Talk:Aikido/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

External Links

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

It is far easier to avoid a punch by using a standard block with your arm and then grabbing the other person's head and pulling it down into a rising knee than it would be to say, blend expertly with the attack, move at the very last second to avoid/deflect the punch, move to just the right postion up next to the attacker, pivote while under complete control and throw them with an irimi-nage. I could teach you to do the karate block/knee smash in about an hour. You'd be very good at it. The Irimi-nage? Uh, not in an hour. I think that's the point the author was making.


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

Hopefully you guys can look it over and improve it.

The statement that Chinese chi and Japanese ki not necessarily is the same thing, has nothing to do with the etymology of the word but the meaning of it. I have it from martial artists who has trained in both Chinese and Japanese arts, and found that the teachers from the two countries did not mean quite the same thing with the word. Of course, we could argue if a reiki healers and an aikido persons concept might not be the same. Maybe there is not even two aikido persons who means the same thing, when they say the word...
Btw, I think the ki-part of the article is greatly improved by your changes. Habj 13:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's not really an issue of "Chinese chi vs. Japanese ki" as it is an issue of "Chinese ji (= chi = 極) vs. Chinese qi (= ch'i = 氣). It is a question of etymology. I agree that the recent edits were an improvement. Thank you anonymous. - Nat Krause 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright issues

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

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

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

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


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

it is another meaning of the word. What do to do with the redirect? /Habj
Looks like the existing Hara page is the Indian Hara which redirected to another page. What we need here is a page for the Japanese Hara.

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

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

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

Genealogy chart

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

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

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

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

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

A few points:

  • Schools, arts, people, and other topics should probably be linked to their appropriate pages.
  • If you're using Japanese naming order (and you seem to be; Ueshiba Morihei for example), then Kano Jigoro is correct. I don't know what the accepted Wikipedia style is (Japanese or anglicized naming order), or even if there is one.
Addendum: According to the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles, Japanese names should be given name first, family name last if they're more commonly known that way by English speakers, and in Japanese order otherwise. So, it's pretty flexible. Depends on how obscure the individual is to the general public, I suppose. - Gwalla 20:38, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's really any consensus on what MAs o-sensei learned. There are all sorts of claims. The only one it seems everyone agrees on is Daito-Ryu.
- Gwalla 23:48, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Gwalla. Yes the arrangement is mine, based mainly in the information found at The Aikido FAQ.As there is no © note, I suppose this one in the index page applies:
© Copyright 1993-2002 by Kjartan Clausen unless otherwise stated
I have written an email today to Kjartan Clausen to ask for his permission. --ArinArin 11:46, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Answer from Kjartan Clausen:
I don't mind you using it as source material, as you've done. Go right ahead and post it.
A couple of things to think about though:
The layout makes it _very_ hard to understand what you want to explain.
Jigoro Kano didn't study daito-ryu - he studied kito-ryu
Morihei Ueshiba didn't study Kendo. He did study spear and bayonet though.
Look at John Stevens books for more info about what Ueshiba did.
And "Kano Jigoro" is the correct form in your genealogy tree, since everybody else that's Japanese has their name in last-first order.
The nice (colour) version is available here as excel spreadsheet (MD5 checksum 318779d96aa62f6bc5ac7137722fc052 *aikido_gen.rar). I think it's clearer than ASCIIart but maybe too big. Ideas?
To do list for the chart:
  1. Delete Kano from disciples of Takeda, or move to Kito-ryu.
  2. Translate from catalan into english (excel version).
  3. Check John Stevens' Abundant Peace.
  4. Ancestors for Aikijutsu maybe are too much info for an Aikido article. Delete?
  5. (More)?
Thanks to all! --ArinArin 12:28, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Did the bokken link

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

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

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

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

They were the top men in the Iwama Ryu, that does not yet have an article but most definately should have one. They do not deserve pages and pages of text, but a short article with basic facts should be fine I guess.Habj 12:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree they should have their own articles if they are important even for one country's aikido. I'm objecting that the list of famous people in this article starts with two western blokes and list Ueshibas, Gozo Shioda, etc. only after them. Well, I reorganized it myself.
By what standard should someone be included on this list? There are many well known instructors senior to Paolo Corallini and Ulf Evenas who are not included and if everyone adds their favorite instructors the list could get very long. Also, when a teacher is Japanese by birth but currently teaches in the US or Europe, which category should they fall under? Edwinstearns 15:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As Saotome has been added to this list, I have added some others of similar international stature. This list is far from complete and I still feel that there is no standard for why one person is included and another is not, other than the POV of the editor. Edwinstearns 14:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!


Technical Summaries?

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

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

Edwinstearns 15:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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


I deleted the description of ASU because:

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

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

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

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

Link suggestions

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

Koichi Tohei and Ki-Aikido

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

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

Go ahead and make a start with what you know, and mark them with {{ma-stub}} (the martial arts stub message). Most articles start small, and get built up as verious people pool their knowledge over time.
Note that Ki Society does exist. Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I guess I could add some basic stuff (which cannot be described as intimate knowledge) And I already know the Ki Society exists, I added a few links to the Swedish official Ki-society page :)
/Aikido-trainee 10:58, 26 Dec 2004
There, I have started an article bout Koichi Tohei with the Stub command. Hopefully its up to standards and regulations :)
I regged in order to be more effeciant, so I'm under the name Fred26 now.
//Aikido-trainee /Fred26 10:38, 27 Dec 2004

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

Which sentence? But as for spiritual and Ki-aikido, I suppose that depends on how Koichi Tohei interpreted it when he first created the style to begin with. What little I have read seems to suggest that Tohei isn't exactly a scientist and supreme rationalist, although he wasnt as religious a man as Ueshiba was, but rather a spiritual man who believes the concept of Ki can heal both mind and body.
However, when one think of spirituality one usually think of religious rituals. Ueshiba had quite a lot of those before, (during?) and after practice. I cant remember seeing or hearing Tohei doing any of that stuff in his dojos or in his official "doctrine" for lack of better word. The cultivation of Ki is mostly done with meditation and aikido practice as I have understood it. My own Ki-aikido club for instance has (only) meditation techniques besides the aikido practice itself to cultivate Ki.
Fred26 11:09, 29 Dec 2004
You find it under "Spirituality". To me, it looks like someones personal opinion. I suggest we remove that sentence.
Actually, to me it is odd to write about "Ki" under "Spirituality". I guess that depends on how you define that, but I would like to de-mystizise the article quite a bit. Habj 18:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
De mystify it? I did change it to ki instead of spiritual, but I'm not a scientist, I cannot say how or if the concept of Ki truly works or not according to Tohei, but I cannot ignore to write that Tohei himself thinks it works, and how he got to that conclusion, since the article is about him and his life.
Check this Tohei-qoute:
"Although the ideas were somewhat vague at that time, I had a sense that it was my mind and spirit (kokoro) that had motivated my body. I realized that the way you hold your mind is important. Physical illness is okay (if not desirable), but it is unacceptable to allow illness to extend to your mind or your ki.
In Japanese, when the body malfunctions in some way we call it yamai, or byo, which means simply "illness"; but when the failure extends to one’s ki as well we call it byoki. So although my body may be afflicted with some sort of illness, I don’t let that extend to my ki. If the mind is healthy, the body will follow


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


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

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

Whoops! My bad..sorry. I thought you meant something else. As for yer question, ki exists in both "regular" aikido and ki-aikido, but the latter and its founder has made it a goal to "bring forth" the Ki in aikido with education and practice. The aikikai, whom Tohei belonged to, did not want to include Toheis ki-excercises, or rather not just prescisly HIS teachings, so Tohei said he would teach outside the main Dojo, which he was allowed to and did.
But there is another style of aikido who was founded by a Omoto-kyu follower. The impression I got from him and his words suggests that he worships Ueshiba as a prophet who was "filled with the spirit of God and talked through him" or something similar like that. So in terms of spirituality, I dont think Ki-aikido is the greatest of spiritual Aikido, but nevertheless a bit more spiritual than "regular" aikido.

All techniques can be performed with sword?

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

I'd like to know a style where this is really the case (I mean "all" is a quite strong proposition). Otherwise this sentence should be removed or re-formulated. -- 21:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can see that it was removed, and I think that was good. It is true about Shoji Nishio's system, which is technically a bit different to other schools of aikido I know of. The sentence can now be found on the page about this teacher. Habj 18:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Practices of Dousing

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

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

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

I know of no dousing in aikido. I do not know of Ueshiba did it, but he did many shinto rituals so I would not be surprised if he did. Habj 19:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, Koichi Tohei doused himself in such a fashion even before he started aikido. It's called misogiI think. I'm not sure if misogi or any equivelant method is standard in Ki-aikido. My sensei mentioned something about that ritual, but I think he meant it as his own personal kind of purification and not as a general practice in the club.
Are you confusing the definition of misogi with with various kata that use the term, such as misogi no ken (a purification kata performed with bokken). I've not heard anything about dousing in relation to Aikido, but I'm aware of a couple of different kata that are defined as purification forms as opposed to martial forms.
I have never heard of Ueshiba practicing dousing rituals from Aikido, and I certainly have never heard of it being practiced, especially not at my dojo. My sensai can reveal a terrible temper if someone gets something on the floor.

Book "Aikido in America" and mentioning of aikido people

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

The book gives a background of how Aikido came to the United States and how it changed and evolved from its Japanese roots. I liked the way the editors divided the people into 3 groups following the evolution of Aikido in the U.S. I am also interested in other parts of the world as well. Please list other Aikidoka if they have made contributions to Aikido as well as similiar books which would be good references. I also moved the List to new page. Petersam 20:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A section "Literature" is fine with me, although I can think of some books more obvious to mention (Aikido and the harmonic sphere, Saito's books, osenseis books). A section about the history of aikido in the US would be fine; sections about the history in Europe, Australia etc. also. In this context I guess mentioning the book as a source would be the way to go. Habj 01:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Styles: Nishio and Tissier Aikido

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

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

Image correction

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

I agree that the picture is probably nikyo and is now correctly captioned, but I would point out that there is very little consistancy in the naming of techniques and it is possible that the instructor demonstarting called it ikkyo. Edwin Stearns | Talk 18:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes; in Yoshokai, that would be called ikkajo. --GenkiNeko 15:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who founded Aikikai

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

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


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

Chinese connection

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

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

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

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

Partner Terminology

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

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

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

Any Shin Budo Kai followers here?

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

  • edit*

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