Jump to content

Talk:Aikido styles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other Distinct Styles

[edit]

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

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

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

Aikido Schools of Ueshiba

[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Major aikido styles

[edit]

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

Alain Peyrache

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Shin Budo Kai

[edit]

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

While I missed this discussion entirely, I think there is a notability value here insofar as Imaizumi is one of the few remaining direct students of Ueshiba Sensei, and his focus has been on breath and footwork. Stylistic changes are a re-thinking of followthrough (through a kind of minimalism of action) and changes to specific foot placement in common Aikido movements which alters the Shin-Shin-Toitsu style enough to be distinct. It might be a small group, organizationally, but it's meaningful from a practice standpoint.
I guess a related question is - are other "dojo clusters" also around that were founded by students of O-Sensei, or have these all "grown up" into larger organizations? --Christian Edward Gruber (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style or organization

[edit]

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

clear up a source question issue

[edit]

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

Gogyo medical Aikido

[edit]

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

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

I'm glad you and I agree about this. Is there a way to cross t's and dot i's WP-wise so that a reversion war is avoided? Himatsu Bushi (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted because it has nothing to do with Aikido in this article. Two of the sources are links to wikipedia, and one is from Microsoft, and they don't qualify as sources at all.
Many accounts and IP users have repeatedly written edits on largely unrelated pages, using unrelated sources to describe the influence of traditional Chinese medicine, Wuxing, and the Gogyo, which are derived from the Wuxing. Those accounts and IP users actively edit the pages of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuxing, Gogyo and Godai. That representative account was blocked, and many others were blocked as sockpuppets. However, coincidentally, several accounts are still editing the same. I present those blocked accounts here. Some of those accounts, very interestingly, linked aikido with traditional medicine on the Aikido page.
Should someone undo all the edits to blocked accounts? They seem to have rewritten quotes from various sources or deleted various sources.--Green cigarette (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On this page, two accounts and two IP users re-write the same description many times whenever the description about Gogyo medical Aikido (Chinese Wuxing he qi dao) is deleted from other users. It is an unauthoritative and unfamous folk medicine that uses the same letters but is completely different from aikido founded by Ueshiba. Don't you think it's very rare that people want to write that description here? Both IP users are connecting from Melbourne. Aren't the four of them the same person?
2405:6E00:208D:CBF4:14A3:E7AE:89D0:4230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [4]
49.183.166.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [5]
Troyfall (talk · contribs · count) [6]
Kindbynature (talk · contribs · count) [7][8] --Green cigarette (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this independently and have filed an investigation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishio style

[edit]

@Tamle2nd: An overly colorful description has been re-added a few times now to the description of Nishio style. This is an WP:UNDUE and inappropriate level of detail not supported by third-party sources, nor is it a level of detail present in the article for other styles. When describing the style, it needs enough detail to distinguish it from the others, but it doesn't need to try to sell the reader on the topic. The third time it was added a source was provided, but it was a group blog reposting a different group blog written by a student of and promotor of Nishio style, which is not a independent or reliable source. The wording itself is also problematic, Calling it a aikidoka with high ranking in iaido, judo, karate is trying to sell the point, not distinguish it. It's also unclear wording, "high ranking" in what way? A lay reader not already familiar with this subject matter would find this more confusing than illuminating, and the Nishio style Aikido certainly doesn't elaborate on that.

The second sentence is Nishio's approach to aikido can be elementally described as aikido spirit and techniques perform in atemi rhythm following the sword's direction and purpose with judo tweak. This too is more-so colorful description than informative text, more suited to a blog or book promoting the subject than a dispassionate fact-based description on an encyclopedia. If the text is getting into what it "can be", and not only described as but elementally described as, that is far beyond the level of detail needed to distinguish it on this article. This addition has been challenged by myself and another editor, and per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS I think this should be discussed before being reinserted into the article, as other editors have expressed issues with the addition of this content. - Aoidh (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming the wording is problematic, what phrase would you feel that is "wikipedia-appropriate" to call an aikidoka with 7th dan in iaido, 6th dan in judo, and 5th dan in karate? Also, I haven't heard anyone would dispute 5th dan in any martial art to not be high ranking. I don't see what the confusion could be. What could be inferred that's not in accordance to reality?
At about the grade of godan, the holder may receive a full teaching license: shihan (師範), literally "instructor/model." Traditionally, someone who holds the shihan title may open their own school with this license.
"is trying to sell the point" what point was being sold - AKA imply something's better than reality?
The article's author Stanley Pranin is not Nishio's student. He did many many interviews of many prominent aikido practitioners. Aikido Journal's goal is neither promoting Nishio nor Nishio's style. Aikido Journal is neither operated/controlled by Nishio's student nor Nishio's affiliation.
The other point I will get to when I have the time. Tamle2nd (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what phrase would you feel I would say this article isn't the place for anywhere near that level of detail, and your AKA as to selling the point isn't an accurate assessment of what that means. I highly suggest reading what I wrote above again, as your reply does not adress any of those concerns, with the exception of the blog post, which is still a group blog and not a reliable or disinterested source for this information. - Aoidh (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"your reply does not address any of those concerns". I can accept that you don't agree with me on different points but that sentence is quite disappointing. These are some of your statements that I believe was addressed effectively (might not be fully):
- "The wording itself is also problematic";
- "overly colorful description";
- "It's also unclear wording, "high ranking" in what way?";
- "group blog reposting a different group blog written by a student of and promotor of Nishio style, which is not a independent or reliable source"
Why and how would a disinterested source write technically in-depth about a topic? Tamle2nd (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you make a presumption that I "selling the point". I think that - my intention - need to be effectively addressed before you would agree to other details. So, according to you, what exactly is the point that I am "selling"? Nishio is better than other style creators or Nishio style is better than other style or what? Tamle2nd (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The high ranking wording is unclear in the prose, not the talk page. Your response does not address how it's clear to a reader of the article. The text does not explain what that means, and someone not already very familiar with the subject would not know what that means. I also made no presumption that you were selling the case, but the text is. It is overly colorful language about what it what it "can be elementally described" as, and is a level of such colorful language that is unnecessary in an entry that should disambiguate it from other styles. Your response does not explain why this level of detail is necessary when no others are, or why this particular "elemental description" is necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do "the text", "selling the case" mean? Please try to answer, this is the 3rd time you use this kind of statement without ever being explicit. What exactly is being sold here? It's kind of hard to reach consensus when judgements being throw around but avoiding articulation. This time I will address one point only Please do NOT bring up another point to talk about, otherwise we would go around all day. I promise that we will go through each and everyone of your statements. I don't get paid for doing this, never mind fame or power. Tamle2nd (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered what you're asking. I also never suggested you were paid, as that's not what selling point means in the context of what was said. When your initial comment seemed to misunderstand what was meant by "selling the case" I provided a link which explains the meaning. The text (meaning the prose, i.e. the regular text in the article as opposed to something like tables of data or infoboxes) is emphasizing details that are unnecessary for this article, and uses language that would be unclear to readers not already familiar with the subject. When the prose says a aikidoka with high ranking in iaido, judo, karate it is a selling point (meaning an emphasized aspect, in this case overemphasized) for the linked article but is highly problematic; what does high ranking mean? Neither this article nor the linked Nishio style Aikido give any explanation as to what that is. Far from being helpful in aiding in the understanding of the subject, it is confusing and hinders understanding. It is also a highly disproportionate emphasis, as a read of the other entries in this article shows. This entry does not need this level of detail. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aikido_styles&oldid=1252856628"