Talk:Aikido styles

Other Distinct Styles

Other than Iwama Style, this page tends to lump all styles associated with the Aikikai into one group. What about Nishio style and the so called "Shingu" style which have some very distinct characteristics such as stance, iai/bojutsu practice or sword forms nearly identical to Yagyu style, completely different strategies for entering (in the case of Nishio style), etc. And perhaps most importantly, students who identify themselves as being part of a unique style of Aikido.

I can see how not every sensei's unique philosophy can be included (For example, I understand Abe Seiseki taught some things quite differently from how the Aikikai was teaching them), but at the very least I think Nishio style warrants a page/mention.

Rufe (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Aikido Schools of Ueshiba

I'm not sufficiently versed in all the politics and history to feel comfortable making this change, but I'd think that Aikido Schools of Ueshiba, founded by Mitsugi Saotome (http://www.asu.org/) would be at least worth mentioning. On the East Coast of the United States, I'd say that it was the second most widespread style, and it certainly has more dojos than Seidokan Aikido. Kishomuru Ueshiba came to the ASU cherry blossom festival in 2003 (+/- 1), and I know that in ASU they saw it as a recognition of ASU as a legitimate style of Aikido. Opherdonchin 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope Kisshōmaru Sensei didn't attend a festival in 2003, since he died in 1999. I assume you mean his son, Moriteru (current Doshu). Djiann 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know ASU is not an independant style and is still strongly affiliated with the Aikikai. Maybe mention something in Aikikai text (short please)?Wwilson 1 14:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This brings up a good point... ASU can probably be legitimately considered a unique style in spite of the fact that they fall under the Aikikai umbrella. We'll wanna be careful to distinguish style from political affiliation. The premise of this page is somewhat troubling to me... the division into major and minor seems somewhat arbitrary and perhaps influenced by editors' personal POV. I know I wouldn't appreciate being called "minor" if I were, say, from Seidokan. There are so many splinter groups within aikido, and the splinters fall along such complex stylistic and organizational boundaries, that to really do them all justice on a page like this seems difficult at best. Instructive and less controversial would be a "family tree" format, showing how some styles and orgs are derivative of others. Djiann 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also the broader List of Aikido Organizations which is probably where the ASU best fits. The List of Aikido Styles page was originally an off-shoot of the main Aikido page when the Listy section was converted into Prose. What is major and minor was defined quite some time back and I think works well.Peter Rehse 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The ASU and USAF intermingle to the point where they can't really be considered distinct styles except for the most senior students under each school. Even then, the influiences are diverse for example: Ledyard sensei is heavily influienced by Saotome sensei, but was also close to Heiny sensei for a time, Ikeda sensei seems to be exploring everything he can get his hands on though obviously he is very close to Saotome sensei, Choate sensei seems to be into systema right now, Gleason sensei is into the spiritual side of aikido, etc. In USAF there are a couple important sensei such as Yamada, Chiba, and Sugano who all influience the students.

That being said, is there any way to add USAF to the "Aikido Organizations" category and to get that page listed under the "Aikido" list at the bottom of this page?

Rufe (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Major aikido styles

The template for major aikido styles IMHO is more confusing than relevant so I removed it from the article. There also is a discussion about the template in itself on Template talk:Major styles of aikido. // habj 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alain Peyrache

I´ve attended a couple of seminars with him while I was in Quebec. His Aikido is OK but is his organization independent of the Aikikai. I am not sure about that. I think that needs to be clarified.Peter Rehse 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection - I think that until an article is written about either Alain Peyrache or his organization then the entry should be removed. I do think that Alain is notable enough that he should have an entry under French Aikidoka.Peter Rehse 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted until article on either the organization or founder is written. Otherwise it is not clear whether this is Aikikai or not.Peter Rehse 08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think styles with no articles associated with it or their founder should not be here. If they are notable - then they should have an article.Peter Rehse 07:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Shin Budo Kai

This is a cluster of four dojos - pretty hard pressed to call it a style. If every small independent grouping was listed here it would be a huge list. The article on Shin Budo Kai was deleted as being non-notable and a redirect was created. I am going to remove it again unless a good reason is given.Peter Rehse 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

While I missed this discussion entirely, I think there is a notability value here insofar as Imaizumi is one of the few remaining direct students of Ueshiba Sensei, and his focus has been on breath and footwork. Stylistic changes are a re-thinking of followthrough (through a kind of minimalism of action) and changes to specific foot placement in common Aikido movements which alters the Shin-Shin-Toitsu style enough to be distinct. It might be a small group, organizationally, but it's meaningful from a practice standpoint.

I guess a related question is - are other "dojo clusters" also around that were founded by students of O-Sensei, or have these all "grown up" into larger organizations? --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Style or organization

Frequently, when the term style is used, the term organization would be more accurate. This is definitely the case with Aikikai (Zaidan Hojin Aikikai), which is a foundation linked to the Ueshiba family's Hombu Dojo in Shinjuku, Tokyo - it is not a style, since it refuses to declare exactly how basic techniques should be done, but an organization, mainly governing its system of kyu and dan grades. The same is true for several other organizations often called styles. The term style would be more appropriate for aikido traditions following closely the specific teaching of a certain aikido instructor, when such a group clearly distinguishes itself from other aikido. They sometimes have their own organizations, and sometimes not - this can also differ from country to country. Examples of aikido instructors that have become sources of distinguishable styles of aikido are Saito, Nishio, Yamaguchi, Shioda, Tohei, Tomiki, and many others. Stefan Stenudd 81.216.206.7 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

clear up a source question issue

Appeal to clear up a source question issue asked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fumiaki_Shishida that affects other aikido articles, therefore, an appeal for a current JAA member with current insight, who is able to definitively clear up the question of, is the source http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 listed in the fumiaki shisida article sound ? The question is raised in so much as the source states that shishida is " Currently a member of the Board of Directors and a technical director of the JAPAN AIKIDO ASSOCIATION." And when this statement was used recently in an update of another aikido article, then the update was readily undone and the reason given for its undoing was that it was incorrect information. The question isn't about the undoing of an update as I have no issue with the update being undone, but in the action of the undoing of the update for that reason it raises the question of, if the information is indeed incorrect, then the http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 source is not a sound source and its inclusion therefore, in the fumiaki shisida article and any other wiki article is questionable. But if the source is sound and the statement is correct, then there can be no objection with it remaining. Chunlinc (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aikido styles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826182832/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=474 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=474
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204233559/http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/jicc/EJN_vol2_no5.htm to http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/jicc/EJN_vol2_no5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aikido styles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605113145/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=324 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=324
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225749/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=785 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=785
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016190635/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=603 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=603
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807104204/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=701 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=701
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225638/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=626 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=626
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014170911/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=273 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=273
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525220103/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=522 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=522
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605120100/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=457 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia?entryID=457
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507003442/http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=375 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=375

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Gogyo medical Aikido

This item appears under Aikido of the Modern Period, but it has nothing at all to do with the aikido that is the subject of this article, apart from an apparent sharing of the same three Chinese characters in its name. I recently removed it without discussion, which I never imagined would be controversial, and had my removal reverted. Will anyone like to defend the idea that this Gogyo thing has any relation at all to the martial art of Ueshiba? What is the WP standard about how such things are decided? How long should I wait, during which time there is (I predict) no credible justification offered for the inclusion of Gogyo, before I can remove it for good? Thanks. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not an Aikido style and does not pretend to be. Only commonality is in the name but that alone does not make it a style of the larger art. Should be removed from the article, the first line of the article makes it clear there must be some connection to Ueshiba.PRehse (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you and I agree about this. Is there a way to cross t's and dot i's WP-wise so that a reversion war is avoided? Himatsu Bushi (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted because it has nothing to do with Aikido in this article. Two of the sources are links to wikipedia, and one is from Microsoft, and they don't qualify as sources at all.

Many accounts and IP users have repeatedly written edits on largely unrelated pages, using unrelated sources to describe the influence of traditional Chinese medicine, Wuxing, and the Gogyo, which are derived from the Wuxing. Those accounts and IP users actively edit the pages of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuxing, Gogyo and Godai. That representative account was blocked, and many others were blocked as sockpuppets. However, coincidentally, several accounts are still editing the same. I present those blocked accounts here. Some of those accounts, very interestingly, linked aikido with traditional medicine on the Aikido page.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zongqi/Archive

• Zongqi (talk · contribs · count) Aikido[1]
• ShodoSuzuki (talk · contribs · count) Aikido[2]

• Shenqijing (talk · contribs · count) Aikido[3] --Green cigarette (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Should someone undo all the edits to blocked accounts? They seem to have rewritten quotes from various sources or deleted various sources.--Green cigarette (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

On this page, two accounts and two IP users re-write the same description many times whenever the description about Gogyo medical Aikido (Chinese Wuxing he qi dao) is deleted from other users. It is an unauthoritative and unfamous folk medicine that uses the same letters but is completely different from aikido founded by Ueshiba. Don't you think it's very rare that people want to write that description here? Both IP users are connecting from Melbourne. Aren't the four of them the same person?

2405:6E00:208D:CBF4:14A3:E7AE:89D0:4230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [4]

49.183.166.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [5]

Troyfall (talk · contribs · count) [6]

Kindbynature (talk · contribs · count) [7][8] --Green cigarette (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this independently and have filed an investigation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)