido differs in many things from other martial arts but one of those important differences is that, while in other martial arts practice and competition, both oponents use the same kind of body actions, this means both use an array of movements pre-agreed, in Aikido only one of the oponents use the pre-agreed movements (the techniques) while the other is quite much free to use whatever attack can think about within or outside martial arts movements. Grappling could well define Judo but hardly the interaction happening in Aikido.
In some schools or circles, martial arts are traditionally divided by their purpose of action, by their movements and not by the interaction between oponents, so you have soft arts and hard arts, internal arts and external arts, etc. But most important, can be classified as arts of destructive force, arts of locking and arts of projection. I see this classification as most appropiate as it describes the movement of the practicioners and their final purpose and not their first contact as grappling or striking. The few arts which use more than one purpose are called as having "adaptative" style, they adapt the response to the attack. Aikido is most certainly an adaptative style as it can use atemi, locking and projection. 
I think this answers to the request I received. As I said before, I hardly can help you to write articles as you must write, I am from other times and other ways to transmit knowledge, but I will be always most certainly ready to help you with concepts or knowledge which can help you in this important task you are facing.  TainanHao 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the purposed of discussion the article at one point had aikido defined as both a grappling and a striking art which is what I prefered.  This seemed to upset people who saw atemi as only percussive rather than seeing many of the irimi-nage as atemi waze.  Kenji Tomiki classified techniques in the latter way for example and since I learned most of my aikido in his dojo (albeit under his successor) I am most comfortable with it.  Still it was one battle I chose not to engage in.  From the aikido article, the aiki link takes you to a discussion of hard and soft and talks about internal versus external but these have their own problems as even aikido has elements of both hard and soft, internal and external.  One could, as with grappling, say primarily this or that but again as you pointed out it is not satisfactory.  The classification used is linked to articles on the martial arts in general and is probably the most useful when considering arts from many (not just eastern) origins.  The definition of grappling is given in the first line of the grappling article and correctly in my opinion has little to do with how training occurs but the type of techniques available.Peter Rehse 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree with the term "adaptative" and I wonder if where it says "Aikido is a grappling art.." cannot in some way be introduced the "adaptative" concept, as at least for me, it is right on target of what Aikido techniques are JennyLen☤ 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that should be discussed on  Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts however I think the classification stems from the fact that aikido is considered a form of jujutsu.  Again please see the definition of grappling given in the first line of the Grappling article.  The classification has to be seen in the larger whole not just in isolation.  
Personally I am not too bothered about  keeping grappling in the info box but prefered the earlier version of text where it said primarily of body throws and joint-locking techniques omitting the reference to grappling.  A much early version (January 1, 2007, where the lead was very small) had the line The art consists of striking, body throw and joint locking techniques and is known for its fluidity and blending with an attacker, rather than meeting force with force. which I am partial to (I wrote it) but like I said earlier there was quite a bit of resistance to the inclusion of striking.Peter Rehse 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grappling