Talk:Aikido

message: The template  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No problem, now in  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)
thread_title:  World Games Programme 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hakama trousers? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: In the opinions that I have heard, people believe that Aikido is not a sport. Reliable references would help here. jmcw (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Sport and the Aikido article

message: Appeal to clear up a source question issue asked on https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
thread_title:  Appeal to clear up a source question 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/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 
https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
thread_title:  misleading redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: If we look at the page on commons for the video  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK thanks! Aikitech (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826182832/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=474 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=474
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.b-smart.net/archive/test_article_0497.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206050153/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=18 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=18
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826192614/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=31 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=31
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826175452/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=533 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=533
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330055654/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=723 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=723
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017200533/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=73 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=73
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225638/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=626 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=626
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225749/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=785 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=785
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807104204/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=701 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=701
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016190245/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=340 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=340
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826181246/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=289 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=289
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122182812/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=780 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=780
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122182746/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=419 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=419
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122182726/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=337 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=337
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122182741/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=342 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=342
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017193616/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=686 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=686
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080122182653/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=7&highlight=injuries to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=7&highlight=injuries
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012133627/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=8 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225755/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=10 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=10
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619083726/http://www.b-smart.net/archive/test_article_0497.html to http://www.b-smart.net/archive/test_article_0497.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231203238/http://www.tsuki-kage.com/ueshiba.html to http://www.tsuki-kage.com/ueshiba.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121231252/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=123 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=123
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121231241/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=12 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleaning House 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Criticism Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change the first photograph immediately  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal and replacement of criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA icon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Elephant in the room 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sources, we need sources. Are there any books or articles that describe this.--Salix alba (talk): 13:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  International dissemination change suggestion