Talk:Aikido/Archive 3

message: I've upgraded this article to GA status, a few gripes, one is the need for more inline citations especially what with the length of the article, perhaps turning some sections into separate articles in themselves. The opening paragraph is not very informative and needs a bit of improvement. Otherwise, these are minor quibbles and can be sorted out as soon as someone has time. All in all quite a comprehensive effort that fulfills the GA criteria.
P.s> Someone should archive most of the discussions!
--Zak 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status! 

message: I looked at the judo, karate and sumo pages for inspiration and they are also pretty short and to the point.  I did change the aikido paragraph to emphasize what aikido is as opposed to where it comes from.  The latter is covered later.  I still think it needs a bit more.Peter Rehse 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction paragraph

message: I've expanded the history section, but it still needs some more work.  I thought I would share my concept for the history section here, and we can discuss whether it is the right way to go or not.
Conceptually, I see two main historical elements. 1. things that led to aikido's creation, and 2. things that resulted from aikido's creation.
Part one can be broken down further.
*1.a. technical contributions, i.e. the martial arts that Ueshiba studied and how they were synthesized into aikido.
*1.b. philosophical contributions, i.e. the effect of Omoto-kyo upon Ueshiba's and aikido's basic philosophy.
Those things are reasonably well covered so far. Part two should be a bit more chronological:
*2.a. First Aikido was taught by Ueshiba in Japan.
*2.b. Then Ueshiba sent emissaries throughout the world.
*2.c. Then Ueshiba passed away, and factionalism among Ueshiba's direct students ensued. (this is indirectly covered in the styles section)
*2.d. Today, current doshu is Ueshiba's grandson, and etc...
Finally, it would be great to cite to some print sources for all of this, rather than the internet. If there is one section of any article that should be heavily sourced, it's probably the history section. As a caution, I'm very concerned about getting too detailed on Ueshiba's life except for the parts that directly implicate his martial arts. Bradford44 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Aikido - expansion

message: I agree for the need for some more hard citations.  So there are three places with citation flags (good place to start) - I don't have the books to hand but for the Saito and weapons it may be one of Saito's books, and I would also suggest fitting in Best Aikido (Ueshiba K and M, and Aikido by Ueshiba K).  Would the Aikido-faq dojo search engine be a good citation for dojo through out the world?  I added a new one for the randori section.Peter Rehse 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been weighing the idea of adding kanji to the techniques for a while, because there is a conflict between accessability to non-familiar readers, and the level of inclusion that I feel is warranted by encylopedia-ness.  I like to err on the side of comprehensiveness, so I say add the kanji.  But maybe we should get a couple more opinions first?Bradford44 02:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparing for Peer Review

message: What does this comment mean? I cant wrap my head around it. Fred26 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nishio Aikido a part of the Aikikai although techically well defined according to its head Shoji Nishio. " 

message: I had had several pieces of information that I have added removed from the page (a page that is theoretically editable by everyone).  I fully appreciate the need for some regularity, consistency and avoidance of style specific terms etc. - and for these corrections I thank the person who has corrected me - but some of my additions have been removed where I do not believe this applies (e.g every style practices techniques from ushiro-ryote-dori, in some styles it is ONLY graded females who may choose to wear the hakama).  In each case, I have been referred to 'common consensus' or to the talk page, but can find no reference to the issues in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonb420 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of added information without adequate explanation 

message: As promised I submitted the article for peer review - we expect comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aikido/archive1.  Lets make a concerted effort to address any suggestions made.  I hope we can get Featured Article status out of this or at least promotion to A-class.Peter Rehse 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy New Year and Peer Review for Featured Article

message: I would have added this to the main article under body as it relates to conditioning and flexibility.  But I could not for certainty spell 'jubi taiso'? I think this should be included some where as every Aikido Dojo I have trained in starts classes with it.  Is that the correct spelling? Should this have it's own section.Mvemkr 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "standard romaji" - there are different styles.  Personally (in this case) I prefer "jumbi" (phonetic) over "junbi" (pseudo-phonemic), but it comes down to personal preference.  As for what English speakers hear, that consonant is actually pronounced as [m] by native speakers.  It might be ever so slightly different from the [m] which comes at the beginning of words, but it is still a bilabial nasal stop. If you want to change the spelling, go ahead, but don't imagine that you're "correcting" it. Djiann 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone will refer to WP:MOS-JP#Romanization, you can see that Wikipedia specifically prefers the Revised Hepburn romanization system of transliteration.  As such, ん should never be transliterated as 'm' under any circumstances, but always as 'n'. Although wikipedia makes an exception for the use of 'm' in proper names of places when designated by the government (Shimbun, Namba, etc...), or for proper names of people or characters where an unconventional romanization is in general use (e.g., Devil Hunter Yokho).  Junbi taiso obviously fits neither of those exceptions.  I think the point here is not personal preference, but a conscious decision to pick just one method of romanization and stick to it.  Hopefully this clears up any further debate. Bradford44 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warm Up 

message: Is it just me or is it incredibly obnoxious to read Morihei Ueshiba, then kanji, then (Ueshiba Morihei born 18xx=19xx). No it's not just me and it's really obnoxious. I guess wiki manual wants the latter version of names, so would the gentleman who went through and added everything please now remove the double names and stick to the guildline ones only?  There is absolutely no reason to have every name in there listed twice in the same sentence. It is, to use a more formal word, idiotic.Wwilson 1 19:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wayne, although your request was as polite and humble as always, I must respectfully decline.  Or at least, object pending further discussion and consensus.  Please note at the outset that the names you are referring to already correctly adhere to the wiki guideline.  If you will kindly refer to WP:MOS-JP#Names, you will see that there are several variables that apply to the use of proper names of Japanese people.  The manual requires that where a person's commonly used English name differs from its correct romanization, that this be noted parenthetically.  Further, in an English article, a modern (born after the first year of Meiji in 1868) Japanese person's name should be written generally with the family name last, followed by the family name first in parentheses.  Please note also that the above rules only apply the first time a name appears in the article, and that this article is fully consistent with the rule. Bradford44 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese names 

message: I removed the following line:
> The founder required all levels to wear hakama.
I removed it because it is unlikely to be true, at least as far as I know.  The tradition that male students below shodan don't wear hakama in most (not all) Aikikai dojos probably predates Morihei Ueshiba's death.  If he required all levels to wear hakama then this tradition wouldn't have existed.  I hold out the possibility that he did require it at some time, but later dropped the requirement, in which case the line that I took out is only partially inaccurate and misleading. Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also heard that the Founder required hakama of everyone, and would send people home who had neglected to bring it. I'm not sure where the yuudansha-only rule came from. I don't know that it was appropriate to revert the previous edit completely, but it could certainly have used an it is said that and a citation needed. Djiann 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Saotome Sensei may have written something along those lines in one of his first two books... Transentient 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If I remember correctly this was before the war (stories circulate about people practicing in their fathers best hakama) but the requirement changed possibly during but definately post-war and was a direct reflection of relative poverty.  I would leave it out as is or qualify it some how with a citation (which by the way we need more of).  The statement itself doesn't really add to the information already there.Peter Rehse 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hakama were practical attire for riding horses, and extended from there into general use as a kind of business dress, and proper attire for training in a dojo. So it is highly likely that the founder required all levels to wear hakama, but that isn't a very interesting statement; it is the equivalent of saying, "highschool football players of the late 20th century were required to wear their team's uniform and the proper protective equipment." I don't know how we feel about citing Ellis Amdur blogs for reference but there is a good piece by him on Aikidojournal. I do think that there are a number of misconceptions about the origins and meaning for the hakama in Aikido (e.g, they are supposed to hide your feet, they are a traditional mark of mastery) that would be appropriate to address in our article. Transentient 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the founder require wearing of hakama 

message: With respect to the Ai Ki Do definitions.  I personally prefer the simpler definitions with each kanji linked to a fuller definition.  At the very least I think that the fuller definition should be in accord with whats on the Aikido page.  I also think the definitions  as they stand now are too specific to a single interpretation.  However, when we last had this discussion the following paragraph discussed how the individual kanji came togeather and what they mean.  That paragraph has changed somewhat, including a link to an article on aiki, so I don't feel as strongly about this as I would have before.  I would revert but ... opinions?Peter Rehse 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of those kanji has an entry in wiktionary. Maybe link to those?— Gwalla | Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we had this debate a while ago, and as I recall it was pretty conclusively settled.  While harmony might be a reasonable figurative extrapolation from 'aiki', I believe it's more appropriate in this section to simply give a basic, literal meaning of each character, and let the reader figure it out.  Else, one gets into a very large and perhaps controversial (oh, the irony) discussion about the real "meaning" of aikido.  I'm reverting to the plain definitions.  --GenkiNeko 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kanji definitions

message: So one more week and then I'll submit.  I've already responded to the points made at peer reveiw but please take a look if you haven't already.  I think the only outstanding issue (besides more citations) is the police point but please see what I have to say.Peter Rehse 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article submission in one week

message: Nice job Brad - I did move one small section down mainly because the way it was before uke and nage were not defined at their first use.Peter Rehse 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brad's rearrangement

message: The intro statement flows better now, but I am unsure about the following line:
:His goal was to create and disseminate a martial art through which a practitioner could achieve the ability to defend himself without injuring his attacker.
I do not think this is the case.  Compare with his famous remark about giving a demonstration before the Emperor - i.e., the one about how he couldn't show "real" aikido as requested, because "real" aikido is a life and death affair in which people don't get back up after they've been thrown.  I'm aware that he said things like the above at times, and I don't claim to understand what he was thinking, but I find the line too controversial too include. --GenkiNeko 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Statement 

message: I support WWilson 1's elimination of 3rd paragraph of lead section. It was mostly content-free. Djiann 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current controversy over lead section

message: I just reverted a change in the major style order but it raised a point made I think by Djiann about the order of styles.  I reverted for two reasons primarily because I thought the edit (based on a few others the user made) was style promotion and I felt a little bloody minded but also because I think the order of the major styles should be the same as in the box.  We can of course change both.  So should they remain as is (which I think with the exception of the largest (Aikikai) was accidental, in order of founding, alphabetical, or size.  The last one may be difficult to pinpoint.  The remaining styles should perhaps be alphabetical.Peter Rehse 11:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, Peter.  I rearranged a few things and did a little copy-editing.  There is probably still more to do.  Mrand 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style Order