Talk:Aikido/Archive 5

Featured article status attempt number 2

I think we were close the last time and there were a number of suggestions which were carried out. Personally I think this article is far better than the French version which does have featured article status. I suggest re-submitting on August 1st giving us some time for a little checking. Please see the to do list. I moved all the previous discussion into archive - this page was getting too long.Peter Rehse 05:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article does not have a NPOV... it is very much focused on the vocabulary, perspective, and interpretation of the main-line aikikai family of aikido styles. I don't think it is ready to be a featured article in that format. 198.133.139.5 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)SAJ

Howdy SAJ, Obviously there is a list of "Aikikai Foundation" techniques, but I see that as simply an example of the types of things one might encounter upon entering an aikido dojo - so it does not strike me as biasing the article (especially since it says that it is a sampling, and that it is Aikikai specific). Could you point out 2 or 3 examples of your more serious concerns with regards to the aikikai perspective and interpretation? Even better, could you suggest a few alternatives? BTW, I have no pro-Aikikai agenda here - as my user page indicates, I am not associated with aikikai at all. Have fun! —Mrand ^T-C 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Must say as a major contributor neither am I (Tomiki Aikido). There has been a strong effort over time for this article to be style neutral with more specific details left to individual articles. The one place where aikikai terminology dominates is we had to choose one nameing convention and aikikai was the most common. This was done through consensus and made clear in the article.Peter Rehse 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

if the writer didn't even bother to register in wikipedia, I doubt he will be back to check the progress of this discussion, and is better left ignored. With no suggestions as to how to improve the POV, it seems to me no more than an emotional knee-jerk that that person's particular style is not more represented in the article. Not everyone likes Aikikai, but its 'mainstreamness' makes it useful as a measuring stick than say, "kung fu larry's super magic aikido of South Dakota"Wwilson 1 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This needs a source: "Koichi Tohei's Ki Society centers almost exclusively around the study of the empirical (albeit subjective) experience of ki. Students are even ranked separately in aikido techniques and ki development.[citation needed]" as does the "styles without weapons"...I know they're out there but we need a print source! Mike Searson 00:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

History

One of the comments on the FAC was that history stops in the 60s. I propose moving the styles of Aikido paragraph to the end of the history section with small modification.Peter Rehse 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I took care of it. Please check.Peter Rehse 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation

One citation left for "Students are even ranked separately in aikido techniques and ki development." The Ki Society page lists a series of publications - one of these should be suitable but I have access to none of them.Peter Rehse 03:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I found one - should be good enough.Peter Rehse 11:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gi thickness?

Regards gi thickness: Normally only the heaviest gi (the "judo" syle) is used for aikido. At my dojo the thinner types (eg. for karate) are sometimes worn by beginners or even low rank graded students, as it definitely beats the plain-clothes that complete beginners are often tolerated to wear, but beyond that the lighter gi is neither encouraged nor appropriate. The article currently gives the impression that either type is appropriate for serious aikidoka: either this should be amended, or someone should reference a dojo (perhaps they do exist in equatorial regions?) where even senior students are encouraged to wear lightweight gi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.20.176 (talk • contribs).

There are no rules regarding keikogi thickness within aikido generally - it really depends on personal preference, style of practice and weather.Peter Rehse 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Judo gi are generally a quilted cotton, whereas karate gi are generally canvas, so the two types aren't really on a scale of "light" to "heavy." And in the ASU, most of the 5th and 6th dans wear Ikeda Sensei's Bujin Design aikido gis, which are canvas and much more similar to karate gis than judo gis. So there's that. Transentient 19:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, judo-style gis are available in more than one thickness. There are single-weight and double-weight judo gis, and also a "one and a half weight" (although I think those tend to be used more by BJJ practitioners). — Gwalla | Talk 18:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As Peter stated there are no rules concerning aikido keigi preference which are universally followed. I have pictures of Morihei Ueshiba training in a very light karate-style keikogi. It was a picture of summer training.--Mateo2006 10:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

KI cannot absolutely be defined as Spirit, in Japanese, Korean and Chinese spirit is completely separate word and concept from Ki, QI or Chi. To translate AikiDo or Heqido how we sometimes call it in Taiwan by "the way of the harmonius spirit" is a poetic license which betrays the true meaning of the word and the art. Ki is the force which feeds life, feeds the body and can be modulated by the spirit but is not spirit. Furthermore, the AIKI in aikido was inherited from Aikijutsu (Takeda Daito Ryu) and you all know that Takeda ryu had not emphasis whatsoever in spirit but on body energy or Ki. All know as well that Ueshiba Sensei transmitted as basical teaching "to unite our own Ki with the Ki of the attacker so to lead his Ki and in consequence his attack" and to "become one with our Ki acting by it and moving as it" . The definition used for Aikido in this article reflects a Wstern poetic view of iys true nature and not its true meaning. I suggest to change it for "the Way to becoming in harmony with Ki" equating Ki and referencing it to an specialized article about its meaning. If I may add, I learned, teach and still learn Aikido since 1955, I had very fortunate contacts with uchi-deshi from Ueshiba Sensei, I ask you in a humble and cordial way to please reflect in the definition of the Aiki Way, a definition which will be referenced by thousand, the true meaning of it as intended by its creator. Thank you and good work. TainanHao 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the definition more accurate just a couple of days ago, however it was just deleted with no mention or discussion in this Talk page, it seems that who deleted it has a wrong scale of self importance, it is pitifull. I also tried to call the attention that even if having roots in koryu (ancient arts) aikido is not generally considered as such and where it says it is a koryu should say "with its koryu roots" (or inspiration if you prefer) to be accurate,unless someone is able to make a citation of a valid source related with Koryu which can validate the claim, that change was also deleted with no discussion in the Talk page. It seems that there is not a martial arts project open to contributions of knowledge but only limited to the points of view (in some subjects innaccurate) of a few. Real pitty I must say, errors of accuracy are not only allowed but protected and fed to the unaware reader. Jennylen 10:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, a statement like "it seems that who deleted it has a wrong scale of self importance" is close to the wrong side of WP:NPA as it is an assumption about an editor, rather that what they say. --Fire Star 火星 13:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That statement should have not existed if the editor in question has responded the many requests for discussion on the accuracy of the term or had at least dignified the contributor with a justifying comment instead of just a deletion with no comment or contact Jennylen 14:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No - I made comments in the edit summary. That was enough.Peter Rehse 14:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of references

I also see missing references to Aiki Budo TainanHao 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please , are you speaking about Ueshiba Aiki Budo or Inoue Aiki Budo or both ? I may have some material with references Jennylen 10:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a fabulous article!

I've been watching its development since the last attempt at Featured Article status, not feeling qualified to contribute but highly interested. I think it's ready. Very detailed, informative, and reads well. Great job! Get it submitted! BWatkins 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Flagged for inaccurate definition

I have flagged the article because I have tried to provide more accurate definition of the term Aikido which is published erroneously in the article. Please see in this page and above these lines DEFINITION about this. Many times I tyried to make the definition more accurate without voiding the existing one and at all times my contribution was deleted with no comments in the talk page. The present definition reflects a modern non accurate definition of the term Aikido which has been transmitted in modern styles but which is not the original or even correct with the Japanese concept of the word Ki. Please see above under Definition. The article will continue flagged or will be reflagged until this dispute is resolved Jennylen 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition is perfectly accurate and based on consensus - see the archives.Peter Rehse 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the dispute should be documented. Whose definition is being proposed? A single editor cannot simply say that the translation of a term is inaccurate and have it stay in a Wikipedia article, there has to be a secondary source for the assertion. If the other side of the debate also has sources, then we mention both without passing judgment. If there is a long standing consensus about a version from many editors, in a perfect world the person initiating the change should propose the idea here first before changing the article. When both sides of the dispute satisfy WP:REF and if the subsequent discussion here is fruitless, then the tags go on and we go further up the chain of dispute resolution. For now at least, they should come off. --Fire Star 火星 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate the sources of the consensus and if included Japanese citizens with direct involvement in Aikido traceable to the original teachings. Furthermore, please add in the article after "translated" that is not THE translation but a possible translation based on consensus and not necessarily in the socio-religious traditional understanding of the term Ki. If articles must be accurate must be well refered and not lead to missunderstanding, that definition does indeed lead to understanding wrongly the meaning of the art and the meaning of the composed term and it affects the main purpose of the art. Jennylen 14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article will remain flagged until verifiable reference for the alleged acceptance of the definition and translation of the term is provided, removing the tag WILL NOT solve the dispute Jennylen 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The term Ki defined as spirit contradicts various definitions in Wikipedia and stands as the only one equating it with spirit. you may start by checking Qi Jennylen 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose a more accurate definition in the following lines : "The Way of Harmonius Spirit" is one way that "Aikido" may be translated into English, existing other translations which understand the word Ki in its meaning of "energy" or "life force". This is still true of Aikido today, different styles emphasise the more spiritual or the more "energy" aspects to greater or lesser degrees.

I believe this will be an accurate definition and I see no reason why to not implementing respecting the definitions and undestanding of Aikido of all styles and Sensei. Jennylen 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict with Qi. The definitions given there include:

• life force
• spiritual energy
• energy flow
• air
• breath

The Qi article additionally gives several examples of its use in Japanese compounds, including most notably, "kiai", which the article defines as "spirit shout". "Spirit", "life force", and "spiritual energy" are all essentially different ways of expressing a single concept. Thus, no conflict. Please support your assertion with specific examples of conflicts or remove the conflict tag. Bradford44 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual energy is not equal to spirit. All the definitions in the Qi page are dynamic (energy in flow) while the definition of "spirit" is narrow and locks the concept to one individual (the holder of the spirit) The basical definition of Ki is wide and permeating all, as the definitions in the Qi page, however, spirit denotes a limitation. As said before, spirit is not the same as "spiritual energy". Jennylen 16:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be your definition of spirit, but it's not mine or the article's. At least as used in Japanese martial arts, ki is personal, it's not The Force. It may "flow", but that hardly precludes the use of the word "spirit". "Spirit" is a highly fluid term to begin with. It can be used as analogous to "soul" (which would be inappropriate here), or it can be used as it is here, more in line with "attitude" and "intent". If ki were not personal, there would be no need to extend it, or join with the ki of others, as is the whole point of aikido. Here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of spirit, which supports the assertion that the word "spirit" does not necessarily lock the concept to an individual:

“ 1a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings. b. Incorporeal consciousness. 2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. 3. Spirit The Holy Spirit. 4. A supernatural being, as: a. An angel or a demon. b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon. c. A fairy or sprite. 5a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit. b. The essential nature of a person or group. 6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit. 7a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit. b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit. 8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering. 9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit. 10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit. 11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: “The spirit of 1776 is not dead” (Thomas Jefferson). 12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law. 13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb. 14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.[1] ”

Particularly applicable here are 1a, 1b, 5a, 5b, and 9, none of which are inherently static. Bradford44 16:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am trying to avoid, your concept of spirit as defined in western society has permeated your concept of Ki which is a pure eastern concept, you are looking at a fish out of the water. I see through your definitions that you have some contact with the concept, perhaps some good years of study, but you are missing the concept because you were influenced by the wrong concept (which is exactly what I am trying to avoid that happens to others) .

Ki is not in a person, it animates the person and circulates through him/her, so is "yours" for a short while as much as some sand is yours when you hold it in your closed fist. If Ki was "yours", most of Aiki movements should be impossible and the wrong conception is why we see so many poorly executed techniques in high ranks today, it is also why the feats shown occassionally by Ueshiba Sensei are not commonly reproduced. Ki is"yours" or "his" for the short while of a full breath cycle or a full movement, before and after it flows. Ki is not spirit in the sense of attitude either, that is a complete distant concept.

I don't think that to propose to define Aikido with something as : .................... "The Way of Harmonius Spirit" is one way that "Aikido" may be translated into English, existing other translations which understand the word Ki in its meaning of "energy" or "life force". This is still true of Aikido today, different styles emphasise the more spiritual or the more "energy" aspects to greater or lesser degrees.

......................... makes anything else than provide an accurate meaning, still leaves the concept you defend but also shows the possibility of other understanding of the concept which is what some styles or sensei have. Jennylen 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously some sort of consensus needs to be reached, and we need some input from other editors. However, it is a fact that "spirit" is the most common translation used in aikido, and that alone is strong reason to continue using it. The description of ki that you provide, above, is at least contrary to its use in TCM, where qi is personal and can be healthy, strong, weak, sick, or obstructed, and practices such as tai chi chuan and qigong can increase its strength and health within a person. It can be transferred from person to person, though this is considered highly undesirable except within intimate relationships, and can be externally manipulated. Aiki, or "joining/blending/meeting of ki", specifically refers to the act of spiritually blending with another person for the purpose of controlling them. The use of the word spirit is helpful here, as it helps conceptualize the idea of ki as an aura-like force that can be sensed, manipulated, enhanced, and projected. Hopefully some input from other editors will be forthcoming.Bradford44 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you unfortunately have too many sources fighting for supremacy in your concepts and you superimpose Chinese concepts to Western and to Japanese and as result you don't have a clear concept of Ki. Nevertheless, I am not here to teach you and you don't admit to be taught so lets keep the disagreement friendly.

I want to call you the attention that I am not proposing at any time to take away the present definition so you don't need to support it or say that you think its use must be continued, since starts I am trying to make you undertstand that it must be enhanced, expanded so to cover the possible concepts in the different styles. The resistance to such a simnple and productive enhancement shows a very strange opposition to an improving change and I sincerely fail to understand the why unless converting it to personal sense of pride or something like that. As I said before and along since starts, the existing definition is but ONE possible definition even if in consensus or so, but there is another expanded definition which must also be mentioned which is shared by many styles and sensei, so why not to include both? will that damage your or Peter's image? not at all, will it change your definition ? not at all, will it help to transmitt a more accurate definition or pòossible definitions for those just starting? absolutely ! Jennylen 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere" has the translation "method or way[do] for the Coordination or Harmony[ai] of Mental Energy or Spirit[ki]." jmcw 18:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In a series of interviews to pre-war sensei (Pranin, S., Aikido Masters) many of the direct students were interviewed. Along all the book, all those Sensei refer to Ki as separate concept from spirit, they also insist in that some of the main teachings from Ueshiba Sensei were 1) to unify and harmonize ki-spirit-body 2) only when connecting with the Ki of void you can achieve true Aiki. The first teaching is undeniable showing that spirit and ki are two separate concepts, the second establishes that Ki cannot be spirit as void has not spirit. The first teaching is something very known to all students of traditional styles, the unification of ki-spirit-body is what achieves Aiki. If the original teachings show it, and all first generation students understand it so, is this still not enough reason to expand teh concept and definition? Jennylen 19:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem here is less with your suggestions, Jennylen, and more with the tone used in suggesting them. I cannot speak for other editors, but I found (and continue to find) your comments arrogant and patronizing. Admittedly, this is an unfair result, but is also unsurprising. Some of the resistance is due to the following specific problems you've created:

1. First, you tagged the article as contradicting Qi (which primarily discusses the Chinese use of the term), then you stated that the article didn't properly reflect the "socio-religious traditional understanding of the term Ki", then you defined "ki" in a manner inconsistent with both Qi and Aikido, finally when I pointed out how your definition is contrary to the classical Chinese use of the term, you accuse me of superimposing Chinese concepts into the term.
2. You've made statements on a highly respected editor's (Peter's) talk page stating that you did not believe he is humble or ethical enough for his station as an aikido instructor, and demanded that he change the content of his userpage.
3. You have stated that
   1. I "have too many sources fighting for supremacy in your concepts"
   2. I "don't have a clear concept of Ki"
   3. I "don't admit to be taught"

That's quite a lot to learn about someone from just a few paragraphs on a talk page, and are hardly helpful or relevant comments when trying to resolve a dispute.

Please try and understand that there is a natural resistance to the ideas and suggestions espoused by a person who reacts in such a manner. Though I will admit that ideas should be considered dispassionately on their own merits, you might meet with less resistance if you phrase your suggestions with a more respectful tone. Bradford44 19:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you're going to cite any of Pranin's work, you might consider the Encyclopedia of Aikido's definition:[2]

“ Spirit, mind, heart; energy. Character formed of components meaning "steam" combined with "rice." Widely used abstract word popularized in the aikido context by Koichi TOHEI through his numerous seminars and books. Common term in Japanese language used in hundreds of expressions referring to one's mind or mental state. (emphasis added) ”

Bradford44 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem to have lost of sight a few details: 1.- You are discussing a personal opinion about a private person's character on a page for talking about an article, this in spite of you be criticizing similar attitudes 2.- I did not start a hard line until after three attempts to enhance the definition which were simply deleted with no comments in the discussion page and with total lack of politeness 3.- To bully and call who reacts a bully is typical 4.- PeterRehsen was called the attention to the fact that he has an error in his page where he appears as Dojo-cho and translates as Head when it is in true Dojo head, the error leads to the missassumption of been head of the style for who is not familiar with the term, nevertheless he has not corrected it just for pride. 5.- What I request is fair and based in reality however for whatever reasons has been from start disregarded 6.- I am not a person who read a couple of books and gives opinion, I have practiced since 1972 and teach since 1981, I acquired the concepts , knowledge and training at the roots and therefore it is disrespectful the attitude of some and my reaction was against that disrespect, a deeper study of the structure and respect within Ryu should reveal that right of knowledge doesn't equal to arrogance and that a good student must be able to recognize at a glance true knowledge even if slightly different with his own experience. Respect must be given before been requested.Jennylen 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

About the definition of Aikido, it must be enhanced to convey both concepts, the modern and the original, otherwise is inaccurate, as simple as this.Jennylen 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In Pranin's work I don't cite his understanding or definition of Aikido, I cite the pre-war Masters and direct students of Ueshiba Sensei, there is a gbig difference in that Jennylen 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A citation mentioning "both modern (spirit) and original (energy or life-force)concepts" would solve this difference of opinion quite quickly. jmcw

In my opinion, the current version is just fine. It: 1) Gives a brief summary of the general concept of "ki", which you could write books on, and links to the Ki article where such things can be discussed in full 2) Moves on to give short descriptions of how the concept of "ki" is viewed in various aikido traditions. Jennylen, could you be a little more clear and concise about what you want to change? Maybe post up a proposed revision? --GenkiNeko 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, my proposal is:

"The Way of Harmonius Spirit" is one way that "Aikido" may be translated into English, existing other translations which understand the word Ki in its meaning of "energy" or "life force". This is still true of Aikido today, different styles emphasise the more spiritual or the more "energy" related aspects to greater or lesser degrees.Jennylen 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but we need citations as to who, precisely, uses that translation. Books, magazines, anything in the public record will do. Myself, reading the characters he qi dao, it seems straightforward, but my opinion isn't good enough. If I were to put my personal reading of those three characters in the article, I would be in violation of WP:No original research. That is the pickle. I could claim a 3,000 year transmission and all the expertise in the world, but that doesn't satisfy our policies. We are mostly anonymous editors here, so for Wikipedia to have any reliability we have to build statements of fact not on personal experience (which there is no way to verify) but on citations of primary and secondary sources in the public domain. WP:REF. --Fire Star 火星 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the current two-definition wording as awkward? ("Aikido (合気道, aikidō?), translated as "the way of harmonious spirit"[1] or "the way of harmonizing KI (Qi)"[citation needed], is a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. ")

The previous definition flowed so much better. Perhaps 100% accuracy cannot be achieved in any medium that uses words, and the attempt to get from 90% to 95% in this case is cluttering up the article's lead paragraph. I'm saying this not as an Aikido expert, as I have only a little experience with the art, but as a casual reader of the prose. I don't want to start an edit war by changing it back, but I think it would be better that way. BWatkins 14:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

JennyLen has a very good point, but I wonder if our article is the right place to really tackle it. The problem is that words from ideographic languages such as Japanese - where a pronunciation is assigned to a written character which may have multiple pronunciations and interpretations - are not handily translated into English, which is the opposite. There are obviously a number of different ways in which "Aikido" can be be translated into English, and different aikidoka who care about these linguistic issues choose different translations based on where they are with their understanding and what they are trying to do with their training. I currently go with "The Way of Joining Energy," myself. But this is my personal opinion. JennyLen in one place makes the point that we should not enforce our opinion as to the meaning of Aikido on all of the many readers of this article, and I think that is a good one. However, beginners need, and deserve, a firm place from which to start their own investigation, let alone the many thousands of people who may read this article without any interest or intention of actually training, but are only curious to read about Aikido.

What our article should have is the most common, often-used English translation of Aikido. A starting point for this is going to be the definition found on the Aikikai's english page, http://www.aikikai.or.jp/eng/ which is "the way of harmony with Ki". The I think we should make a note that there could be numerous other translations of the word "Aikido."

That would be right up-front; a further discussion of possible meanings (e.g. the many different ways "Ai" and "Ki" can be translated / understood) might be worth a very small sub-section further down the page. This could be considered clutter, but I think it has to do with the fact that some aikidoka view Aikido as a very spritual practice, even mystical, and others are not comfortable with such things and practice it as a practical physical martial art, and still others view it as a sport; I think this is a good concept to get across in an encyclopediac article. Transentient 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A plea

Here is an essay explaining why calling people names, belittling their personalities or questioning their values instead of their contributions isn't a worthy tactic for influencing content (thanks to User:Geogre):

"The heart of an ad hominem is not that it is an insult. It is that it is a change of topic. When X has been in conflict, he has resorted to a discussion of the contributors rather unfailingly. If a disputant says, "You're a socialist nazi," one's responses can be 1) deny it, 2) counter-attack, 3) remind the disputant that the subject is the article. Most of the time most of the people will respond with #1 or #2, and that's when the ad hominem works. (It works with compliments, as well; either way, it changes focus from the subject to the speaker.) X's contributions are sometimes quite good, but when there is disagreement, he launches an ad hominem as a matter of course, and then we end up with insult battles, "proof" that one person is or is not a pinko subversive, etc., and the article goes the way X intended it, as those who disagree lose in a battle of attrition or are distracted by the personality battles."

I know the martial arts are a big subject, everyone respects what they have been taught and therefore everyone wants to be sure there is no misinformation going out. Disagreements in the passive academic voice are fine, they can be clarified and resolved through compromise or intellectual honesty in the course of research. Methodical, impersonal work to resolve factual disputation is the western encyclopaedic way but the wu de 武德 of sincerity, humility and respect, even if we are the only one using it, will smooth our road to that end. Thanks for your consideration. --Fire Star 火星 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition improved and accurate

For ending the discussion about the definition of Ki and Aikido, I refer you to diverse sources in diverse languages:

Tamura Nobuyoshi Sensei, holder of the highest rank of Aikikai and uchi-deshi of Ueshiba Sensei, in his Manual for transmission and etiquette of Aikido for Instructors, a book recommended by Kisshomaru Ueshiba Sensei, in pages 66 defines Aikido as "the art of unifying yourself with the Ki of heaven (sky) and earth". In page 94 he explains that the important to look after for knowing if a student may approve his/her graduation for Dansha is to observe if he/she can manifest the results of daily practice with a sense of unification of Ki, Kokoro(as spirit or heart), the body and the technique, making a clear difference between Ki and spirit. In page 139 he refers to Ueshiba Sensei saying "Aikido is at the point of fusion of the Ki of heaven (sky) and Earth" (Tamura, Nobuyoshi, Aikido:Etiquette et Transmission. Manual a l'usage des professeurs)

J.B. and M. Ory in their Dictionary of Martial Arts considered one of the most complete existing, in page 103 define KI as "Universal Energy. Vital potency coming from de physical and mental energies concentrated in the Hara". (Ory, M. y J.B., Diccionario de las Artes Marciales)

Mitsugi Saotome Sensei, one of the principal students of Ueshiba Sensei for 15 years and known by all as one of the most important envoys to introduce Aikido in the western hemisphere, in his book Principles of Aikido, in page 222, defines Ki as "Life energy". (Mitsugi, Saotome, The Principles of Aikido)

As you can see, the original definition of Ki as (life energy) and therefore of Aikido as "the Way of Unifying (with) Ki" reflects the original intention transmitted by Ueshiba Sensei to his more close students and their understanding as this definition and the definition of Ki as "life energy" as the definition which must be transmitted.

The definition of "the Way of the harmonious spirit" and the definition of Ki as spirit in detriment of the traditional use of Shin or Kokoro for defining "spirit" in martial arts, is attributed to later generations.

I believe and propose that the traditional and original definition must be honored and the new generations understanding or definition can be allowed as well, therefore, I propose the following definition:

............

Aikido, is a a Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Aikido is translated traditionally by the early students of Ueshiba Sensei as "the Way of unifying (with) Ki or Life Energy" (Mitsugi, Saotome, The Principles of Aikido) or as "the Way of harmonius spirit" (Westbrook, Adele, Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) by some later students of the Takemussu period of Ueshiba Sensei. Ueshiba's goal was to create an art practitioners could use to defend themselves without injuring their attacker. .... etc etc

..............

I believe this is the most accurate and true definition, showing respect to all Sensei and styles. I don't see any well grounded reason for not using this definition as it is well referenced in more than strong valid sources. However, if there still some resistance from the original editor(s) of this article,or even regarding this debate, I suggest to read page 207 of Mitsugi Saotome Sensei book where he transcribes a lecture from O Sensei which in one of its parts says" I want my students to observe all of life's phenomena. This includes listening to people, taking what is valuable from what they do and say and making it your own. All of this is raw material for your reflection and inspiration..." (Lectures of O Sensei, Principles of Aikido, Chapter 18, p 207, Misugi Saotome) Jennylen 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We still have a problem. The intro paragraph is supposed to be a brief synopsis - it is a bit too broad at the moment. I added a few wiki links and removed sensei as per manual of style. Secondly - where does Satome say that early students defined it this way. Certainly I have never heard of early students like Shioda, Mochizuki and Tomiki doing so (Satome of course is not an early student). I suggest removing reference to old and newer which I feel is an incorrect distinction. Doing so would also sharpen the first paragraph up and remove the reference ambiguity.Peter Rehse 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A page number from the Saotome book cited would be helpful. Additionally, referencing Ueshiba's Takemussu period in the lead is problematic where that term is not used in the rest of the article, and is vague to begin with. Also, isn't it spelled "takemusu" ( 武産:たけむす)?. Finally, the phrasing "traditionally used by his early students" is potentially contradictory, where his early students' definition is not necessarily the "traditional" definition. We would be better off not trying to judge which definition is more traditional (whatever that even means), and just leave it as the definition used by Ueshiba's early students (assuming a reference from one of his early students can be given). Bradford44 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have meant to verify what Saotome Sensei's definitions are when I am home with my copies of his book, but alas, I have been too busy training hard these past few days! :) Transentient 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My hello to all of you. I was invited to see your work on AikiDo and contribute what I could. My congratulations to all who have worked so much in this for the benefit of others now and in the future. I will read carefully and add from my notes and memory when possible and my helping writers will find for you the connections with works written which you seem to need for believing or for proving to others what is. I will ask for your help when my words and memories are not enough for the modern world and perhaps you can find those connections you need. I know quite well the Ueshiba teachings as myself shared many days and nights in his company and heard his words and saw his movements, also shared training with many of the students who now teach their own students some who have crossed the gate as well. I have some discomfort in seeing a cathegorization and classification of what by essence is free and evolving but I guess this is how the world have grown itself, so I will try to help to don't forget the old because of the new but I ask you to let new flowers blossom from the young branches of the old tree, not to cut those flowers and separate from the origins because they will soon die and will be no more than a brown dry look-like of what they once were. Let people find the old tree who gives so beautiful flowers so powerfull young branches, honor your roots and your ancestors. TainanHao 09:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome - look forward to your contributions. Just a quick comment on with works written which you seem to need for believing or for proving to others what is. This is wikipedia policy (WP:OR), I personally learnt much from listening to my own teachers and others but can't put it in here because I can not substantiate it with published works. This is both a strength and a weakness of wikipedia but as an encyclopedia the policy is not to be a primary source of information. Hope this helps.Peter Rehse 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A few things bout the article

Hello all. I got an invitation to go through the article for its featured-nomination evaluation. I'm not sure I can contribute anything solid or usable to this nomination, but I can give a few impressions that I got after a viewing of the article.

My first impression is that the history section is a bit unfocused. It doesn't feel fluid. I cant find a better word to describe it. The section mentiones Ueshibas life, the roots of the technical aspects (and spiritual/mental) of Aikido and the organisations. (I should put an emphasize on mentiones). Its like someone tried to blend all three strands of information into one section but forgot some important pieces of the puzzle. I think in reality at least the history and organisations should retain seperate, more thorough, sections of their own. Not gigantic but simply thorough. I cant even find a mentioning in the history section of what year Ueshiba died and the effect it had on Aikido and his students and the orgs. (Yes his death-year is mentioned at the top of the page but not in the history-section). It feels like the organisations paragraph literary cuts off the history-part in mid-sentence and didnt get to finish what it started.

Hope I'm not too blunt. Fred26 10:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Fred - my opinion is that the article is over-streamlined in places, therefore lacking the comprehensiveness required for a (perfect) encyclopedia entry. Obviously, a balance must be struck between comprehensiveness and delving into minutia. Bradford44 14:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition polished

I polished the definition for fluidity, added the page reference requested, placed the reference to takemusu in a section instead of the introduction after correcting the spelling to the more accepted (one s only) and placed the year of Ueshiba's Sensei death. I will see how can I help in the fluidity and information of the article in general, I will post anything I think that can help Jennylen 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make the translation of aikido clearer to laymen by removing the circular use of "ki" in the translation of "ki", and adding a wiki-link for "life energy". Neither item is something that 99% of the readers are going to understand, so we need to at least give them quick and simple way to do so.—Mrand ^T-C 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better Jennylen 12:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

featured article candidate

As we all know, this article is in a sensitive time period, as it is undergoing the Featured article candidates process. The FAC director User:Raul654 has a page of humor from his experience in wikipedia. From User:Raul654/Raul's laws:

Kosebamse's law - People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views.

Corollary: The exoticness of an idea is inversely correlated to its proponent's respect for social norms.

UninvitedCompany's law: Wikipedia's growth is limited by the number of people who are willing to organize facts, check references, research questionable assertions, and deal with community issues. An overwillingness on the community's part to indulge uncivil contributors risks alienating this group.

jmcw 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Takemusu period

In all the evolution of Aikido during Ueshiba's life, his Takemusu final period was what he considered the ultimate and final essence of Aikido, it was his final creation, so much that his deepest meaning poems, songs and paintings were not only from that period but signed Takemusu Tsunamori. In those he wanted to tell the world what Aikido is or at least was for him. However, there is practically no mention of the Takemusu period neither in the history nor in the explanation of what Aikido is, I only inserted a couple of words for not risking deletion. I risk to say that Ueshiba's sensei voice about his ultimate enlightment is left silent. Does someone agree that what O Sensei tried to tell to the world as his ultimate concept of Aikido should be more relevant or at least more mentioned in the article ? Jennylen 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, it makes sense to take a few sentences to mention how it relates to the history and development of aikido, but it should primarily be discussed in detail at Takemusu, as well as at Ueshiba's article. Bradford44 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Anyone from the Takemusu style has a proposal ? I could have a go but someone from the style may have better grip of the concept Jennylen 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would mention it briefly then expand the takemusu article page itself which is pitifully small, and also add a bit to the morihei ueshiba article. welcome to wikipedia aikipage jennylen, I hope you're learning to get along more harmoniously with others, I myself was a viscious indignant tyrannical editor (naturally I knew everything about aikido and everyone else was wrong) myself until I realized that bradford, phrese and the gang are a bunch of swell people doing a great job on this page.Wwilson 1 15:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

About style

Hello to all. I strated to look at the aikido page and immediatly striked me the box where aiki-do is defined in style as grappling only. AikiDo contains many atemiwaza as well as important jo and bokken array of techniques. This for not mentioning that important advanced techniques require no grappling whatsoever, in true grappling composes perhaps a third of all aikido. For most teachers, while the pupil considers aikido a grappling art must be considered a beginner and only when the pupils begins to study and to manage no-grppling technique and weapons training can be considered a pupil. You could please look on this ? Thank you TainanHao 12:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy TainanHao. The mental image that many of us (including myself) get when we hear the term grappling used is eventually incomplete (and possibly even inaccurate). I agree with your description of aikido, and I think if you go to the grappling wiki-page, you'll find that it actually describes something much wider than you or I might otherwise expect. Grappling says that it consists of multiple sub-groups, which can be broken down into:

• Throws as used in Glima, Judo, Shuai jiao, Jujutsu and Sambo
• Joint locks Judo, Aikido, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Hapkido, Malla-yuddha
• Pinning Techniques used as a victory conditon in Wrestling and Judo

Aikido obviously uses more than just joint locks, but the point is that our image of grappling doesn't seem to meet the strict definition. The throw and joint-lock pages also mention grappling. Having said that, I do find myself agreeing that the grappling label doesn't cover stick, sword, or atemi (which is very obviously not a formal punch/strike) aspects - but perhaps those are not the main focus for most in aikido, not to mention it is not clear to me how to include those (it would need to be VERY consise)? Best regards, —Mrand ^T-C 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this was very well said. I think another point is that we kind of need to include Aikido as one of the following four categories: Striking, Grappling, Weapons, and "mixed/hybrid." I personally think Aikido keeps the best company in grappling, with judo, jujutsu, and Systema. In these arts, the high-level practitioner also aims for what TainanHao talks about: a "no-grappling" technique. Also, most styles don't train with weapons in order to become proficient in using them on their own rights, but it to learn to use space, timing, build awareness, and ultimately, connect with your partner so you can control him without hitting him or pushing him around, which is something else the grappling page alludes to. Transentient 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see much reason in what TainanHao says, but also in all the replies above. If those are the four categories, with no doubts should be included as "grappling" , it is in practice hybrid but to call aikido or any other martial art "mixed/hybrid" sound terrible and sounds as if the art is not well defined or a fusion of diverse things, it kinds of gives the idea of impure (to me at least) . Just a refelection, are those the categories given for classification? Couldn't who created those categories use the terms "multisystemic", "integrative", "combined" or some word reflecting multiple resources instead of "mixed" which sounds chaotic or "hybrid" which sounds impure? Just a thought, sorry Jennylen 18:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

History section

Howdy all, I greatly appreciate all the work on dates and kanji that has gone into the history section, but to be brutally honest, I believe all that "data" is ancillary and actually detracts from being able to smoothly read the text. I'm going to boldly move that information to other pages which discuss those topics more directly (so that that hard work is not lost, and so that anyone interested can find the kanji and dates). If anyone doesn't agree, feel free to revert and we can discuss it more. —Mrand ^T-C 13:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the dates of birth and death and kanji for names, those are present in an attempt to strictly follow the rules at WP:MOS-JP, which aren't completely clear on this point. At one point, it implies that dates of birth and death and kanji, and correct pronunciation, should be given parenthetically every time a new name is introduced, and elsewhere it states that for terms, kanji are only given when the term is unlinked. I agree that all of the parenthetical information can be distracting, perhaps we could compromise an only give it for names of people and places without their own articles? Bradford44 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Bradford44. That was what I referred to, and that is basically what ended up happening. There was one or two cases of a name not having a direct wiki-link, but I found a more appropriate article for those kanji to live in (that art, for example). As for the WP:MOS-JP guidelines:

In a narrative article, provide the Japanese script for the subject of that article when first introducing it (ideally in the first line of the article). Do not repeat the Japanese for that term in the article. Where possible, provide the Japanese script for proper names as well. However, do not provide the Japanese for any Japanese term that is linked to an article containing the Japanese for that term. If the linked article does not contain the Japanese, please add it to the linked article. When Japanese terms other than proper names do not link to articles, before adding the Japanese, consider carefully whether or not the Japanese script adds to the English article.

To me, the use of the word "however" implies that the previous sentences are subject to an condition(listing the kanji elsewhere). And then we have the last sentence which summarizes the whole discussion by saying that even when adding kanji, we can use our judgment. Lastly, I think this would be a valid case of ignoring the rules. Thanks for the confirmation! Anyone else? —Mrand ^T-C 17:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it, good work. And you can just call me Brad. :) Bradford44 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Off-the-mat Applications

This section is a really good idea for inclusion in the article, but I'm not a fan of leaving it in the article in its current state (i.e., with no citations, and incorrect syntax - possibly due to misquotation). Also, it's out of place as a top level heading, it's really more appropriate as part of "Implementations", except that the implementations section is currently located in the "Physical training" section, while the off-the-mat application described is discussing a applications that blend physical and mental training, as well as the application of ki. I suggest that a section be added that discusses how the three different training foci (physical, mental, and ki) come together for application. At that time, the section I just removed would have an appropriate place to go, and I encourage anyone to put together some citations and take a crack at it. I've copied the deleted section below for convience, as well as revision and future re-inclusion:

“ Following Morihei Ueshiba's admonishion that "Aikido is a manifestation of the way bring people together as one family," A number of Aikido practitioners have explored ways to bring the principles of Aikido "off-the-mat" into such diverse areas as psychology, education, organizational development, law enforcement, military, religion and many other areas. ”

Bradford44 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Death of Shihonage

I would like to point out that in medical records, the deaths attributed to shihonage are mostly by injuries to cervical or cranial traumatism which is not due to shihonage but to faulty fall better said to resistance to fall, even if some could be because of exagerated physical strength in vertical direction. This could pertain to "errors in training" or "training risks" but it seems too extreme in the article and unnecessary unless as a (incorrect) badge of "realistic training". This is my medical-budoka opinion and with no ill intention. By the way, for the sake of accuracy, the most common injuries are in the articulations, specifically in the ligaments, not in the soft tissues in general. I am not asking for changes or so, just providing specialized comment. Jenny^Len 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for the lead

Hi, I'm new to the article, although I have studied Aikido a little. I'll be happy to support the article for FAC, but I think the lead section should describe aikido more fully. How about the following?

“ Ueshiba's goal was to create an art practitioners could use to defend themselves without injuring their attacker. In its original form, aikido does not teach to attack, only to defend oneself from attack and to harmonize with one's attacker.

Rather than meeting force with force or blocking attacks, aikido relies on timing and careful movements to deflect attacks or to avoid them altogether. A typical aikido move will then use the attacker's momentum to break their balance; the aikido practitioner then controls the attacker's motion smoothly, using resulting in a body throw or immobilizing the attacker with a joint lock, usually of the wrist and/or arm. In addition to physical fitness and technique, mental training, controlled relaxation, and development of "life energy" or "spirit" (ki) are emphasized in aikido training.

”

It might need fine-tuning from someone more knowledgable, but this might be more understandable and informative for lay-people. Just a suggestion, Willow 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Willow - nice attempt but the thing is you are describing one view of aikido which does not reflect the approach of a number of styles - especially some of the older ones. One of the great difficulties about writing about aikido I am afraid. Even the last sentence, which already exists, is difficult in my view.Peter Rehse 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I had been afraid that my own experience was too parochial, so I'm not very surprised. :( However, the problem remains that the lead is rather short and uninformative for the lay-person, do you agree? Isn't there some way to describe some basic principles common to most aikido moves/schools and then note deviations from those? I think you have room to expand, since the leads of most FA's have 3-4 meaty paragraphs. Brevity is the soul of wit, but I think here you should spread your wings a little wider and give the casual, uninformed reader a clearer picture of what makes aikido special and different from, say, karate or judo. I think the lead's important, since many readers will not want to delve into the main article but will just want a quick insight, a thumbnail sketch. Just friendly advice, Willow 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Over the life of the article, this has proved far easier said than done, but I agree with Willow. The lead should summarize the content of the entire article, essentially giving readers a road map for what material the article will cover. Bradford44 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the lead was expanded during the last FAC also. I see your point - perhaps someone will beat me to it (hint hint) but I will take a closer look. I don't think it will be easy - perhaps a mention of its international spread and number of styles.Peter Rehse 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely, the various schools and styles of aikido can agree harmoniously on a paragraph that describes what they have in common, and where they differ from each other and from various schools of karate and judo? If that's not true, then we should feel sorry for O-Sensei, don't you agree? Forgive me, but you need to take this seriously and find a consensus; you will likely have difficulty with the FAC unless you define aikido in the lead for the lay-person, no matter how good the rest of the article is. Willow 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy and give us a chance. I took your comment seriously but to do a half decent job takes a bit of thinking. Ueshiba has nothing to do with it.Peter Rehse 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright - first attempt is completed. I don't really think we can put much more in the intro except some citations - its an itro afterall. I removed the sentence In addition to physical fitness and technique, mental training, controlled relaxation, and development of "life energy" or "spirit" (ki) are emphasized in aikido training. mainly because I couldn't fit in very well (perhaps someone else can) and also that Ki development per se is not a common thread throughout aikido. I would like a mention of relaxed power and mental training but again at this point not sure how to fit it in.Peter Rehse 06:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for giving the wrong impression before! I wasn't upset at all, just trying to encourage the aikidoka to work together for the good of the article. But I was clumsy, I'm sorry!

You did a very good job with the first draft, and thank you again for taking it on. Being bold, I re-ordered the sentences slightly and split one paragraph into two, to hopefully make it easier reading for the lay-person. I hope you like it and that I didn't introduce any inaccuracies! I think this sentence

“ Aikido techniques are designed to be most effective as the range between opponents moves from weapons to gripping. ”

could use more clarification, but I don't know enough to do that. The average lay-reader might have no concept of what "weapons range" is, or even of "gripping range". It'd also be nice to have a contrast with other familiar grappling arts to help the reader understand. This example is meant for illustration, and likely to be wrong

“ Aikido techniques are designed to be most effective for an attacker within a few feet, who is either striking the defender, gripping their body or clothing, or attacking them with a close-range weapon such as a dagger, sword or spear. For comparison, judo and wrestling techniques are designed for situations where the attacker and defender are in closer contact. ”

but perhaps you can see what I mean. Thanks for being patient with me! :) Willow 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you're saying, but what you've proposed is a bit too detailed for the Lead, in my opinion. The Lead should summarize the entire article. When I wrote it last time using the Wikipedia Guide, I basically went through the Table of Contents and wrote a sentence or two based on each heading...then strung it all together. Some editors thought it was too simplistic, however, and it was scrapped. You can read more about what the Lead is and isn't here: WP:LEAD Mike Searson 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, here are the suggestions for the lead at WP:LEAD

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

You're probably right about the "range" sentence above being too detailed; I was just worried that this sentence is a little obscure for most readers. But generally speaking, I feel we should paint a picture of aikido that's detailed enough so that people who read only the lead (who I suspect will be a majority of readers) can come away with an idea of its basic elements, a "thumbnail sketch". For example, it'd be good to clarify how aikido differs from wrestling or judo and some sense of "what it looks like" and "how it works", don't you agree? Since we don't have to give equal weight to every part of the main article, that freedom allows us to give more weight to concepts that can be remembered or visualized easily by the casual reader, which I think might be helpful here. Trying to be helpful myself, Willow 15:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Imprecise wording

I think the sentance The ultimate goal is to understand and reconcile with your attacker, finding harmony with them after neutralizing their aggression by some method; should be removed since it is interpretative, not entirely supported by the following quote and a bit repetitive. Also control is more correct than influence. Interesting sources I only recognize T. Dobson but a source is a source.Peter Rehse 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, here. Let's also try to minimize the euphemistic/weasely language. Let's not say "influence" when we mean "control", and let's not talk about "aspects" of things, let's just say what they are and how they work. Additionally, I like semi-colons as much as the next guy, but let's be careful about trying to say too much in one sentence. There's nothing wrong with taking two sentences to say two things. I'm growing concerned that focus is being lost, and redundancy is being created as the language gets more flowery, and every major point is being repeated too many times. Bradford44 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean by "control", but I was concerned that the unwary reader might think "control" was synonymous with "overmastering force". I don't think we mean to say "no matter how they resist or how strong they are, an attacker's movements can be controlled by a much weaker aikido expert," do we? That might be true once the attacker is face-down on the ground in a powerful joint-lock, but it's not generally true at the beginning of an aikido technique, right? I was trying to convey the idea that after blending with the attacker, one can deflect them into a state where they're controlled, although I didn't do it very well. Do you understand what I was trying to say, though?

I don't believe that the present description of aiki is complete, which is why I said "aspect"; but I'll defer to the consensus on this point.

I'll confess that I don't understand why it's troubling to describe aikido as a defensive grappling art. The first part of aikido moves generally involves avoiding or deflecting the attack, right? Also, we don't learn aikido to attack, but to respond to attacks, no? But I do see that there's more to aikido than just avoiding injury yourself and not attacking first; is that what you meant?

Well the answer is much more involved but basically go no sen (or reactive) techniques are only a part of aikido - just what's generally taught at the beginning. Sen no sen (or seizing the initiative) is also very much part of aikido. Could you give me an example of what an offensive grappling art is - I think its a false distinction.Peter Rehse 16:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I see wrestling as a typical offensive grappling art. To be sure, wrestling has defenses against attacks, moves and counter-moves, but the primary goal seems offensive, or at least combative: to conquer your opponent, who is also trying to conquer you. That goal seems utterly alien to my experience of aikido, which has been more about harmony and safety than about exerting power and defeating or humiliating "opponents". It's not about initiating fights, but avoiding fights altogether if possible. I'm not articulating the sentiment well, and I realize that I'm a complete beginner and shouldn't presume to speak for aikido, but I hope you can glean some sense from what I'm trying to convey. By the way, I'm not arguing for using the word "defensive" in the article. Willow 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I would prefer to say that an attack was neutralized, rather than the attacker. Nage might have more sides to them than just their aggression. ;) Willow 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to straighten some of this stuff out, without speaking too much from my own perspective of aikido, which I'm sure is very different from some of the other editors here. The most fundamentally problematic thing you've stated is: "I don't think we mean to say "no matter how they resist or how strong they are, an attacker's movements can be controlled by a much weaker aikido expert," do we?" Actually, that's precisely what we are trying to say. One can debate whether such a thing is actually possible to achieve, but that is the theory. Therefore, the goal is control, even though when executed by a less-than-master practitioner, the net result might merely be "influence". This is kind of where Takeda Sokaku's oft-quoted definition of "aiki" comes into play ("aiki is the art of defeating an opponent with a single glance"). The idea is that a master practitioner can blend with the intent of and control an opponent without even engaging them in combat, rendering muscular strength completely irrelevant.

Regarding the use of "defensive", the point is that aikido is ultimaterly not a reactive martial art. I realize that it appears reactive, and at the beginner level all of the techniques are taught as reactive, but at an advanced level, you're really looking to provoke specific reactions (if atemi is practiced, this is one of its major roles), again, for the purpose of controlling your opponent. An opponent is much easier to control if all of his attacks are those that you have specifically provoked him into delivering (and without him realizing it). And once you begin studying randori in depth, you'll realize that you have to initiate the contact between youself and an opponent, if you wait for them to come to you, you'll get crushed in the pile!

Finally, the reason we say the attacker is neutralized, rather than simply the attack, is because we're considering the art on a psychological level as well as the physical. You're not supposed to be focused on a single attack but on the entire interpersonal conflict, and you neutralize the person (or perhaps, his intent) rather than his actions. I hope that makes things more clear, rather than less. Bradford44 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you were very clear; thank you! I think our disagreement may be partly semantic, since I understand and agree with what you're saying. For example, I'm more familiar with fencing (another good sport for women!), in which a common strategy is to provoke the opponent into a habitual move, which one may counter to land the touch. Unfortunately, the opponent may be faking their habits in order to trap you into a predictable move! ;) So merely provoking your opponent does not lead to perfect control of them, at least in fencing.

My discomfort with the verb "control" because it can be understood by readers as a "master-slave" relationship, in which one will dominates the other through force, threats or browbeating, as with, say, the alpha-male in a wolf-pack. That doesn't match my understanding or experience of aikido at all. Is that your understanding of control in aikido? Please consider that one can often neutralize aggression with a smile and disarming words. :) The best and safest fight for everyone is the one that's never fought. Willow 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. How about "neutralize the aggression", which sort of covers both the attack and its intent? I don't like the sense of neutralizing a person, since real people are more complicated than a passing aggression they might have; we aren't neutralizing all of them, just their aggression, right?

I think we've both explained our perspectives pretty clearly, so lets get some other editors' thoughts before we make any decisions. These are, after all, some of the core principles in aikido - I'd like to have a broader range of thoughts before we settle one a single way to explain them. Bradford44 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Historically, aiki was mastered for the purpose of killing; however, in aikido, one seeks to neutralise an aggressor without causing harm.[2] The ultimate goal of aikido is to understand and reconcile with your attacker, finding harmony with them after neutralising their aggression. The founder of aikido declared, "To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace."[4]

Well just to restate my opinion - the entire second sentence should be removed. It is interpretive, unreferenced and basically a repeat of the first. It is not supported by the Ueshiba quote either. The first sentence says neutralise an aggressor without causing harm is clear enough.

I made the changes. I don't think any meaning has been lost.Peter Rehse 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the overall discussion - there has been a lot of effort to keep the article style neutral and that also means interpretive neutral. I think we need to be very careful not to impose what we like about our own practice as representative of what aikido is suppoed to be. That said, when I look at the top Shihan across styles they are awsome because they take control at the first instance. It already says enough times in the article that it is not a clashing force.Peter Rehse 07:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More Figures?

Hi, I think the article might be improved if we added more figures, especially to the initial subsections of "physical techniques", and to the "Uniform" section. It would help readers to visualize the text, to bring it to life for them, I think. Does anyone know of some good figures for those sections?

Oh, I also added something about aikidoka seeing parallels between aikido techniques and more general conflict resolution, but I don't have a reference at hand. Does anyone know a good one off the top of their heads? I can probably track down some references myself if need be.

A similar sentence was recently removed because a good reference could not be found - or at least by me. Good luck.Peter Rehse 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoping you're liking the (minor) changes I've been making, Willow 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Grappling

I was asked through a message left at my talk page, to come to this page and provide an alternative to the use of the word grappling for defining Aikido. Perhaps instead of that, which would be to try to change a system of classification you seem to be comfortable with, it could help more if I explain how the martial arts are classified traditionally in some circles or schools.

The grappling or striking classification obviously describes how the oponents use their bodies towards each other. Aikido differs in many things from other martial arts but one of those important differences is that, while in other martial arts practice and competition, both oponents use the same kind of body actions, this means both use an array of movements pre-agreed, in Aikido only one of the oponents use the pre-agreed movements (the techniques) while the other is quite much free to use whatever attack can think about within or outside martial arts movements. Grappling could well define Judo but hardly the interaction happening in Aikido.

In some schools or circles, martial arts are traditionally divided by their purpose of action, by their movements and not by the interaction between oponents, so you have soft arts and hard arts, internal arts and external arts, etc. But most important, can be classified as arts of destructive force, arts of locking and arts of projection. I see this classification as most appropiate as it describes the movement of the practicioners and their final purpose and not their first contact as grappling or striking. The few arts which use more than one purpose are called as having "adaptative" style, they adapt the response to the attack. Aikido is most certainly an adaptative style as it can use atemi, locking and projection.

I think this answers to the request I received. As I said before, I hardly can help you to write articles as you must write, I am from other times and other ways to transmit knowledge, but I will be always most certainly ready to help you with concepts or knowledge which can help you in this important task you are facing. TainanHao 16:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For the purposed of discussion the article at one point had aikido defined as both a grappling and a striking art which is what I prefered. This seemed to upset people who saw atemi as only percussive rather than seeing many of the irimi-nage as atemi waze. Kenji Tomiki classified techniques in the latter way for example and since I learned most of my aikido in his dojo (albeit under his successor) I am most comfortable with it. Still it was one battle I chose not to engage in. From the aikido article, the aiki link takes you to a discussion of hard and soft and talks about internal versus external but these have their own problems as even aikido has elements of both hard and soft, internal and external. One could, as with grappling, say primarily this or that but again as you pointed out it is not satisfactory. The classification used is linked to articles on the martial arts in general and is probably the most useful when considering arts from many (not just eastern) origins. The definition of grappling is given in the first line of the grappling article and correctly in my opinion has little to do with how training occurs but the type of techniques available.Peter Rehse 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with the term "adaptative" and I wonder if where it says "Aikido is a grappling art.." cannot in some way be introduced the "adaptative" concept, as at least for me, it is right on target of what Aikido techniques are Jenny^Len☤ 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be discussed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts however I think the classification stems from the fact that aikido is considered a form of jujutsu. Again please see the definition of grappling given in the first line of the Grappling article. The classification has to be seen in the larger whole not just in isolation.

Personally I am not too bothered about keeping grappling in the info box but prefered the earlier version of text where it said primarily of body throws and joint-locking techniques omitting the reference to grappling. A much early version (January 1, 2007, where the lead was very small) had the line The art consists of striking, body throw and joint locking techniques and is known for its fluidity and blending with an attacker, rather than meeting force with force. which I am partial to (I wrote it) but like I said earlier there was quite a bit of resistance to the inclusion of striking.Peter Rehse 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)