Talk:Aikido/Archive 3

GA status!

I've upgraded this article to GA status, a few gripes, one is the need for more inline citations especially what with the length of the article, perhaps turning some sections into separate articles in themselves. The opening paragraph is not very informative and needs a bit of improvement. Otherwise, these are minor quibbles and can be sorted out as soon as someone has time. All in all quite a comprehensive effort that fulfills the GA criteria. P.s> Someone should archive most of the discussions! --Zak 22:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should split articles off but Zak has a point about the first paragraph - it needs a bit more punch. Perhaps elements from the first two sections should be added. Also a few more citations is correct. Someone mentioned that there should be at least one per paragraph but that might be more than necessary. Still - I think these issues need to be taken care of before we can try for featured article status. Another possibility is to ask for peer review with an eye to promotion to A-class but again I am sure the comments would reflect the ones Zak has already made.Peter Rehse 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

I looked at the judo, karate and sumo pages for inspiration and they are also pretty short and to the point. I did change the aikido paragraph to emphasize what aikido is as opposed to where it comes from. The latter is covered later. I still think it needs a bit more.Peter Rehse 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Aikido - expansion

I've expanded the history section, but it still needs some more work. I thought I would share my concept for the history section here, and we can discuss whether it is the right way to go or not.

Conceptually, I see two main historical elements. 1. things that led to aikido's creation, and 2. things that resulted from aikido's creation.

Part one can be broken down further.

• 1.a. technical contributions, i.e. the martial arts that Ueshiba studied and how they were synthesized into aikido.
• 1.b. philosophical contributions, i.e. the effect of Omoto-kyo upon Ueshiba's and aikido's basic philosophy.

Those things are reasonably well covered so far. Part two should be a bit more chronological:

• 2.a. First Aikido was taught by Ueshiba in Japan.
• 2.b. Then Ueshiba sent emissaries throughout the world.
• 2.c. Then Ueshiba passed away, and factionalism among Ueshiba's direct students ensued. (this is indirectly covered in the styles section)
• 2.d. Today, current doshu is Ueshiba's grandson, and etc...

Finally, it would be great to cite to some print sources for all of this, rather than the internet. If there is one section of any article that should be heavily sourced, it's probably the history section. As a caution, I'm very concerned about getting too detailed on Ueshiba's life except for the parts that directly implicate his martial arts. Bradford44 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ueshiba has his own page where we can expand on his life to our hearts content.Peter Rehse 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The organization of the Aikikai today (ie *2.d. Today, current doshu is Ueshiba's grandson, and etc...) belongs in the article on the Aikikai not here. I also think discussing the fractionalism beyond the indirect serves no purpose - people can go to individual articles to find out more. Otherwise we open the article up too much to "point of view".Peter Rehse 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also nice expansion on the history section - again just a caution about absolute statements and also "points of view". By way of example it is enough to say that Ueshiba studies x, y and z martial arts it is quite another to say he excelled in the koryu arts. It may seem trivial but not all Aikido people refer to Ueshiba as Osensei but he is recognized as such. We generally need to be careful layering our own beliefs over all aikido.Peter Rehse 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Preparing for Peer Review

I agree for the need for some more hard citations. So there are three places with citation flags (good place to start) - I don't have the books to hand but for the Saito and weapons it may be one of Saito's books, and I would also suggest fitting in Best Aikido (Ueshiba K and M, and Aikido by Ueshiba K). Would the Aikido-faq dojo search engine be a good citation for dojo through out the world? I added a new one for the randori section.Peter Rehse 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'ld like to send this article for peer review by the end of the year no matter what the progress. If we can get those citations taken care of perhaps in a weeks time would be ok. I would like some opinions on that. Frankly I believe the article is a Featured Article candidate especially with the recent effort that we all made and I would love Aikido to be the first Featured Article in the martial arts. Think of the glory <----humor.Peter Rehse 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Sounds good! I also share this dream. ^_- Anyway...I'll see what I can do for the history section and its citation-ness, and improve what I can. Perhaps I'll add some kanji for the techniques? --GenkiNeko 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been weighing the idea of adding kanji to the techniques for a while, because there is a conflict between accessability to non-familiar readers, and the level of inclusion that I feel is warranted by encylopedia-ness. I like to err on the side of comprehensiveness, so I say add the kanji. But maybe we should get a couple more opinions first?Bradford44 02:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I read the WP:MOS-JP correctly, its guidelines suggest that kanji should be used in the article body only when doing so is relevant to the context, or otherwise helpful to the reader for a specific reason, but, kanji for proper names should always be given. Thus, one of the next tasks will be to include the kanji for all of the aikido practitioners discussed in the article (I already did this for the history section, and the MOS-JP provides detailed format guidelines that depend on the person's year of birth, etc...).Bradford44 02:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not add the kanji - I don't think it would add to the article or the section. Please remember that the names are only the Aikikai variation.Peter Rehse 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I will submit Aikido for peer review in five days - ie January 1st. Last chance to add some more citations - you know we'll be called on it.Peter Rehse 08:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nishio Aikido a part of the Aikikai although techically well defined according to its head Shoji Nishio. "

What does this comment mean? I cant wrap my head around it. Fred26 20:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea - I'm thinking of deleting the entry entirely. Either we list stylistic variations within the Aikikai or not. These sort of listing should go into the Aikikai listing itself not general Aikido. Comments?Peter Rehse 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of added information without adequate explanation

I had had several pieces of information that I have added removed from the page (a page that is theoretically editable by everyone). I fully appreciate the need for some regularity, consistency and avoidance of style specific terms etc. - and for these corrections I thank the person who has corrected me - but some of my additions have been removed where I do not believe this applies (e.g every style practices techniques from ushiro-ryote-dori, in some styles it is ONLY graded females who may choose to wear the hakama). In each case, I have been referred to 'common consensus' or to the talk page, but can find no reference to the issues in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonb420 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I did the revert and appologize if it seemed draconian. Call it lazyiness - it just seemed easier to do a revert. There are two archives of discussions - some where in there was a discussion of which grabs to include. At the very least another entry for ushiro ryote dori grip was removed quite recently using that reasoning (please see History of edits December 22). Please propose changes in talk first. There has been a lot of effort pairing down the information in the Aikido article - we recently got it upgraded to GA status and are going for peer review in the New Year for featured article status. One of the comments was that some sections should be peeled off into their own articles. Frankly speaking if something needs to be expanded - perhaps a new article is in order.

With respect to the grips. Your additions added variations to what was already there and are quite style specific. Not that we don't all do them but the names are different or we don't differentiate. It has been suggested that if we want to get more specific we should expand the articles on the various styles.

The same argument goes for the hakama.

I for one recognize the good faith changes that were made but once again please realize the effort that has been made by a number of people to get Aikido from a confused and unbalanced entity to one of two martial arts articles that have made GA status (Sumo is the other).

Oh yeah - we always welcome contributions. Cheers.Peter Rehse 03:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok Peter. Thanks for your feedback and also your hard work. Your reasoning is indeed understandable. It seems to be a fine balance as, for example, the article on hakamas is not specific to aikido so the comment would not be relevant there either! Best of luck with the peer review. Simonb420 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Peer Review for Featured Article

As promised I submitted the article for peer review - we expect comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aikido/archive1. Lets make a concerted effort to address any suggestions made. I hope we can get Featured Article status out of this or at least promotion to A-class.Peter Rehse 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - lets get brave. In two weeks I am going to submit Aikido for Featured article status. Could our regular Aikido contributors take a final look at the article along with the peer reveiw comments. Hey if the consensus is that it is ready now - I'll submit it even sooner. Personally I think a few more hard citations would be good but I always say that. I don't have access to a broad range of Aikido books.Peter Rehse 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre-war kanji 氣

The article uses the pre-war kanji 氣 instead of 気. This has been discussed previously, but the reasons given for the current state of the article were not very convincing. If you look at the Japanese article, they use the modern form of the character, except in names of associations etc. that contain the old character and non-literal quoting would be simply erroneous. If you google 合気道 and 合氣道, the former is 10 times more common on Japanese-language sites. It is what you will find in the dictionaries, too. Completely ignoring the most popular form (there is not a single mention of it in the article) is rather strange. If the old form must be used, then it should at least be said to be by far the less common way to write the word in Japanese, and the reasoning for using it regardless should be explained.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says this: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. I have not looked at whether the Japanese Wikipedia has a similar guideline, but it probably has, and thus 合気道 (the title used) is the appropriate choice for the article title in Japanese Wikipedia. Now, in English Wikipedia neither one of 合気道 and 合氣道 is the article name for obvious reasons, but if you're going to mention the Japanese word at all, it would make sense to use the one that, using such a guideline, is appropriate in Japanese (i.e. the Japanese article title).

In the archived discussion, it was said that Aikikai and others use the old form in their official documents and that it is used in some association names but not in others, and that Aikikai's website uses 気 in the text but 氣 in a gif (which is true). It is alleged that this denotes a reverence for the older way of writing it. I think this is not far from the truth, as it is common to stick to more traditional ways in formal matters related to a tradition (see Ecclesiastical Latin for an extreme example). The Wikipedia article is not such a formal document, so use of 気 would be normal (by 10 to 1, if the Google result is representative). Mentioning that 氣 is used in formal documents such as rank certificates, on the other hand, would be useful to a Western audience, even if the Japanese article does not need to mention it (as the Japanese understand both forms and that one is the common one and the another an old form). If significant amount of important people prefer to always use 氣, that fact would also be notable and could be used as a basis for preferring it here, but the reader should still be informed that it is not the usual choice. Currently no such explanation is given in the article, and for that reason it is also impossible to give references that justify the decision to the reader, as there's no place to put them. -- 82.103.215.236 04:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

uggh. You HAD to push the issue! 1) This anonymous poster doesn't have a real account, which doesn't add much weight to his opinions. 2) I'm wondering if someone can find a pic of 気 for the KI section further down. otherwise it is going to be confusing to the reader to have two different ones in there. In fact, I'd say this is a very good reason to argue for leaving it the way it is. I'd say this is the same as the 'british english vs. american english' question. As long as it is totally consistent, leave it one or the other. Both kanji are equally recognized in Japan. The 'ki' the anonymous poster is referring to is the simplified for learning in school texts kanji, but that gives it no authority or even modernity. It's equivalent to people who write '4' closed or with an open top. 3) most dojo scrolls have the 'older' kanji, and since that's what everyone is used to seeing, why not let it prevail? Japanese don't go around telling everyone that they pronounce 'sake' wrong, as that's what's become adopted and accepted over here. Why should we care what is done in japan? We're talking about Aikido in the English speaking world.

I think mentioning the two and their variations would detract from the main focus of the article which is the art, and not japanese linguistics. I've already spent a lot of time simplifying the incredible number of caveats and such that where in there before. Does 'keep it clear and simple' not seem like a good idea to anyone else?Wwilson 1 10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Welcome anonymous editing. Not everybody needs to be a Wikipedia hobbyist to be a valuable contributor.

2) Do we really even need that graphic? It's pretty, but it doesn't actually add information. If necessary, "合気道 (sometimes spelled 合氣道)" doesn't take up much space.

3) The jōyō kanji isn't just a list of kanji taught in schools, but a list of the officially recognized kanji: government documents are limited to them (and the jinmeiyō kanji used in personal names), and most publications follow suit. 氣 is archaic and rarely used, except for decorative purposes (and Traditional Chinese), much like gothic lettering in the Latin alphabet. — Gwalla | Talk 03:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1) they don't have to be a wikigeek, but registration is not too much to ask. 2)Yes we need that graphic, as the first paragraph next to it directly describes the visual etymology of the kanji. 3) please reread the talk page. Again, i spoke with the Head instructor of US KiAikido, 8thDan Kashiwaya sensei about this. The man knows more about aikido than any contributor, and is of course a native japanese speaker as well as a bit of a samurai/japanese history buff. He told me directly, regarding this very issue, that it makes NO difference. The government did NOT approve certain kanji. No kanji were ever made obsolete or archaic. The EDUCATION ministry (read: not the big daddy division of gov't.) decided on simplifying some kanji for children to learn so it would be easier for them. That is ALL. Mr. Gwalla or others who think this is incorrect need to provide evidence to the contrary, sorry to heave the burden of proof over to you, but that's where it lies. heresay an educated opinion is still not proof or fact. I consulted an expert source, and so should you. Wwilson 1 18:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To rebut some of Wayne's assertions (with evidence that I can only hope meets the burden of proof requested),

1. "No kanji were ever made obsolete" (Wwilson 1, 14 Jan. 2007, above).
   • 気 is contained within the list of tōyō kanji (See Tōyō kanji).
   • "The tōyō kanji (当用漢字, "kanji for general use") are the result of a reform of the characters of Chinese origin in the Japanese written language. They were the first kanji declared 'official' by the Japanese Ministry of Education (文部科学省) on November 16, 1946 (Shōwa 21)" (Id.).
   • 気 is contained within the list of jōyō kanji (See id.).
   • "In 1981, the Ministry of Education decided to replace the tōyō kanji with a more flexible system, leading to the publication of the jōyō kanji. This rendered the tōyō kanji obsolete" (Id.).
2. "The government did NOT approve certain kanji" (Wwilson 1, 14 Jan. 2007, above). "The EDUCATION ministry ... not the big daddy division of gov't ... decided on simplifying some kanji...." (Id.).
   • "The Meiji government created the first Ministry of Education in 1871. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (文部省, Monbushō) was one of the most powerful and influential ministries in the government. Japanese government centralizes education and it is managed by a state bureaucracy that regulates almost every aspect of the educational process" (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology).
   • Further, the Ministry of Education is "led by a minister, who is a member of the Cabinet and appointed by the Prime Minister, typically from members of the [legislative branch]" (Id.).

With all due respect to Kashiwaya Sensei, it is possible that he is at least partially mistaken. Bradford44 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm... well, if you're that excited about changing it, go right ahead. I guess you really want to have your hand in it. One thing, can you please get a pic of 気　to replace the other one? nice to see a nice character with a cultural and spiritiual tradition based in budo culture being trumped by the assumed superiority of governement beauocracy. Wwilson 1 02:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, I have the utmost respect for the cultural and spriritual traditions of budo, but I believe that this and other articles are the place to write about those traditions, not reflect them. I may persist in arguing my point of view, but I assure you that I also respect yours. However, an encylopedia is ultimately a scientific tool, and should operate accurately and effectively. I believe a compromise can be reached that both celebrates the martial traditions which mean so much to all of us, as well as accurately reflects things as they exist in the present. I will attempt what I have in mind immediately, and I hope that you will be interested in working with me to preserve as much as possible. Bradford44 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Warm Up

I would have added this to the main article under body as it relates to conditioning and flexibility. But I could not for certainty spell 'jubi taiso'? I think this should be included some where as every Aikido Dojo I have trained in starts classes with it. Is that the correct spelling? Should this have it's own section.Mvemkr 07:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of the term but only in context of judo. I would leave reference to it completely out since it is not a standard term.Peter Rehse 08:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this reference [1] so I will look to find a proper place to include it.Mvemkr 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And an oh so subtle reminder to take a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Aikido/archive1. I think if we address those few comments I will submit the article for Featured Article Status.Peter Rehse 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize it's minor, but...best to be correct. I disagree with the jumbi undo romanization of じゅんびうんどう. We could debate about prevalence, in which I case I could point to, for example, Yoshokai aikido, which uses junbi. But I think the matter is best resolved by simply adhering to standard romaji. If I'm not mistaken (I might be), ん is transcribed as 'n', not 'm', even when preceding a p/b (where English speakers hear something that reminds them more of 'm'). I have not changed it, since I think people should get a chance to voice their opinion here, but it seems like a clear matter to me. --GenkiNeko 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "standard romaji" - there are different styles. Personally (in this case) I prefer "jumbi" (phonetic) over "junbi" (pseudo-phonemic), but it comes down to personal preference. As for what English speakers hear, that consonant is actually pronounced as [m] by native speakers. It might be ever so slightly different from the [m] which comes at the beginning of words, but it is still a bilabial nasal stop. If you want to change the spelling, go ahead, but don't imagine that you're "correcting" it. Djiann 00:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If everyone will refer to WP:MOS-JP#Romanization, you can see that Wikipedia specifically prefers the Revised Hepburn romanization system of transliteration. As such, ん should never be transliterated as 'm' under any circumstances, but always as 'n'. Although wikipedia makes an exception for the use of 'm' in proper names of places when designated by the government (Shimbun, Namba, etc...), or for proper names of people or characters where an unconventional romanization is in general use (e.g., Devil Hunter Yokho). Junbi taiso obviously fits neither of those exceptions. I think the point here is not personal preference, but a conscious decision to pick just one method of romanization and stick to it. Hopefully this clears up any further debate. Bradford44 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese names

Is it just me or is it incredibly obnoxious to read Morihei Ueshiba, then kanji, then (Ueshiba Morihei born 18xx=19xx). No it's not just me and it's really obnoxious. I guess wiki manual wants the latter version of names, so would the gentleman who went through and added everything please now remove the double names and stick to the guildline ones only? There is absolutely no reason to have every name in there listed twice in the same sentence. It is, to use a more formal word, idiotic.Wwilson 1 19:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, although your request was as polite and humble as always, I must respectfully decline. Or at least, object pending further discussion and consensus. Please note at the outset that the names you are referring to already correctly adhere to the wiki guideline. If you will kindly refer to WP:MOS-JP#Names, you will see that there are several variables that apply to the use of proper names of Japanese people. The manual requires that where a person's commonly used English name differs from its correct romanization, that this be noted parenthetically. Further, in an English article, a modern (born after the first year of Meiji in 1868) Japanese person's name should be written generally with the family name last, followed by the family name first in parentheses. Please note also that the above rules only apply the first time a name appears in the article, and that this article is fully consistent with the rule. Bradford44 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Did the founder require wearing of hakama

I removed the following line:

> The founder required all levels to wear hakama.

I removed it because it is unlikely to be true, at least as far as I know. The tradition that male students below shodan don't wear hakama in most (not all) Aikikai dojos probably predates Morihei Ueshiba's death. If he required all levels to wear hakama then this tradition wouldn't have existed. I hold out the possibility that he did require it at some time, but later dropped the requirement, in which case the line that I took out is only partially inaccurate and misleading. Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also heard that the Founder required hakama of everyone, and would send people home who had neglected to bring it. I'm not sure where the yuudansha-only rule came from. I don't know that it was appropriate to revert the previous edit completely, but it could certainly have used an it is said that and a citation needed. Djiann 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Saotome Sensei may have written something along those lines in one of his first two books... Transentient 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly this was before the war (stories circulate about people practicing in their fathers best hakama) but the requirement changed possibly during but definately post-war and was a direct reflection of relative poverty. I would leave it out as is or qualify it some how with a citation (which by the way we need more of). The statement itself doesn't really add to the information already there.Peter Rehse 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hakama were practical attire for riding horses, and extended from there into general use as a kind of business dress, and proper attire for training in a dojo. So it is highly likely that the founder required all levels to wear hakama, but that isn't a very interesting statement; it is the equivalent of saying, "highschool football players of the late 20th century were required to wear their team's uniform and the proper protective equipment." I don't know how we feel about citing Ellis Amdur blogs for reference but there is a good piece by him on Aikidojournal. I do think that there are a number of misconceptions about the origins and meaning for the hakama in Aikido (e.g, they are supposed to hide your feet, they are a traditional mark of mastery) that would be appropriate to address in our article. Transentient 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are links to expanded articles (which there is for hakama) then unless something is of great importance specifically to aikido we should be careful of repetition. Since aikido isn't defined by the pants we wear - I think it should be refered to in a minimal way. Perhaps the hakama article itself could have a section on symbolism in the martial arts. It already mentions the origin.Peter Rehse 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The story goes that Ueshiba did indeed require all levels to wear a hakama(as it has been told by Saotome Sensei). In the post-era due to shortage and poverty it wasn't possible for all students to buy a hakama. Ueshiba allowed this however after reaching a certain level(possibly Shodan)you were obliged to wear one. This was translated over time into a rule that it's wasn't allowed to wear a hakama till you reached shodan. The general rule is that indeed isn't allowed to were a hakama untill Shodan. There are certain scholes however that have different rules, or simple no rules('if you want a hakama buy one').145.116.18.2 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)jbm

Kanji definitions

With respect to the Ai Ki Do definitions. I personally prefer the simpler definitions with each kanji linked to a fuller definition. At the very least I think that the fuller definition should be in accord with whats on the Aikido page. I also think the definitions as they stand now are too specific to a single interpretation. However, when we last had this discussion the following paragraph discussed how the individual kanji came togeather and what they mean. That paragraph has changed somewhat, including a link to an article on aiki, so I don't feel as strongly about this as I would have before. I would revert but ... opinions?Peter Rehse 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Having Ai mean harmony grates.Peter Rehse 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Each of those kanji has an entry in wiktionary. Maybe link to those?— Gwalla | Talk 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point - they are already linked and the definitions as they are now (in the Aikido article) don't mesh with them or the aiki definition.Peter Rehse 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we had this debate a while ago, and as I recall it was pretty conclusively settled. While harmony might be a reasonable figurative extrapolation from 'aiki', I believe it's more appropriate in this section to simply give a basic, literal meaning of each character, and let the reader figure it out. Else, one gets into a very large and perhaps controversial (oh, the irony) discussion about the real "meaning" of aikido. I'm reverting to the plain definitions. --GenkiNeko 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article submission in one week

So one more week and then I'll submit. I've already responded to the points made at peer reveiw but please take a look if you haven't already. I think the only outstanding issue (besides more citations) is the police point but please see what I have to say.Peter Rehse 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So I jumped the gun - shoot me. The article has been submitted for FAC review.Peter Rehse 01:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brad's rearrangement

Nice job Brad - I did move one small section down mainly because the way it was before uke and nage were not defined at their first use.Peter Rehse 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Statement

The intro statement flows better now, but I am unsure about the following line:

His goal was to create and disseminate a martial art through which a practitioner could achieve the ability to defend himself without injuring his attacker.

I do not think this is the case. Compare with his famous remark about giving a demonstration before the Emperor - i.e., the one about how he couldn't show "real" aikido as requested, because "real" aikido is a life and death affair in which people don't get back up after they've been thrown. I'm aware that he said things like the above at times, and I don't claim to understand what he was thinking, but I find the line too controversial too include. --GenkiNeko 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. The purpose of the LEAD is to summarize the entire article. I believe that's specifically addressing the "Philosophical and Political Developments" section. Do you propose we change that as well?

--Mike Searson 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Current controversy over lead section

I support WWilson 1's elimination of 3rd paragraph of lead section. It was mostly content-free. Djiann 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's up to you guys. I was asked to help and did so based on WP:LEAD. I was pummelled for this on another article to get it to GA status, FAC is a bit more stringent.--Mike Searson 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked Mike to take a look at it. We were asked to expand the lead paragraph during GA review and during peer review. I also think it was fine (ie the contents table covers it) but obviously there was a problem because it kept coming up. As Mike pointed out this problem is not unique to the Aikido article and I was hoping a fresh face might get us past a sticking point. I'd like to point out that Mike also cleared another major critism of the Aikido article which was a lack of references. If the consensus is that the section is fine without the extra paragraph that means the reviewers comments were duly considered and that is also enough.Peter Rehse 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Style Order

I just reverted a change in the major style order but it raised a point made I think by Djiann about the order of styles. I reverted for two reasons primarily because I thought the edit (based on a few others the user made) was style promotion and I felt a little bloody minded but also because I think the order of the major styles should be the same as in the box. We can of course change both. So should they remain as is (which I think with the exception of the largest (Aikikai) was accidental, in order of founding, alphabetical, or size. The last one may be difficult to pinpoint. The remaining styles should perhaps be alphabetical.Peter Rehse 11:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the reviewers made a point about List versus Prose. The List was a throwback to an earlier version when that section was horrible and yes I think we could and should change it to a prose style.Peter Rehse 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done - but it needs work.Peter Rehse 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Peter. I rearranged a few things and did a little copy-editing. There is probably still more to do. Mrand 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes - I am pressed for time these days so it was a bit haphazard - looking to add some citations.Peter Rehse 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)