Talk:List of aikidoka/Archive 1

The term Aikidoka

It is sometimes said that in Japan the term aikidoka (合気道家) mainly refers to a professional while in the west, any one who practices may call themselves an aikidoka.

Could some native Japanese speaker verify it (either way) ? Taw 20:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Aikidoka convention is quite well established. Not necessarily a professional but definately up there in commitment. For example I'm paid to teach Aikido in Japan but wouldn't refer to myself as an Aikidoka. Roughly speaking it is probably 4th Dan and teaching where the limit is set but there is some flexibility.Peter Rehse 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone examine the lists and trim if necessary. Everyone of the Japanese and North American names seem fine to me but there are several European names that I've never heard of or are particularily highly ranked (self entries?). Same with the Philipines. I can't even understand why it has a separate entry - perhaps we should have a Asia (Not Japan) section.Peter Rehse 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we don't request any info for the people to be included in the list, it will be hopeless to keep it in good standards. My suggestion is that each person on the list should need some short info as to why this person is famous. Maybe it would be better to comment it out - I suspect the list might get very ugly with this kind of notes all over - but I hope it can serve a purpose. I hope it will make it less attractive to add random names without info, and if there is not info given on a name, we can remove it after a
while. / Habj 17:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Especially after my changes in the Aikido styles section a little blurb (within one line) on each name would be a good idea.Peter Rehse 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take this one further - one line description only for those without their own entry. Trying to keep it clean. It actually involved the removal of only a few entries.Peter Rehse 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that "合気道家" doesn't even have an entry on the Japanese Wikipedia and isn't mentioned in ja:合気道. I was able to find the term in ja:藤平光一 (Koichi Tohei) and a couple other articles. Note: I don't understand Japanese, to this was merely a textual search without comprehension.[1] Mike Dillon 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The term really tends to be overused in the West - but hey you can't change everything just nudge in the right direction. Here (in Japan) you would hear "I teach Aikido" rather than "I am an Aikidoka". The ka suffix is often used with a profession in this way but not always. Aikido business cards would have name and title (ie Dojo-cho) rather than aikidoka. Still if I do use the term in conversation it is understood. Peter Rehse 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Books sections

What are these books sections? Are they sources, or just suggested further reading? In either case, I think they would suit better at the bottom of the page. Info on what part of the world they cover can be added although under a general "sources" or "literature" heading. / Habj 17:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved. The list of people in thow books though seemed awkward - I guess they should be in the list, but having them listed under the book they are in seems weird. I put those people here, so they can be transferred back to the list. // Habj 08:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Aikido Masters:
Noriaki Inoue, Kenji Tomiki, Hisao Kamata, Hajime Iwata,
Minoru Mochizuki, Zenzaburo Akazawa, Shigemi Yonekawa, 
Yoshio Sugino, Rinjiro Shirata, Takako Kunigoshi, 
Gozo Shioda, Kiyoshi Nakakura, Tenryu and Doshu 
Kisshomaru Ueshiba

Aikido in America:
The Disciples (those who began their training in Japan during Ueshiba's
lifetime):
Terry Dobson, Robert Nadeau, Robert Frager, and Mary Heiny.
The Teachers (those who began their practice in the United States in the
early years and who were strongly influenced by Koichi Tohei a student
of Ueshiba who started Aikido in America):
Frank Doran, Rod Kobayashi, and 
George Simcox.
The Innovators (those who were completely American aikidoists whose primary
teachers have been American): Tom Crum, 
George Leonard, Richard Heckler, 
Wendy Palmer, Danielle Evans, Tom Gambell, and 
Koichi Barrish.

Patrick Cassidy

Patrick Cassidy, 5th Dan, Montreux, Switzerland. Originally from California, Sensei Cassidy spent seven years in Iwama studying under Saito Sensei. Sensei Cassidy is proficient in taijutsu, jo, bokken and tanto.

Criteria for territorial affiliation

What are the criteria for territorial affiliation? I see that, for example, Hiroshi Tada is included in the european section although he was born in Japan, and is still officially a Hombu dojo instructor. I presume that the territory where a person taught the most or made the most influence is relevant, not his/her country of origin. Am I correct?

(I just included Masatomi Ikeda in european section based on this criterion, a complete article on him is on the way, I hope :) ) --Sabate 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a good question - we aim for consistancy - my feeling is where the persons primary residence is. If Tada lives in Europe that is where he should be in my opinion. That is the case with the American section. Actually if you look at it most of the Japanese names are famous because of their interaction with the West. The are not necessarily considered famous in their home country. Please feel free to move some of the names around after a bit more discussion. And the Ikeda article is being looked forward to.Peter Rehse 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also moved back Ljubomir Vračarević. I know the controversy but he has quite a following in parts of Europe and many people including one ranked Aikikai instructor that I know train with him. The list does not necessarily reflect perfect lineage.Peter Rehse 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, at first I thought that the right criterion would be the person's origin, but then not much people would be listed in non-japan teritorries :) Now that I had some time to think about it, I think the right way should be to list them where they have or had the most influence, and not in their home country.

As for Tada sensei, now that you mention it, I'm not sure that he lived in Europe at all. I think he spent some time in Italy and possibly Switzerland, but I'm not really sure. What is sure is the fact that he had made a substantial impact on South and Central European aikido, and some parts of Western Europe I guess. I think that his European famousness outweights his Japanese famousness :) (which is basicaly the consequence of him being one of a few living students of O-sensei, and a great master himself) so he should, in my opinion, stay in Europe.

Oh the Vracarevic issue... :) Well, I don't have the energy to fight that battle right now, and I'm not really interested in the whole thing really, so I'll let it stay --- for now ;) Just one little hint: "Real Aikido - Serbian self-defence martial art", doesn't that sound just a little bit too funky? :) (internal disclaimer for serbian nationalists that may end up here: I'm from Serbia, so don't bother with conspiracy theories) ;)

P.S. This is interesting. Just out of curiosity, who is this Aikikai instructor that you mentioned trains with Vracarevic --Sabate 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please move the poeple around as you see fit - it appears you've put some thought into it and I don't know much about who's important or not in European Aikido. Yeah I don't want to fight too much with respect to Real Aikido either and would be perfectly happy if it disappeared from both the styles section of Aikido and List of famous Aikidoka. Problem there has been a bit of activity recently from his people and I don't want to start an edit war. I'm a patient man and can wait a tad. I've never figured out if Vracarevic actually Dan graded or not but he has been to both Yoshinkan and Aikikai Honbu and you could say he's famous. However, I think he's pretty much deviated from what most people call Aikido.Peter Rehse 06:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK so I am not that patient. I left Real Aikido in there out of respect for someones Aikido. Some demonstratable lineage to Aikido needs to be demonstrated - not just the appropriation of a name. Why is it Aikido - who were his teachers?Peter Rehse 12:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ordering of names?

I just noticed, the names are not listed in alphabetical order (some are, some aren't). Is there a reason for this or...? Yeah, I like things to be neat :) --Sabate 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do the re-ordering and I'll do my best to keep it up for the new entries.Peter Rehse 06:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous names

I just deleted on of the European names because the link refered to a guy in the early 30s who plays foot-ball. No mention of Aikido. It would be great if someone could remove a few of the names that don't link and that are not famous. I am not that familiar with either Europe or America. Generally speaking if the person is famous enough they should have their own entry giving us an idea why they are famous. I'm of the mood (don't worry I'll control myself) to remove all non-linked names. Is this a bad idea?Peter Rehse 05:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "unlinked" in the sense of not being linked at all, or linked, but not having anything written on their pages yet? Now there aren't any names in the first sense. If you mean the latter, I think they should stay, we should give people time to write something.

In general, if someone is important enough to be on this list him/her should have an article, so the person putting him/her here should make a link if the article doen't exist and try to write something (at least make it a stub). Just putting the name and giving a short description is not of much use for wikipedia.

P.S. Peter, I see you have rearanged the names. Thanks! I did say I would do it but just didn't have the time (same for Ikeda article). --Sabate 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Its just a thought for something we should aim for. The main reason is that I feel some names are just added for vanity - a case should be made. Again - no rush. Perhaps a new note to require new name to have an article and a gradual trimming of names (starting in Europe). I wrote an article about Abe who was the first to start teaching Aikido regularily in the West.Peter Rehse 07:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started trimming but will do so slowly. I think it is enough that there is either a single line description or a link but just a name is not enough. If in my manic need for order [insert cheesy accent of choice here] I hope no toes get stepped on.Peter Rehse 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To ArthurWeasley Damian Conway was added as he is an Aikido practitioner and can be considered a well known or famous person. Was there some other criteria that needs to be satisfied to be on the list? Htaccess 07:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Arthur (can't even do his accent) but I think the idea is famous as an Aikidoka or at the very least the fact that he is an aikidoka contributes to his fame. In the article there is no mention of aikido at all. With a couple of exceptions the list is populated by 6th dan and up.Peter Rehse 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess its a list of people who are notable for their contibution to Aikido, not just famous people who do Aikido. --Salix alba (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding description to the name or not

The comment by PRehse below is copied from my talk page. // Habj 08:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(...) My feeling is that if there is a link to an article than a one line description isn't necessary. No article - than a one line description as a temporary measure. Keeps it less cluttered in my opinion - what do you think?Peter Rehse 02:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is, something should work pretty much the same whether the link is red or blue. I have understood there is a continous fight here to stop people from adding their own not-so-famous teachers. Hidden comments in the wikicode, like the article has in the beginning (within <!-- -->) has a downside in that they do not show until you already decided to edit the page. It does not show if you edit just of the part of the page either, as I did. I do not think it will work well. A short description of everyone in the list can be a means to make these people see "wait, does Paul sensei reallly fit in this list?" which is why I prefer this approach. IMHO it is more suitable for a wiki. // Habj 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - let's do it that way keeping the descriptions to one line. A while back there were several with multiple lines and it looked terrible.Peter Rehse 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that might be a danger I never thought of with that kind of descriptions in a list. Although I guess it is generally not so difficult to transfar that info to the article about the person I can see why this is not the standard method for lists. (There is sometimes a similar phenomenon on disambig pages, that info gets added there rather than in the article.) // Habj 08:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I should add I do not feel strongly on the subject. // Habj 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page

Lists of people are not generally named "List of famous architects", "Lists of famous soccer players" etc. It is assumed that a certain fame or notability is required to get an article, and only subjects that should have articles should be included in lists. Therefore, I boldly moved the article from "List of famous aikidoka" to "List of aikidoka", and also added to the boilerplate text a note that this is a list of famous and well-known aikido people (which I believe is a more effective way of transferring this message to visitors and possible editors of the page, than having it in the page title. I saw this as obvious; if others do not, please move back and we can discuss it.

However, I think we should discuss the name of the page more than that. People added to this list generally are aikido teachers, so one option would be "List of aikido teachers". A few people though are known mainly for other things than their teaching. The Swede and official Aikikai shihan Jan Hermansson certainly teaches seminars at times even abroad, but he it mainly known as a practitioner not a teacher. I would suggest "List of aikido practitioners", since the usage of the word "aikidoka" differs - also, it is incomprehensible for those who do not know much about budo. Possibly even "List of aikido people" or "List of people in aikido" is a better idea, since it might be possible that someone got an amount of aikido-related fame for other things than their activities on the mat. Authors of wellknown aikido books, such as the two people behind the first aikido book in English (Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere from 1970, which still sells a lot - not that I really understand why) comes to my mind. I am sure there are other possible examples, besides authors of aikido books. // Habj 08:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition, top names of Aikido Takemuso

I am not familiar with the organisation Aikido Takemuso. What is it? The name "Takemuso" has been used for various organisations etc. among students of Saito sensei for a long time, and there are groups of dojos within a country that uses the name "Takemuso". In this case, does it refer to another name for the organisation of Saito junior, or yet another branch? // Habj 22:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Organization

It seems strange to me that Kazuo Chiba is not listed as a "Japanese aikidoka", since he was born in Japan. Perhaps this page should be more explicit about what puts someone into a particular geographic sublist. It seems organized by where they teach/taught, so the page should probably be clearer on that point. Mike Dillon 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the Category called Japanese aikidoka (below). Category:Japanese aikidoka. Chiba is listed there. The List of Aikido section is divided by primary residence and hence influence not race or birth place.Peter Rehse 02:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I was saying the page should be more explicit about that since it is only confusing to have an implicit "geographical" convention. Also, you may have noticed that Chiba is listed in both Category:Japanese aikidoka and Category:American aikidoka. So is that correct too? Like I said, any standard is confusing if it isn't made explicit. P.S. I fixed your link to the category since you really don't want talk pages in that category (hint, prefix the category link with a colon, like so: [[:Category:Japanese aikidoka]]). Mike Dillon 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. The parent category of Category:Japanese aikidoka, Category:Japanese martial artists says "Practitioners of martial arts from Japan" (my emphasis). To me, that means Chiba shouldn't be in Category:American aikidoka. But if that's true, the whole thing is confusing because he's in the Japanese category, but listed under "North America" in the list... Mike Dillon 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The clearer the better - please try. I am sure it will be an improvement.Peter Rehse 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's better after your change. Thanks. Also, sorry for not noticing that this was discussed earlier. Mike Dillon 05:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lineage-based list

My coworker, who practices Aikido (I don't) made a comment today that it would be interesting to have a lineage-based list of Aikido practitioners to see who learned from whom. Since it seems that there are an average of three or four "generations" from O Sensei to many current teachers, this seems feasible. I just thought I'd bring it up here in case anyone is interested. I don't think I'd be much help since I don't know too much about Aikido and I have other things going on. Mike Dillon 05:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in the list

Sorry, if I am horribly confused. Is there some sort of criteria for being included in the list? Is being a "Shihan" good enough?

Specifically, I see Mitsugi Saotome and Hiroshi Ikeda in the list for North America, yet I don't see Frank Doran, who is one of the few non-Japanese folks granted title of "Shihan" by Hombu (as opposed to being granted title of Shihan by USAF). http://www.aikido-west.org/instructors/doran.html

Come to think about it, up here, in the north, Claude Berthiaume ( http://www.aikidodelamont.com/claude-en.html ) has a fair bit of influence. 7th dan, USAF Shihan. Is that good enough to be on the list?

Secondly, are we listing Aikido pioneres? Massimo di Villadorata started Aikido in Montreal, Canada, and at one point had the largest Aikido dojo in North America (I've heard reports of over 300 practicing members, but of course I weren't around back then). I believe that he is currently 6th dan. http://www.montrealaikikai.qc.ca/diVilladoratae.html

Another candidate for addition would definitely be Henry Kono. http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=435 He might not be big on titles, but he sure did alot to popularize Aikido, and make it fun. He is one of the few direct students of O'Sensei still alive.

If we make 6th dan the cut off, I can think of half a dozen ASU instructors (myself coming more from ASU side of things). WIlliam Gleason (Shobu Aikido), Kevin Choate (Chicago) and George Ledyard (Doshinokai) would be my "holy trinity", but there are plenty more - Dennis Hooker (Shindai), Paul Kang (Bond Street), and Tres Hofmeister (Boulder) are all very capable. I guess I could make a page for each one of them.

I don't think 6th Dan is a good cut-off - there are so many of them. More important is what they contributed to the world of Aikido. However, my feeling is that if they have a page then they should be included in the list by default. Non-noteable people eventually disappear. No page and a one line description is the next best thing and hopefully a tempory measure. Just a name and it will probably be deleted. All of the names you mentioned I think are worthy of inclusion and in fact if you could d me a favour and add one line descriptions (or delete) the pageless names in North America it would be appreciated. I don't really know that neck of the woods that well although I have met Claude Berthiaume when I was in Quebec. CheersPeter Rehse 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody attempted to add Frank Doran, but I removed it because the linked article said nothing about Aikido. I realize now that it was probably a different Frank Doran and that the link was wrong. Mike Dillon 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'ld like to start triming the list a little bit so that it appears like the Other Japanese section. I just see a whole rash of names that I only marginally recognize with quite ambiguous one line descriptions. I know I mentioned this before but ...Peter Rehse 10:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and did it and unless there is a major rebellion I will try to keep the list clear of no-page names. I will probably also remove the one line descriptions next week or so. Basically, at least how I interpreted the consensus, was that there was a hope that those names without pages would eventually get pages. This wasn't happening and we were getting more and more names who - well a few I recognized but barely. Call me a vandal but I think this will be for the better.Peter Rehse 04:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What of John Messores of Largo? He helped bring Saotome Sensei to America. Umma Kynes 07:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Several people mentioned should be on the list - several were and were removed because they didn't have an article. It got to the point that there were a bunch of names with no description as to why they were noteable. All it takes is for someone to write an article (even a short stub) and then add the name to the list. If the person is notable the article will survive. Please feel free.Peter Rehse 08:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is important to specify some simple rules as who should be included in the list of famous aikidoka before it goes out of hands. One simple thing to do is to add the highest grade achieved for each of the person listed (with of course the exception for the O'Sensei's family)+ having a stub written on wiki as Peter suggested. I would suggest not to include people below the level of 6th dan Aikikai or other established school such as Iwama Ryu and Shodokan . In checking the biographies, I noticed that one on the list is apparently only nidan and there are a few 4th dan and 5th dan there as well, while for others there is simply no hint about the level achieved. The fact is that in our western society, anybody who is nidan can have a dojo and one of the students could then acknowledge his sensei by putting an entry about him on wikipedia. Having an article on wikipedia does not however warrant for notability and closer scrutiny is needed ArthurWeasley 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - this is quite a tough thing to do. For a while most entries had a single line describing why they were famous but that got really messy. My feeling is that non-noteable people eventually get booted out of wikipedia - I've flagged several entries for non-noteable including people who entered themselves - they soon disappeared. If they don't have a page (and that includes re-directs to a style they founded since its better to have one page than two - please see Takashi Kushida) then they should be removed from the list. Ranking is even tougher. Shodokan Aikido also Yoshinkan tends to be much more tight with the awarding of ranks than the Aikikai perhaps fifth dan is a better cut-off (for instance I think Stephen Ohlman really deserves to be on the list) and then there are people who are well known, have contributed to Aikido in a great way and did not accumulate rank. Something along the lines of I have only been graded by Ueshiba M., or Tomiki and so forth. Jack Mumpower is a good example of this - I know him but have no idea what his rank is - I wouldn't dare ask. Look back in the history tabs and you can see how truely messy it was before. I suggest we leave it as is but could you point out the Nidan and Yondan. Cheers Peter Rehse 00:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Peter, I probably misread the Yondan but look at the biographies of Chan Hok-Seng and Rolando de la Cruz, it sounds like they are only sandan and nidan respectively. The second one is apparently a student of Manuel "Omar" Camar who is a student of Benjamin Galarpe who is a student of Koichi Tohei who was a student of Morihei Ueshiba, a 5th generation aikidoka then. As for godans (or even 6th dans), there are so many of them that it is difficult to assess notability and it is really a matter of personal sensibility. On that point, I agree with you that it could become really messy. However I am not sure that people like Stephen Ohlman,Takashi Kushida, Danielle Smith,Lewis de Quiros, Giorgio Oscari, Philippe Voarino and so on should be placed at the same level as some of the uchideshis who had a major (as pioneer such as Koichi Tohei, Tadashi Abe and Kenji Tomiki) or a visible (in terms of number of students such as Morihiro Saito, Minoru Mochizuki or Nobuyoshi Tamura) impact on the development of Aikido in different countries. Problem is that there are so many different styles that it becomes increasingly difficult to say which one is prominent and which is a minor school (a prominant style in one country can be minor in another, although the Aikikai (correct me if I am wrong) is by far the largest organization in the majority of the countries), so I see your point and agree that it is probably better to leave everything as is now for the moment and let time decide (the number of enthusiastic contributing wikipedians is increasing daily so I am hopeful). Someone has suggested a hierarchical listing where you have at the top, founding uchideshis, then a list of their direct students and then the students of the students. I like the idea but it is true that some aikidokas studied under several Sensei ! ArthurWeasley 02:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur - the point about prominance was why I was so happy that you fleshed out the legacy section on the Morihei Ueshiba entry. I also have some problem with the Philipine section but well what can you do - they are important to Filipino aikidoists. Cheers Peter Rehse 03:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Notoriety test using google

There is a simple test to assess notoriety of people using Google. Enters the name of the aikidoka as an exact sentence then associate it with Aikido (to avoid homonymies). For Kazuo Chiba the search entry should be "Kazuo Chiba"" AND Aikido. This is not of course foolproof since it is biaised towards the Senseis who are active (giving seminar, having written books, etc...) and some senseis might be referred differently ("Chiba Shihan"), but that gave some indication, I think, about how well this person is known outside his immediate circle of devoted students. I ran the exercise to the list of famous North American aikidokas and here is the result:

More than 10,000 hits: Terry Dobson, 12,800 Gaku Homma, 13,800 Hiroshi Ikeda, 23,500 Mitsugi Saotome, 22,600 Steven Seagal, 84,100 (everybody knows the reason why it's so high here :) John Stevens, 34,400 Yoshimitsu Yamada, 13,500

More than 200 hits: Kazuo Chiba, 788 Mitsunari Kanai, 564 Takashi Kushida, 690 Robert Nadeau, 686 Seiichi Sugano, 620 Akira Tohei, 479

Less than 200 hits Eddie Hagihara, 24 Jack Mumpower, 28 Mutsuro Nakazono, 82 Stephen Ohlman, 56 Danielle Smith, 105

Interestingly, if you use last name + Sensei, the results come very differently for some people. We got: More than 10,000 hits: Ikeda Sensei, 12,700, Saotome Sensei, 22,200 Yamada Sensei, 18,400 Chiba Sensei, 13,900

More than 200 hits: Dobson Sensei: 257 Homma Sensei: 551 Seagal Sensei: 658 Stevens Sensei: 385 Kanai Sensei: 819 Kushida Sensei: 529 Nadeau Sensei: 298 Sugano Sensei: 638 Nakazono Sensei: 1230

Less than 200 hits: Akira Tohei Sensei: 121 Mumpower Sensei, 2 Hagihara Sensei: 12 Ohlman Sensei: 17 Danielle Smith Sensei: 35

Thought this to be interesting. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 18:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Peter Rehse" Aikido 729 I demand my own entry. CheersPeter Rehse 00:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, pretty good, congratulations! Although there is actually only 3 result pages (means your name just appear several times on a few sites...). Try for instance "Homma Sensei" AND Aikido, 551 entries but 13 pages. Cheers.ArthurWeasley 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bummer. But wait a moment "Peter Rehse" alone is 968 and 10 pages - what can I say I'm a Renaissance man. That noteablity check is actually quite useful. Its been mentioned by others when they were asking about certain entries including Jack Mumpower. I do think it is a good indicator in a basket of criteria.Peter Rehse 02:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I'll be happy to write a stub about you on wiki (just kidding). Just for fun, here is what I obtained if I do the search but counting the number of pages instead. The winner is: Mitsugi Saotome: 73 pages then we have: Steven Seagal: 72 pages John Stevens: 66 Yoshimitsu Yamada: 60 Terry Dobson: 45 Gaku Homma: 43 Hiroshi Ikeda: 26 Kazuo Chiba: 26 Seiichi Sugano: 24 Mitsunari Kanai: 23 Robert Nadeau: 20 Akira Tohei: 19 Takeshi Kushida: 16 Eddie Hagihara: 7 Danielle Smith: 5 Mutsuro Nakazono: 4 Stephen Ohlman: 3 Jack Mumpower: 2 That's actually more along the line of what I think are the most important people in Aikido in North America. It seems that Hagihara, Smith, Ohlman and Mumpower are failing all the tests. Also probably Nakazono (but he can be listed as Mutsuhara or Mutsuro Nakazono). As for the last name you erased, "Luciano Paterna", there was only 11 entries (1 page). Cheers. ArthurWeasley 03:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The last entry was removed because there was no accompanying article. If you think the people are non-noteable (and I think the names you mentioned are fair game for the reasons you gave) then the best way is to propose the entry for deletion. Take a look at Ryu no ashi where I did just that. Better hurry though - it should be booted any day. In the message there are links to policy and all that. One point of wikipedia is that although new stuff is added every day - a lot is tossed. The idea is that the truely important will stand the test of time. Send me a private e-mail (my userpage links to the side) if you have any questions. I can outline better in private my interests and concerns (contrary to popular belief its not everything and anything related to Aikido).Peter Rehse 03:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I won't go that far (may be just a few "notability" tags). Eddie Hagihara for instance is a 7th dan Aikikai after all, so probably deserves some consideration even if he is apparently less known than others. My only concern is that notable masters are listed at the same level and alongside people who are far less famous, but what can we do? Probably not much for now. ArthurWeasley 05:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is of course the question of noteability defined by web presence. Some people teach and influence a congregation that are more web tuned than others. We are missing a whole wack of noteable teachers both here (I'm in Japan) and abroad that have had huge influence - hopefully they will eventually work their way into the system. I am thinking the likes of Seiseki Abe, Andre Nocquet and Hirokazu Kobayashi among others. By the by - in other martial arts they have nidans galore mentioned but I figure its enough to keep our corner tidy.Peter Rehse 05:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit more thinking about this and noticed there is a redundancy with the category Aikidoka. I suggest as long as the page can be found that way then the Listing is not so necessary. Please delete from the List as you see fit - if someone really cares they will put it back.Peter Rehse 06:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think web presence is a good test for notability although not an absolute one. There are a number of pitfalls that need to be avoided. To name a few that we have identified by performing the previous experiment:

• Homonymies. People having relatively common name such as Danielle Smith will give an erroneous answer if you just type "Danielle Smith" or "Smith" AND "Aikido" (there are many Mr and Mrs Smith practcing Aikido, for instance there is William (Bill) Smith who was a well-known Shihan in the UK). In that case a rigid approach must be taken, using "Danielle Smith" AND Aikido.
• Redundancy. This is when people are cited several times on the same web site. This pb can be avoided by counting the number of sites instead of the number of entries, means counting the nb of Google pages where the name appear.
• Multiplicity of designations. The japanese Sensei can be designed either by their full name, "Yoshimitsu Yamada" or by deference, only the last name with a title, "Yamada Sensei" or "Yamada Shihan". It seems to be less common for westerner to be referred as "Sensei". Let's not forget that in oriental societies, the last name came first, i.e "Yamada Yoshimitsu"
• Notability outside the subject of interest. Steven Seagal is a perfect example.
• Blogs: people regularly participating in blogs and online discussions will appear on the web without being notable of anything (that includes us poor anonymous wikipedians...).
• Countries: different country might not have the same level of web presence than others. Also if someone is notable in one country (for instance in Japan) and completely unknown elsewhere then he won't appear if you use a different script to write his/her name.

However, web presence says something about your notability for many reasons:

• If the person is given seminars or invited to do so, advertisements would appear on the web, especially if you are a big Sensei and the event has to be a major event not a localized one in some remote dojo.
• If the person wrote a book on the subject of interest, he will appear as the author in on-line book selling stores. Saotome Sensei is an exemple of someone who had a great impact by publishing a successful book.
• If the person had a great impact in teaching, his students will likely want to be linked to him/her and even provide a biography. If the guy is deceased and his name does not appear anywhere then the natural conclusion is that he was forgotten.
• A notable person will also appear several times in newspapers and interviews.

So although not absolute in the scale, we could safely assume that somebody who will 20 and more Google pages when associated with Aikido is a notable person in that field. The question is where to put a cutoff? First, because there is an error bar associated to this type of search, there cannot be a clear cutoff. And second, that's also depend on personal sensibility. Are we considered notable if we can fill 5 pages of entries in Google or do you need at least 20? Difficult question. Personnally, I feel very uncomfortable to delete any names which have more than 5 pages entries in Google while I personnally have (almost) no entry at all! ArthurWeasley 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kobayashi,Endo and Igarashi sensei?

I think Yasuo Kobayashi, Seishiro Endo and Kazuo Igarashi should be on this list.

Also would it be too big if there were country specific list of famous aikidokas example:
Country: X
Aikidoka 1 6.Dan
Aikidoka 2 6.Dan ?
Korppi76 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kobayashi, Endo and Igarashi must certainly be in the list. Would you mind starting creating an article or at least a stub on them and add the names in the list? As for country specific list, this might not be very easy to do (means there is no easy solution to this). Take the case of Seiichi Sugano, he is now in the United States and is listed under North America, but he was in Australia and had certainly help promoting aikido in Malaysia and was also a regular visitor in several European countries. If the rule is to list for each country, the important aikidoka names (in terms of contribution to the development of the art in that country) then Sugano would have be to be listed under many countries on three continents. Nobuyoshi Tamura is another example: he is the aikikai technical representant for Europe and has substantial number of followers in many of the western European countries, and also in non-european ones such as Morocco. In principle in terms of influence he should be listed under all these countries. You can of course restrict yourself to the present country of residence. In the case of Tamura, this would be France, but then some other aikidokas from Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain or Morocco could also claim that he is also the most influencial aikidoka in their respective country as well. That's why as a general rule, I think, continents were chosen instead of countries, to allow for more flexibility and limit the number of entries for each person(not sure why Philippines has a separate entry though). ArthurWeasley 19:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can try to write a small stub about them when I have some time.Korppi76 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now there are small stubs for all 3 Senseis, could someone check them, I havent wrote wiki articles before.

Just add them to the list and they will be check out and thanks. And please take a look at the changes made for future referencePeter Rehse 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made mistage with Igarashi page... I put name in wrong order (Lastname, Firstname I was putting it Firstname, Lastname). How this can be fixed.Korppi76 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to the Igarashi Kazuo page and click on the 'move' tab.You'll see instructions on how to proceed. Thanks for the new entries. ArthurWeasley 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont see 'move' tab maybe I am not looking right place? Korppi76 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done it. The article is now under Kazuo Igarashi. There are 6 tabs on top of each article named "article", "discussion","edit this page", "history", "move" and "watch". ArthurWeasley 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmm I have all others than that move one. Korppi76 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For separate countries I think the categories at the bottom address it quite well. For example Chiba is both American Aikidoka and Japanese Aikidoka. In the list you have to choose one I'm afraid otherwise -yuck. The Philipines - mainly because they insist - horrible edit wars have ensued. Maybe change it to South East Asia.Peter Rehse 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)