Talk:Aikido/Archive 4

message: It seems that the "Diseminating Aikido" section was changed. 
The article on Mochizuki is cited by a source that is basically not referenced. 
It also seems the newer section on dissemination holds the same errors as the articles on Mochizuki so I presume they were edited by the same people.
Not sure what you mean by unreferenced source.  Also what was the error.Peter Rehse 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diseminating Aikido Section 

message: I think most of the issues listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aikido have been addressed.  Wouldn't hurt to take another quick look with respect to citations mentioned by Yomangani especially with respect to Philosophical and political developments (important to reference this as it makes claims as to the primary influences on Ueshiba), The international dissemination of aikido, Techniques, and Ki. and some of the sentence structure points made by Shimeru.  On Monday I'll ping the FAC page to see if we can get movement toward a decision.Peter Rehse 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: Hi, 
I tried to edit the External Section and my edits were rejected. 
Although I respect the decision to remove the individual dojo listing (Framingham), 
However I was surprised tha tyou removed the AikidoOnline.com listing as well. 
Did you see the Website yourself..? 
The Site is one of the most comprehensive websites on Aikido with Liks to the articles from Many of the Direct disciples of O'Sensei. 
I am new to Wikipedia, And This was my first try to edit one of the pages I really care and passionate about. 
Best Regards, 
Rajesh Jaiswal
(Rajesh.jaiswal@intel.com)
Please copy me your reply to my email address above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.52.57.33 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AikidoOnline Web page reference..  

message: Don't agree that it was unnecessary drivel although it might be trimmed somewhat.  Then again the definition is repeated on the Aikidoka page itself.  In any case I think this removal warrents at least a little discussion.Peter Rehse 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, Djiann.  Would it be fair to draw a comparison by saying, "Not everyone who writes is a sakka, and not everyone who does aikido is an aikidōka"?  I can see the line (in an English context) between "seriousness/dedication" and "expertise/professionalism", though I'd often associate one quality with the other.  I'm not sure this distinction carries through in the usage of aikidōka, though, especially given that we're talking about its use in a foreign-language (English) context where subtleties can be blurred or distorted.  But please don't be shy about editing; Wikipedia grows through continual "slightly better than before" changes.  Let's try to strike a balance between strict accuracy and concision, though.  --GenkiNeko 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still not sure I entirely follow your suggestion, though.  If "not everyone who is a serious, dedicated, skilled practitioner of aikido is an aikidōka," what -is- an aikidōka"?  If you'd like to offer some points here, perhaps we could figure out how to incorporate them into the current text, either by adding a new sentence or two or revising the ones currently there. --GenkiNeko 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aikidoka drivel?

message: Should aikido be consider an internal martial art? It seems only Koichi Tohei's aikido that incorporates Ki in their aikido. The rest dont.
Bob March 18, 2007
All aikido incorporates ki but how it is trained or emphasized - differs.Peter Rehse 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ki 

message: And I liked the article structure - not sure how to change it to please the last FAC reviewer.Peter Rehse 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Structure

message: This is the current outline:
Contents 
1 Spirit of aikido 
2 History 
2.1 Martial studies of aikido's founder 
2.2 Philosophical and political developments 
2.3 The international dissemination of aikido 
3 Physical training 
3.1 General fitness 
3.2 Techniques 
3.2.1 Safe falling and receiving of techniques 
3.2.2 Attacks 
3.2.2.1 Strikes 
3.2.2.2 Grabs 
3.2.3 Throws and pins 
3.2.4 Weapons 
3.3 Implementations 
3.3.1 Atemi 
3.3.2 Randori 
4 Mental training 
5 Ki 
6 Ranking 
7 Clothing 
8 Styles of aikido 
9 Aikidōka 
10 References 
11 External links 
 
This is the proposed Outline:
Contents 
1 Spirit of aikido 
2 History 
3 Physical training 
3.1 General fitness 
3.2 Techniques 
3.3 Implementations 
4 Mental training 
5 Ki 
6 Uniforms and Ranking
7 Styles of aikido 
8 Aikidōka 
9 References 
10 External links
  
Maybe take it a step further and use a See Also for Ki, Aikidoka or even consolidate section 3's subsections.
Thought? Mike Searson 06:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sections are going to be consolidated, which is fine, maybe the heading should be a bit more descriptive. For example, instead of "Techniques", it could be "Strikes, grabs, and throws", or even "Techniques: strikes, grabs, and throws".  Or instead of "Implementations", it could be "Body movement and freestyle practice", or something. These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure with some thought we can come up with something better. Bradford44 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good point Bradford.  That or maybe the reviewer meant to only use subheadings and not go 3-4 headings deep. Mike Searson 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Structure

message: I've added three picis to bolster the historical section and did some re-arranging for form.  I think there is room for one more technique pici but frankly even form the aikiweb gallery, where we might get permission to use, I could not find a suitable pici.Peter Rehse 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some rough dates for the pictures in the history section, is this possible? Bradford44 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picis

message: This might be a bit wrongheaded of me...but I'm not sure the comments we got on the Featured Article nomination page were actually very useful or well-reasoned.  Let's not be too hasty to implement them just because they're the only bits of feedback we received.  E.g., the person who said "Techniques section is redundant because judo, aikijutsu, etc. all use the same techniques with the same names".  That was really special.
I personally think we should just continue largely in the same direction we were going - general improvements, more citations, better pictures.  --GenkiNeko 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's an excellent point. In fact, just about the only lingering complaint that I agreed with is that some of the prose is a bit watered down.  I think as a result of so many edits for concision, not only did the unnecessary information get removed, but additionally many sentences were over-simplified.  There's nothing wrong with wordiness as long as it is elegant and not confusing. Bradford44 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been my complaint of the peer review process in Wiki.  Write engaging prose and one reviewer says "Too Flowery, this is an encyclopedia"...tune it down and another says "this is bland, boring and not written well".  Can't please everyone.Mike Searson 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Suggestions 

message: Good news!  I did some snooping on Facebook, and discovered an aikido student (John Heintz) with some photos he was willing to release for Wiki-use.  (Thanks, John!)
They can be found here:
* Aikido Iriminage
* Aikido Iriminage 2
* Aikido Keiko
I'll see if maybe I can scrounge some more from Facebook. --GenkiNeko 03:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pictures Available 

message: Just a helpful suggestion here. I am wondering if its possible to provide YouTube videos (as a link) of the various styles of aikido. So viewers can have a sense of how different styles of aikido look like? -Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 2007-04-19T19:08:32.
: Howdy Bill, it is certainly possible, but in my opinion, you'll see as much variation between high-level people of the same style as you will between high-level people of different styles - so I don't know that it would provide any real "comparison".  Said a completely different way, IMO, when aikido is done well, the styles are difficult to tell apart unless you really know what to look for.  Mrand 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles of Aikido 

message: Re: recent change on main page of -dori to -tori, then back again, and for those who may be interested: there is no right and wrong in this particular case; both are acceptable.  Difference is at the level of personal/dialectal habit or preference. The language "doesn't care". See rendaku.  Certain words, esp. common ones like tegami, are often set one way or the other (voiced or voiceless) by history, but I'm quite sure that aikido terms are not in this class of vocabulary. That said, however, there probably should be a standard for use in WP (wrt aikido terminology specifically), but taking a quick look here I don't see anything like that. Djiann 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -Dori vs. -Tori 

message: This statement is referenced with a link, but that page does not mention the concept hombu dojo; nor does it try to define "major styles". I find that troublesome. Otherwise, we have explicitly stated that Iwama style is not a major style... because Iwama style has no Hombu. While old Saito sensei was alive you could say that Iwama was Hombu, maybe, but it was certainly never declared as such... and most of the Iwama people are back in the Aikikai again. Does this mean Iwama aikido ceases to be a style? Does it make it not a "major style" any more? Was it ever a major style? I don't know. I removed the statement and the ref; if put back I think it should be made clear what exactly the ref supports. 
This discussion is related to the problems I see with the template on major styles, that I removed from this article. A discussion about the template is held at Template talk:Major styles of aikido. //  habj 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list appears to be of major aikido organizations. An organization is somewhat easier to define than a style.  Also, the use of the word style in this instance is contrary to the conventions at WP:WPMA.  On the other hand, I think the conventions on these words creates more problems than it solves. Bradford44 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The WikiProject Martial Arts definition of style vs. org is probably true in some Chinese arts but they are not universal. Probably the article needs to briefly mention that the word "style" is used to describe two different concepts: teacher lineages/ways of performing technique, and organisation. // habj 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Each major style has a hombu dojo in Japan" - OK so what is a style? 

message: A recent change in the History section brought this to my attention: "One of the primary features of Ōmoto-kyō is its emphasis on the attainment of utopia during one's life."  Now, I don't know anything (much) about Ōmoto, but utopia isn't something you "attain".  Nirvana, maybe (although of course that's a Buddhist concept).  Is that perhaps what is meant?  Or is it that the followers of that sect believed that they could create a utopia in their lifetimes? Djiann 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utopia? 

message: An anon user went through the other day, and added kanji to the list of techniques (but not to the strikes and grabs).  Do we want this stuff to stay?  If not, anyone can remove it, but if it stays, there is something to consider.  Generally, WP:MOS and WP:MOS-JP prefers we stay as English-centric as is possible or reasonable on the English wikipedia.  Additionally, for Japanese terms, the nihongo template prefers this order:
:English (kanji Japanese)
However, putting the English up-front may be difficult for some of us to accept, where we are so used to thinking solely in terms of the Japanese names of the techniques. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend that despite this, we keep the non-Japanese and non-martial artist readers in mind and follow the standard template form, and allow the Japanese names of the techniques to be secondary and indicated parenthetically.
On the other hand, as I mentioned, we can just remove the kanji altogether, rendering my above post moot. Bradford44 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kanji is a nice addition and as long as it remains simple, I think it adds to the article.  The rest will get added later - don't worry about it being incomplete. Tkjazzer 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kanji?

message: I have read the article and I'm still completely baffled as to what Ki entails. I'm not an expert on martial arts, simply a curious browser and I found that the article didn't really give any detailed explanation concerning its nature. I think this section falls into the trap of commentary rather than explanation - I imagine it makes perfect sense to someone who is familiar with the subject, it may even be insightful, but to a novice (who encyclopedia articles are directed at) it didn't make clear what Ki actually involves. Simply saying "Ki is most often understood as unified physical and mental intention." doesn't really tell anyone what it is, in my view. I still don't know, is it a philosophy? A specific doctrine? A martial art? A book? A television show? 
What I was interested in when I viewed this article was that I remember attending an aikido demonstration and one of the participants performed a section concerning energy which, he maintained, he could focus on a specific point and knock another man standing across the room to the ground. Is this some sort of bastardisation of Ki? I assumed his claims weren't credible and was primarily viewing this article to find out what the real source was, but was left disappointed. Blankfrackis 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ki - a suggestion from someone who knows nothing about the subject

message: This needs to be defined somewhere. It's not important to me that it be in the lede, but should be near the top. It can't just appear for the first and only time as List of aikidoka. JJL 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made something of a big deal in the past about the presentation of this term. I have argued that the term is not used in Japan, it is only used outside of Japan as a loanword with a different meaning than it would have to Japanese native speakers. I want WP to reflect this reality.  Have you read the discussion of this topic which is on this very page?  I am still working on collecting the evidence I need to justify a concerted editing effort on my part :-) Djiann 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history said not a "fact" that belongs in the lead section and mentioned elsewhere in article already and I was responding to that. Even if it's only used outside of Japan...that includes a lot of aikido practitioners, and that is exactly what they're called. It no longer matters whether it originated from an error or not. Since we have a list of aikidoka, we need to say what an aikidoka is. JJL 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would very much prefer to see the term removed from the lead section, but I refuse to get involved in reversion wars.  That said, it's hard to see where else it fits in, unless the sub-heading "Aikidoka" is re-instated (not a bad idea, IMO).  As it is now, the link to "List of..." is under Styles, which seems arbitrary.  I agree that it's not good to use a term without some indication of what it means. Djiann 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I resent the implication that I am revert warring...after all, I brought the discussion here in hopes of achieving consensus. I only reverted again because your mentioned elsewhere in article already seemed inaccurate (I thought you believed it was defined later in the article, as I indicated in the edit history). It's not important to me where the term is defined or whether the (verifiable) differences in usage are given; I just think it needs to be mentioned, as it comes up often and an En glish-speaking reader could not be expected to recognize the meaning of an added -ka. JJL 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't intend any implication that you were edit-warring, merely pointing out why I wouldn't re-revert.  I have already agreed the term should be defined somewhere on the page rather than simply having a link which uses the term, under an arbitrary section, to another page. I intend to have the information I need to do some editing before the month is out. Djiann 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I understand! JJL 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 183,000 for Aikidoka. It's a very common term, at least in the U.S. JJL 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I added a passing reference to it, though I still find the objection to this commonly occurring term difficult to understand. JJL 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aikidoka

message: This section is really expanding big time. I think this will always be the part that most Aikidoists will be salivating to edit expand, elaborate, make caveats for, and so forth, and to keep the Aikido article from being too gigantic I'm thinking it's about time it got it's own 'Aikido Techniques' page. That way those horny for getting their own two yen into the mix will be able to to their hearts content, while the Aikido article itself will not scare off laymen and casual browsers do to it's hugeness and all the geeky kanji references, etc.. What do you guys think?Wwilson 1 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned about putting too great an emphasis on being concise.  I think part of what held the article back during FA review was that many sections and paragraphs had been whittled down to the point where they were either bland, uninteresting, uninformative, or all of the above.  Good writing pulls the reader in and encourages them to keep reading.  A reader should suddenly find themselves compelled to learn the answers to questions that they never even thought to ask. A sidebar into a relevant though divergant topic can add color and flavor to an otherwise one-dimensional article. I recently came across the article, Kitsune, which was fascinating. I found its level to detail to be the perfect example of how to comprehensively address a subject, rather consisting of a series of short and simplistic statements containing a wikilink, forcing a reader to read a dozen other articles just to figure out what this particular article is talking about.  I'm particularly thinking about the "Ki", "Spirit of Aikido", and "Styles of Aikido" subsections when I say this, though other places could use also use more detail, in my opinion. Bradford44 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Techniques

message: I like the template and do not think it is confusing.  Could you consider putting it back? Tkjazzer 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support putting it back up. Bradford44 13:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request to put Martial arts template back up 

message: Imagine my surprise when I could access from China - couldn't last week - and I don't know how much longer I can.  I was hoping to be back in Japan by now for another attempt to get Aikido to be a featured article but that will have to wait - or not.  CHeers Peter Rehse 05:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi Guys