Talk:Aikido

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aikido article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Aikido has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 16, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
March 20, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects
Click on [show] for further details

Aikido is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Japan To-do:

	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

	To-do list for Aikido:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Prepare for an early July re-attempt for FA status. A little more on the references and footnotes. Find at least one good technique picture to add to the article. From the last opposing opinion during FAC debate. Expand on what makes Aikido unique (may be covered enough already) Expand on the role of Aiki (may be covered enough already) Make the article a little less like whitebread (no idea what that means).

To-do list for Aikido:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Prepare for an early July re-attempt for FA status.

A little more on the references and footnotes.
Find at least one good technique picture to add to the article.

From the last opposing opinion during FAC debate.

Expand on what makes Aikido unique (may be covered enough already)
Expand on the role of Aiki (may be covered enough already)
Make the article a little less like whitebread (no idea what that means).

WikiProject Echo has identified Aikido as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto or French language Wikipedias.

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife.

Archives till end of 2005 till promotion to GA status till 28 February, 2007

1 Diseminating Aikido Section
2 Featured Article
3 AikidoOnline Web page reference..
4 Aikidoka drivel?
5 Ki
6 Article Structure
7 Proposed Structure
8 Picis
9 FAC Suggestions
10 New Pictures Available

[edit] Diseminating Aikido Section

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)

[edit] Featured Article

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)

Shrug. Actually there were quite a few changes since the nomination as a result of comments which, besides improving the article, resulted in the failure. Ergo - it was not an outright failure and I still think its Featured article material but lets wait a few months before resubmitting it.Peter Rehse 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad. I guess you can't please everyone. Maybe we should work a little more on the references and footnotes. It was definitely not a failure. We'll get em next time. Mike Searson 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AikidoOnline Web page reference..

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).

As I responded to your private e-mail (since it was I that did the revision)

Its nothing against Aikido On-line (they once asked to feature my own dojo when it first opened here in Japan which made me feel real good) and they are linked from my own homepage. It goes back to a time when the Aikido article was far less developed and there were just tons of links to everywhere (the source of my prejudice). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm (please see WP:External Links) and theoretically it should be two or three links that add to the article. The three that are there meet the requirement.

Aikido Online is too specific in its readership (a part of Aikikai) and frankly if them why not ... opens up the whole can.

Its not just me but a consensus that has been built up to get the Aikido article to the level it is now. Please remember Aikido is more than just one style - the article has to reflect Aikido in general with style specific information in the articles on individual styles which there are of course.Peter Rehse 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aikidoka drivel?

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)

I tend to come off as a hard ass, but my POV is that it ends up being just semantics. The article is about aikido, not the "I know more japanese than you do" games that westerner aikido practicioners like to play with Japanese words they already barely understand. A lot of these issues are over things Japanese Aikidoka could care less about. And as you said, it's on the Aikidoka page, which to me is a better place. no need to be redundant. Wwilson 1 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too wordy. However I think the point about the "misuse" of the word in the West is something that ought to be said, somewhere. By "Aikidoka page" I assume you mean the List of Aikidoka - that's the only other one I can find. I am leaving for a trip to Japan this week, and have on my to-do list to find evidence to refute the claim made here that other arts such as judo and karate use the '-ka' form, even in Japan, for ordinary practitioners, which I do not believe. If I can get the evidence, I will come back and pare this section down to its proper size and content :-) I will also adjust the wording on the Aikidoka page, and then if someone wants to delete one or the other of these two, I wouldn't object. Djiann 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clearly and concisely explained on the Aikidoka page (list of aikidoka) as well. Not all that pertinent to Aikido page IMO.Wwilson 1 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is that it's an interesting note. I've come across a lot of variation in the term given to practitioners of aikido. It seems like just the sort of thing to be addressed in an encyclopedic article - general knowledge, a synthesis of multiple sources, and so on assembled for convenience. --GenkiNeko 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sure, but does it belong on the Aikido page or the Aikidoka page? I think we have enough semantic translation trouble with Ki, Aikido, Atemi, etc. which are far more important and interesting, AND pertinent. Aikidoka semantics, while noteworthy, seem better on the Aikidoka page. It's bad enough everyone wants to chip in minor caveats on hakama, rankings, etc. etc. (none bad in themselves, but together, it creates a bloated aikido wiki page) Let's keep the branches trimmed so we can see the trunk. Wwilson 1 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there -is- an "aikidoka page". There's a list page of famous aikidoka. From an organizational standpoint, though, that really should just be a list. Notice that "Boxer" points to "Boxing" (via a disambiguation), and "karateka" to "karate". I do also have to object to you re-deleting the paragraph, while discussion is still ongoing, and flagging it a "minor edit". --GenkiNeko 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the section again. I think it's a good note to include, and that this is the best article to place it in ("Xers in the X article" principle). However, it's true that a "discussion" is excessive; I've attempted to preserve the basic information in a couple sentences instead. --GenkiNeko 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GenkiNeko: 家 does not indicate seriousness or dedication, it indicates professionalism or expertise (as a productive suffix, that is... there are surely some words where you could argue this interpretation, e.g. 作家). I will reserve my edits to the section, however, until I have something substantial to contribute. Djiann 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

GN: Yes, it would be fair to say that, but it's still the case that not everyone who is a serious, dedicated, skilled practitioner of aikido is an aikidōka. But let's be clear: what I'm talking about is the semantics of Japanese. I certainly recognize that the word has a different (much more inclusive) meaning as an English loanword, and I think WP needs to reflect that. I'm not trying to use WP as a vehicle to force the preservation of the Japanese semantics in English. Just trying to spread a little education :-) As for contributing, this section used to say (a month or two ago) what I thought it should say, until others came and started editing :-) Djiann 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The 'aikidoka' semantics is more nicely written now and less pretentious. I'm going to go ahead and set it up so that if someone wants to learn more about the term, they can click on the 'list of aikidoka' (yes that's the page i meant before) which is the only place the word aikidoka is used in the article anyway, and they get that nice brief and concise explanation. I support this by saying, hey, they don't have to read an annoying paragraph about what a hakama is, they can just click and read. Nothing is lost, reading time is saved for the less ' I wanna be a japanese syndrome' inclined.Wwilson 1 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ki

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)

[edit] Article Structure

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)

We could look to consolidate a few sub-headings. I was gigged for this on peer review way back on the Emerson pages...too many subheadings disrupt the flow....I scaled a few back, to be honest subheadings make it easy to edit and add sources, etc. You cannot please all the reviewers. I had one that objected, never even had the courtesy to come back, tell me to F off, etc. If you think it's worth the change, I'll help you do it.Mike Searson 05:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Structure

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)

Hi Mike - I was just proposing something similar - please go ahead. That will give us something to work on and worse comes to worse we can always go back. On reflection I do think the critique has a point.Peter Rehse 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did it all in one edit. Not sure if I like it, though. I can see how someone totally unfamiliar with Aikido could get lost without the subheadings. We can always revert and/or point the current version to the editor who objected and our reason why. Mike Searson 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if we do it like this - we need to break the text up with some more pics. I'll contact the guy and ask him for some suggestions.Peter Rehse 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved around the sections and pics a little bit so that Section length and pici dispersal looks a bit more balanced.Peter Rehse 08:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Picis

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)

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)

[edit] FAC Suggestions

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)

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)

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)

Exactly vis a vis the same direction. I also am not too concerned about that last opinion although one thing I was considering is a combination of the the Spirit of Aikido and Ki section, with a slight expansion on Aiki. I'm going to mull that over a bit more before I decide to take it upon myself or even if its worth doing. I must say again that the FAC exercise was not a total loss - I think the article did improve with the feedback.Peter Rehse 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Pictures Available

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/i/k/Talk%7EAikido_9a3d.html"