Talk:Aikido

	Martial arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:FAOL

Attacks

I will change the first few lines on the attack section. All that was really required to join Ueshiba M.'s dojo in the early days were letters of introduction and not all had previous martial art experience. Those that did tended to come from Judo rather than striking arts. Interestingly when he first started teaching it was at the Omotokyo headquarters in Ayabe - the bulk of his students had no Budo experience. When Ueshiba began teaching it wasn't called Aikido but Daito-ryu and was not a new art. I also removed the "more agressive" designation for striking arts. Irimi can be very agressive and is designated by some Aikidoists as atemi (striking) waza. Peter Rehse 01:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

What is the policy on external links? Generally I can see broad based sites such as Aikiweb, some organizational sites, even things like the Primer, but some look like quite ordinary personal pages. It really is not that long to worry about but hey I'm curious.Peter Rehse 07:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is the place for individual homepages. If they add something to the article then perhaps the article itself should be changed.Peter Rehse 00:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My major problem with individual homepage external links, besides the potential length of the list, is the feeling that they act more as advertisment than information. Quite a bit of effort has been put into the Aikido article to avoid style bias and affect a NPOV. To get your dojo name out there, a laudable exercise, the Dojo listings at Aikiweb and Aikido Journal, are far more effective. If the person who added the last link insists then in fairness I will re-add the other deleted links. If you look at the general trend in other articles the number of external links tend to be limited to two or three. Peter Rehse 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with this and I will remove the link. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 14:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

Under "Techniques," there is the line, "Aikido is considered one of the most difficult of the Japanese martial arts in which to gain proficiency since it has such great demands physically and mentally." While I personally train Aikido and agree it's difficult, I don't think this statement can be meaningfully confirmed. What does "proficiency" mean? I agree it's difficult to become adept enough in Aikido to use it for self-defense, but I still think this is too vague and perhaps self-congratulatory a statement.

No offense is intended. If anyone disagrees, please contact me. But I can't imagine that jujitsu, karate, or any other Japanese martial art is significantly easier to gain proficiency in. Otherwise I'll delete the line in the near future. Danspalding 02:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that on the face of it it seems like a weird line, and doesn't seem to have adequite support. What I have seen mentioned a couple times in Aikido books is that the mean time to get a dan-level qualification in Aikido is, on the average, longer than the time to get an equivalent qualification in TKD or most of the popular forms of karate taught in the west. Of course, the authors of Aikido books tend to interpret that as being a side-effect of the difficulty of Aikido, but it could just be a matter of differing ideas of what constitutes a black-belt level student. I doubt that there is much in the way of quantitative data on this subject; somehow, I don't see anyone getting a grant to study training pace in martial arts schools any time soon. What might be worth mentioning is that there is a perception in the Aikido community (as reflected by popular authors, etc.) that Aikido training and certification occurs at a different pace than in many other martial arts. I can certainly say that I've seen reflected on message boards and in conversation with aikidoka that such a perception exists; in particular, I think that there is a perception that because of the philosophical aspects of Aikido, there is a higher standard set for qualification at upper levels- that one must not only know the techniques, but also be a conscientous partner, a reasonabley skilled instructor when dealing with newbies, and an excellent uke for class demonstrations. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but the existence of the perception should be possible to document. --Clay Collier 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was also bothered by the line. Here in Japan yudansha rank in Aikido, Kendo and Judo take about the same amount of time. There are also forms of koryu that use techniques as or more "sophisticated" than Aikido. Same can be said for the philosophical underpinnings. As the original comment suggested the statement tastes of self congratualatory back slapping - what do other arts think of Aikido - and should be removed. It is opinion rather than fact.Peter Rehse 00:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line "Aikido is considered one of the most difficult of the Japanese martial arts in which to gain proficiency since it has such great demands physically and mentally." For the above reasons, and because it wasn't a great fit in the "Technique" section. I couldn't find a great place for it under "Training," either. Looking at the Training section, I think the average reader will be impressed that Aikido is a demanding art. Danspalding 23:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ki

Hi. Someone (who must not speak Chinese) suggested that the ki in aikido was the same as both the Qi in Qi Gong and the Chi in T'ai Chi Ch'uan. This is not true (although I can understand the mistake; the Chi in T'ai Chi is actually pronounced ji -- thank you Wade Giles -- and doesn't mean the same thing at all). I corrected this mistake. I also edited much of what was written before for clarity and grammar. And added a bunch of discussion on how various schools see Ki -- the old article essentially emphasized the spiritual Aikikai interpretation of Ki which is by no means the only one.

Hopefully you guys can look it over and improve it.

The statement that Chinese chi and Japanese ki not necessarily is the same thing, has nothing to do with the etymology of the word but the meaning of it. I have it from martial artists who has trained in both Chinese and Japanese arts, and found that the teachers from the two countries did not mean quite the same thing with the word. Of course, we could argue if a reiki healers and an aikido persons concept might not be the same. Maybe there is not even two aikido persons who means the same thing, when they say the word...

Btw, I think the ki-part of the article is greatly improved by your changes. Habj 13:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not really an issue of "Chinese chi vs. Japanese ki" as it is an issue of "Chinese ji (= chi = 極) vs. Chinese qi (= ch'i = 氣). It is a question of etymology. I agree that the recent edits were an improvement. Thank you anonymous. - Nat Kraus e 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, then there are two separate issues... Habj 15:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

added some details for ki - as i dont know anything about the chinese version i thought - this the better place :) (slartibartfasz)

Perhaps I'm being needlessly contentious, but you say "No article about Aikido can be complete without a discussion of the concept of Ki"--a statement which contains a link to Qi but not a discussion of it. Is this irony unintended? Why not add at least a brief discussion of Qi on the aikido page (maybe leaving the more lengthy discussion in place)? --KQ

I just recently linked the reference to Ki to Qi because I knew the entry existed. Someone more educated on such a subject than I needs to tie this in, I'm afraid. Better linked than nothing! -Alan D

True. Well I suppose someone will pick it up. My last reading on it was in high school, though I suppose I could copy and paste. I'd rather someone genuinely knowledgeable about it do it, though. --KQ

In my mind, this extended text on ki does not have much to do in this article. It might feel natural to some aikido people, but I do think it would be better to make this one really short and transfer parts of it to ki. Habj 20:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The recently added text may violate copyright unless it is added by the origin author.

Could you list the source you think it's from to help the rest of us check it out? :-) --KQ

I have no idea, but it was mentioned the writings come from "Aikido FAQ" and "The Spirit of Aikiko". Quoting the source does not get you the right to reproduce the text here, does it?

I'd guess that this very brief quote should be ok under fair use.

Hara

Is the link to Hara correct? The page seems unrelated. Can someone write a different page about Hara?

it is another meaning of the word. What do to do with the redirect? /Habj

Looks like the existing Hara page is the Indian Hara which redirected to another page. What we need here is a page for the Japanese Hara.

I have created a Hara page for the Japanese Hara called Hara (Fu), following the pattern of a previously existing page called Tanden (Dantian). The problem has arisen, due to the use of these two words interchangably and as synonyms, even though they have different meanings. Hara seems more to refer to a body part, the belly, while Tanden is more etheral a concept, being the centre of power and centre of gravity (assuming the stance is correct, of course). A Chinese friend who speaks both Mandarin and Japanese showed me that the characters are one and the same in both languages. I have resolved all links, ie Aikido - this page, to the new page. The old Hara page still exists, as it is a disambiguation page. I have made a link in it to the 2 new pages, as the terms are often used interchangably. As well, the old and incorrect Hara (Dantian) page should be deleted. I have removed all text from it and unlinked it, so I presume that it is gone.

While I was at it, I also corrected the links to Qigong and Tai Chi Chuan at the top of the section. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 07:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I corrected the links to a more widely used way in Wikipedia. The page Hara (Fu) would suggest that there is a category of Fu, which Hara is a part of. For example, see Assimilation (Star Trek) -- assimilation is under Star Trek. I corrected all the links, except for in this page (that would perhaps be a little intrusive, to edit others' comments). The page is now Hara (Martial Arts) --kooo 17:51, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Genealogy chart

Hi, newbie here. I made a chart of the "genealogy" of Aikido some time ago, using the info found at aikidofaq.com, aikiweb.com and some other pages (urls of which i don't remember, sorry) related to some particular Styles. I thought it could be useful in Wikipedia, and converted it to ASCII art (sort of).

I need your help for corrections (I'm not 100% sure wether the info I used was completely accurated), and for NPOV (some may think that the inclusion of Daito-Ryu, Hapkido, Judo, or the Sportive Styles is biased in some way?).

The chart is here, I don't wanted to post it until you had revised it. Do you think it's worth including it?

Thanks! --ArinArin 11:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As long as the arrangement is your own, and not taken from something else, then I definitely think it's worth including. It's a very handy, comprehensive summary.

A few points:

Schools, arts, people, and other topics should probably be linked to their appropriate pages.
If you're using Japanese naming order (and you seem to be; Ueshiba Morihei for example), then Kano Jigoro is correct. I don't know what the accepted Wikipedia style is (Japanese or anglicized naming order), or even if there is one.

Addendum: According to the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, Japanese names should be given name first, family name last if they're more commonly known that way by English speakers, and in Japanese order otherwise. So, it's pretty flexible. Depends on how obscure the individual is to the general public, I suppose. - Gwalla 20:38, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's really any consensus on what MAs o-sensei learned. There are all sorts of claims. The only one it seems everyone agrees on is Daito-Ryu.

- Gwalla 23:48, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Gwalla. Yes the arrangement is mine, based mainly in the information found at The Aikido FAQ.As there is no © note, I suppose this one in the index page applies:

I have written an email today to Kjartan Clausen to ask for his permission. --ArinArin 11:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Answer from Kjartan Clausen:

I don't mind you using it as source material, as you've done. Go right ahead and post it.

A couple of things to think about though:

The layout makes it _very_ hard to understand what you want to explain.

Jigoro Kano didn't study daito-ryu - he studied kito-ryu

Morihei Ueshiba didn't study Kendo. He did study spear and bayonet though.

Look at John Stevens books for more info about what Ueshiba did.

And "Kano Jigoro" is the correct form in your genealogy tree, since everybody else that's Japanese has their name in last-first order.

The nice (colour) version is available here as excel spreadsheet (MD5 checksum 318779d96aa62f6bc5ac7137722fc052 *aikido_gen.rar). I think it's clearer than ASCIIart but maybe too big. Ideas?

To do list for the chart:

Delete Kano from disciples of Takeda, or move to Kito-ryu.
Translate from catalan into english (excel version).
Check John Stevens' Abundant Peace.
Ancestors for Aikijutsu maybe are too much info for an Aikido article. Delete?
(More)?

Thanks to all! --ArinArin 12:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd move Kano to Kito-ryu. If you make this its own article (which you probably should), then including ancestors for aikijutsu is fine. You'll want to convert it to a form that can be displayed on Wikipedia though--I don't think posting it in Excel form would be a good idea.

You could post the untranslated version to the Catalonian Wikipedia too.

- Gwalla 21:25, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Aikido Schools of Ueshiba is as far as I understand not independent of the Aikikai, but very much a part of it. If you mention this org. I think you should list all the federations in the US affiliated with the Aikikai, as well as Swedish Aikikai, British Aikikai... Habj 00:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misc

I have recently updated the Aikido page by posting sections pertaining to the Body and Mind. I felt that if there was a section on Spirituality and Ki, a section on the Body and Mind would give a well rounded sense of the diversity of Aikido. I noticed today that in both of the new sections, someone has taken out links where I have learned some of my information from. I sited the sections of the text that were paraphrased and don't understand why they were taken out. I would like the person that edited the text to provide an explanation if possible. Cviggian

I was wondering if anyone has any pictures of videos showing the so called "unbendable arm"? It has been described as an impressive display of the power of ki, all the way down to a simple parlor trick. The unbendable arm is a demonstration where the demonstrator extends his arm and challenges others to bend it. Sounds simple right? By "extending ki" through his arm, the demonstrator can make it impossible for anyone to bend it. This sounds really cool and I really would like to see it with my own eyes. Any link to video or pictures would be awesome. Cviggian

Hi New face here made some changes. to origin and styles : Simon

Did the bokken link

Aikido is not developed from Chinese wushu. Habj 10:45 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

The kanji is not a pictograph. What you claim is a handle actually is part of the radical "steam".

Never heard that osensei was "disgusted with violence". I take it as a myth. Soft techniques exist in other types of jujutsu also, although some aikido people like to think they are exclusive for aikido... Despite the name, it is kind of difficult to say that all aikido practise "f

Are Paolo Corallini and Ulf Evenas really famous enough to apper in "List of Famous Aikidoka" in your opinion? I have never heard of them outside Wikipedia. jni 11:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They were the top men in the Iwama Ryu, that does not yet have an article but most definately should have one. They do not deserve pages and pages of text, but a short article with basic facts should be fine I guess.Habj 12:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree they should have their own articles if they are important even for one country's aikido. I'm objecting that the list of famous people in this article starts with two western blokes and list Ueshibas, Gozo Shioda, etc. only after them. Well, I reorganized it myself.

By what standard should someone be included on this list? There are many well known instructors senior to Paolo Corallini and Ulf Evenas who are not included and if everyone adds their favorite instructors the list could get very long. Also, when a teacher is Japanese by birth but currently teaches in the US or Europe, which category should they fall under? Edwinstearns 15:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As Saotome has been added to this list, I have added some others of similar international stature. This list is far from complete and I still feel that there is no standard for why one person is included and another is not, other than the POV of the editor. Edwinstearns 14:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

Technical Summaries?

I am myself quite ambivalent about this idea. What would you think about adding a list of aikido techniques/attacks here? Perhaps on a single page, with short definitions of, say, irimi-nage, ikkyo/ikkajo, kaiten-nage, etc. I think this would provide useful information, but at the same time it might be overly ambitious, especially when stylistic differences come into play. (Are we really qualified to describe the fundamental, trans-stylistic essence of, say, yonkyo?) I'd like some feedback before I make such a move.

I think that this is a bad idea. Not only are there technical differences, but there are terminology differences. The ikkyo-ikkajo issues is only the beginning; what many teachers call irimi-nage is called kokyu-nage in Ki Society. Even within the Aikikai, there are divergent naming conventions. Furthermore, I don't think that an encyclopedia article should try to be a technical manual. It would be fine to have pictures of some techniques as examples with the naming convention used by the person doing the demonstration, but any attempt to give a NPOV technical description would be doomed to failure.

Edwinstearns 15:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the original poster; I didn't have a user name at the time. I think you're correct on this matter; it would be horribly difficult, and of questionable utility. I think I'll add a few aikiweb links instead, for the curious reader. Thanks for your sensible commentary. --GenkiNeko 20:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ASU

I deleted the description of ASU because:

It has already been listed under Aikikai, and
The description was longer and more detailed than the other style descriptions.

I think that we should be carefull that this page doesn't become a series of promotions for induvidual styles. This will only result edit wars as some people will always feel that their style has been slighted in some way. Let's try to keep the internal political fights of Aikido off this encyclopedic page and on the forums where they belong. Edwinstearns 14:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought it would be best if people just filled in information about the styles they knew about. The page isn't meant to remain static. According to your logic, if one person can't equally extend the descriptions of all the styles, they must remain the same length forever. I don't think this is the best approach. Torokun 01:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I am just concerned about people making characterizations like "style A is stronger than other styles" or "style B has more sophisticated weapons training". Very few people have enough exposure to various styles to make objective judgements about the differences between styles. Often there are greater differences within organizations than between organizations. As a compromise, we could start a new list of orginizations under the Aikikai umbrella with descriptions focused on objective facts, like leadership, date of founding and organizing principles. Edwinstearns 13:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Aikido article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Aikido}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Styles

The last three styles in the list - those of Rod Kobayashi, Seagal and Nocquet - are they not a part of Aikikai? If they are, they should not be listed separately. If they are not, now big are they? Should we list all independent aikido organisations there is? I fear the list could be long... Habj 10:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed Aiki-Budo. As far as I could see it referred to a stage in Uesthibas development, an aikido of longer time ago still visible through some of the teachers within and outside of the Aikikai; if we list every technically different aikido as a style IMO we will have as meny styles as teachers. Habj 19:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed Tendokan Aikido to Tendoryu Aikido, because Tendokan means the Dojo from Shimizu Sensei in Tokyo. -- ukemi 13:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I altered the Tomiki Aikido entry slightly since I felt it was redundant with the Shodokan Aikido entry below. There are some groups which consider themselves Tomiki but not Shodokan but Shodokan is what Tomiki called his style. It's a bit confusing but this way I think it is less so than two entries. Peter Rehse

I don't see it has a huge problem right now but perhaps the style section will need to be re-worked. For example not all of the styles listed (and I see the number growing) have a Honbu Dojo in Japan (as stated in the first line of the section). With the growing number (often for political reasons - as I guess was usually the case in the past also) of new independent dojos which ones are actually styles and more to the point how many affiliated dojos do you need to be considered major. Also - several of the styles are affiliated to one of the major styles. Major appears to mean one of your members thinks your style is major and had it tacked on to the original list which made more sense. I don't want to start messing around with anything right now but how about styles founded by pre-war students of Ueshiba, founded by post-war students of Ueshiba, Independent dojos. There should still be room for unique subsets of the major styles or dojos that broke away from these. For discussion purposes only - any opinions. Peter Rehse 08:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I guess it bothered me more than I thought. I did some re-arranging. My biggest worry is about the Iwamma group and I hope I did them justice. The last entry ... well to be blunt one dojo does not make a style and I think it should be removed. It's dojo advertising and there are hundreds of larger independent associations. Tenshin is also Aikikai affiliated as far as I know but this bothers me less. I removed Tomiki as a separate entity - no need for that as it is correctly described under Shodokan.Peter Rehse 06:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latest Style entry should be removed as they are part of the Aikikai. I placed an entry in User talk:Ctozer to leave it with the author for a few days after which I will remove it. Hopefully he will see the light. He also wrote an article about himself to which myself and one other commented. I suspect it is just a matter of understanding how Wikipedia works.Peter Rehse 05:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about removing the name and links to the USAF and ASU from the Aikikai entry and referring to the List of Famous Aikidoka where I will include the links with the appropriate name (Chiba with USAF and Satome with ASU). The reason is mainly to head off the inclusion of a number of other organization links which would tend to swamp the Aikikai entry. Comments?Peter Rehse 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Edwin Stearns | Talk 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Tohei and Ki-Aikido

I was wondering if someone can perhaps create articles on both Koichi Tohei and Ki-Aikido. As of this moment there are no entries whatsoever on these two subjects. I would do it myself but I am not yet knowledgeable enough of the history of Ki-Aikido and Koichi Tohei to do it properly.

/Aikido-trainee 14:41, 25 Dec 2004 CET+1

Go ahead and make a start with what you know, and mark them with {{ma-stub}} (the martial arts stub message). Most articles start small, and get built up as verious people pool their knowledge over time.

Note that Ki Society does exist. — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I could add some basic stuff (which cannot be described as intimate knowledge) And I already know the Ki Society exists, I added a few links to the Swedish official Ki-society page :)

/Aikido-trainee 10:58, 26 Dec 2004

There, I have started an article bout Koichi Tohei with the Stub command. Hopefully its up to standards and regulations :)

I regged in order to be more effeciant, so I'm under the name Fred26 now.

//Aikido-trainee /Fred26 10:38, 27 Dec 2004

Regarding this article here: can it safely be said that ki aikido focusses more on spiritual aspects and less on technique? I can imagine that depends on how you define spirituality, and how you define technique. I suggest we take that sentence out. Habj 19:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which sentence? But as for spiritual and Ki-aikido, I suppose that depends on how Koichi Tohei interpreted it when he first created the style to begin with. What little I have read seems to suggest that Tohei isn't exactly a scientist and supreme rationalist, although he wasnt as religious a man as Ueshiba was, but rather a spiritual man who believes the concept of Ki can heal both mind and body.

However, when one think of spirituality one usually think of religious rituals. Ueshiba had quite a lot of those before, (during?) and after practice. I cant remember seeing or hearing Tohei doing any of that stuff in his dojos or in his official "doctrine" for lack of better word. The cultivation of Ki is mostly done with meditation and aikido practice as I have understood it. My own Ki-aikido club for instance has (only) meditation techniques besides the aikido practice itself to cultivate Ki.

Fred26 11:09, 29 Dec 2004

You find it under "Spirituality". To me, it looks like someones personal opinion. I suggest we remove that sentence.

Actually, to me it is odd to write about "Ki" under "Spirituality". I guess that depends on how you define that, but I would like to de-mystizise the article quite a bit. Habj 18:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

De mystify it? I did change it to ki instead of spiritual, but I'm not a scientist, I cannot say how or if the concept of Ki truly works or not according to Tohei, but I cannot ignore to write that Tohei himself thinks it works, and how he got to that conclusion, since the article is about him and his life.

Check this Tohei-qoute:

"Although the ideas were somewhat vague at that time, I had a sense that it was my mind and spirit (kokoro) that had motivated my body. I realized that the way you hold your mind is important. Physical illness is okay (if not desirable), but it is unacceptable to allow illness to extend to your mind or your ki.

In Japanese, when the body malfunctions in some way we call it yamai, or byo, which means simply "illness"; but when the failure extends to one’s ki as well we call it byoki. So although my body may be afflicted with some sort of illness, I don’t let that extend to my ki. If the mind is healthy, the body will follow

"

That sounds quite mystifying. But since the article is about who Koichi Tohei is, and how he sees life, ki and illness, I'd say that there is plenty of room for his own opinion in the article itself. Or should we censur it for the common rational good? :)

User:Fred26

???

Fred26, I am talking about the article that this talk page belongs to - aikido! Maybe I was unclear when I said "regarding this page here", but most of the time you assume that what is on a talk page concerns the article that the talk page belongs to.

I am discussing whether we safely can say that ki-aikido is more spiritual than other aikido. I argue that we can not safely say so. Habj 17:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! My bad..sorry. I thought you meant something else. As for yer question, ki exists in both "regular" aikido and ki-aikido, but the latter and its founder has made it a goal to "bring forth" the Ki in aikido with education and practice. The aikikai, whom Tohei belonged to, did not want to include Toheis ki-excercises, or rather not just prescisly HIS teachings, so Tohei said he would teach outside the main Dojo, which he was allowed to and did.

But there is another style of aikido who was founded by a Omoto-kyu follower. The impression I got from him and his words suggests that he worships Ueshiba as a prophet who was "filled with the spirit of God and talked through him" or something similar like that. So in terms of spirituality, I dont think Ki-aikido is the greatest of spiritual Aikido, but nevertheless a bit more spiritual than "regular" aikido.

All techniques can be performed with sword?

In some lines of aikido, all techniques can be performed with a sword as well as unarmed.

I'd like to know a style where this is really the case (I mean "all" is a quite strong proposition). Otherwise this sentence should be removed or re-formulated. --217.72.214.39 21:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can see that it was removed, and I think that was good. It is true about Shoji Nishio's system, which is technically a bit different to other schools of aikido I know of. The sentence can now be found on the page about this teacher. Habj 18:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Practices of Dousing

I wanted to pop by and inquire after the truth of water rituals as practiced by students of Aikido. Are there rituals which are the purely personal practices of a particular person or is this something more found more generally in the student body? For example, Shinto has water rituals akin to cold-water Dousing, are these studied by only a few people or is this practice observed by many? -

I also wanted to doublecheck the notion that the founder practiced dousing. Is this true? -

I ask all this to clarify elements of the fairly new dousing topic. -- Sy / ^(talk) 03:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know of no dousing in aikido. I do not know of Ueshiba did it, but he did many shinto rituals so I would not be surprised if he did. Habj 19:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Koichi Tohei doused himself in such a fashion even before he started aikido. It's called misogiI think. I'm not sure if misogi or any equivelant method is standard in Ki-aikido. My sensei mentioned something about that ritual, but I think he meant it as his own personal kind of purification and not as a general practice in the club.

User:Fred26

Are you confusing the definition of misogi with with various kata that use the term, such as misogi no ken (a purification kata performed with bokken). I've not heard anything about dousing in relation to Aikido, but I'm aware of a couple of different kata that are defined as purification forms as opposed to martial forms.

I have never heard of Ueshiba practicing dousing rituals from Aikido, and I certainly have never heard of it being practiced, especially not at my dojo. My sensai can reveal a terrible temper if someone gets something on the floor.

Book "Aikido in America" and mentioning of aikido people

Isn't that section on the book a bit over the top? If we include that, IMO we should mention a similar number of European aikido people and there are many books that could be mentioned. To me it seems we are shifting the weight of the article a bit to something less necessary. Habj 12:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The book gives a background of how Aikido came to the United States and how it changed and evolved from its Japanese roots. I liked the way the editors divided the people into 3 groups following the evolution of Aikido in the U.S. I am also interested in other parts of the world as well. Please list other Aikidoka if they have made contributions to Aikido as well as similiar books which would be good references. I also moved the List to new page. Petersam 20:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A section "Literature" is fine with me, although I can think of some books more obvious to mention (Aikido and the harmonic sphere, Saito's books, osenseis books). A section about the history of aikido in the US would be fine; sections about the history in Europe, Australia etc. also. In this context I guess mentioning the book as a source would be the way to go. Habj 01:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Styles: Nishio and Tissier Aikido

I removed Nishio aikido from the styles section, since Nishio was a part of the Aikikai. Technically he had a very unique style, but we have to distunguish between organisastions and technical styles; a list like this has to be of organisations, or it is impossible what teachers have a style unique enough to be mentioned.

I do not know if Tissier has his own organisation or not, but until I have facts that this is the case I would like to remove Tissier Aikido from the list also. I'll wait a bit, though. /Habj 08:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image correction

That's a nikyo in the photo, not ikkyo!

I agree that the picture is probably nikyo and is now correctly captioned, but I would point out that there is very little consistancy in the naming of techniques and it is possible that the instructor demonstarting called it ikkyo. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 18:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes; in Yoshokai, that would be called ikkajo. --GenkiNeko 15:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who founded Aikikai

"Aikikai Founded by Ueshiba Kissomaru, is the the largest aikido organisation is the, and is lead by family of the founder."

I don't see how this can be true. O-Sensei was alive at the time of founding and was the head of the orginization until he died. While it may be true that his son was instrumental in Aikikai's formation and that O-Sensei had little interest in orginizational issues, it seems to me to be misleading to say that he didn't found the orginization. I will change this unless someone can cite a source one way or the other. -- — Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hapkido

Please see hapkido to see the connection to aikido, aikijujutsu, & Sokaku Takeda.

Korindo Aikido and Minoro Hirai

I didn't say any mention of this part of aikido in the article

Minoro Hirai lived around the same time as Uyeshiba (both of them are called O'Sensei bytheir followers), and they influenced each other's style Aikido, while considered an invention of Hirai, was actually expected to emerge out of the styles of Jiu-jutsu, and was then called aiki-jujutsu, both masters founded their schools for that, and apparently, both called them Aikido.

Hirahi's branch was called Korindo, and, probably "thanks" to the small number of students didn't split into factions, as tends to happen in the martial arts world. It's still practiced, but mainly in Japan, Israel, and Berlin. I believe it's fading away, seeing as the korindo type of aikido is less familiar (an understatement) than Uyeshiba's.

Korindo does emphasize practicaluty as opposed to the ideal of a perfect movement, seen in some branches of Uyeshiba's aikido (this doesn't mean one is better than the other, it means they're different, that's all).

one of the unique traits of it is use of specific forms of tai sabaki designed to practice fluency in some of the basic movements and techniques.

I realize this probably won't be a main theme in the article about Aikido, but it won't be complete without some mentioning.

a practicing teacher in Israel is Shlomo David, dan 6. he's a full time coach in martial arts, and has studied aikido in Japan under Hirai, when Minoro Hirai was still alive.

I suggest you create a separate entry for Korindo Aikido and put a sentence or two in the style section. Need help? Let me know.Peter Rehse 10:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new Korindo Aikido article is now up. Could do with a bit of exapansion. Please see the article and its Talk page.Peter Rehse 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese connection

I recommend deleting the paragraph detailing the argument that Aikido was developed from Chinese arts. As far as I know, this argument has no traction among historians of Aikido and I personnally see no evidence of it. When I see film of Ueshiba demonstrating his art before WWII, I see the art fully formed, much as it is now practiced. The differences are most likely from the developments of his students, not any change in his own thinking. The concepts of ki in Aikido that the author is refering to probably originated with Tohei Sensei and is studies of "Japanese Yoga" taught by Nakamura Tempu. I don't think that the article would be enhanced by a debate on this topic. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 13:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While Ueshiba and Aikido schools have never formally acknowledged this, one must consider the chauvinistic military and nationalistic climate in Japan shortly before and after the end of World War II. It simply would have been extremely politically incorrect and counterproductive for Ueshiba's organisation to give credit to the Chinese for his "new" martial art.

I find this here as well questionable. It doesn't seem to fit with Ueshiba's character to hide his training. Additionally, he was rather opposed to most political climates concerning Japan. --Hidoshi 02:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I was very curious when that edit showed up, but I don't have my aikido references handy at the moment. I don't believe that Ueshiba really spent that long in China- wasn't he arrested a fairly short time after arriving, along with the rest of the Omoto-kyo expedition that he was part of? It's also a lot of space in a very sparse history section to give to a theory that shows up in a single autobiographical book by a New Yorker- if controversies over the formation of aikido are going to be discussed, the claims of the Daito-ryu aikijutsu folks are much better documented and more well known. I'll go ahead and remove the section under discussion, and if the poster wants to chat about it we can maybe take a look at the sources, or think about a way to reformulate things so that this single theory doesn't dominate the history section. --Clay Collier 03:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partner Terminology

I noticed that someone changed 'nage' to 'tori' at one point in the article. I've heard a number of different terms for the two partners involved in practicing together; 'uke' seems to be pretty standard, but for the other partner I've heard 'nage', 'tori', and something that sounds like 'shay'. Are these varient readings of the same kanji, or terms that are used in different aikido schools? Nage is standard in Aikikai schools, as far as I can tell. Should there be some effort to pick a standard set of terms and give the others as alternates? --Clay Collier 01:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the edit back to 'nage' because that is the term that is being used elsewhere in the article. 'Nage', 'tori' and 'shi'te' are all used in various branches of Aikido. I agree that nage is the most common term in Aikikai circles but in the recent english translation of one of the books written by Moriteru Ueshiba, current Doshu of Aikikai, the term tori is used. The current defacto policy of this article is to use nage everywhere and to mention that other terms are sometimes used. I would be in favor of removing all technical terms as there is no terminology that all Aikido practitioners agree with (with the possible exeption of shihonage) and because people who have come to the article with no Aikido experience won't understand the terminology anyway. My understanding is that Morihei Ueshiba didn't specify any of the terminology, but rather his students invented them, which has led to the current state of confusion. If this is true, there is not 'correct' term to use. — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough since the three terms actually have a different meaning. With respect to terminology even Shihonage does not cut across all bounds. Avoiding terminology where possible seems like a good policy and if it really has to be used I think its better to choose the Aikikai version by weight of numbers alone.Peter Rehse 02:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any Shin Budo Kai followers here?

No I'm not one of them,(hehe), but I've just finished a major overhaul of the Shizuo Imaizumi article and I need someone more knowledgeable than me to check it out, especially the part about Shin Budo Kai itself. I have a feeling I haven't captured what Shin Budo Kai really is about in that paragraph in the Shizuo-article. Oh, I could also use some help with judging grammar, (english isn't my first language to begin with) wikification, NPOV and so on.. Any help would be..(will be?) apreciated. :)

edit*

I used the sources for the article described in "reference materials". Again if anyone feel it is not accurate feel free to tell me so. Fred26 12:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters

The use of caps in originally Japanese words keep coming in. Aikido, Judo, Karate, Nage, Ki... why? What is the rationale for this?

If it some kind of honorific, this might work fine in the works of each aikido organisation but not in an encyclopedia intended for wider audience. There are many rules of English language I am not acquainted with (and those I should know I accidently break every now and then) but if there is a rule that words that originates in Japanese language should be spelled with a capital letter, or words with budo origin, I will be happy to recieve a pointer. Until that happens, I will see these capital letters as mistakes and remove them. / Habj 02:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct with regard to the capital letters. A while back someone started a capitilization craze which I noticed but couldn't be bothered to police. Thank you for taking care of it.Peter Rehse 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The standard, then, is to not capitalize words like aikido? This seems to be the most widely used throughout the article, but there is still some inconsistency. For example, throughout the introductory paragraph before the contents box, aikido is capitalized. There could be a reason behind this, similar to how the first use is boldfaced, but it could also cause confusion as to what the standard is. There are also other examples scattered throughout the article, such as in the first paragraph of the Training section. Here the phrase "aikido technique" is written first as I just demonstrated, and two sentenes later as "Aikido technique." I'm happy to do the final cleaning and standardizing, but I figured I would get some feedback first - especially regarding to the introductory paragraph. Estrand 00:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idid a quick run through but please take another look for more. I actually thought it was all taken care of but they sneak in. Aikido should not be capitilized within sentences.Peter Rehse 06:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please neutralise the article?

In some parts it seems no more than an enthusiastic advertisement. It is an encyclopedia, mind you. (e.g. "A new person - straightforward, brave yet humble, able to be both strong and yielding as circumstances require - can emerge from this training")

Please go ahead - I'm doing my best keeping the styles section under control. A couple of sections are too long, too involved and not too neutral. The best way is to take one section at a time - Mind is one, Ki is another that needs work. You are dead right about the example I got rid of it.Peter Rehse 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seagaliana

by a consensus of wikipedians, it was determined that this useful category be eliminated. however, i maintain this valuable resource on my user page --Ghetteaux 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Section and Kanji and Harmony

Hi. I just tweaked a few things on this. I lived in Japan for 3 years and am a fluent reader/speaker of japanese and have studied Aikido for the same amount of time. I'm no expert on the art, but I know that AI KI DO is not directly translated as the "way of harmony" so much as English speakers keep saying, although I admit it does sound quite nice. the character "AI" is used for many banal purposes, such as HANASHIAI (meet and talk) or TAIKAI (sports meet/exhibition), to ascribe "harmony" to it is a bit of western romanticism I think. Ki is ki, and Do is "way", this much is true. Basically, this is my opinion, but I believe the important idea being expressed in the word AIKIDO, is that it is about the MEETING of KI, the ki of two different people. whether they clash, or harmonize, is up to the individuals. Harmony and harmonizing is a wonderful quality, but it is a bit new agey to use it all the time. I think of Aikido as an ongoing experiment, a "ki science" that deals with all the different and wonderful ways that two people's Ki (i.e. intention, etc.) can meet. I mean, you could meet someone, and kiss them, and that would be a way of two "ki's" interacting, so let's keep it a little more open ended people!

also, I added that the character of KI represents a bowl of rice with the lid on, thus the steam is the "KI". This was drawn out and explained to me by an 80 year old guy who knew onsensei, yadda yadda. The rice character is used in AIKIDO, while in regular casual japanese, the character has been changed with the rice replaced by a katakana "me" character.

also, I reworded some phrases and such, to get around the word "spiritual" which is used WAAAAAAY too much, and is not a very concrete word that tells us much, especially when it is used so often. I'm all for spirituality, but it really is an ambiguous and ill-defined word to use to define something else... for example if someones says, "what is the deal with religion X or philosophy B?" and I answer "it's really, um...SPIRITUAL", I'm not really telling them much am I?

Whoops - I wish I had read your talk contribution before I started changing things. First of all thanks much for taking care of the Ki section. I still think it could be trimmed further - please feel free. I do think you are wrong about the kanji - please double check and lets discuss it here (I've lived in Japan for over 10 years and have studied Aikido just as long). Finally (my typo aside) Wikipedia asks that articles be written either in American or British English not a mixture of the two. I personally couldn't care less which varient is used but it really should be all or nothing.Peter Rehse 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes that you've made to this section. It has bothered me for some time and I haven't known how to change it. As for the translation of Aikido, I have seen the use of "The way of harmony with ki" or "The way of harmony with the spirit of the universe" in various books in english by Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Moriteru Ueshiba. I have also heard your literal translation before, but it seems that the interpretation of it as "The way of harmony" seems to come directly from the Aikikai, not from the west. Edwin Stearns | Talk 14:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the harmony and such is addressed immediately below in the History section. I suggest we leave it as it is.Peter Rehse 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Seagal

Stranglely I first spent two weeks constantly putting him back in the list of famous Aikidoka apparently someone didn't think he did Aikido or was famous or something. Now I find myself removing references and information in both the List of Famous Aikidoka and here. Excuse the rant but he is not the worst or best thing that happened to Aikido. I suggest that references to Seagal and his Aikido should stay on his own page which is linked through the list of famous Aikidoka. There are members of that latter list who have a far greater influence on Aikido which basically is my problem. If you mention SS you really need to mention far more people also.Peter Rehse 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master`s mistake in the photo.

Please place good photo on the page. In this photo master does a big mistake. Uke can "win" master by his kick. :D

That assumes that uke can get into a position to kick (or sweep or throw). In the picture, uke seems to be more focused on the ground than tori. Mrand 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the technique shown appears to be inelegantly preformed by both uke and nage. Without feeling the technique myself, it is hard to say whether uke can counter or not. It appears that this uke couldn't counter. Does anyone have a better picture that is GFDL? Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to Dan testing in Baltimore this Saturday. I can try to get some good pictures of randori or something there. Fightindaman 22:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I took some pictures, but they didn't come out so great. Not enough light so my shutter speed was rather slow. They're a bit blurry, but on a koshinage photo that can be a bit interesting. Should I bother uploading a few or no? Fightindaman 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about replacing that picture which I agree is poor with the one on the Italian version of the Aikido page. I don't think uke is in a position to do anything to nage but yeah it is inelegant. Pictures and copyright provisions are too complicated for me - I leave the actual doing to someone else.Peter Rehse 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? --GenkiNeko 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Italian Aikido page they use this one. I prefer it. Now if I could only figure out how to change the pici.Peter Rehse 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managed it - still open for discussion of course but this one is definately better than the last.Peter Rehse 00:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido in the States

I studied Aikido with Bob Ozman some 40 years ago and I'm curious as to where he fits in to the history. While Chuck Norris - himself - was kindly and good at Karate - his teen aged instructors had massive ego problems so I walked to the next dojo down the street as it were. Does Isshinryu ring a bell? - Sparky

I googled the name with Aikido and came up with nada on Aikido but a tenuous connection with Jack Mumpower who was an early student of Aikido great Kenji Tomiki. You sure it was Aikido you were taught? If you are really curious I would ask the same question on the forums at http://www.aikiweb.com CheersPeter Rehse 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live blades?

IP 80.45.15.210 has added that some people practice with live blades. For solo practice (what we call movement practice - where you are not directly engaged with another person), I could believe this. But for training in techniques against people (regardless if they are open-handed or equipped with a sword), I find this claim doubtful. Safety is paramount in training, and when working with a live blade, the stakes are too high to risk even a minor mistake by either tori/nage or uki. Either person could make minor mistakes in body movement or hand position, or someone could stumble, trip, or even stub their toe on the mat. The results could be life threating. That's not a safe way to train. So... at a minimum, I think the statement should be made clearer that some practice by themselves with live blades. But in reality, I think the statement could probably be removed without losing much, if any, real content. I'm inviting 80.45.15.210 to this discusion.Mrand 11:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a video of an Aikido demonstration where a blade was used for a single person form. But I've never seen or heard of kumitachi being practiced with actual blades in Aikido. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 04:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also know Aikidoka that practice iaido and/or kenjutsu and have incorporated parts of that into Aikido demonstrations. The rational is that the base of Aikido is the sword and therefore knowlege of real weapons is relevant but Aikido in itself is not knife or sword fighting. The pain from a good bokken strike is pretty real so the added edge (excuse the pun) of training with live weapons is not really an issue. The lack of safety and the suggestion in a wikipedia article that it is something to aspire to is however an issue. I know one guy with half a hand that decided his karate (could just as easily be an Aikido guy) could be enhanced with real samurai sword training - an accident waiting to happen - he didn't even bother to get introductory training since I guess he was a black belt and knew what he was doing. Yeah so I agree completely with Mrand and I removed it.Peter Rehse 08:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the addition, and upon reflection realise that I probably did not really improve the article. However, in my experience (ie. in the dojo where I trained) live blades were used, but, as I should have specified, only when advanced students were performing a demonstration or during advanced grading. They were not used for regular practice. In response to Mrand's comment, use of live blades in this manner was essentially movement practice, but with a partner. Neither the attack nor the technique are delivered with the same commitment as bokken or unarmed training. Instead the movement is performed in a controlled manner to minimise risk. In any case, as said above, the statement did not add much and PRehse has rightfully removed it. In future I shall consult talk pages prior to such additions. 80.45.15.210 09:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]