Talk:Aikido/Archive 6

Featured Article Promotion

Congratulations to all the people involved in the work leading to the promotion! jmcw 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to Gallery of real Aikido Pictures and Glossary

I think a way to improve this article would be more pictures, or sub articles that include more pictures. What a glossary of every Japanese Aikido word? Many are listed in this article but I think more exist. I think there could be some great sub-articles written relating to Aikido. Where do you focus your effort next? Tkjazzer 22:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Grappling"?

Somehow this doesn't sound right. I don't remember doing a lot of "grappling" recently in my dojo.

What are people's views on this? And what would be an alternative description, which would surely be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerledan (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the definition at grappling, it includes joint locks and throws. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did read the definition at grappling , of course, or how could I have commented on it? And I don't think it is the right word to apply to aikido. It's too much associated with wrestling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerledan (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We just had this discussion a couple weeks ago. Look in the talk archives. Do you have a suggestion you'd like to make? Transentient 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

At the gross level of taxonomy being used in the box, grappling is most accurate. JJL 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'Grappling'is quite wrong here. Aikido is characterised by a lack of grappling techniques: how can you 'grapple'with multiple attackers? Grappling implies wrestling. Aikido isn't wrestling. Contrast with judo. Let's look at another example of a 'gross taxonomy' to use JJL's observation. If I say a whale is a subset of fish I am quite wrong except that a whale has some features which could be considered fish-like. But it's not a fish. Aikido has some features which could be considered grappling like, but it certainly isn't grappling. So I suggest a change here.

This is the discussion page, so shall we discuss? Kerledan 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

An excellent way to begin our discussion would probably have been for you to suggest something better, if you don't like grappling. 208.49.172.2 20:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But having to come up with an alternative before expressing reservations about something would mean that vast areas of human innovation and discovery would not happen! And anyway, it's for just this sort of thing that wikis work so well, there are some interesting replies. I *still* don't like 'grappling', indeed I can't offer an obvious alternative, but, well, perhaps there is one out there somewhere. Kerledan 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the other options appear to be striking, kicking, punching, or weaponry. I think the use here is consistent with the entry at Grappling. Subdividing things too finely defeats the purpose of the infobox. JJL 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Grappling may imply wrestling, but it is not equivalent to or interchangable with wrestling. Wrestling is a specific subset of grappling (one that usually focuses on pinning techniqes, and excludes throwing or breaking techniques). Grappling includes the study of:

• pins
• joint locks
• throws
• clinching
• choke holds

As long as you're doing at least one of these, you're grappling. Aikido's primary technical focus is upon throwing and joint locking. If throwing and joint locking are grappling, then aikido is grappling. a=b, b=c, so a=c. Bradford44 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

being grabbed, and then doing action that results in that person being thrown, or doing action that results in a joint lock or pin, is most DEFINITELY grappling. I'm not sure what else you could call it. Wwilson 1 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Japanese wikipedia pages on aikido? Perhaps there's a term we could borrow. Could someone who understands Japanese take a look and see how they classify things? I still don't like 'grappling', but thanks for the contributions so far. Kerledan 16:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like grappling, though I'd prefer it cross-listed as grappling and striking. Since we have to pick one, in my opinion, grappling is the best category in which to place Aikido. 69.140.235.229 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the the field in the template to be changed to 'focus' in a similar way to the Martial arts article, to reflect that most styels may include amny thigns even if they focus on one area. -- Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, maybe you should bring it up at the WP:WPMA talk page. There has been a similar problem ongoing at jujutsu, where people feel that "primarily grappling" is insufficient detail for the infobox. Perhaps "primary focus" instead of "style"? Bradford44 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a problem at many martial arts pages, just as it is when speaking to many martial artists--everyone feels that their style is "complete" and that whatever a person might want may be found in it. I frequently see martial arts pages that will define iaido as "primarily weapons, with striking, flying kicks, joint locks, pressure points, throws, groundwork, and telekinesis" (well, maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic here). People add striking in at Judo as technically it includes atemi-waza. This kind of tendency to expand can make the descriptions useless even if they are not strictly speaking incorrect. Unless a relatively short list of allowable categories in the taxonomy is created, and styles are limited to one category as their "focus" (even if that focus is "mixed" which is also an over-used term), we'll be back to square one.

Well, this is a bigger issue than Aikido can solve, but I've had it on my mind and your mention of it got me thinking again. JJL 13:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Started the discussion here If on the template we add a description saying "whatever do you spend more than 50% of you class doing, that's the focus, everything else is supporting; describe it in the article not the info box" it would make it clearer. As to over using mixed, I whole heartedly agree, Jujutsu is technically mixed, but you spend most of the class learning locks & throws ,a few strikes yes but not lots. Other of arts include bits of grappling, karate has trips & sweeps but lising take downs as a focus or mixed because it included them is misleading, it focuses on kickes & punches. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with 'grappling' and the whole host of terms is I think that they don't map onto (in this case) a Japanese martial art. We are using English, but most of us will use quite a lot of Japanese terms in aikido. I think this is because these terms don't translate well, and that's the root of the issue with 'grappling' etc and the reason for my being uncomfortable with it. To give an example: 'nikkyo' *might* be tranlsated into English as 'second principle', but I wouldn't risk it. It is, simply, 'nikkyo', and needs to be given a gloss in English, not a translation. Those of us who have learnt nikkyo have it in our vocabularies and don't us 'second principle' or some other attempt at translation; if someone asked us what it is we'd give a short explanation, not attempt to translate. So I suggest that changes should be made to the info box to reflect as Natel1481 mentions: these changes should put the specialist terms (Japanese in this case) with a gloss in English for each. Kerledan 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow aikidoka, and happy new year! I know this has been much discussed already here and in the archives. I agree that 'grappling' is technically in the right ballpark and perfectly encompasses joint locks, throws and pins. I also understand Peter's viewpoint, quote "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". I think what is bothering me about the term is the subtle difference in spirit or style of technique of the word - to me it implies fighting, struggling and 'trying to throw' each other. This sort of contradicts the rest of the article (and indeed as you know the goals of aikido itself) which is describing blending and harmony. I wonder if this could be detrimental to promoting aikido to people who are looking for a martial art like aikido, but come to the wrong conclusion about it because of the word 'grappling'? I see myself still a relative beginner (1st Dan), but I know that if I feel any struggle when uke attacks, I'm not doing the technique correctly (whether that be in position, timing, centralised extension, flow, harmony, using too much tension...). Oh, and this struggle happens most of the time for me by the way ;-) The more I 'try and throw' uke, the less likely the throw will happen. I agree that an alternative focus is difficult to find, and there doesn't seem to be a better one available. Maybe we could agree that 'grappling' is a best-fit solution, rather than the ideal one. However I totally agree with Peter in that it would be beneficial to at least change the text 'Aikido is primarily a grappling art...' to 'Aikido is an art...'. Polygonuk (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I took a stab and rewording that paragraph - if anyone has a strong objection, revert the change - or feel free to morph it further! Speaking of Peter, I wonder what he is up to. I noticed last week that he hasn't been active on Wikipedia in quite a while.—Mrand ^T-C 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The reorganised version is much better, describe aikido first, classify it afterwords. On Polygonuk's point, all I'd say is that maybe the first response definition of grappling is to narrow? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Angie

Would Angie from Trauma Center deserve a mention? Or should I keep my trap shut? She does know Aikido. Look at the episode Infiltration in TC:UTK or TC:SO. THOMASNATOR 09:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should add people/actors that know aikido. (Steven Segal isn't mentioned, too.) First I thought you could track them in a seperate list, but no... well, maybe as a people category? --Goonies (Tell me!) 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, trivia is discouraged. Bradford44 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You could start a List of celebrity aikidoka page. I suggest that you model it off this 'List of celebrity judoka' or this 'List of Celebrity Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners' and link to it in the 'See also' section as is done in the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article, or from elsewhere as I did for the Judo article. --David Broadfoot (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think there are a couple of problems with the criticism section of this, otherwise very good, article. Firstly, the sentence stating that 'it suffers from a lack of realism'. This could be said of most, if not all, martial arts as they are practised today - in karate, for example, one does not physically harm another person, the same can be said of iaido, kenjutsu, shaolin etc. etc. In addition, the techniques used in aikido, with the exception of techniques that are specifically designed to break an elbow, for example, are generally implemented with 'full intent', both on behalf of uke and tori. Indeed 'full intent' is very important, particularly with atemi and particularly in Iwama and Yoshinkan forms. The techniques are also practised in response to multiple types of attack (grabs, punches, etc).

Secondly, the point about 'never resisting' is false. To truely perfect ones technique, resistance is required. By practising with a compliant partner, ones technique will suffer because there is no need to perfect the technique. Therefore, in order to progress, one must train with a non-compliant partner, and one must resist when acting as uke. This is also a part of 'full intent'. I think the article should reflect this in some way. Telemeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.201.172 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the section - it is the critique of those outside aikido which was being addressed.Peter Rehse 15:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. One your first paragraph: While a lack of realism can be identified in the training methods of most martial arts, when applied to aikido, the criticism seems to encompass a more broad picture, including up to it being nearly useless for self defense to all but a few select people (near "masters") in the world. On the second paragraph, it is my understanding that there are some aikido styles which train with the goal of there being basically no resistance, at all, ever. Having said all this, if you can come up with some improved wording on one or more of these topics, feel free to propose it here! —Mrand ^T-C 19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter and Mrand. I don't believe that having a critique that aims to satisfy the ignorant is a goal of wikipedia. As for it being 'nearly useless' for self defense, I would seriously question that. Perhaps this is more of a perception than reality. The Tokyo Riot Police are trained in Aikido (Yoshinkan Aikido on the Senshusei course). I might be mistaken, but I believe the US Secret Service use several Aikido techniques in the course of their work - particularly Koshi-Nage and Nikkyo.

I have been involved with Aikido in Australia for a long time now, and I do not know of any aikido style that preaches a lack of resistance. Of all the styles listed in the 'aikido styles' section, the Ki Society is the only style with which I have little experience, so it may be possible that they don't resist in training but I doubt it. I will have a look at some of my books and see if I can dig up some references. User:Telemeister —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.201.172 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you folks are confusing Uke with nage in terms of resistance. In an Ideal Aikido world, uke would be thrown no matter how he tried to 'resist', and nage would throw him without needing to 'resist' anything himself. The only major problem with resistance I see around here, is some folks 'resistance' to the idea of Aikido being a nice practical martial art on multiple levels. Wwilson 1 00:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder the section was included because lack of it was a stubling block to Featured Article status. It was demanded by Wikipedia editors. They are actually right - the aritcle should not be written for an aikido audiance but a general one and one of the things that a general audience tends to ask (especially after perusing the martial arts forums) is the question of aikido's effectiveness. For the actual debates please see the archives. My personal back ground and belief has always included resistance training in aikido but those that avoid it all together are out there.Peter Rehse 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging a martial art based on youtube clips is very common in this day and age. I don't think it is so much the case that the way the art is practiced is under fire for involving a lack of resistance; rather, it is that when non-practitioners watch clips of shihans doing techniques it looks to them as though uke is unresisting. In many cases this is because the shihan is good. :) Transentient 14:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's a common criticism of aikido that it appears to be harder to apply to self-defense/is trained in a less realistic fashion, and hence that criticism should be acknowledged IAW the ideas of WP:NPOV. JJL 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like some people are missing the point that the criticism section doesn't necessarily deal with what is wrong with aikido (if anything). The point is to include what aikido's detractors believe is wrong with aikido, and the purported reasons therefor. People (particularly some anon people who keep wandering by) seem to keep getting bent out of shape that the article is saying aikido sucks, when in fact all the article is saying is that some people think aikido sucks. In reality, the article properly presents various viewpoints without drawing any conclusions as to the validity of such viewpoints. If negative viewpoints are notable and properly referenced, debate regarding their accuracy or validity is beyond the scope of this talkpage. Bradford44 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point of criticism, but this section, rather than explicitly dealing with 'beliefs' or 'perceptions' presents itself as being factual, without giving proper reference. I believe it does draw a conclusion without reference - for example "forms of practice in which the training partner never resists any aspect of the technique ". This presents itself as being fact without reference (to either fact or belief). Bradford44 is right in stating that if negative viewpoints are notable and properly referenced, debate regarding their accuracy or validity is beyond the scope of this talkpage. Unfortunately, they are not properly referenced and do not present them selves as 'perceptions'.

JJL states that it is a common criticism of aikido that it appears to be harder to apply to self-defense and hence that crticism should be acknowledge. This sort of statement needs to be referenced though. For example, Shioda Sensei (Dynamic Aikido, 1968) talks about the length of time it takes to train a student and how a particular technique is not as important as developing reflex actions and 'aiki' awareness. I still believe that this section needs more work.Telemeister

To be honest I feel the secitons main failing is how tame it is, the "complain:response" style is not in the best interests of the article as the section reads like a some of the self justifying section in the various created 5 minuets ago articles on dubious arts. The section also implies that a majority have adapted to the criticism, which is misleading as the normal response seems to be that non-compliant training is not needed, or what is referred to internally as such would not usually class so by the criticiser. I am coming from a external perspective (look @ my profile for my MA background) but the section needs to be actually critical --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

I completely agree with Nate, here. I've always assumed that the criticism section would be fleshed out more over time, but after its initial creation to get through FA, it has gone untouched. The truth is, many criticisms are made about aikido, and some are more fair and accurate than others, but at least all of the notable or serious criticisms (with references) need to be addressed in a serious, rather than dismissive, manner. Bradford44 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a place that you could source criticisms, not a reliable source but would list most of the common ones. It is however highly critical --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My response is identical to Bradford44's. I created it the section during FA to get the ball rolling, but I don't have the time or resources to find additional well sourced criticisms. For the most part, "responses" to the criticisms should be addressed by the article itself, not in this section.—Mrand ^T-C 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that injury paragraph in the section should be moved. Its not a critism per se but I am not sure where it should go.Peter Rehse 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps under "3.1 General fitness and training"? --Mike Searson 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought so but the end of the Uke and Nage section also seems to fit in parts.Peter Rehse 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bradford's edits have addressed most of my problems, the section now acknowledges the criticisms and dose not try to directly answer them, and it is balanced in that the criticisms are stated not championed. While not finished (it's a wiki) it is now a good section that can be steadily developed rather than a 'tagged-on' dismissal. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

strikes

i thought it was a well known criticism that most Aikido dojos rarely teach striking and therefore many aikido practitioners have a very unusual way of "throwing a strike" when doing drill work their partner - or is this just an well known observation? Does not any reference say this? And the no kicking bit even though O-sensei was a great kicker... aren't there more criticisms about that anywhere in the literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.161.106 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Striking is extremely important in Iwama and Yoshinkan styles of aikido, I can not speak to other styles though. I have heard this, but mainly on martial arts forums, which aren't he best places to get information. Westbrook and Ratti (Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere) discuss the importance of the attack. As for the no kicking, I have seen it done (very rarely though) in Aikido training (a version of yonkyo was applied) - I don't remember reading anything about it though. User:Telemeister

Good atemi, as well as good attacks, are considered very important by a number of different aikido styles. However, no (non cross-training) aikido school that I'm aware of actually studies how to deliver strikes. This is a common criticism - there is a difference between an aikido school that trains as if striking skills were very important and incorporates strikes in its aikido techniques (which there are quite a few of), and a hypothetical school that actually trains its students in how to strike. Bradford44 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

citations

much of this current articles' citations comes specifically from one source

• http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php - Pranin, Stanley A. "Encyclopedia of Aikido" (2008)

while I do not doubt it's validity, and while I think it is an excellent source. For the good of the article, I feel it might be wise to diversify the citation sources. Even if that means tracking down the original publications the "Encyclopedia of Aikido" was based on.

shihōnage subpage?

we should make a subpage for shihōnage. -- a lot of people would click the proposed link in the criticism section since it relates to known deaths in aikido training. Tkjazzer 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think people would like to know more about what shihōnage is besides just a throw that locks the shoulder joint... a picture maybe? I think people see death and want to know what it is exactly - so why not make a subpage? Tkjazzer (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

People who are that interested in one detail can follow a link or even google for specialized websites. This is only Wikipedia, not the whole universe.Wegesrand (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

romaji

As a Japanese translator by trade, I can't say that I've spent more than 2 minutes of all the time I've learned Japanese studying the various systems of Japanese romanization. I've seen at least two ways to write things, I learned the names of the two systems and my teacher always used the less popular one. The next time someone goes through and switches all the romanizations around I'd like to see the rationale or logic behind such a change explained. I'm wondering whether it's not just a game of, "I learned romanization this way so it's the right way", which would be unfortunate. I personally thought the changes just made the romaji less legible. If anyone feels differently feel free to change it back. Let's all please remember that romanization of Japanese is not Japanese, so there is more than one way to do it and there is no need to be overly picky over a 'fake' language.Wwilson 1 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wayne makes a great point here, which I just want to follow up a little more specifically on as it relates to the terms used in this article (especially in case the editor whom Wayne reverted is following along). We use Revised Hepburn romanization on Wikipedia, and for two reasons: 1. it's by far more common than the other major system, Kunrei; and more importantly, 2. the WP:MOS-JP says so, and if you don't like it, take it up there. That said, the anon editor's changes were primarily to things not covered by any rule of Hepburn romanization. Specifically, they spaced out all of the compound words, such as "iriminage" → "irimi nage" and "tenchinage" → "tenchi nage". This is neither right nor wrong, although they are perhaps best regarded as compound words. I sometimes write them with hyphens, for example. Nevertheless, everyone should understand that this article is intended to reflect as inclusive a view of aikido as possible, and I believe these terms are most often written as single words, with neither spaces nor hyphens. One exception is nikyō, which is very frequently written with two k's (even on the English version of Aikikai Honbu's website). This doesn't change the fact that the word is pronounced にきょう, and not にっきょう, and we therefore romanize it strictly according to the Hepburn system, with one k. At any rate, I'll stop rambling; my point is just that striving to be encyclopedic includes rigorous attention to detail and consistency, and to that end we choose systematic ways to present various types of material and do our best to stick to them. Bradford44 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better said than me Bradford, I think I learned Kunrei, I remember it being awkward, with ch sounds being spelled with a 't'. Anyway, you said it all better than me!Wwilson 1 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Two cents from an outsider, i.e. non-linguist, I struggle with English...

The spaced/hyphenated versions are easier for someone unfamiliar with the words to get there head/tongue round, which in an encyclopaedia's is an important consideration. The hyphenated version would seem the closest to a group of kanji being used to produce a compound word to my mind, and if there is no hard an fast rule of right and wrong the question should be which is most useful. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Injuries

I guess a common injury might be a carpet-burn (mat-burn) from being "dragged"/ rubbing the mats. Should we add it? Tkjazzer (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In my school, we like to say that there's a difference between getting an injury and getting hurt. Getting hurt means you experience pain, discomfort, cuts, scrapes, bruises, etc... An injury is something that prevents you from coming back and getting hurt some more tomorrow. Getting hurt is part of training, while injuries should be taken seriously and care should be taken to avoid them. I don't think mat-burn is particularly worth mentioning. Bradford44 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I used to get more "hurt" wrestling with my brother when we were kids than I do on the mat.—Mrand ^T-C 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment Bradford, at least in that differentiating pain and injury is important. But if the article doesn't mention that things such as mat burn or minor scrapes and bruises are a common part of correct Aikido training, then it's not comprehensive like an FA should be. It doesn't necessarily need to be framed as a criticism, it just needs to be mentioned. You can't assume that readers know that some pain is a natural part of Aikido training. VanTucky ^talk 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The other thing I would somehow mention is chance of injury from someone throwing someone in to someone else. It seems to be mentioned in most aikido introduction videos. Tkjazzer (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yoshimitsu Yamada

http://www.nyaikikai.com/yamada.asp Should this article link in a see also section? Tkjazzer (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's already linked from the Yoshimitsu Yamada] article.—Mrand ^T-C 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

criticism - slapping the ground

while some styles slap on falls and others don't - I think I definitely am critical of slapping the ground while falling down. I'm not an aikido expert but I do know physics - I understand the concept of making more area - but slapping the ground just adds additional force to an impact. What is up with this? I'm watching a Christian Tissier DVD and the uke (spelling?) is just slapping the ground like crazy... what's the point? I'm sure someone has published this somewhere and we can find a reference for an official criticism - what are your thoughts? 75.47.188.212 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When I slap, I try to do so without activating my arm or shoulder muscles. I.E., I don't *hit* the ground with my hands and arms with added force, I let them fall with the same momentum as my body. Therefore, no "additonal" force." Having said that, it is absolutely not unique to aikido, and I'm certain it didn't start with aikido. In my opinion, it doesn't belong here.—Mrand ^T-C 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits mentioning practice of Iai batto-ho by aikido schools

I reverted the following addition: "Sword-drawing techniques or Iai batto-ho are also sometimes practiced to supplement the training of forms. It is included in the syllabus of Birankai International." It also included a reference to Birankai North America's homepage.

I don't doubt the truth of the assertion that sword-drawing techniques are practiced by some aikido programs. However, I see several problems with including this in the article. First, the article attempts to include as inclusive a view of aikido as possible, and aikido schools or organizations with iai training in their formal curriculums are in the extreme minority. Furthermore, use of the term "iai batto-ho", which literally means "iai sword drawing methods" ('iai' doesn't have a good translation) is in the extreme minority even among schools of swordsmanship. Also, singling out Birankai International, a school that doesn't even have a wikipedia article, as an example gives the appearance of promoting that school (of course, it might be the only one that teaches "iai batto-ho", which is another reason not to mention it).

In any event, a featured article such as this requires rigorous referencing. If a secondary source could be given for the actual point cited, namely that "sword-drawing techniques ... are also sometimes practiced ...," I might feel differently. However, a citation to Birankai's website's iai section only supports the fact that Birankai practices iai, not that the supplementary practice of iai by some aikido programs is anywhere close to notable enough to include in this article. Please feel free to respond to my concerns if you disagree. Bradford44 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible minor edits to consider

Is it worth slipping in Kenshiro Abbe's name as the teacher sent to England in 1955?

Kaitenage is more often referred to as 'Tumbling throw' than 'Rotary Throw' in 'Ki' styles. Would an experienced Japanese translator care to offer an opinion as to which is the better translation?

Nile (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Main Page

Apparently ~75% vandalism isn't extreme enough for semi-protection --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the intent of wikipedia is to be as open to editing, including anonymous editing, as possible, it does seem a bit on the ridiculous side to waste a large number of editors time reverting nearly every edit. I suppose you could look at is as this article being a magnet for all the vandals, so its easy to undo it in one place rather than chasing them all over wikipedia. I, for one, can't wait until we get WP:Flagged_revisions/Sighted_versions.—Mrand ^T-C 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to like messing with this article...

I've deleted a number of edits regarding "sugar cane" or another article someone was trying to add. I apologize if I didn't explain the deletions. I've also forgotten to sign my name. J-Guy (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this in error?

Aikido techniques are normally performed by "blending" or "egging" with the motion of the EGG, rather than directly opposing the EGG. The EGG redirects the EGG's momentum, using minimum effort, with various types of throws or joint locks.[3]

I'm no expert in martial arts or editing wikipedia, but the 'EGG' references do not seem correct. Zupkuck (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That was the result of a vandal. It's been undone. Thanks. —Mrand ^T-C 14:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Really cool!

I really enjoyed this article and hope there are more like it out there!Historybuffc13 (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page for another couple days

Howdy all, Be on the watch for vandalism for the next few days... although it is no longer the featured article of the day (195 edits in one day!), the main page keeps links to previous featured articles for at least two more days, giving vandals easy access to the page. Despite the majority of the 195 edits being vandalism, the page received some nice improvements... you can see the diff that shows before and after.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird language template on italicized words?

What's up with the use of the {{transl}} template for all of the italicized Japanese words? All this seems to do is render the letters in a font used for kanji, making them harder to read and look wierd. I'm inclined to remove the template unless someone has a good reason why it should stay. Bradford44 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aikido's parenthood?

The infobox currently lists aikido's parenthood as "aiki-jūjutsu; judo; jujutsu; kenjutsu; sōjutsu". Are all of these appropriate? The Jujutsu article describes it as "a blanket term for a wide variety of grappling-related disciplines", while aikido was specifically derived from Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu, which is already listed. And even though Ueshiba studied Judo at one time, I've haven't seen it named as a significant influence on aikido before. 75.15.117.224 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Partial answer found on a dicussion forum: "When Kano sent his students to learn from Morihei Ueshiba, Ueshiba was still calling the art aikijujutsu (even, specifically, daito ryu aikijujutsu). They used the scroll method of recognizing accomplishment--not belts. Kano and his students seem to have had an influence in "trimming" some of the more dangerous techniques from aikijujutsu much as Kano trimmed down some of the jujutsu." --David Broadfoot (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

uke vs. attacker

I've reverted a change of wording throughout the article from attacker to uke, but would like to discuss this further:

• In looking at definitions, I don't believe the use of the word attacker is incorrect.
• uke, while not technically incorrect,
  1. is not likely to be well understood by the general population, and therefore shouldn't be used over and over in the article (unless it is the only accurate term, which I believe, is not the case)
  2. sometimes refers to someone that is a trained/skilled attacker. Aikido obviously defends against everyone, not just skilled/trained attackers, so using uke seems to narrow the scope too much.

Yooden, could you explain why you believe the word "Attacker" would be wrong?

Opinions from anyone else? Thanks!—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uke is the term commonly used in aikido which would be one argument in it's favour. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but do you typically refer to a possible street attacker as an uke? I personally reserve uke for training partner, but maybe that's just me. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I have not replaced all instances of attacker. --Yooden ☮

I learned that in Aikido, one does not have an attacker and a defender, but two partners practicing. One is applying a technique, the other is receiving it. If nage starts thinking of his partner as an attacker, not only can he not do the technique properly, he is also not practising Aikido. (There is also a higher risk for injury for either one.)

Yes, this a somewhat philosophical explanation, because that's what Aikido is, somewhat philosophical. It is not a physical exercise regime, nor a way to injure an attacker or even primarily a way to defend oneself in a fight. If that means that Aikido "suffers a lack of realism", that's too bad. The nature of uke, or the difference between attacker and uke is an important concept in Aikido.

Note that all this only refers to the style I learn, Tendoryu. I'm just a beginner, but I had the opportunity to listen to Shimizu Sensei a few times, and that's what I understood.

So, back to Wikiland, I think the article would meet all aspects if it would use uke and nage and explain them in all their glory in a section of their own, much like we have now, but earlier. That way, the reader will be able to understand the concept and the rest of the article. If they are not willing to learn what uke is, they won't understand Aikido anyway.

About your second point, I did not replace all instances of attacker. Especially referring to real fights, uke would make no sense. (An uke is not necessarily skilled or trained though.) --Yooden ☮

Howdy Yooden, and thank you for the detailed explanation. I don't want to get into a style discussion because there are many styles, ranging from nearly passive to quite aggressive - and we have to try to write the article in a way that it covers the majority of the styles. In the style you study, what do you call the action(s) that uke performs as they step towards tori? Is it an attack, or has your style invented a different term for uke putting up his arm in a simulated punch or strike towards tori/nage? Regards! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are many styles, and what I wrote may be wrong for most of them. Unless it is however, it should be part of the article in one way or another.

I honestly can't say at the moment what we call our actions. I think we usually call the move by its exact name, eg. yokomen uchi, morote dori, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we would call it attack however. I hope your point is not "he attacks, so he must be an attacker". --Yooden ☮

Only in a minor way. I'm mostly trying to understand your style and where you are coming from, because (if you'll excuse my bluntness) using a different word for whomever does the attack does not mean that someone can "not do the technique properly," and certainly does not mean "There is also a higher risk for injury for either one," and absolutely does NOT mean "he is also not practising Aikido." But let's not have a long drawn-out discussion about this - our goal here is to make the article the best it can be while not overly coloring it by our own POV(s).—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Uke doesn't actually mean "attacker" at all, but recipient. The uke is the person who receives the technique. That usually means they're the ones who initiate the exchange with an attack, but not always (especially when reversals or counters are involved), and that's not the definition. Uke is more accurate than attacker (I suppose "recipient" would also suffice, but I think we should prefer uke and simply explain the jargon). — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't find myself disagreeing with most of what you said, which must mean that I didn't write it clearly. My point was that when dealing with a martial art, it is typically viewed as being able to defend against a possible attacker. Should aikido be described throughout the article as defending against an attacker, or against an uke? Which leads to the same same question as I had for Nate1481: do you typically refer to a possible street attacker as an uke? —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a false dilemma. If the article describes Aikido's theory and practice as well as Aikido's effect on a brawl in the street, it must use both. --Yooden ☮

I don't have an objection to using uke, by any means. I am somewhat concerned about how many instances were changed though, so what I'm been trying to do here is play devils advocate and spark up a discussion among multiple people to determine a good criteria for when to use one vs. when to attacker and when to use uke (so as to use foreign words sparingly). Also, do we need to find a concise way to somehow explain what uke means early in the article, or is a wiki-link enough? The wiki entry for uke may need to be improved as well, because the way it is written seems to mostly imply it is with reference to a training partner.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take Shigemichi Steven Seagal shihan

---

Great Masters of Aikido such as Seiseki Abe shihan (10th dan), Hiroshi Isoyama shihan (8th dan), and the late Doshu Kisshomaru Ueshiba recognized the importance of the role Seagal sensei played on the spreading of Aikido throughout the world. He definitely deserves the credit, and reference to this should be made on the main page of the article. The opinions of aikidokas concerning his private or Hollywood life should be set aside. His contribution to aikido is true and real. Many came in contact with Aikido (and why not, O-sensei's and eastern thought) through his movies. Let us not forget his credentials: 7th Dan, being the first western to ever teach in Japan, and owner of a very striking-to-eye technique, much more impressive then most famous masters. Seagal is able to impress even those who do not know aikido, a fact which is not true to most masters. Close and direct disciple of the founder, Grandmaster Seiseki Abe, 10th Dan, Aikido and caligraphy master once said "By 1973, he was already a great Aikidoist. He trained with all the top masters in Japan. I promoted him to Godan and later to Rokudan because his aikido is the best I've ever seen" (See the magazine Martial Arts Legends/STEVEN SEAGAL, #4, 1993, page 94. This is a verifiable information, as demanded by the rules of this web site. It must be taken into consideration). These are not the words of a mere aikidoka, Abe sensei was a direct student of O-sensei, being one of the few (if not the only) to have received, straight from the founder, a 10th degree on the art. So who are we to say Seagal´s Aikido is this or that. I stick with Abe shihan's opinion. Justice be made to the man. I suggest you to include a reference and a link to him on the "international dissemination" section, or at least a small coment on any section, on the main article, of his contribution to the spreading of the art, which is not less or greater that any of the other shihans mentioned in the main page. Please do not ignore this fact for, by doing so, you're preventing users of this site from real information concerning the popularization process of this art.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.160.22.66 (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I just reverted the following text out of the article - most of it certainly does not belong in the criticism section. Does anyone think there is anything essential here that needs to be added to the article (whichever section it belongs in), with references? —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some believe that criticism of Aikido's effectiveness in unarmed martial combat against striking arts misses a crucial point: that Aikido, based on Samurai martial arts (as opposed to so called japanese "farmer" martial arts such as Karate) is a continuation of the principle of battlefield martial arts as a complement to weapons. Hence Aikido is primarily concerned with enabling a surprised Aikido practicioner to rapidly break any number of grips on his person and move regardless of attempted restraint. As a complement to weaponry this allows the practicioner to draw his weapons or reach for his weapons even if surprised. Removing the layer of "peace and harmony" that was particularly attached to Aikido during the period of american occupation after WW2, Aikido can appear as a form of pre-WWII Close Quarter Battle for the japanese officer. The knife, sword (carried by officers of the period), and short spiked staff (rifle-and-bayonet) work complementing the emphasis on breaking grip and unfettered movement. This view would certainly illustrate to non-practicioners why there is a divergence between martial artists competing in unarmed combat, who view Aikido as close to useless, and Law Enforcement and Special Forces, who hold Aikido in high regard. For the latter Aikido gives three things that most standard martial arts cannot: freedom of movement when grabbed, the ability to draw their weapons even when restrained by several attackers, and the option of neutralising an attacker without damaging them (which can always be followed up if necessary with another striking art, or with weapons to hand).

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and so should cite sources. I would not have a problem with including something like the quoted block if it came with references to reliable sources. As it is, the quote started out with the weasel words "some believe." The quote also makes statements about rather complicated subjects such as what Aikido was before or after WW2, implications about what a "Samurai" vs. "farmer" of the late 1800s to early 1900s may be, etc. Thus while I believe it would be a good idea to include something like this in criticisms it may well come down to a battle of interpretations that'll be hard to present cleanly in the Wikipedia article. I've heard many sensei say many things and have come to see that they are presenting their own beliefs/interpretations. We may nod and and think "that makes sense to me" but unfortunately it's hard to then translate that into a citable/verifiable form that can be used on Wikipedia. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to separate the criticisms into 2 parts:

• criticisms of aikido by other martial artists
• criticisms of certain styles of aikido by aikidoka of other styles

And, yes, content must be verifiable and should cite sources. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mind explaining why? I have no objection to including whatever "citable" criticism is out there, but I do not see any need to break it up into anything more than paragraphs. I doubt it would improve readability to create different article sections. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that criticisms of certain styles belong in the articles about those certain styles, or else we're begging for a criticism section that dwarfs the rest of the article. Bradford44 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get this out of the way

It should be prominent, near the top, that aikido is not a proven martial art the way boxing or wrestling is, and its philosophy is immature compared to Confucius, Kant, etc. Objectivity, which Wikipedia strives for, should mean comparisons between similar subjects, and aikido is objectively worse than the majority of both martial arts and belief systems.

It's a fighting system, not a religion that is intentionally obscure and unassailable, so it shouldn't be exempt from realistic criticism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.117.249 (talk • contribs)

Ceterum censeo Aikidonem esse delendam. jmcw (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a brief bit on criticism in the lead and a couple of bits in the section. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend, the link below was writen for you as an answer. Please read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.13.87 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pools of sorrow, waves of joy

The goal of Aikido, acording to writings of the founder, recorded teachings and direct experiences of his closest disciples, is not to teach fighting techniques. Let these things dwell in the minds of mundane men, who seek foolish glory upon defeating others. It should be clear in the main page that the goal of Aikido, as intended by its founder, is to cultivate inner force, to discover it in a practical way, and from this point on, search the source of this force, which is Love. The core of Aikido's philosophy, practise and goal is this - defeat your real and only oponent - yourself. Discover the nature of true Self, which is divine Light-Love, that's it. In this sense, Aikido is very efective and it's philosophy is much, much deeper than that of Confucious or Kant (as mentioned above), which dwell upon intelectualism only. Ueshiba Morihei's philosophy regards Self-realization, and it can be compared to the taoist bible, Lao-Tse's book, the Tao te Ching, who teaches one to forget duality (yin-yang), and merge in the TAO (way, sometimes translated as God), or Viasa's Bhagavad Gita, for Lord Krishna teaches the same principles to his warrior disciple Arjuna - that the real enemy is his individual consciousness, and that he should use the sword of Yoga to cut away ignorance and discover truth, his real divine identity, the imortal soul, a reflection of God. And beyond that, the search for the human nature's true essence, Love, was also the search of all Great Masters of mankind, such as the Christ, Buddha, Ramakrishna, Saint Francis, Yogananda, among many others. So, in the deepest sense, Aikido is a spiritual path, a religion indeed, an Ueshiba must be regarded as a saint, a great Yogi-Christ-Buddha of modern Japan, a fully enlightened master. And even though the goal of Aikido is not at all to learn how to kill, bear in mind that the science of inner strengh, of the soul's true potential, points out to recent discoveries on the field of quantum physics. The possibilities of the human inteligent inner energy-field (soul-spirit), along with its volition (will), are undreamed of, it is infinite, of a cosmic reality, if one is able to reach it. Ueshiba Morihei was experiencing, talking about and teaching how his disciples could tap into the mystical-miraculous-alchemical-quantic-fractal-geometric manifestations of the spirit in all. Take, for instance, the symbols he chose to represent his art - circle, square, triangle and spiral, which mathmatically represent the building blocks of all creation, from sub-atomic particles to the great spheres of the cosmos. Or what to say about his kotodama, chantigs methods designed to attune one's will, consciousness and vibration rate with that of the primordial sound (AUN, OM, Amen) whose roots are to be found in ancient mantras of India (In the begginig was the word, and everything that was made was the word, and the word was God. The word logos, in the original greek translations of the bible, can also be translated as sound). So, masters like Bodhidarma (who was a Yogi with miraculous powers, and who taught the chinese how to come out of the jungle and become civilized) were, for sure, impossible to defeat with mere mechanical techniques such as most so-called martial arts who drifted apart from their original goal (self discovery). Bodhidarma could anihilate an entire army with his gaze, but he could also materialize things. As the great saint Vivekananda once said "Non violence means being able to destroy all, but choosing not to do so, and use this strength to destroy the root of all evil and sorrow - yourself." Take Christ for instance, He could materialize things. Do you think a MMA fighter could defeat Christ? A God-man who could walk on water? But He allowed Himself to be crucified to show his infinite compassion to all - that, indeed, was a miracle. That is what being a warrior is all about - defeat your ego, the strongest enemy in the Universe, and love all, being able to see the Light of God in everything. Or what to say about these yogis who are able to remain in caves, completely absorbed in their inner-outter divinity, for decades, or centuries, and who die when they choose to do so, not when nature calls them? So, to sum up, Aikido is not for fools. It is not intended to be tested on a filthy mat, with a judge, rules and prizes, for its martial techniques were proved many centuries ago, on Japan's deadly batlefields, and its spiritual techniques were proved by the example of the Godly life of Ueshiba Morihei and other great Aikido Masters. If you really want to discuss the deep and practical philosophy of the east, I recomend that you stop roling on the ground in pools of blood and start meditating, study a bit more. I'm sure you'll be able to see Aikido from a whole new perspective.

Domo arigatou gozaimasu. "Aikido is Love. Polish yourself untill you find the Kami (God) in all." -Ueshiba Morihei, founder of Aikido (the path of the energy of Love) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.13.87 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion (see WP:NOTFORUM); if your commentary contains suggestions for improving the article, please identify them and we will discuss their merits. You also might consider reviewing WP:CIVILITY. Bradford44 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Divine" would be a better translation of "kami" than "God" or even "god". --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All right then, "Aikido is Love. Polish yourself untill you find the Kami (the Divine) in all." ...as if it changed anything. I really think my answer deserved a better coment Nate! And if you want a suggestion to the main page, I say you should openly display the religious aspects of the founder, show him as a saint, and not only superficialy mention the influence of Onisaburo Deguchi on his life. It seems that most aikidokas are fearful of admiting the spiritual and religious background of Aikido. To me, it is the most interesting and important part! Religion played a center role in the life of Ueshiba. He practised a lot of medatation and chanting. His life and teachings were dedicated to Kami (God, the Divine or Spirit), and his experiences on this field were far deeper than those of his guru, Deguchi Onisaburo. O-Sensei reached Nirvana, Heaven, Samadhi, enlightment - complete and unbroken awareness, knowledge, identification with Truth, the Eternal Light-Love-Inteligence of God present in all. He himself afirmed that, that he was a deity, that he was the incarnation of Shinto deities. So please, let's overcome the foolishness of even listening to these folks who want to talk about fighting. The divine Energy of Love, that's what were are seeking in this path, and that only is what O-Sensei wanted his disciples to seek. To discuss fighting efectiveness is to lower the imaculate aiki-consciousness to gross animalistic levels, and a sin indeed. O-Sensei wanted distance from people such as Takeda Sokaku, an iliterate rowdy whose thoughts resided only on his egoistic self afirmation, and whose atitudes resembled a lot the figure of so-called brazilian ju-jitsu patriarc, Helio Gracie, a man worried with fighting, subduing, and proving his superiority. Sometimes I wonder were are to be found the psicological grounds on which such an urge to impose manhood stand - the so-called macho syndrome definetely has a relation with sexual insecurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.215.40 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are obvious variations in how "martial" it is understood to be, but there is no disputing that aikido is considered AND practiced by the vast majority of practitioners as a martial art - which is training for combat. Additional discussion of Ueshiba, if good (written) sources can be found, *might* belong in the Ueshiba article. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt it is practised as a martial art, but who is the one to be defeated? That is the question O-Sensei wanted his students to find out. "There are no winners while there are loosers" - Ueshiba Morihei. On the other hand, let the truth be said, the criticism on Aikido as being fake is due, since most dojos practice the art with a lack of reality. Very few shihans and senseis still teach Aikido in a deadly and austere way, which also leads to spiritual awakening, since a life-and-death situation put things under perspective and makes you wonder about life, triggering a spiritual process. What you see these days is people flying around with folly atacks, lacking martiality. Few people train real kenjutsu , jojutsu and randori, even fewer practice kokyu techniques, ment to develop KI awareness and power. That's what he meant when he took away the words Daito ryu and jujutsu, and added the word "DO" (path, from the Chinese TAO, which is derived from sanskrit Dharma, all meaning the way...way to what?). This choice of words clearly expresses a change in the purpose of practice . How the vast majority of practitioners consider or practise Aikido is of litle importance. What matters is what was intended by the preceptor of the path. If you practise as a means of defeating, injuring, destroying and killing, you're not practising Ueshiba Morihei's Aikido. You're filling up your ego, getting caught in the web of delusion - in other words, going the direct oposite direction intended by the founder. That's more like Daitoryu. Why do you think there are no atacks, no competitions in Aikido? To prevent egoistic atitudes from the practitioners, which O-Sensei dispised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.184.39 (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has their own view of what aikido is. For good or bad, Wikipedia can only focus on the more common ones.—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 17:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry budy, the only view on Aikido is that of the founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.74.78 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's sort of dead now, so he can't weigh in on the subject anymore. — Gwalla | Talk 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Only his fisical body is gone, but he awoke to his true nature, and in that sense, he became imortal. The source of life is ever new, and though it may seem to die to the eye of the average man, it is ever present. Death is only a mirage for he who has gone beyond sense identification. How could death touch the sword of limitless bliss? O-sensei became the Spirit of the Universe. He can never die nor be born. That was, for sure, his belief. If you study his teachings (not just wristlocks and throws) and a bit more of eastern thought and religion, perhaps you'll enjoy aikido as you've never enjoyed before! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.13.87 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's your belief. Those of us who have different, or no, religious beliefs have different takes on the subject. At any rate, ō-sensei's afterlife is about as relevant to an article on Aikido as Adam Smith's does to an article on capitalism. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the article on the man himself (and possibly in the article on Omoto-kyo). From what I understand, ō-sensei didn't insist that his students subscribe to his religious beliefs. The vast majority of aikidoka do not practice Aikido as a religion, or think of it in those terms. — Gwalla | Talk 05:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a scientific agnostic, you were talking combined spiritualism and amalgamated religion ("Yogi-Christ-Buddha"?!? I'm not even sure what that is, Buddha and Chirst (I am assuming you refer to the biblical messiah here) have some critcal differances that are irreconcilable with their verbatum teaching) So the only thing sensible to comment on was the translation, it would be "divine" lower case not a proper noun, see kami. As an asside the closest I've seen in English would be Terry Pratchett's (fictional) concept of Small gods. Aikido has a spiritual aspect, and this is touched upon, but it is not the core focus of most training, the article is on the martial art, as-is not Ueshiba's vision for it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but you´re wrong. That's not my belief. That's what O-Sensei believed. It really doesn't matter what you believe or not believe. I'm not discussing creed or belief here, but acctual experience of the energy within. You can be very scientific about it, and that would be good. But once you discover it, you must study it deeper, its source. Acording to the founder, its source was divine love and light. Of course O-Sensei didn't insist that his students subscribe to his religious beliefs. No true master would do that. But I'm sure he wanted his discpiles to dive deeply in the art. An open study of all the ancient scriptures of all religions will inevitably come to the same, or similar teachings - a revelation of the nature of soul - divine love-light, a spark of the Infinite Divine Love-Light-Inteligence pervading all that exists - God. That's exactly what the Christ said - "I and the Father are one". Or, maybe "If your eye be single your body shall be filled with light", and "Be still and know that I am God", or even more dramatic would be "The kingdom of God is within you". Krishna also insisted on discovering your true Self when he said:"That which flows through your body, giving you life, is of eternal nature. Nothing can destroy your imperishable soul". And why not, the Buddha said: "shut of your senses and discover your true nature, the Light of lights in the bliss of nirvana." Even Socrates, obviously quoting eastern thinkers said: "Know thy self." All I'm saying is that O-Sensei had spiritual awakening as the goal of his art. Having a spiritual aspect and being touched upon as mentioned above is not enough, it is hidding the true essence. The vast majority of dojos don't even come close to that, and that is the great mistake most aikidokas do - not truly following the founder's true teaching. Besides, according to the founder and all true master of the art, it is impossible to reach deep experiences on KI (chinese CHI, sanskrit Prana) without diving in spiritual practices. And what on God's great earth is KI after all? That's the question friends!! Take his own words as example, as this is the best way to guide this discussion. Like the Jews and Christians, Morihei believed that each human being is a child of God (or god, as if it made any difference): If you have the spark of life within you, you have divinity. Each person is a wake-mitama, an individual part of the Great Whole. This notion is also similar to the hindu concept of jiva (personal soul) and atman (universal soul). On O-Sensei's shodo (caligraphy), his thoughts, feelings and experiences towards Aikido are very clearly demonstrated: The Three Realms of Manifest, Hidden and Divine: Loving and joyous Path of Aiki. He emphasized that meditation was essential for the practice of Aikido, saying: If your chinkon-kishin is good, you can understand everything. (As good aikidokas, I assume you all know what chinkon-kishin is, so I'll spare myself from further explanations). O-Sensei also defined: Tsumi (sin) is ignorance of the Universal, timeless priciples in existance. He also said, to sum up: The ancient methods of war must not be discarded, provided they are used with the purpose of purifying one's body in order to reach spiritual awakening. So, you see, if you´re practising Aikido with any other purpose than this, it is not Aikido, it is something else. What defines what is being done are not the mechanical techniques, as most people do, and what most of you are insisting when denying the true goal of Aikido. The state of mind, purification of the body in order to attain divinity, and yes, in this sense, it is equal to nirvana or heaven or samadhi - that is what defines it. It is not amalgamated religion, it is the common ground in all of them what O-Sensei sought and found, and that is what every true aikidoka should seek. And since this discussion is dwelling upon the deep and true meanings of Aikido and the spirit of O-Sensei, it is quite insulting and lacking on etiquette when you reduce it to a mere study on words. Practicing Aikido without seeking God within is of no purpose. If you seek killing techniques, buy a gun. If you seek health, go for a run in the park. Yes, aikido can teach you these things such as deadly chokes, and also provide you good health, I would never deny it and it would be foolish to do so. But it can take you way deeper, up to the point of revealing the Source of Life! The goal fellows, the goal...that's what I'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.13.87 (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing here. Are you saying that your interpretation here should be in the article as the definition of Aikido? Because I can say with certainty that that is not going to happen. The policy on neutral point of view disallows it. — Gwalla | Talk 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, my suggestion was made earlier, and I'm glad to repeat it: I say you should openly display the religious aspects of the founder, show him as a saint, and not only superficialy mention the influence of Onisaburo Deguchi on his life. Show the spiritual goal of Aikido as the main focus, for that is, beyond any doubt, what Ueshiba Morihei wanted. That's why he created this art, that's why he chose the word DO, that's the great abiss between AikiDO and Daitoryu, between the genious of O-Sensei and the mediocrity of Takeda, that's why the emperor of Japan gave him title of Great Master (O-Sensei) for Christ sakes! He wanted people to be peaceful and loving through his art, and to awake to a more spiritual life, and this should be clearly stated on the main page, since the the purpose of wikipedia is provide accurate information. If you read O-Sensei's writings, or ask any of his close disciples, as I have done, you will know that this is not my opinion. Aikido is first of all a spiritual path. Acording to the late Doshu Kishomaru Ueshiba, is his book Aikido no kokoro(the spirit of Aikido): "Learning to defend yourself its just a colateral effect, it represents only a mere 5% of what the art can offer". Superficialy mention the spiritual goal of Aikido is to prevent users of this fine website from access to real information. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.108.65 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else slightly lost as to what our friend here is getting at? I can see an argument for expanding the Mental training and Ki sections as they are important aspects of aikido, but this will need Sourcing which is the reason they are currenly quiet short and it seems you may have the relevent sources that coudl be sued to expand these. However while I have not trained in Aikido, I do know enogugh people who have to know that the spiritual side is an aspect but not the core focus, and implying such would lead to the article being unbalanced.

P.s. O-sensei is nearer to meaning "Teacher of teachers" or "great teacher", sensei definalty dose not translate as 'master'. That is a western concept added to eastern martial arts (mainly in America).--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Nate. I agree on every point, here and below. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok Nate, you won! Do you really believe there is any substancial diference between refering to the founder as "Teacher of teachers", "great teacher" or "master", rather then a mere play on words? As I said before, to reduce this discussion to the meaning of words or correct translations is not the point and rather insulting. I suggest that you review your Aikido contacts and go straight to the source. Do not ask practitioners, ask the masters (or teachers if you like), read the founder's books, ask the Honbu dojo. Their opinion and the founder's is what matters. Spiritual awakening through martial methods is not a side. It is the core focus. Fighting is but a reflex. This should be clear to all who read the main article. I hate to repeat myself but it is necessary to do so here. During the Tokugawa period, from around 1600 to 1867, Japan saw a period of relative peace, if compared to previous eras of their history. And although buddhism had reached Japan much earlier than that, it was during this period that it flourished, reaching every corner of the country. You must search deeper on the choice of the word DO. This is a word that reflects the buddhist concept of making holy one's activities, of transforming every action as a path to purity, virtue and enlightement (from sanskrit Dharma) So, let's study a few examples: Sado, the way of tea cerimony. It implies that the ceremony should be used as a means to attain spirituality. Shodo, the path of caligraphy. The same happened with some martial arts, when the word jutsu was changed to DO. Kenjutsu became KenDO, Kyujustu became KyuDO, Jujutsu became JuDO, Daito ryu Aikijujutsu became Aikido, and specially, in this case, Bujutsu (war methods) became BuDO (martial path), and this implies a profound change in their focus, once you have these practices reaching for spiritual awakening. These people wanted these ancient traditions of their country to be absorbed with spirituality, they wanted it to be a way to achieve that which is the core of Buddhism. Of course you can find all these schools in Japan, be it in the form of jutsu or Do. But the main difference will reside in their focus, what they are striving for. O-Sensei, as Kano Sensei, openly chose the word DO precisely to express that the core focus of his art was, I insist, spiritual awakening. It doesn't really matters how the majority of practitioners see the art. The goal and means to attain it are there, available to those who want to really dive in the teachings of Aikido and of Ueshiba Morihei, the great saint of modern japan. Some of O-Sensei's words will sufice to put and end to this discussion, and to quicken your understanding of the core focus or the art, which, I humbly suggest, should be openly stated in the main article, since this noble website seeks the acuracy of an encyclopedia. In Ueshiba'a own words: "The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood. It is not a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek to compete and better one another are making a terrible mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love"; "Loyalty and devotion lead to bravery. Bravery leads to the spirit of self-sacrifice. The spirit of self-sacrifice creates trust in the power of love" (here he is openly expressing that the final goal is to reach Love). This next one is very clear: "Budo is not a means of felling the opponent by force or by lethal weapons. Neither is it intended to lead the world to destruction by arms and other illegitimate means. True Budo calls for bringing the inner energy of the universe in order, protecting the peace of the world , as well as preserving, everything in nature in its right form". This next one couldn't be any clearer: "Aikido does not rely on weapons or brute force to succeed; instead we put ourselves in tune with the universe, maintain peace in our own realms, nurture life, and prevent death and destruction. The true meaning of the term "samurai" is one who serves and adheres to the power of love". I quoted this one before, but I think it is worth to reinforce: "Even though our path is completely different from the warrior arts of the past, it is not necessary to abandon totally the old ways. Absorb venerable traditions into this Art by clothing them with fresh garments (that is, with a different focus), and building on the classic styles to create better forms". Here, again, the core focus of the art is revealed: "The Way of a Warrior cannot be encompassed by words or in letters: grasp the essence and move on toward realization!". These next two quotes express buddhist ideas and terms on the goal of life: "A true warrior is always armed with three things: the radiant sword of pacification; the mirror of bravery, wisdom, and friendship; and the precious jewel of enlightenment"; "The totally awakened warrior (like he affirmed to be) can freely utilize all elements contained in heaven and earth. The true warrior learns how to correctly perceive the activity of the universe and how to transform martial techniques into vehicles of purity, goodness, and beauty. A warrior's mind and body must be permeated with enlightened wisdom and deep calm"...I mean, it could go on and on, but I'm sure that what the focus of Aikido is has been cleared. I resume my participation on this dicussion to this. I sincearly hope this was enough to convince you on what the core of Aikido is. The main page must declare it openly for the sake of credibility of this honorable virtual encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.108.65 (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be why it was in a postscript, and partly in tended as humorous.

I tried to address you main points, but due to you verbose style it is quiet difficult to understand what you are getting at if you could be a little more consise about what your getting at. While I concede I have not researched the intent of Ueshiba in creating Aikido, my core point is that this article is a description of what exists, not what Ueshiba wanted to exist (It can also be argued that this was only the intent later on in his training and that those who learned earlier forms have been true to that teaching and that this is more common, the exactness of all of this can be debated endlessly) and while that version should be discussed in the appropriate secitions (whish to some exten it is) it should not be the basis of the article. The article was assembled largely by Aikido practitioners (see the talk archive) and my experience is mealy in agreement with that not an end in itself. Your comments such as "Fighting is but a reflex" seem to be very much a specific point of view and as such not appropriate to set the tone of the article and from what I gather of you view, this is only one part of how you feel the article should be re-written. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get a couple of foundational points out of the way, which if we agree on, will form a basis for the discussion. I believe each of the following statements is substantially true:

1. Ueshiba has been dead for almost 30 years, and the manner in which aikido is practiced by the majority of practitioners has changed substantially from how he was teaching aikido at the end of his life.
2. The article accurately reflects the manner in which the vast majority of aikido practitioners are practicing aikido today, both physically and philosophically.

Now please note that I did not state whether either of those points were good, bad, better, or worse; just that they are objectively true. If you agree that each of these things are true, I think that there is room to work in some of what you have written here. But please be aware that we cannot rewrite the article from an idealistic point of view (i.e., telling people what aikido should be or could be), except within the context of articulating how aikido is actually practiced, but also pointing out how that may diverge from what the founder intended aikido to be. I'm sure you're aware, by the way, that some of Ueshiba's close students seem to disagree with what you have stated above, so we certainly can't write the article strictly from the point of view of Ueshiba's intentions from one specific period of his life. Bradford44 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not done enough research to know how accurate #1 is. It is nearly impossible to keep things exactly the same over periods of time, and multiple people - I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it has "changed substantially." Having said that, there is no way to prove that any dojo anywhere is teaching aikido exactly as "intended" by Ueshiba (completely ignoring the fact that what he "intended" appears to have changed considerably over the course of his own life). It is impossible to be exactly the same, so now you have to ask - how close does it have to be to be considered the same? Everyone will draw the line at a different spot. I wouldn't have a problem adding a couple more sentences to the historical or religion sections if we could come up with something that is concrete (sourced), but I haven't seen anything usable yet... —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 18:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Being so, unffortunately I will not recomend wikipedia as a reliable source on Aikido, since the informations on the article here are based on the views of practitioners, not on the views of authorities on the matter, such as the Honbu dojo, the living masters and the teachings of the founder. Allow me to coment on your topics: 1) "Ueshiba has been dead for almost 30 years, and the manner in which aikido is practiced by the majority of practitioners has changed substantially from how he was teaching aikido at the end of his life." This is partially true, since there are dojos in Japan that teach Aikido exactly as intended by the founder. 2) "The article accurately reflects the manner in which the vast majority of aikido practitioners are practicing aikido today, both physically and philosophically". The article should reflect the manner in which the founder practiced, both physically and philosophically, in order to remain true to the art. If a musician today does not know how to play the symphony of Mozart, his inability should not be the foundation on which musicians should stand - they should, of course, search extensively to play as close as possible as the original composition. Similarly, what Aikido is, how it should be practiced and its goal were well defined by the founder of the art. What I'm saying is that most people are practicing a diluted form of the art since its internationalization - this should be understood, adapting it to western taste, but the real teachings are still to be found on the hands of a few masters. Furthermore "Fighting is but a reflex" is also the opinion of the son of the founder, the late doshu Kissomaru Ueshiba, as expressed on his book: Learning to defend yourself its just a colateral effect, it represents only a mere 5% of what the art can offer". Who else is needed to hear besides the founder of the art and his son? The matter is not being taken seriously. I gave you solid arguments and the view of masters I collected through the years, not the opinion of practitioners neither mine, with the sole purpose of enhancing the quality of this site, yet these were taken lightly. It is sad that this website, at least on what concerns Aikido, is rather naive and can not be taken seriously, since an article on such a fine tradition of the east in given in the hands, with all due respect, of amateurs. What I'm saying is very simple. Adding a more solid text on the spiritual side of Aikido, to prevent the kind of coment above, which gave rise to this whole discussion. In Japan, Aikido is serious business, and that means austere physical and spiritual training with a supreme goal, not a Tuesday-Thursday hobby like it is done in the west. What Aikido is and should be, leave it to the founder of the art to define, not a handful of pracitioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.11.108.65 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it depends on which honbu dojo you ask. I'd ask Shodokan but I doubt they'd agree with you! You also seem to be overstressing the significance of the term "do". It doesn't necessarily imply a spiritual dimension. Kendo, for example, is primarily a sport and has been pretty much since it was distilled from kenjutsu. Using "do" in names of martial arts was a postwar trend, basically implying that the purpose is no longer for use in actual warfare. BTW, Kisshōmaru, as head of Aikikai, can only really speak for that organization and style. He had no authority over other groups. — Gwalla | Talk 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious you should ask the Honbu Dojo established by Morihei Ueshiba, which is responsible for more then 80% of the Aikidoka in the world, and which represent the teachings of Aikido as taught by the founder, and to whom the vast majority of his direct disciples are associated. Other organizations have other founders, and what they think of their organizations is up to them. I'm sure these other organizations have their reasons to practise in the way they believe it should be, for, in terms of physical techniques Aikikai is not the greatest. But I'm clearly discussing Ueshiba's Aikido and the way he taught, if you weren't able to notice that up to now. Ueshiba's Aikido and how he taught is what is to be discussed and remembered, all others are surely to be forgotten, since none of these other so-called founders of other so-called styles never came close to genious of Ueshiba Morihei. They were mere teachers, while Morihei was an enlightened being, a saint. I repeat, the emperor hymself gave him the title of O-Sensei. What other master, in the long history of Japan, had the same title? None. And this is what really expresses the the diference between him and the others. Nevertheless, I agree with you when you say "using "do" in names of martial arts was a postwar trend, basically implying that the purpose is no longer for use in actual warfare"...that's exactly was it is, but why chose a buddhist term? And I'm sure you'll find a whole lot of buddhist philosophy behind kendo, if you really dig it. But in O-Sensei teachings you don't have to dig. Shinto and buddhism are right there, in your face, from class number one to the end. He didn't want his art to be practised, as you said, in actual warfare. He dispised it. And you're right again when you say "Kisshōmaru, as head of Aikikai, can (could) only really speak for that organization and style. He had no authority over other groups" That's it! He was the authority to speak of Morihei Ueshiba's Aikido, and to be quite frank here, that's the only Aikido there is. All the other have some kind of identification previous to the word Aikido, such as Yoshinkan Aikido, Shin-shin toitsu Aikido, and so on. These are not being discussed here. It amazes me your inability to recognize the greatness of Ueshiba, whose teachings are timeless, comparable to the teachings of all great religions. All so-called styles have wristlocks and throws, some tougher, some smoother, derived from Daito. But theses were used, according to the founder, merely to purify the body and to enhance one's awareness of spirit within and without, merging and getting aquainted with it. Denying this is an open display of ignorance of Ueshiba Morihei O-Sensei's Aikido. I will refrain from further discussion, since, as an aikidoka, I'm not competing with none of you. I gave you solid arguments and the view of masters I collected through the years, not the opinion of practitioners neither mine, with the sole purpose of enhancing the quality of this site. It is not suprising to notice the rise of opinions such as the one stated by the fellow in the topic above this - of Aikido being a week art, that was not tested, and whose phylosophy is lesser then those of Kant and Confucious - as long as there are week reprentatives of the art, like the ones you've serched to write the article, and with poor texts like the one in the main page. The ancient methods of the samurai battlefields, the great spirit of O-Sensei, the Shinto deities and Lord Buddha are being mocked by ignorant people, and wikipedia is not contributing on its task of erradicating the darkness on the thoughts of such people. This being said, I withdraw myself definitely from this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.186.180.178 (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I was more than happy to expand upon the evolution of Ueshiba's philosophy and vision for aikido within the context of both the creation and history of aikido, and how practice today may or may not diverge from that. The criticism, above, that you originally responded to, was igonorant and a waste of everyone's time. The criticism section in the article is not. Aikido is a graduate-level martial art that Ueshiba tought us could be used to to "give life" (so to speak) instead of take it. The problem, however, is that developing the ability to "give life" is completely contigent upon the practitioner's ability to take life. This is the rationale behind the critism that aikido practioners must train hard, with committed attacks, and explore in their training the ins and outs of combat. Ueshiba got there through a lifetime of soldiering, followed by a philosophical or religious revelation. Comparing Ueshiba to Jesus is not an avenue that will get your arguments or your aikido taken seriously. Bradford44 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion came to a fine conclusion my dear friend, and to see that you have a broad understanding of such a fine art. And even though most people may not (or do not want to) see it, you must admit that Ueshiba taught, above all else, about love, and so did the Christ. The comparison is inevitable since the core of their teachings is one and the same, and so it hapends with any other relevant master of mankind. What is the opinion of others concerning my Aikido, if people will take it seriously or not, really does not bother me. Thank you for being so patient with me Mr. Bradford! I sincearly hope that you and all aikidoka may discover the light of the love within, which is always shinning, and that you may forever identify yourselves with that love, for it is the greatest thing the human experience can offer, the greatest miracle in the universe - Love! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.11.115 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just out of curiosity, and to add some humor to this talk, "pools of sorrow waves of joy" is part of a song by the Beatles, entlitled "Across the Universe"...c´mon felows, even the Beatles knew that All you need is Love! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.141.200 (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pools of sorrow, waves of joy Dō

I have been reading the 'Pools of sorrow' epistle and thinking about Dō.

Bradford made a good comment about how Ueshiba came to his understanding through a lifetime of experience. Each of us has their own lifetime of experience and comes to some understanding. I have thought of Dō not as a bible text of words but rather as a set of experiences planned by a master. I expect the experience of training to bring me some understanding. I do not accept his words ( because I probably cannot understand them) but I accept his training. I do not expect to arrive in exactly the same place as O sensei but I expect to develop as he would wish.

I think it is great that Bradford would develop an article about the origin, development and philosophy of Aikido but I think it should be a separate article in order to keep proportion in this article.

My karate sensei always said "Stop talking and do more repetitions." jmcw (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)