Talk:Aikido/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Aikido. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Korppi76 08:49, 9 November 2006 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Could someone whip up at least a stub for Noriaki Inoue and/or Shin'ei Taido. Trying to get rid of empty links but I think they are important enough to the overall history of Aikido that they should not be deleted. A stub for Nihon Goshin Aikido would also be great - I think there was one but it was deleted because of copyright violation.Peter Rehse 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would like to see those pics, but only because I was there that day...:D User:Transentient

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No harm done. Please don't let this turn you off from editing this or other articles! Have fun, Mrand 12:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Ki" in Aikido and the "Chi" in Tai Chi Chuan are completely different characters with different meanings. See Wiktionary:気 (Ki/Qi/Chi) and Wiktionary:极 (Chi/ji). While there is certainly a concept of chi/qi in Tai Chi Chuan, this chi/qi is not the same as the "ji"/"chi" in the name "taijiquan"/"tai chi chuan". Wwilson 1 - If you believe otherwise, please explain here before reverting. Thank you. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only explain using logic. (and not outside references). All matter and energy are one and the same at their most basic level, and so any form of energy is really just energy, i.e., ki, at its most micro and macrocosmic level. This is the idea behind ki.(according to Koichi Tohei as well). To say that there are separate or multiple forms of all-pervasive universal energy seems counter-intuitive and just doesn't make sense if you really think about it. I know that Chinese martial arts tend to have very complicated energy systems and what not, but any major google search will point out that tai chi and ki from aikido, hapkido, chi from kung fu, and so on is all the same stuff according to numerous websites (I know that is still a weak outside reference).

However, I think the idea that ji is a different form of energy is the one that needs explanation. As a student of chinese and japanese languages, I can't agree that having a different character makes the 'ki/ji' in dispute an entirely different energy form rather than just a slightly different conceptualization.

how can there be more than one form of energy? energy is either light, heat, etc., but it is at its most basic level the same stuff... Wwilson 1 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The chi (极) in t'ai chi does not mean "energy". So, I don't see the relevance of whether or not there is only one kind of energy.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree (with Nat Krause). In the name "taiji"/"tai chi", the "ji"/"chi" does not mean energy. If you were to talk about "energy" in tai chi, it would be "chi"/"qi", not "ji"/"chi" and would be the character 気 (The "Ki" in "Aikido"), not 极 (The "ji" in "taiji"). They have completely different meanings, and the "ji" in taiji has nothing to do with energy! -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That straightens it out. So let's just throw out the semantic taiji argument. I guess ji means 'fist' or something? The point is that the energy in all the internal arts is the same (the Qi page even referes to Greek pneuma, etc.). If enough people really want to nit pick, let's just throw the reference out completely, since it no longer becomes helpful to the paragraph. Cheers Wwilson 1 00:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my feeling when I removed it earlier. The article does not need to cover every single nuance especially when there is a clear link to further reading. That is after all what the links are for (hey even the rice cooking is borderline in that regard but it in that case it gives something to the readability of the article). For the record, in my opinion when a taichi guy talks about internal energy it is pretty much the same way as an Aikido guy - even though the Chi in the name is not the same as the Ki in Aikido. More to the point Ki is part of the Aiki compound rather than a stand alone and not that important overall but that's another battle.Peter Rehse 01:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

'Ji'/'Chi' in 'Taijiquan/Tai Chi Chuan' is actually linked with 'Tai', and translates as 'Supreme Ultimate'. The whole name (taijiquan) is 'Supreme Ultimate Fist', and refers to the Yin/Yang symbol (the 'Taijitu') and Taoist ideas regarding Yin and Yang.

Japanese 'ki' is represented in romanised Chinese as 'qi' (or 'Chi' in the old form - hence all the confusion). - Sasuke Sarutobi 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, Hi. What's up with your removal of the Osensei quotes? I saw your subjective comment on AikiWeb about it. I think a few more people should weigh in on its removal besides only you. Osensei was a deeply religious and spiritual man who is said by most to have achieved enlightenment, and the art of Aikido stems from this experience. This is more than worthy of mention in the Wikipage about Aikido. As far as copyright, I'm no expert, but a quote from a famous deceased person is public domain as far as I know. The same quote appears in three different books, written by two different people, with no apparent copyright problems. Also:

Peter Rehse wrote: "It shouldn't be in there like that because it is a copyright infringement and at the head of the article it sets a tone which give the article a non-encyclopediac feel"

The source is Kisshomaru Doshu's original "Aikido," later published in translation or a new edition as "Spirit of Aikido" He is the primary reporter of his father's statements. It cannot be a copyright inforngement to repeat the quote, any more than it was infringement for Stevens to repeat or retranslate it. "

It was O-Sensei's impetus from his revelations that spread aikido internationally with a sense of mission behind it, whatever opinion you may have about the reported content. But for that vision, aikido would be a family heirloom art practiced solely at Iwama.

Merely because the same thing is not directly experienced by those learning the art does not mean it was not important as a component of its development and spread. Plainly, the charisma O-Sensei possessed as reflected in or received from his visions played a powerful part in drawing deshi to him, who then had the will and desire to spread the art far and wide. If you do not live in Japan, and probably even for most of those aikidoka who do -- those visions are responsible for you practicing aikido today -- wherever you are living.

And that information is quite "encyclopedic" in its nature. Cordially, Erick Mead

Wanted to include that in case you missed Erick's input on Aikiweb. I agree entirely with him. Encyclopedia does not mean, "boring technical and trivial detail that disregards the main focus and principles of the object of knowledge". Aikido without Osensei, enlightenment, and Ki isn't Aikido if you ask me. What do the rest you guys and ladies think?Wwilson 1 06:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No - the quotes are fine in themselves but the translation, order and presentation were lifted directly from the books (as pointed out by several aikiweb members). Wikipedia has pretty strict policy in that regard (look at the grief caused by internet page copies and pictures) - and that is why it was removed. It is not enough to say that it really isn't copyright infringment (Eric is wrong) because it is - both Steven's and Kisshomaru's books are copyrighted and you don't know what arrangement was made between Stevens and the Ueshiba family. If kept I would be happier if it was a bit deeper in the text but that is just a question of style. An encyclopedia entry should start off with the more factual and then give way to legend and stories - that was what I meant by tone.Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQPeter Rehse 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I l'll see what I can do to respect everyone and everything involved. By the way, a direct quote from the founder of the martial art, explaining what aikido is, is not a 'legend' or ' story' it is what he says it is, and is to me, more interesting and more important than "it was developed from daito ryu" on the history page. I think it speaks much more about the essence of what aikido is. In fact, the history page is very weak right now, and doesn't really give a good briefing. It doesn't mention sokaku takeda, etc. either. Wwilson 1 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think the resulting 'spirit of aikido' section is nice, and won't make spirituality-phobes frightened. It also leads in quite nicely to the history section. I really think from here on, it's a matter of getting the essential info of aikido across, and eliminating a lot of the tangential arguments and qualifying sentences, whittling the attack, defense, etc. sections down to small, manageable blocks that make a reader get the general feeling, "oh, this is a nice and accessible, comprehensible page"Wwilson 1 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That works much better and I also noticed your trimming which is a good thing. Somethings I would not have cut but you know it will build up again and eventually need pruning. The history section was more involved at one point with both Deguchi and Takeda mentioned (I actually wrote "that their contribution should not be understated")- not sure who trimmed them out. Its not a matter of being a spirituality-phobe but reflecting how Aikido tends to be practiced. It is still firstly a martial art. By the way Daito-ryu people might take offence about the injurious and competitive nature of his previous arts - that's not quite right (not NPOV) - can't think of better adjectives at the moment.

One point about the qualifications. Sometimes they are superfulous (the clothing was a good example) other times they are a genuine attempt to remove bias from the article and give a view how aikido is practiced across the spectrum of styles. Quite a bit of effort has been spent to remove bias (yeah maybe a few of my own snuck in but I tried) so please take care. Aikido is far from a monolithic entity. Cheers Peter Rehse 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad I confused the Ueshiba entry with the Aikido entry (vis a vis what was in the history section). I think the great thing about wikipedia is the ease of linking articles and the consequential need to avoid repeating information. As such the spiritual awakening fits much better in the Ueshiba article and the paraphrasing does a good job of removing the copyright issue. As I said the quotes themselves are pretty fair game and I have no argument with the relevance to Ueshiba and through him Aikido.Peter Rehse 02:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in total Aiki agreement with you Peter(drum roll, cymbal crash). I do think it works better in the Osensei section. As far as basic editing is concerned, I'm certainly no expert on Aikido, though I'm doing my best to learn as much as I can and read as much as I can. But in a way, that qualifies me even more. I see the Aikido Wiki as needing to contain a BRIEF amount of info about the most essential and interesting aspects of Aikido, presented in a clear, simple, and lucid manner, so that someone who is not familiar with it, can read the page and not feel completely lost, and have the option of clicking on various stubs for more info. For example, that's why I cleaned up clothing, since everything you could want to know about the history of keikogi and hakama are already under their respective stubs. I think the focus should stay lasered on Aikido, with as much brevity as possible. I think everyone naturally wants to put in props and caveats for their own style, (I even did this with Ki Aikido, but later erased it), but I think this kind of thing would be better served by expanding the individual style stubs, rather than, for example, constantly stressing that yoshinkan is this way and tomiki is that way within the umbrella aikido article. I understand there are unique differences, but the AIKIDO main wiki IMHO should keep info on what 90% of what aikido consists of (uke, nage, ukemi, etc.), and for those who read to the end and still want police force or competitive aikido, they can check out for example, a tomiki stub, or REALaikido, etc. In fact, I think BECAUSE there are all of these differences, it is too difficult to keep putting exceptions all over the article.

Ok my long-winded diatribe is finished. I've gotten a bit of osensei's spirituality into the wikis, so my job is done. I won't be a bother anymore. though I can't promise anything...Wwilson 1 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess the Ki society from your use of mind and body connection. Mushin is the more common term - very interesting connection to the unmoveable mind of Bhuddist thought. But that's another article. Cheers and how about adding yourself to the wikipedian aikidoka. Peter Rehse 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The first technique in Ueshiba M.'s Budo Renshu has nage initiating the technique. The first waza in Shodokan Aikido's Koryu Goshin no Kata has this technique - picture a pair facing each other in the kneeling position. Nage initiates with a back fist strike, uke attempts to block and nage uses ikkyo. I have seen the same technique and others where nage initiates a number of times in a number of different dojo. They usually are considered advanced techniques, right alongside of reversals and counters. Cheers.Peter Rehse 06:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm..Well, that's pretty nice support. However, was it called "Aikido" at the time of Ueshiba's 'budo renshu', or Aikijujitsu? There is a very significant meaning to the changing of the name to 'Aikido'. I think the strong point of Aikido is that Nage doesn't initiate, otherwise, what's the point of calling it Aikido and all the talk about harmony? Doesn't that just make it just another martial art like judo or karate? BTW I've never seen Nage initiate in Aikikai, Yoshinkan, or Ki Society. IMHO (and I know it doesn't count for much on Wikipedia), Nage initiation goes against the main philosophical principles of Aikido(aka, post WWII Aikido). Any post WWII styles wanna chime in? Also, one more question, doe the addition of the sentence "nage might 'sometimes' initiate in high-level stuff", add much value or important info to the Aikido wiki? Is it really a sentence that NEEDS to be in there?Wwilson 1 07:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seizing the initiative is quite common across styles - you will find it in Yoshinkan, Iwamma and Aikikai - most often it is in a pretty direct irimi. The Aikido name change was suggested (some say imposed) to Ueshiba M. by an outside Budo organization and was not driven by any philosophical forces but even so there are many ways to restore harmony. You are not supposed to go out looking for fights and you are expected not to seriously harm the aggressor (Judo and Karate teach the same thing by the way)- that doesn't mean your techniques are limited to the purely reactive. I don't realy care one way or the other for the sentence. This topic was pretty heavily discussed on Aikiweb - I'ld check there.Peter Rehse 08:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In edit comments, Wwilson 1 wrote, "nage initiation is NOT aikido. discuss".

In my dojo (Iwama-ryu), we perform some techniques as "arrest techniques", where nage initiates. Nage will thrust their hand towards uke's face, then when uke raises their arm to block the strike, the block is treated as a shomen-uchi by nage. I think this line should be left in. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is far better to define what aikido is rather than what it isn't - the latter is a slippery slope of contention. That said - I don't think the added sentence really contributes that much since it was already stated that uke "usually" initiates technique. Ergo there are situations where nage does. I say leave it as it is (ie removed). Cheers Peter Rehse 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. Word economy is a beautiful thing. Especially in those ungainly training, attack, and defense sections. ugh. Let's whittle them down while preserving the meaning shall we?Wwilson 1 05:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to preface by expressing my appreciation for the article so far.

That said, I'd like to see someone edit all of the Japanese used for consistent transliteration. I guess you could call me a bit detail-oriented, but it would be an even better article if everything were consistent.

For example, jo should be jō; tanto should be tantō; Iwama Ryu should be Iwama Ryū; shomenuchi should be shōmen'uchi; ikkyo should be ikkyō; do should be dō (when it is written by itself); yokomenuchi should be yokomen'uchi; munetsuki should be munezuki or mune-zuki (depending on which is easier to read); in the subsection titled 'Randori,' 'randori' and 'jiyuwaza' should be italicized; kyu should be kyū;

While those are what I would consider definitely in need of change, there are numerous other words that invite discussion. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), so-called 'loanwords' that have been adopted into English do not get macrons, but all other Japanese words should be written with the appropriate indication for a long vowel.

As such, I could agree that the words aikido, judo, kendo, dojo, etc... stay unchanged. However, is 'O-sensei' properly written? I would argue no (despite what I'm aware is the convention in martial arts/aikido circles), and that it should be written as the article on sensei writes it; as Ōsensei. Further, I'm pretty sure that Omoto-kyo has a long vowel or two in there (and should recieve one).

If anyone likes, I would be happy to make the changes myself, but otherwise this kitchen probably has enough chefs already. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts, Bradford44 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

munetsuki should be munezuki or mune-zuki (depending on which is easier to read);

Pardon me if I am being ignorant, but aren't tsu and zu distinct? There are two syllables pronounced zu, and both are seperate from tsu. This may not be an issue of consistency in transliteration, it may have to do with the fact that different aikido traditions have slightly different vocabularies.Transentient

It's a good question, and the answer is yes and no. I hope that my response does not sound patronizing, especially as many of the people posting here probably have a far better grasp of Japanese than I. I am writing in detail because it is a good and interesting question. If I were not typing this at work, I could insert the hiragana to explain more clearly, but I will do my best. First, there is no basic hiragana for zu. It is arrived at by adding diacritical marks to either of two different hiragana: su or less frequently, tsu. In Japanese, many words change pronunciation when used in the second or later position in compound words. Some martial arts examples include kamae changing to gamae, as in jōdan-gamae; keri changing to geri, as in mae-geri; tachi (for sword) changing to dachi as in ōdachi; tachi (for stance) changing to dachi, as in zenkutsu-dachi, etc... all of these are changed by adding diacritical marks to the hiragana for the first syllable. This is a case of tsuki, written in hiragana with the character for tsu changing to the character for tsu with diacriticals (thus pronounced zu).

To further complicate things, nothing in the above paragraph represents hard and fast rules. In Japanese writing, this is a non-issue - obviously these words would almost always be written in kanji. Altering the spelling (either in hiragana or in romaji), is not a reflection of correct vs. incorrect, but only a reflection of the reality that occurs when one speaks. That is, if you use any of the above compound words in day-to-day speech, you are generally going to pronounce them with the compound pronunciation. Say mae-keri ten times fast. I promise that at least nine of them will sound like mae-geri. Thus all of the various punches that are expressed by tacking the word tsuki onto the end (or the aiki-jō suburi, which use the word tsuki for its literal meaning of thrust), such as choku, gyaku, mune, kaeshi, oi, or kizami. In reality, even if you are attempting to say tsuki on the end of those words, it will sound like zuki. The final complication (according to what I've been told, and therefore if anyone has contrary information, please correct me) is that whether or not this is expressed in writing, or the extent to which a given speaker attempts to hold on to the original pronunciation while speaking, is a function of regional dialect. For example, in the Tokyo area, it is more likely to be expressed with zuki, elsewhere, tsuki might be preferred.

Personally, I prefer the change. It looks better, and reflects how it sounds. Further, it seems to me that most schools (aikido and non-aikido) with a significant striking curriculum use the changed version. To be fair though, a good number of them also probably pronounce the word 'soo-kee' (prounounced like 'new key'), instead of 'tskee' (sounds like 'ski').Bradford44 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A common daily example might be "tomodachi" (友達) meaning "friend". 達 by itself is commonly pronounced "tachi" but try saying "tomodachi" and then "tomotachi". If you insist on saying "tomotachi" you might eventually feel some stickiness in your tongue. :) --Waterchan 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I hear Saotome Sensei or Ikeda Sensei, both of whome are from the Kanto area, pronounce mentsuki or munetsuki, my ears definately pick up a "ts" sound. I can't say whether the ears of a native Japanese speaker would hear that though. I can say that a brief survey of sources online shows that the Yoshinkai spells a face punch as "Gamen Tsuki," and the Aikikai spells as body punch a "Menu Tsuki."

Now, it sounds as though you feel that our standards for transliteration should be phonetic? I apologize if I am missing the point, but I think we should stick to translierating written Japanese into written English for our article. You are correct that the names of attacks and techniques are going to be written in kanji, and that kanji should have an official reading, and that's what we ought to transliterate. Again if I am missing the point, I apologize. I'm at work too. :) Transentient

Not at all, it's a good discussion. You are quite correct that virtually all aikido terminology resources available online spell the words as you say. Additionally, I am not trying to assert that one way is correct and the other incorrect. Interestingly, if you take a look at

http://www.karate.org.nz/gojuryu/terminology/arms

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jka/terms.html

http://www.shotokankarate.ca/shotokan%20terminology.htm

which I pulled completely at random from a google search for "karate terminology," show the -zuki way of transliteration. That in no way makes -tsuki incorrect. In fact, given the prevalence of that way of writing it throughout the aikido community, I'm withdrawing my suggestion that it be changed in this article. It doesn't make sense to write it differently here than it's written throughout the rest of the aikido community.

As far as my other point (somewhat moot, now), I was not trying to suggest that our transliteration standards should be phonetic. Our translation standard should be the revised Hebon-shiki system (which as far as I know, provides no insight on this particular issue). Rather, I was stating that the development of the Japanese hiragana writing system was developed throughout history with a much greater focus on attempting to emulate the phonetics than say, English. Instead of the same letters having different sounds based on their context (as in English), in Japanese, the 'letter' (kana) changes when the kana's position in the compound word changes. Do you disagree with the other examples I listed? An example I should have listed is tori. For example, there is a huge difference just among aikido schools with whether katate-dori is listed as katate-tori or katate-dori (likewise with all of the other grabs). Obviously it is the same word with the same kanji. The only difference is the addition of diacritical marks to the hiragana to, changing it to do. My original point was only that the whole reason the hiragana changes is because at some point in the development of the Japanese language someone thought that it would be a good idea for a word's spelling in hiragana to reflect changes in the pronuciation of the kanji. If there is an "official" pronuciation for the kanji for tsuki when it is used second in a compound, I don't know what it is. I intend to look in my kanji dictionary when I get home, but right now I'm not optimistic.

As a p.s. to my original post, I'm reasonably certain that Oomoto-kyo should be Ōmoto-kyō.Bradford44 18:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm ducking my head on this one other than to say I think we should follow the conventions outlined by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) and that the article should be consistant. If you guys decide to go for transliteration (just nonloan words (my preference) or everything) please go through the entire article for consistancies sake. Great discussion. Cheers Peter Rehse 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been a good discussion, and I'm dropping the tsuki to zuki thing. Since there has been no other response to my original post, I'm going to wait about five more days, and unless there is an objection, I'm going to make the following changes (organized by subject heading):
Aikido (intro)
1. "Oomoto-kyo" to "Ōmoto-kyō"

Spririt of Aikido
2. "do" to "dō"

History
3. "O-Sensei" to "Ōsensei"
4. "jo" to "jō"
5. "shomenuchi" to "shōmen'uchi"
6. "yokomenuchi" to "yokomen'uchi"
7. "tanto" to "tantō"
8. "Iwama Ryu" to Iwama-ryū"
9. "dojos" to "dojo"

Defense
10. "O-Sensei" to "Ueshiba"
11. "O'Sensei" to "Ueshiba"
12. "shomenuchi" to "shōmen'uchi"
13. "ikkyo" to "ikkyō"

Attacks
14. "dojos" to "dojo"
15. "shomenuchi" to "shōmen'uchi"
16. "yokomenuchi" to "yokomen'uchi"

Weapons
17. "jo" to "jō"
18. "tanto" to "tantō"
19. "aiki-jo" to "aiki-jō"

Ki
20. "O-Sensei" to "Ueshiba"

Ranking
21. "kyu" to "kyū"

Styles
22. "Hombu" to "Honbu"
Bradford44 15:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-pluralization of the word dojo gives me some agony on occasion. I feel that the word dojo as it is typically used is actually a loaned word at this point, and my reasons for that are that I first encountered the word when training a Korean martial art under an American who had learned it from an American...and my experience is certainly not unique. Since the word is often applied (at least in America) to training halls for non-Japanese martial arts, and has led to the use of English terms such as "McDojo," I think it is good to note that there is a place for the pluralized term dojos. The context of this article, however, is probably not such a place. :)

The other place where I find it interesting to take a stand in favor of standardized transliteration is Honbu. I prefer writing it this way, myself, though it brings up some interesting issues. First of all, I wonder if there are any regional dialects of Japanese that would ever pronounce it this way. Certainly not on the Kanto plain. As far as the west, I was at a small Matsuri this past weekend and the Japanese M.C. was a lady from Kyoto; when reading off raffle ticket numbers she distinctly pronounced the number 2 as "mi." Second to the issue of native Japanese pronounciation is the fact that native Japanese speakers, in my experience, use romaji phonetically themselves. So it is almost as if strict transliteration of Japanese only exists amongst non-native users of the Japanese language!

And there is also the matter of the Okinawan martial art Kempo. Anyway, I'd personally support changing "Hombu" to "Honbu" in favor of keeping transliterations standard, but I am afraid it may be controversial in the long run. Transentient

Made the above changes. Bradford44 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem like I'm jumping in, but I came along to qualify the article for WikiProject:Martial Arts, and saw a few things I could change to make to 'improve' the article.

I've made the following changes:

• I've shortened the opening paragraph, moving the sentence about Ueshiba also being known as 'Ōsensei' to practitioners.
• However, I have also removed all instances of 'Ōsensei' but the explanatory note; Japanese honorifics are generally used within a group, and Wikipedia is aimed at practitioners and non-practitioners of Aikido alike. While an aikidoka may understand who is being referred to by 'Ōsensei', someone without knowledge of the art may not, and it is they who we should be aiming to teach.
• I've changed the quotation from the blockquote tags to cquote. This is primarily personal stylistic preference, but it is done with the best intentions.
• I've scattered a few 'citation needed' tags throughout the text; at present, they are in certain points that I think need referencing. Nonetheless, I believe that this article could go a lot further if it were referenced properly. The internet gives us the benefit of hyperlinks, let us use them to their utmost.
• I've archived parts of the talk page (y'know, the one you're reading now); namely complete threads from before 2006.

A few changes I propose:

• Extension of the opening paragraph: This paragraph should be a few sentences long, and give the reader a good introduction to what aikido is.
• Inclusion of example techniques: As noted within the source for the page, I think this page could benefit from some of the more common techniques, else a brief explanation about them. The sections on training is great, but going from the small introduction to the in-depth discussion of the subjects is quite a shift, and it needs to be a smooth and natural transition.
• More references: I've included a sample reference in the text itself, and basically set it up so that one only needs tags. Now, the 'reference' should technically be an external link (or a direct link from the body of the text), but it is to display the reference system to those unfamiliar to it.

Overall, I think this is a great article, and there are some real gems in the text. All it needs is a bit of polishing and some expansion in key areas to bring it up to the standards of the best articles. I am seriously considering nominating this as at least a good article, should these changes go through, as I believe that martial arts articles have, until recently, been woefully under-publicised. I would even like to see it on the front page.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 01:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could either fill in the citation blanks or remove the statements. I have no idea where to find several of them if indeed they can be found in print - inclusion would increase the references. Example techniques are tough since there is such a breadth not to mention varience in terminology.Peter Rehse 01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. There would probably be a similar problem if one asked for example techniques for Karate. Nonetheless, I'm sure there must be some fundamental techniques common to at least the major schools of Aikido. Or perhaps there are some techniques exemplary of their respective schools of Aikido. Either way, I believe it would be beneficial to at least attempt to demonstrate the technical spirit of Aikido.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 14:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone experienced in aikido explain how you tie your belt and if there is some specific way to tie the "cord" embedded in the pants? If you have a link to such a page, please provide it. Thanks, by an aikido novice

This is a question to ask a more experienced student at your dojo. This space is meant to discuss the article and is not a message board. Thanks. Fightindaman 04:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked the same question at the aikidogi discussion and someone provided this url [1] .

Japan has simplified 氣 (ki).Erik-the-red

This is a good point, and one I've been meaning to mention. The Japanese government officially changed 氣 to 気 (I think in the 1940s). Shouldn't we stop writing aikido with the old kanji? In fact, right now the article is written with the old kanji in the table nest to the picture, and the new kanji in two other places. Notwithstanding the fact that the older version is somewhat prettier, and definitely more mystical-looking, it doesn't make sense to me to persist in an obsolete spelling.Bradford44 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please change it to the modern version - its the one I see used here in Japan for aikido although I am sure you could find it written the old way if you looked hard enough.Peter Rehse 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All ranking certification I received from the Aikikai in Tokyo is still written with the 'old' kanji. It appears on most of their significant documents. It is also used particularly used in Iwama Aikido, Aikimanseido, and the 'ki' in Ki no Kenkyukai. This denotes a reverence to the older way of writing it, and evidences its continuing usage. Ueshiba always wrote it as 氣. The very fact that our computers can still generate the j-code for the character shows that it has not obsolete. The character for 'ki' is used in over 40,000 words and phrases in the Japanese language. The government simplified it for ease of writing, however, in any activity related to martial arts, historical figures or gods and mythology, the original 氣 is still used. It really is a matter of what situation and word combinations it is used in that is important. 元気, for example, appears as the new kanji, sure, but 腹の氣, in my computer at least, automatically comes up as the old kanji. Maybe we should ask a Japanese person who knows some history and practices Aikido?Wwilson 1 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ueshiba always wrote it as 氣." It is interesting to note that Ueshiba actually calligraphed it differently from both versions, wrapping a spiral around the vertial part of the plus sign under the "bridge" and removing the horizontal stroke from the plus. Although it could probably just have been his personal "cursive" way of writing 氣. --Waterchan 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could just go to the Japanese version of the article and see how its written there. You see archaic kanji used in formal documents - for example my dan grades are all written using the old numbers - I'm now wondering which kanji they used for Ki. The home page of the Aikikai Honbu uses the new one in text but the gif uses the old one. The older form I think expresses the idea of steaming rice much better and I think now that it should be kept - perhaps mentioning that it is an older form.Peter Rehse 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think it should be changed to the modern 気. In modern Japanese the later symbol is commonly used, but for this purpose I definitely think the older Kanji should be used. Koichi Tohei, direct student of founder Ueshiba uses the original 氣 in his books. In most martial arts contexts not only in Japan, this is still favored. From an abstract, martial point of view, it gives greater meaning and vibrance to the character itself. If you ask a Japanese person, I'm willing to bet that they will say that both characters can be used today depending on the context. I can ask a native Japanese person if anyone is curious. --Waterchan 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I had a half-hour discussion with Koichi Kashiwaya Sensei about this over the weekend. (he's 8th Dan Ki Society, yada yada if that means something to anyone, blah blah), but more importantly, he's a very serious aikidoka who is japanese and very versed in budo and japanese history. He stopped me in my tracks when I said the Japanese government changed the kanji. To summarize what he said: 1) the government did not change the kanji, the ministry of education changed the kanji that are taught in school to make it easier for kids to learn and to basically streamline the curriculum. 2) there is actually no such thing as an obsolete kanji. Some do go out of style over hundreds of years, but only to resurface. 3) Yes, depending on the situation, etc., it is perfectly fine to use 氣. Especially in Aikido and budo related stuff. Basically, both are perfectly fine. I'm thinking it's like how Brits spell color as colour. Neither is right or wrong, it's just a question of consistency in usage.Wwilson 1 04:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The key word is consistency (totally unintentional pun alert). Let's use the old one.01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wilson nice addition to the techniques section. I guess you are still touching it up so I'll stay clear for awhile. Judo is a borrowed word like aikido so it should be spelled as judo - the rest of those transliteration devils are fine. Thanks for that.Peter Rehse 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PRehse, the techniques section is a very nice addition. However, I think nikkyō should be nikyō. Only "ichi" doubles the consonant when added to "kyō" (and other words), in order to indicate that part of the word "ichi" has been lost. In hiragana, therefore, you should have いっきょう, and にきょう, but not にっきよう. If you decide to include "sixth technique" it would be rokyō, not rokkyō, even though in that case you actually do lose part of the word roku. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong. Aside from that, I too will leave you alone for awhile. :P Bradford44 15:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me while I correct myself - sixth technique is rokkyō. I apologize for inadvertantly spreading some misinformation. That's what I get for speaking off the cuff, and not checking facts first.Bradford44 15:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Feel free to change the romanizations (and anything else) however you wish. I'm not sure I have anything more to expand on or add to it, I kind of just wanted to pop it in there, as someone mentioned it would be nice, and adds a nice contrast to the Ueshiba quote to give a sense of balance and info. I described the techniques in my own words to avoid copyright problems (it is HARD to describe Aikido moves using only words!), though I admit I did rely heavily on the descriptions and the names of the nerves and bones as mentioned in 'Aikido exercises for teaching and training' by C.M. Shifflett, which should maybe be noted?Wwilson 1 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like if we can clear up those missing citations and expand the history and intro a tad we should be able to nominate the article for Good Article (I'm biased I think it is already there).Peter Rehse 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing the following changes for the purpose of nominating for 'Good Article'. (the following was all written by Bradford44)

The statement "aikido contains a very spiritual component..." is imprecise at best. This is a somewhat non-scientific way to describe aikido, and frankly, I'm not sure what it means for something to "contain" a spiritual component, or for that component to be "very significant." Therefore, I suggest that sentence be changed to something more lik:

• Aikido is partly characterized by its emphasis on the spiritual and philosophical development of its students. This is a direct result of Ueshiba's involvement and belief in the Ōmoto-kyō religion, as well as Shinto and Buddhism.

seems ok to meWwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this subject heading is a bit vague on its own, and then not entirely related to the material appearing under it. Is this supposed to be a section on the development of a person's spirit through the practice of aikido, or a section on the spirit of aikido as in the essence of it? The content of the section is partly about the etymology of the word 'aikido', followed by a very tiny note describing the legend of aikido's development. There are four problems I have with this section.

I disagree. I think the point of the section is to show that the essence of aikido, the love and protection of all creation, is contained within the etymology as well as the enlightenment of Osensei.Wwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The first is the title, which should be changed to "The Meaning of Aikido"
2. The second is the definition of "ai" (合:あい). No dictionary I'm aware of contains "harmony" as a definition or translation of "ai". I have found "meet", "unite", and "join," but not "harmony". As someone previously noted, there already is a word for "harmony of energy", and that's "waki" (和気:わき), not "aiki" (合気:あいき). Please don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the assertion that it meens harmony in this specific context because of what Ueshiba intended it to mean. It would be perfectly acceptable to note the contextual use of "harmony" in the following paragraph, but it is disingenuous to list "harmony" next to "ai", as if it were a proper translation of "ai" when it is not.

I strongly urge you to ask a native japanese speaker who studies aikido about the meaning of aikido before you get into a pissing contest with other folks who probably know much more japanese than you do. Anytime a kanji is used in a larger word, the meaning can become incredibly flexible, and the western attitude  "this is it, the only PROPER definition" just doesn't fit most japanese words, if anyWwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph below the definitions should be rewritten to reflect the above.
2. The second paragraph should be moved to its own section that describes in detail Ueshiba's three enlightenment experiences, or they should be described on their own page, or Ueshiba's page. Either way, as scientifically impossible events analogous to miracles, it is unencylopedic to express their occurrance as facts. The sentence should read something along the lines of "legend has it that..." or even, "according to Ueshiba's writings/students, such and such was the basis of...". Even the article on Jesus doesn't express the events of Jesus' life presupposing that they actually occurred, or even that he actually existed. It says "according to the bible, or according to his followers, blah blah blah..." Surely we should be at least as objective about Ueshiba.

Actually, the enlightenment experiences ARE on Ueshiba's page. I don't see any conflict with the Ueshiba enlightenment sentences. If you'll kindly refer to a dictionary, any human being can have enlightenment about any number of things. For example, "I became enlightened about how dependent America is on oil when I saw the gas prices skyrocket after the war in Iraq began". Similarly, Osensei became enlightened about Budo being a way of achieving peace rather than destruction throughout his lifetime and his experiences. There is nothing miraculous suggested in those sentences. I would say you are adding your own subjective aversion to the word 'enlightenment'.

(begin tangent) Also, please check out the page on buddha if you want to start putting 'allegedly' next to everything. Personally, I don't think the world contains any 'facts', for all we know we are in the matrix, yadda yadda, so why not just put a big 'alleged' next to the entire universe and be done with it? I don't think readers are so stupid as to need coddling and guidance as to one person's definition of what is real and what is a 'claim'. The universe is bigger than one person's brain or ego, and eventually everyone alive today will be proven wrong about just about everything they believed was once true about the world around them. So let's keep all the cynical 'allegeds' out of it, so we can get on with having a helpful, informative article.Wwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Although in most aikido schools "mune-tsuki" is used as the name of the technique for striking to the stomach, "mune" actually refers to the chest, at the sternum, and not the stomach. Should this be noted?

sure, in the japanese language ,but most readers of this article practice munetsuki as a stomach punch, and that makes 'munetsuki' in the western aikido world, a stomach punch. japan has no special authority. If I use a word, even 'galabadab' to the extent that the whole country uses it, even if my original personal definition was 'coat', if the world says it means 'gloves' that's what it means for all intents and purposes.Wwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a sensible argument, that the most literal reading in the native language is not necessarily the most correct rendering. However, I am suspicious of the idea that aikidoka "generally" punch for the stomach. I'm used to being told to aim for the solar plexus (hence the alternate and more explicit, if poetic wording, suigetsu-tsuki). I'm not aware of the stomach being a particularly suitable target for a punch. I'm restoring it to the literal meaning for now; I'd appreciate it if others would weigh in on the question of where aikidoka tend to strike at when performing 'mune-tsuki'. If it's stomach, we'll make it that; if chest, we'll keep it that. --GenkiNeko 16:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1. First of all, I think that transliterating to "randōri" (with a long 'o') is incorrect. If indeed randori is written in Japanese as 乱捕り (らんどり), or 乱取り (らんどり), which seem to both mean the same thing, either way it is correctly transliterated as "randori" (らんどり), and not "randōri" (らんどうり). Someone please correct me if I have the wrong kanji or are otherwise incorrect about this.
2. Second, I couldn't find it, but I'm pretty sure there is a guideline about not making links out of section titles.

sounds like you're right, but again, we need a real live Japanese Aikidoka to verify it.Wwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any specific problems here, but what is the logical distinction between the "styles" listed here, and groups like USAF, ASU, and others, who are admittedly influentual players in the international aikido community? If it is a concept of a school vs. an organization, how can one include Aikikai, but not USAF? Or Tomiki's branch, but not Saotome's? If it is merely because of size, then isn't USAF much larger than Iwama, which wasn't even officially separate from Aikikai until very recently?

This section should exist on its own. In many respects this is the most immediately practical part of aikido. I'd be willing to bet we all know far more aikido practitioners whose lives or limbs have been saved because they know how to fall than because they know how to throw...

No problem with most of it. With respect to styles USAF and ASU are part of the Aikikai whereas Shodokan (Tomiki), Yoshinkan, Ki-Society, etc have not been for quite some time. My suggestion would be to expand the Aikikai article itself to include all the sub-organizations.

That sounds good to me Peter, wanna do it? I'm not sure I have the wikiskills.Wwilson 1 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At present, these read like an interesting but rambling essay on aikido. I'm sort of baffled by their choice as sections, to be honest: it doesn't seem like a helpful categorization. I recommend erasing both headings, and blending the material into a shorter, more direct version. I'll give it a try myself in a bit. Please comment if you disagree, but I feel at present it's both unfocused and oddly divided. --GenkiNeko 20:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try to find a cache of free-to-use aikido photos to spruce up this article. I believe this came up earlier in reference to the photo at the top. Take a look at Judo's current image: that's an excellent, dynamic shot that (to me, anyway) conveys a good sense of what judo is like. I think aikido would benefit from something similar. At present, it looks to the casual observer as "Some guy holding his arms out, and another guy rolling". (Although it is a nice picture in other respects.) Not just there, but throughout the article, some good photos would be excellent to convey to the casual reader what aikido looks like. --GenkiNeko 20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really dissapointed in what I've seen happening to the Aikido page lately. It's almost as if people are deliberately TRYING to make it as ambiguous and wordy as possible. Endless phrases like, "loosely described as" all over the place. If you are describing it loosely, why describe it at all? Describe it or don't. The apologetics and verbal backtracking in each paragraph are killing the momentum of the article. We have all the styles listed at the bottom, so there is no need to constantly backtrack with, "though not all styles do blah blah, many styles agree that...." that kind of phrase shouldn't even be in there in my opinion. Aikido is a massive subject that no single page of wikipedia could ever hope to show in its entirety. Am I crazy, or should this just be a SIMPLE, CLEAR, and CONCISE article that INTRODUCES the topic of aikido. Already the ikkyo nikkyo techniques have become massive paragraphs in their own right. I knew this would be a troublesome section so I hesitated to put it in there. The point is not the various nuances, the point is that shihonage is a throw using the wrist, not shihonage has a long and varied history within many schools of thought, to say it is a throw is a misnormer because......

who wants to read all that shit? I think this page should be written with the idea that a total novice can read it and understand what the hell is going on. We wouldn't teach a beginning aikido class by giving 8 different explanations of Aikido. (an expert class, maybe, but not a beginning)

ok, I'm going to shut my yap now, but please people! I thought we had a B+ article, and now it's a C-Wwilson 1 18:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wwilson, I hear you about the wordiness and ambiguity of the language, but your recent changes don't solve the problem. While they make the article more clear, they also make it less correct. The statements:

Aikido emphasizes the spiritual and philosophical development of its students.

and

Aiki is considered and elevated form of, ai uchi ("mutual strike/kill")...

are simply not true in any way that can be considered universal. We have to find a way to balance clarity against the wide array of interpretations of the massive subject that is aikido.

Rather than the current solution of massaging the language to the point that it applies universally but looses its meaning, or your solution of clarifying the language to the point it is looses its universality, my suggestion is to drop non universal statements entirely.

"If you are describing it loosely, why describe it at all?" I wholeheartedly agree. Any statement about aikido that can't be said to be true across some large percentage of participants should be dropped. It will make for a much shorter article, but a better one.

For example, I recommend cutting the descriptions of the techniques down their bare minimums, deleting commentary such as (for Sankyō): "It creates a distinctive "tiptoes" response in the recipient, as he or she tries to move upwards to relieve the pressure." But before I jump in and start cutting I want to get a sense of how other editors feel about it.

Focomoso 22:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am in complete aiki agreement with you about everything you wrote Focomoso. It can never be too tight and concise for me, but I'll let a more middle of the road approach prevail.Wwilson 1 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As one of the above mentioned "total novices", I would like to agree about the problem of wordiness. I came to this page with the goal of connecting the techinques themselves (with which I am rudimentally familiar) with their mysterious Japanese names, and was not able to recognize any from the descriptions given. AikiWiki (which is linked to in the article) was better, but I still don't know what Ikkyo refers to. This is especially bad considering that I have probably done Ikkyo many times. -WikiMarshall 22:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Laughs. Hi Wayne. Everyone wants to contribute their own special understanding and eventually the whole article deflates. All you can do is be constantly vigilant without destroying the idea behind wikipedia. Keep up the good work.Peter Rehse 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Good to see that people are, uhhh...spirited...about improving this article.  :) I'd like to publicly take the blame for some recent edits to the ever-controversial "Spirit of Aikido" section, and the Techniques section as well. I'd like to comment briefly on both of those debates. First, with no offense at all intended, I don't think that "aikido is an elevated form of ai uchi" is the best phrasing. It seems a bit of a stretch. To clarify, my intent in mentioning ai uchi was to provide another martial arts "ai" example that might explain to the reader what "fitting" means. I do definitely agree with cutting out the note about 'ai' being a homophone with love, and the other trims that were done. Those help a lot. Here's my proposed new version for the first paragraph of "Spirit of aikido":

Aiki, or "spirit-matching", is a principle of the martial arts, describing blending or even total oneness in the midst of combat. For example, a related term, ai uchi ("mutual strike/kill") refers to a situation wherein two combatants simultaneously deliver lethal blows. From this martial tactic, a philosophical concept of "aiki" as the negation of violence through harmony has arisen.

Is that getting closer to a consensus? As for the techniques section, after reviewing them, I'm not sure what's too verbose. I suppose that one could describe shihonage as "a technique involving the wrist", but that's so vague as to be entirely non-unique. I think it's a better idea to identify the basic anatomical action for the locking techniques (to integrate them with pre-existing wikipedia articles like Wristlock), without particulars like footwork that are too style-specific. As for sentences like the "tiptoes" description of sankyo, my intent was to help an unfamiliar reader imagine the kind of pressure it produces, although that my be a hopeless errand. I'm going to go through and trim out whatever I can.

Let's continue this discussion; I think it's productive. Thanks for your time and energy. --GenkiNeko 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No GenkiNeko, thank you for all YOUR time. Two things I have to say are:

1) "spirit-matching" sounds really dumb. Possibly the most awkward sounding translation on the page.

2) that wristlock page looks fantastic, they have pictures and everything.

I think that unless we can add individual pictures to the technique section, it's pretty useless to try to actually describe the waza to the degree that a noninitiated person would have a clue what you are talking about. It's hard enough to understand when a teacher physically demonstrates it!!! So if we can't add pics, I think we're better off adding links to the wristlock page and keeping the descriptions very bare. Also, challenge yourself to see how efficiently you can write. You would think your Aikido technique was poor if it took you five steps to execute a technique, so see if you can express an idea in less than 5 sentences, in that same spirit of one strike, one kill. (haha) Lengthy treatises are what the talk page is for. :)Wwilson 1 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. I'll give it a try. :) I'm increasingly won over to your position; we shouldn't be too ambitious in what we expect to convey to an audience primarily consisting of people who do not practice aikido. I will focus on 1) explaining the basic anatomical summary in standard terminology and 2) relating techniques, where possible, to the more general grappling database that Wikipedia has built up. --GenkiNeko 18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get too crazy with the one size fits all. I agree that the article's primary focus should be on people with no or minimal exposure to Aikido but ....well I put back a couple of things. Generally though - the trimming is a good idea.Peter Rehse 00:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also - there are only a couple citation flags left. Can we fix those or remove the statements. I think after that gets done we can get this article nominated for GA.Peter Rehse 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Peter's suggestion...I still feel the two things I mentioned above remain obstacles to this article being worthy of "good article" status. I still think that the photos are suboptimal (rather vague, especially to non-initiates), and perhaps more critically, I find the "defense" and "attack" sections to be poor organizational choices. (I will attempt to put together a new version today. Really!) Meanwhile, if anyone could try to figure out the copyright situation and find us a bank of public-use images, that'd be great. If any yudansha reading this want to photograph themselves, go ahead. :) Again, I have to look to that 'cover image' for Judo as an ideal for a first shot. --GenkiNeko 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you take the [picture] used in the french (and german)aikido article? --Goonies 12:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This picture was used on this page before and it was felt that it does not display a skillfull execution of the technique. I think everyone would be open to a better picture. Edwin Stearns | Talk 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'm asking the AikidoFAQ admin if any of the pictures there might be useable. (There's a good animated kotegaeshi one there, for instance.) In the meantime, seriously: why don't some yudansha wikipedians take a few action shots of themselves? If you produced a small set of those, perhaps we could find a couple that suited our purposes. --GenkiNeko 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there is one of me on my page - and I'll put a couple more today but you know - the last place I would want them (I am not pretty enough) would be on a general article.Peter Rehse 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this one quite a bit! (although we might want to trim out the left half of the photo.) The one of students lined up in seiza might also be a good choice. The others are perhaps a bit too vague for the general audience. Thanks, Peter! --GenkiNeko 14:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Damm - well at least I'm looking the other way. I removed or modified the sentences missing citations. If they are important enough they will work their way back in with the appropriate citiation. I also removed Ueshiba did not allow competition in training and most styles of aikido continue this tradition. However, Shodokan Aikido began holding competitions shortly after its formation.^[1] and in the Ki Society there are forms (taigi) competitions held from time to time. from the randori section since it just didn't seem to fit there especially since it talks about taigi. I like that sentence but can't quite figure where to put it.Peter Rehse 06:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A few topics for discussion, since there seems to be disagreement:

• I question the idea of ikkyo as a technique applied primarily to the wrist. It can be done by gripping the non-flexible end of the forearm just before the wrist, for instance. I'm not saying both hands (the one on the elbow and the one on the wrist) aren't important, just that I consider it odd to summarize it as a wrist rather than elbow/shoulder technique.

How about, " - gripping the wrist with one hand, and immobilizing the elbow as a fulcrum with the other, this technique is used to leverage uke to the ground. This grip also applies pressure into the ulnar nerve on the medial side of the arm." Bradford44 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Branford - I have to admit I find myself disagreeing pretty strongly with your wording... the words "immobiling" or "leverage" are not part of any description of any technique that I practice, and the word "fulcrum" would only be used in describing a point around which uke ends up rotating (not used as something that tori forces like a lever). In doing google searches, I don't find lots of hits elsewhere either, which leads me to believe that it isn't the most popular method of applying aikido prinicples. I'm obviously not saying that it is ineffective - I'm simply saying that it perhaps is not the most common. Best regards, Mrand 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right about "fulcrum", Mrand.--GenkiNeko 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be that I'm using fulcrum a little loosely, so let me be more specific with what I was trying to get across. I conceptualize the control of the arm in ikkyō as an immobilization of the elbow with one hand, while the other hand pulls the wrist of uke toward oneself, except all in constant motion. This is a lever (it it helps, picture only the end part of ikkyō-omote, before you take uke all the way to the ground. How do you prevent uke from standing up? By maintaining a strong posture, and extending the arm gripping uke's elbow, which creates the fulcrum from which you can pull uke's wrist toward you. The other end of the lever is uke's body, where the more you pull his wrist toward you, the more his body is leveraged down to the floor.) Now all of that represents only a moment in time, but isn't this same physical structure that you are using throughout the entire range of motion; from the initial pickup of uke's arm until uke hits the floor? Can you do ikkyō without controlling the wrist? Was that at all coherent? Bradford44 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant about the term 'pulling'. The way I've been taught ikkyo, both arms are meant to be fully extended from takedown to pin. But in a way the hand does come towards the body. Hmmmm. I'm not sure if the term is accurate or not - I think it depends how you conceptualize it - but either way, I don't think it's currently necessary. --GenkiNeko 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Bradford44... I agree with GenkiNeko - I would use the term fulcrum long, long before I ever used the term 'pulling'. While my arms or hands may be moving towards me because uke is moving that direction, I never use muscles to pull uke - that just pulls uke into a position that he can counter (often with Gedan-ate). I realize this isn't an place to discuss how techniques work, but the answer to all your questions is that you prevent uke from standing up by keeping him off-balance. And since it is an elbow technique, my answer would be yes, it could be done without controlling the wrist, although it would probalby take someone pretty skilled to do so. My one line definition of ikkyō would be something like "get off-line while taking uke's balance by pushing through his elbow. As uke moves, nage moves as well, keeping uke off-balance as he is guided to the floor". Opppps... two lines! Mrand 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm content with whatever wording you settle on, and perfectly happy to agree to disagree. I did want to make clear however, that I never meant to imply that that both arms were other than extended throughout the entire movement.Bradford44 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Based upon your latest statement, I'm not sure we disagree all that much - but I think our discussion is a very good example of why accurate wording for describing even just the basic concept of each technique may be VERY difficult to compose, EVEN if there is a general agreement on how the technique is done. Many words can be interpreted too many ways. This is why I'm hesitant to even have a "list of techniques", at least in the main article (so I definitely agree with moving it to a seperate article). Best regards, Mrand 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• If we're going to go for concision, nikkyo could be called simply "an adductive wristlock technique."

The fact that it is extremely painful should probably also be included. Bradford44 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note to this effect, although in general I think it's a bit redundant. Just about any jointlock is painful. --GenkiNeko 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i hope you're talking about yonkyo, because I've never thought of ikkyo as being that painful.Wwilson 1 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ikkyo is close to being the exception, especially if you exclude a hand grip. However, the pin is quite painful, especially if the arm is not allowed to rest fully flat against the ground. And the shoulder pressure from a rapid "otoshi" takedown can be pretty intense. Sankyo is also another obviously painful lock. --GenkiNeko 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with yonkyo being described as a nerve technique. Though the nerve pressure is definitely a signature part of yonkyo, and gets a lot of attention, the fundamental control is of the shoulder. The nerve pressure is secondary, and is not mechanically sufficient itself.

• I'm unsure about iriminage. I think I can agree with the recent edit (down to just "though often very little force is required"), but I could see an argument for a rewrite. Really, the signature visual aspect of iriminage is the outstretched arm hooking past uke's head. As for the mechanism of action, well, it's kind of complicated, isn't it? What do people think?

Iriminage encompasses the entire category of entering techniques, so perhaps the entry should be similar to how kokyūnage is written. One possibility is something like, "- the term for any of various throws where nage executes the throw by crossing through the space occupied by uke. This technique most often has the appearance of "clotheslining" uke." Bradford44 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Genki - I wholeheartedly agree with your desire for literal accuracy in the parenthetical translations of the throws, but "shaped-like-'ten'" is pretty literally accurate. "Ji" means sign or character by itself, but when placed after a number, the new compound becomes an adjective that literally means shaped like whatever number precededes "ji". I even found an online dictionary that listed the adjective definitions of "jūji" as: "crossed" or "cruciform". Would you be happy with "ten-shaped throw", instead? Calling it the "cruciform throw" might be a bit weird, I think ;) Bradford44 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

True. After all, we don't list kotegaeshi as "small-hand-return". I think I'll switch it to "shaped-like-'ten'" for now, unless someone has a better idea. --GenkiNeko 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about the inclusion of this technique? I can say that in Yoshokai (and I assume Yoshinkan) it's definitely "its own technique." I believe it is also prominent as a separate technique in Shodokan. It seems a bit more fringe in Iwama-ryu, though. Would people suggest that we:

• Retain as is?
• Rename to shomen'ate?
• Delete? (since it's arguably a variant of kokyunage or tenchinage)

This article is getting close to "Good" status, I think! Aside from the above-mentioned questions (which are sort of polishing-level anyway), I believe the main thing is to keep working on the latter part of the article, which still seems a bit unintegrated. GenkiNeko 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

edit away guys. My purpose was not so much to change the meaning of the descriptions, as to clean up the excess verbiage and make it more concise. Whatever nuance you want to add is fine, let's just try to keep it to the minimum words possible.Wwilson 1 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. (And just to clarify again - when I say I disagree, I don't mean I think it was a bad edit or anything. Wikipedia evolves through this process.) I'll try to implement this discussion in a new version. --GenkiNeko 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm writing, I figure I should point out a discrepancy the Techniques section: the section starts with the following text by matching another's movements or balance with a dominant complement, yet the most of the descriptions that follow make almost no mention of any such things. Instead, the focus appears to be on nerves, pressure points, and locks - all of which, in my experience, are almost completely unnecessary to demonstrate the essence of each technique. Boy, I hope I don't sound like a crabby old man! I wish I had time to try to find the magical arrangement of words to form golden descriptions of these. Mrand 02:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I hope my minor change reflected that concern. Leverage works for me, so does fulcrum - I kind of like the fact that the descriptions are based on anatomy and physics rather than the less tangible. Cheers Peter Rehse 02:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought about that myself, Mrand. I was thinking, "Hmm, we talk all about blending and stuff above, but then we just list a bunch of jointlocks and other anatomy stuff." However, I'm not sure there's an easy way to incorporate any of that, largely because, it seems to me, the real "aiki" comes in during the implementation. I can't say how the energy exchange works "in ikkyo", because it totally depends on which iteration of ikkyo it is. Furthermore, while the timing aspect is somewhat elusive when one tries to put it into words, the "Grab here, twist there, step through to there..." is very clear. Maybe this is just my Yoshokai bias, but I think it's perhaps best to have minimalist descriptions that just show the basic anatomy of what's going on, at least for this section. After all, to use the above example, -every- ikkyo has the basic elbow/shoulder control in common. --GenkiNeko 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. That's not true. It'd be my Yoshokai bias to "have -extremely detailed- descriptions that show the -entire- anatomy of what's going on". ^_- --GenkiNeko 15:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At Finland we have also few techniques not mentioned on list:(are they not used??)
Gokyo (usually tanto technique wrist is controlled, other ways like ikkyo)

I'm familiar with this technique. It's certainly done in Iwama, along with "rokkyo" and so on. In Yoshokai, I don't -believe- that Gokyo is a commonly practiced technique, though what's called "rokkyo" we just call "hijikime-osae" (elbow lock). I'd say feel free to add them in with the aikikai names of Gokyo and Rokkyo. --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaitenosae (start like kaitennage but ends with nikyo ending lock)

Haven't seen that variant. In general, I'd suggest against describing both the throw -and- pin variations of each technique separately. Pretty much any pin can be a throw, and vice versa. So I don't think kaitenosae quite qualifies as a "class of techniques", like the others. --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Udekimenage (elbow braking like start, hand straigt and elbow locked, then it is used to throw uke)

Sounds a lot like hiji-ate-nage (Yoshokai: "hitting elbow throw") or ... well, I think they call it just kokyunage in Iwama. I'd suggest putting it in as ... hmm. Is the Aikikai terminology also "Kokyunage"? I assume this is referring to the "extend uke's arm to the side, step forward with hand palm-up, slide uke's arm along the curve of your bicep while switching to palm down to throw"? --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to that technique.Korppi76 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hijikimeosae ( ukes usually strikes and hand is "pulled" near to nage body and then lock to elbow joint)

This sounds a lot like a lock I learned from a Soo Bahk Do friend who also does aikido. In aikido terms, it seems like it's in the same family as shihonage and udegarame. I'm not sure it quite merits an entry: it -is- certainly a technique, but maybe not a bread-and-butter "class of techniques" like the others. --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

aikiotoshi (hip throw if someone takes hold form behind you, example bear hug from behind)

I have seen this, but don't know its proper name. I'd say it's arguably worth including on the main list. --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, the intro to the techniques section references Aikikai terminology, and I don't think that the section was ever intended to include every technique we could think of, but rather a good sample of mostly universal, core techniques. Maybe a logical place to stop would be including only the techniques listed in the Aikikai promotional requirements on the Aikikai Honbu website. Bradford44 16:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If those are not used elsewhere then they are not usefull for this article.
Also I have hear other names for those attacks but that is not very big thing:
Mune-tsuki = chudan tsuki
Ganmen-tsuki = Jodan tsuki
As you can see they are used more karate like.
Morote-dori = ryote-dori

And few attack that werent on list:
Eridori (hold neck of keiko-gi from behind)(like when someone is moving other out)
katate-dori kubishime (shoke from behind, while other hand controls nages other hand)
mae-geri (straight kick to front)
[sokuto- and mawashi -geri (2 basic kicks but not trained on every dojo)]

As for the attacks: I am a bit curious about ryote-dori. If you call two-hands-on-one ryote-dori, what do you call two-hands-on-two? (i.e., the classic opening for tenchinage?) I continue to wonder if perhaps we ought to rephrase morote-dori's description to be more clear. The other grips are getting a bit specialized, but I think they're orthodox/common enough to be included on the list. As for the kicks, those are a bit more controversial. I've not seen many dojo where those are -regularly- practiced. --GenkiNeko 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Korppi76 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: is ryokatatedori really used? Wouldn't that be kind of like "double-single-wrist-taking?" I guess that makes sense in a way, admittedly. But it seems like it would only contrast with double-double techniques which are the unique provenance of space aliens with four arms. --GenkiNeko 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake I meant ryokatatedori not ryotedori. Typing while working:)Korppi76 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is the place for all variations and permutations of attacks and techniques. Can you imagine if we included all the nomenclature of all the styles. When things get very style specific (and I am thinking about Aikikia at the moment) please remember that Aikikai has its own entery.Peter Rehse 00:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So guys - this is developing from gee lets get a few techniques listed to .... the Judo guys have a page called Judo techniques. What about starting one ourselves? Frankly speaking the list of techniques that we have is about twice what I think it should be, the grabs and strikes bordering on the too detailed. Opinions? Peter Rehse 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think then the super detailed people could get their rocks off without alienating people who want to be introduced to the concept of aikidoWwilson 1 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think an "aikido techniques" page, to parallel the judo one, does make sense. I think that we should try to list every -class- of technique here, and every common grab/strike - those are both short lists, around 10 entries apiece. It's the implementations that get wacky. Actually, I don't think even a separate page would be a solution to the matter of implementations...what, are we supposed to try to describe every technique of every style? That would not only be impossible, but arguably improper as well (we'd be spilling our schools' syllabi all over without permission.)

My suggestion: I think the main page is doing pretty well on this front as-is: one-liner descriptions for techniques and attacks. Let's put together an "Aikido techniques" subpage that describes each of the techniques (and perhaps attacks) in more detail, while still remaining true to the style-neutrality principle. As for specific implementations, I think that might be fair game. If you're doing a whole paragraph or two on ikkyo, rather than just a line, it might make sense to, say, discuss shomenuchi ikkyo and its application. But still, we want to be careful not to provide some sort of wiki-manual; more like a more thorough discussion of the uses of the different techniques. --GenkiNeko 15:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be the consensus, as of this time, that this idea (a separate article entitled "Aikido technique") would not be a beneficial complement. Although I initially thought it had some promise, I like many others quickly became convinced that it would only be a headache. If you disagree, feel free to comment, but I'm having a hard time seeing how getting into more detail about specific waza would be useful here. (Maybe on AikiWiki.) --GenkiNeko 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that, in keeping with Peter's suggestion, we create a new article entitled, "Aikido technique". This would repeat the same techniques listed on the main page, and add the following sorts of content:

• Include less-common techniques, or notable sub-types.
• Discuss not just the basic mechanics but the significance of each technique
• Discuss variants of techniques (henka-waza, yes?)
  • This could include -limited- discussion of style differences...recognizing divergences, but not getting into "at my one school in the middle of nowhere we add this one quirk"
• Discuss counters to techniques (kaeshi-waza)
• Discuss ukemi for techniques
• Describe some common attack-technique pairs (implementations) that are common to many styles. (Not

"this foot here at X angle, the other one at Y, atemi of this sort here..." - that would breach the principle of universality.) This might just be the most useful outcome of the additional length: we can, in addition to talking generally about the techniques, list a few common combinations, like munetsuki kotegaeshi, or katatedori shihonage.

Some caveats I suggest:

• Should -not- turn into an aikido techniques manual:
  • Should not be style-specific.
  • Should not be detailed to the point that instruction in class would be
• Should not be prescriptive, or a repository of "tips" (although important components can be mentioned as part of the discussion, something like "Common mistakes" would be excessive.)
• Concision still matters. It's not "spill every random thought on ikkyo", but more like, "If you had eight lines instead of one to talk about ikkyo, what would you mention?

Please comment.

--GenkiNeko 15:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of making an encyclopedic entry for aikido techniques because there is so much disagreement between teachers on the naming. Any accurate list would have to have many exceptions and caveats for all of the variation. I don't have a citation, but my understanding is that most of the names were coined by Ueshiba's students and that he resisted having formal names. Aikikai hombu may have formal standards, but not even all of the teachers affiliated with Aikikai are in agreement. For example, the current article lists "irimizumi". In twenty years of training, I have never seen or heard this name before, although I recognize it from its description. I don't mean that the name is in any way invalid, I have simply not trained with the same teachers as the author. Another example is "jujinage", most teachers use this to indicate the technique described in the article, others use it to indicate the technique I would call udekime nage.

Some teachers and some students like to have all techniques formally named. There is no problem with this, but I don't think that it is possible to come up with a list that everyone would agree on. A formal list of techniques will always be personal, not authoritative. Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm starting to agree. I think that Judo had a sub-article largely because they have so very -many- techniques. As I start to think more about what a thorough discussion of aikido techniques would look like, it really seems more like a book than an article. I believe the short versions we have here are ideal as is: they are brief, to the point, and provide the flavor of the various major techniques without getting into messy details.

As for irimi-zuki/shomen'ate, I know it is often given a separate name in Yoshinkan and Shodokan. However, we could remove it, if people feel that it is too specific. (I might be applying my Yoshinkan bias here; I'm used to it being considered a separate and important type of technique.) The ambiguity about jujinage seems too minor to remove a throw that, to my knowledge, every major style of aikido practices.

While I agree that there will always be subjectivity involved, I strongly disagree with the idea that styles do not all pretty much draw on the same inventory of waza.

--GenkiNeko 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

At the head of the section it says Aikikai terminology so perhaps the irimi-zuki/shomen'ate should be dropped. Upon reflection if we keep the list as is or even slightly smaller (its not meant to be comprehensive) then we don't need an extra article. I am thinking of an expanded version of the Shodokan article to explain the Junanahon. A more complete list for Aikikai and Yoshinkan should perhaps go in their respective entries also.Peter Rehse 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's pretty persuasive. --GenkiNeko 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't fight this. As a student under the Aikikai umbrella, I recognize all the techniques listed as fundamental. I worry that event this list will be a source of future disagreements and I'm not sure about its utility. Students of Aikido will be familiar with these techniques already and curious non-students will be unable to understand it. I won't fight it because others seem to think that it is important to include. Edwin Stearns | Talk 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the consensus (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is not to make a separate article for aikido techniques. I think it would be a headache. If you mean the list inside the article, though, I think it really contributes to the overall effect, by providing some interesting tidbits of detail to augment the more vague and abstract language about "throws" and "joint locks." It's not wordy, but rather gives concise and informative descriptions of the techniques of aikido.

As for the debate engendered between different individuals, I personally think it's leading in a good direction: towards more accuracy and universality. (Rather than there being irreconciliable differences.) Please comment on any descriptions you think could be improved, and let's continue our progress towards Good Article status. --GenkiNeko 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address added a line to the effect that aiki means "love or harmony". Personally, I find this a stretch. Harmony is understandable, but "love" is just a bit too far. I'm not saying that aiki isn't ultimately about love, in the cosmic sense, but I wouldn't say that aiki "means" love. What do other people think? Personally, I favor not including a direct translation of aiki: they see "match or fit" and "spirit" for the individual kanji above, and are free to piece together whatever meaning they think it has from that, and the descriptions that follow. --GenkiNeko 23:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. The way it was (ie before the anonymous user) was the consensus.Peter Rehse 06:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think too many people are going to their first aikido class, hearing their sensei (sensibly, I'd add) simplify it to "Aikido is the way of harmony", and then taking that to be literally correct. --GenkiNeko 15:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The maintainer of the AikidoFAQ suggested to me that images of O-sensei might be public domain, or at least licensed by Hombu for purposes of promoting aikido. Personally, I'm skeptical of this, but I'd like to ask what you all think. A couple of those would certainly be an excellent addition to this page. --GenkiNeko 20:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think the article needs a picture of Ueshiba mainly because there is a direct link to his own page. However, the Ueshiba article definately could use a few images especially over the range of his life.Peter Rehse 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. True on both counts. --GenkiNeko 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous IP address removed the entire third paragraph of this section. I really can't tell whether or not it was meant to be vandalism. The section removed was:

Aikido was born out of three Enlightenment experiences of Ueshiba. In each of these, he felt a divine inspiration leading him away from the violent nature of his previous martial training towards a "spirit of peace". As Ueshiba would later remark, "When life is victorious, there is birth; when it is thwarted, there is death. A warrior is always engaged in a life-and-death struggle for Peace."

I have to admit there's something a little off about this section, but I'm thinking we should modify rather than remove. Anyway. Just checking to see if we should revert this or not (wanted to give the person the benefit of the doubt.) --GenkiNeko 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I never really liked that section either - its another thing that best belongs in Ueshiba's own page - but it was important to one of our regular contributers. I also don't think we are obliged to give anonymous contributers the benefit of the doubt - but definately those who have registered.Peter Rehse 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason for this assumption that edits by anonymous users should automatically be given less weight than those of registered users. The section as quoted above are highly un-encyclopaedic in the tone, and it is good that it is no more included in the article. // habj 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The user from IP 211.131.245.114 has made some edits that bring up the question of Hapkido's origins. These edits seem to say that Hapkido is "exported aikido", which might be controversial. I have heard that there is some connection with Daito-ryu, but that it is not clearly documented.

I suggest reverting to "the Korean art called Hapkido", because it is a Korean art. However, 211.131.245.114 may have a point: perhaps we should add a sentence about its probable Japanese origins.

Thoughts? --GenkiNeko 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hapukido has not received correct succession of Takeda Sokaku. Therefore, I think that I should remove the description concerning Hapukido. Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu is thought to be one of the roots of Aikido. However, Hapukido doesn't influence Aikido at all. These two Marshall arts should not be equally treated. --211.131.245.114 16:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a "correct" continuation of Daito-ryu, if by "correct" you mean "complete". However, the Hapkido page includes, under "Choi Yong Sul", an interview with Kishhomaru Ueshiba that indicates there is at least some connection. (Sidenote: the correct term is "martial" arts, not "marshall".)

I suggest a new version with the following points, if we can agree on them:

• Hapkido is not a "style of aikido"; it is a separate martial art
• Hapkido appears to have some Daito-ryu influence (cite interview with Kisshomaru Ueshiba)
• Hapkido is spelled with the same kanji/hanja, suggesting it considers itself related (perhaps cite a Hapkido page describing its history to show self-identification)

--GenkiNeko 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The page of Hapukido was confirmed. The relation between Hapukido and Aikido is being controverted. (The Hapukido organization of South Korea denies Japan to influence now. Hapukido is traditional original Marshall arts of Korea. [2])To prevent various misunderstandings, will we delete Hapukido?　Hapukido is not necessary always information in Aikido. --211.131.245.114 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure that's fine, but the controversy is political between Japan and Korea, but this article about Aikido is not interested in that. The only real argument that can be made is that since Hapkido is allegedly descended from Daito Ryu, this gives it the same root, but not being directly related to Aikido, it isn't neccessary to mention it on this page. However, I think that erasing it because of political or emotional reasons goes against most of what the free exchange of information stands for.Wwilson 1 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I do think it's worth a mention. How about this version:

"The Korean art of Hapkido (whose name is the Korean pronounciation of 合氣道) is sometimes said to have been influenced by Daito-ryu, one of the chief "parent arts" of aikido."

Oh, and Wilson, you sort of overwrote my comment, by the way. ;) --GenkiNeko 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aiki-do is limited to the sect of Ueshiba. Aikido has Aikikai as well as Kodokan of Judo. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is not Judo. And, Daito-ryu is not Aikido. Sambo (martial art) is not judo. and, hapukido is not Aikido. --ShinjukuXYZ 23:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And YOU are not supporting any of those statements with anything. Should we listen because you are Shinjuku XYZ? Give us some website or data or anything.Wwilson 1 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone put cationed the picture at the top of the page with an explanation that it "looks like kokyunage". The first point is that it shouldn't be captioned that it "looks like" anything, it should either say what throw it "is" or not. Second, to me it looks like it is iriminage. However, I have noticed a big divide between whether certain techniques are called iriminage or kokyunage across the various aikido organizations. I don't care if the picture has no caption at all, but we should get a consensus on whether the technique being demonstrated is a kokyunage or an iriminage if it is going to be named.Bradford44 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't say what kind of throw that is, just based on that picture. How many techniques end with nage in that zanshin posture? In Yoshokai, one never (I can't think of exceptions) does a zenpo kaiten from iriminage - it's either koho ukemi or hyaku koho ukemi (back-breakfall or, more correctly, jumping back breakfall.) But I've seen other schools do an iriminage that uke rolls out of. I think the current caption is worth keeping. --GenkiNeko 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Mae Otoshi to me. Mrand 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like this is getting pretty close to Good Article status. The main issue I can see is the Hapkido debate. Frankly, I think a token mention of Hapkido, that only mentions the debate (which should be documented more thoroughly on the Hapkido page instead), would be sufficient. Does anyone see any other issues that need to be addressed before submitting for GA status? --GenkiNeko 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually none - the hapkido worked its way in originally by a hapkido person and worked its way out by one too. Go figure. I will go back into the talk archives and mention to the person who first suggested the possibility for GA status if they could take another look. If I remember there were good suggestions and we avoid self congratulatory hubris.Peter Rehse 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! When i scroll through it now, i see nice, manageable chunks of concise, clear information communicating what Aikido is to those who might wish to know. Of course it will continue to evolve over time, but compared to say, a year ago, it's come along quite nicely. I think as far as tweaking, people should instead consider adding to the various aikido subgroupings, like iwama, ki society, and so on. It is there that the 'exceptions to technique rules' would best fit, and room for subtle differences in style can be expounded upon. Also, many of those articles are a bit skimpy. Onward!Wwilson 1 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah! Good show, all.  :) Good suggestion on the individual style pages (I might add that biographies are also lacking.) Yeah...this might sound odd, but I'm almost kind of paranoid about editing the Yoshokai one. Yoshokai is very conservative about public relations at times, so I'll want to make sure that I do it -right-. Hmm. --GenkiNeko 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)