Talk:Iwama Shin-Shin Aiki Shuren-kai

message: I recommend merging this article with Iwama style.  Does any one have a good reason why these should be seperate articles.  — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Living in the part of the world where the organisation Iwama Ryu did exist (and still, although in slightly different cloths, contribute 25 - 33% to the Swedish aikido population) it is pretty obvious that Iwama ryu is a slightly different beast than Iwama style. It is fine with me to merge them, however - maybe the relationship between these two subjects is best explained under Iwama style. / Habj 16:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A problematic distinction is that "Iwama Ryu" means two different things: the organisation headed by Evenås and Corralini that no longer exists, and the one under Shinshinshurenkai (i.e. the followers of late Saite sensei's son, right?). The "old" Iwama Ruu did AFAIK not exist in the US, so I do not expect the average US Iwama style practitioner to know but about it. It always was a low profile thing anyway, like many things in aikido politics, since the Aikikai never officially were aware of its existance (but of course they knew). Most people of this "old" Iwama Ryu are now within the Aikikai. If the two articles should be separate, the only possible division I see is to let the article "Iwama style" contain info about the actual type aikido, and let the "Iwama Ryu" article handle the organisatory things i.e. the politics. // Habj 13:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Iwama style]]

message: ---"Of course he knew, but the Iwama Ryu folks were clever enough to give the Aikikai deniability. Saito sensei giving his own dan ranks instead of Aikikai ranks and keeping the money was bad enough, Saito sensei doing that in front of the faces of the Aikiki... would have been something else. Note that the web Encyclopedia of Aikido does not have an entry on Iwama Ryu, and that the only thing mentioned in the Evenås articles are the weapons scrolls."---
Habj is making assertions here without any supporting evidence and then drawing conclusions based on these unsupported assertions, e.g. "...giving his own dan ranks instead of Aikikai ranks and keeping the money..."
The Aikikai has a list of instructors authorized to test and give rank in Aikido.  The typical structure is once a student completes the requirements for a particular dan rank at his local dojo that student can then choose to pay a considerable fee to the Aikikai for official recognition of their ranking if that student's instructor is authorized to give dan rankings by the Aikikai.  I am not familiar with the fee structures Saito Sensei enacted concerning his Iwama Ryu ranks but any of his students who received dan rankings were also able to apply for Aikikai recognition by virtue of Saito Sensei's authorization and standing within the Aikikai.  I am not aware of any exceptions where Saito Sensei's most senior students did not possees Aikikai certified dan ranks and if they held rank in Iwama-Ryu it was in addition to their Aikikai rank.  Unfortunately I do not have an internet source to offer as a reference for my own assertions but direct research within Hombu Aikikai or amongst any of the senior Iwama-Ryu dan holders should corroborate my statements.
There is ample evidence of Saito Sensei's support of both the Aikikai and the Doshu line.  When there are seeming conflicts amongst various Aikido organizations these conflicts should be deeply researched in the context of Aikido as a martial art before drawing conclusions about individuals or their motivations.//Wavejay 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias evident

message: I think a section of the article on Hitohiro Saito would be an excellent place to incubate content on his personal organisation, Iwama Shin-Shin Aiki Shuren-kai. It fits there logically, and that article looks to be better edited. In fact it already has better information about this topic than what this article does (such as the date it was founded, and the name of its main dojo). And if the content ever grows into a worthwhile article in its own right, we can always bring it back here after that happens.
Currently this article is atrocious. It is basically just a stub:
* The lead merely says Saito-junior's organisation spanning 21 countries, with emphasis on weapons (and claims to being traditional).
* The majority of the article body is about details completely unrelated to the topic (particularly, describing people such as Morihiro's senior students such as Corallini and Evenas, none of whom are nor ever have been members of this organisation). Such content belongs elsewhere not here (and already is repeated elswhere, e.g., Morihiro Saito#Legacy and Iwama ryu, and repeating it here only serves to give the impression of diminished notability to this article's real topic).
* The remainder is a bizaare short-essay (obviously fouling WP:NPOV and WP:OR) which claims that the historical facts are different depending on who you are, and unencylopedically urging WP readers to "study .. by asking the opinion of different old-timers"!?!
The article still has trouble explaining the distinction between this organisation and (dento/traditional) Iwama ryu/style/sutairu/takemusu/etc, but I agree that Iwama ryu would be the wrong place to merge this article with. Instead I propose to redirect to and merge into a section of Hitohiro Saito. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Hitohiro Saito]]