Talk:Aikido/Archive 4

Diseminating Aikido Section
It seems that the "Diseminating Aikido" section was changed.

The article on Mochizuki is cited by a source that is basically not referenced.

It also seems the newer section on dissemination holds the same errors as the articles on Mochizuki so I presume they were edited by the same people.

Not sure what you mean by unreferenced source. Also what was the error.Peter Rehse 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article
I think most of the issues listed on Featured article candidates/Aikido have been addressed. Wouldn't hurt to take another quick look with respect to citations mentioned by Yomangani especially with respect to Philosophical and political developments (important to reference this as it makes claims as to the primary influences on Ueshiba), The international dissemination of aikido, Techniques, and Ki. and some of the sentence structure points made by Shimeru. On Monday I'll ping the FAC page to see if we can get movement toward a decision.Peter Rehse 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Actually there were quite a few changes since the nomination as a result of comments which, besides improving the article, resulted in the failure. Ergo - it was not an outright failure and I still think its Featured article material but lets wait a few months before resubmitting it.Peter Rehse 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad. I guess you can't please everyone. Maybe we should work a little more on the references and footnotes. It was definitely not a failure. We'll get em next time. Mike Searson 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AikidoOnline Web page reference..
Hi,

I tried to edit the External Section and my edits were rejected. Although I respect the decision to remove the individual dojo listing (Framingham), However I was surprised tha tyou removed the AikidoOnline.com listing as well. Did you see the Website yourself..?

The Site is one of the most comprehensive websites on Aikido with Liks to the articles from Many of the Direct disciples of O'Sensei.

I am new to Wikipedia, And This was my first try to edit one of the pages I really care and passionate about.

Best Regards, Rajesh Jaiswal

(Rajesh.jaiswal@intel.com) Please copy me your reply to my email address above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.52.57.33 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

As I responded to your private e-mail (since it was I that did the revision)

Its nothing against Aikido On-line (they once asked to feature my own dojo when it first opened here in Japan which made me feel real good) and they are linked from my own homepage. It goes back to a time when the Aikido article was far less developed and there were just tons of links to everywhere (the source of my prejudice). Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm (please see WP:External Links) and theoretically it should be two or three links that add to the article. The three that are there meet the requirement.

Aikido Online is too specific in its readership (a part of Aikikai) and frankly if them why not ... opens up the whole can.

Its not just me but a consensus that has been built up to get the Aikido article to the level it is now. Please remember Aikido is more than just one style - the article has to reflect Aikido in general with style specific information in the articles on individual styles which there are of course.Peter Rehse 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aikidoka drivel?
Don't agree that it was unnecessary drivel although it might be trimmed somewhat. Then again the definition is repeated on the Aikidoka page itself. In any case I think this removal warrents at least a little discussion.Peter Rehse 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to come off as a hard ass, but my POV is that it ends up being just semantics. The article is about aikido, not the "I know more japanese than you do" games that westerner aikido practicioners like to play with Japanese words they already barely understand. A lot of these issues are over things Japanese Aikidoka could care less about. And as you said, it's on the Aikidoka page, which to me is a better place. no need to be redundant. Wwilson 1 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too wordy. However I think the point about the "misuse" of the word in the West is something that ought to be said, somewhere. By "Aikidoka page" I assume you mean the List of Aikidoka - that's the only other one I can find. I am leaving for a trip to Japan this week, and have on my to-do list to find evidence to refute the claim made here that other arts such as judo and karate use the '-ka' form, even in Japan, for ordinary practitioners, which I do not believe. If I can get the evidence, I will come back and pare this section down to its proper size and content :-) I will also adjust the wording on the Aikidoka page, and then if someone wants to delete one or the other of these two, I wouldn't object. Djiann 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clearly and concisely explained on the Aikidoka page (list of aikidoka) as well. Not all that pertinent to Aikido page IMO.Wwilson 1 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents is that it's an interesting note. I've come across a lot of variation in the term given to practitioners of aikido. It seems like just the sort of thing to be addressed in an encyclopedic article - general knowledge, a synthesis of multiple sources, and so on assembled for convenience. --GenkiNeko 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sure, but does it belong on the Aikido page or the Aikidoka page? I think we have enough semantic translation trouble with Ki, Aikido, Atemi, etc. which are far more important and interesting, AND pertinent. Aikidoka semantics, while noteworthy, seem better on the Aikidoka page. It's bad enough everyone wants to chip in minor caveats on hakama, rankings, etc. etc. (none bad in themselves, but together, it creates a bloated aikido wiki page) Let's keep the branches trimmed so we can see the trunk. Wwilson 1 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there -is- an "aikidoka page". There's a list page of famous aikidoka. From an organizational standpoint, though, that really should just be a list. Notice that "Boxer" points to "Boxing" (via a disambiguation), and "karateka" to "karate". I do also have to object to you re-deleting the paragraph, while discussion is still ongoing, and flagging it a "minor edit". --GenkiNeko 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the section again. I think it's a good note to include, and that this is the best article to place it in ("Xers in the X article" principle). However, it's true that a "discussion" is excessive; I've attempted to preserve the basic information in a couple sentences instead. --GenkiNeko 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GenkiNeko: 家 does not indicate seriousness or dedication, it indicates professionalism or expertise (as a productive suffix, that is... there are surely some words where you could argue this interpretation, e.g. 作家). I will reserve my edits to the section, however, until I have something substantial to contribute. Djiann 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Djiann. Would it be fair to draw a comparison by saying, "Not everyone who writes is a sakka, and not everyone who does aikido is an aikidōka"?  I can see the line (in an English context) between "seriousness/dedication" and "expertise/professionalism", though I'd often associate one quality with the other.  I'm not sure this distinction carries through in the usage of aikidōka, though, especially given that we're talking about its use in a foreign-language (English) context where subtleties can be blurred or distorted.  But please don't be shy about editing; Wikipedia grows through continual "slightly better than before" changes.  Let's try to strike a balance between strict accuracy and concision, though.  --GenkiNeko 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GN: Yes, it would be fair to say that, but it's still the case that not everyone who is a serious, dedicated, skilled practitioner of aikido is an aikidōka. But let's be clear: what I'm talking about is the semantics of Japanese. I certainly recognize that the word has a different (much more inclusive) meaning as an English loanword, and I think WP needs to reflect that. I'm not trying to use WP as a vehicle to force the preservation of the Japanese semantics in English. Just trying to spread a little education :-) As for contributing, this section used to say (a month or two ago) what I thought it should say, until others came and started editing :-) Djiann 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I entirely follow your suggestion, though. If "not everyone who is a serious, dedicated, skilled practitioner of aikido is an aikidōka," what -is- an aikidōka"?  If you'd like to offer some points here, perhaps we could figure out how to incorporate them into the current text, either by adding a new sentence or two or revising the ones currently there. --GenkiNeko 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'aikidoka' semantics is more nicely written now and less pretentious. I'm going to go ahead and set it up so that if someone wants to learn more about the term, they can click on the 'list of aikidoka' (yes that's the page i meant before) which is the only place the word aikidoka is used in the article anyway, and they get that nice brief and concise explanation. I support this by saying, hey, they don't have to read an annoying paragraph about what a hakama is, they can just click and read. Nothing is lost, reading time is saved for the less ' I wanna be a japanese syndrome' inclined.Wwilson 1 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ki
Should aikido be consider an internal martial art? It seems only Koichi Tohei's aikido that incorporates Ki in their aikido. The rest dont. Bob March 18, 2007

All aikido incorporates ki but how it is trained or emphasized - differs.Peter Rehse 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Structure
And I liked the article structure - not sure how to change it to please the last FAC reviewer.Peter Rehse 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We could look to consolidate a few sub-headings. I was gigged for this on peer review way back on the Emerson pages...too many subheadings disrupt the flow....I scaled a few back, to be honest subheadings make it easy to edit and add sources, etc. You cannot please all the reviewers. I had one that objected, never even had the courtesy to come back, tell me to F off, etc. If you think it's worth the change, I'll help you do it.Mike Searson 05:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Structure
This is the current outline: Contents

1 Spirit of aikido

2 History

2.1 Martial studies of aikido's founder

2.2 Philosophical and political developments

2.3 The international dissemination of aikido

3 Physical training

3.1 General fitness

3.2 Techniques

3.2.1 Safe falling and receiving of techniques

3.2.2 Attacks

3.2.2.1 Strikes

3.2.2.2 Grabs

3.2.3 Throws and pins

3.2.4 Weapons

3.3 Implementations

3.3.1 Atemi

3.3.2 Randori

4 Mental training

5 Ki

6 Ranking

7 Clothing

8 Styles of aikido

9 Aikidōka

10 References

11 External links This is the proposed Outline: Contents

1 Spirit of aikido

2 History

3 Physical training

3.1 General fitness

3.2 Techniques

3.3 Implementations

4 Mental training

5 Ki

6 Uniforms and Ranking

7 Styles of aikido

8 Aikidōka

9 References

10 External links

Maybe take it a step further and use a See Also for Ki, Aikidoka or even consolidate section 3's subsections. Thought? Mike Searson 06:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike - I was just proposing something similar - please go ahead. That will give us something to work on and worse comes to worse we can always go back. On reflection I do think the critique has a point.Peter Rehse 06:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did it all in one edit. Not sure if I like it, though. I can see how someone totally unfamiliar with Aikido could get lost without the subheadings. We can always revert and/or point the current version to the editor who objected and our reason why. Mike Searson 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if we do it like this - we need to break the text up with some more pics. I'll contact the guy and ask him for some suggestions.Peter Rehse 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved around the sections and pics a little bit so that Section length and pici dispersal looks a bit more balanced.Peter Rehse 08:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the sections are going to be consolidated, which is fine, maybe the heading should be a bit more descriptive. For example, instead of "Techniques", it could be "Strikes, grabs, and throws", or even "Techniques: strikes, grabs, and throws". Or instead of "Implementations", it could be "Body movement and freestyle practice", or something. These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure with some thought we can come up with something better. Bradford44 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Bradford. That or maybe the reviewer meant to only use subheadings and not go 3-4 headings deep. Mike Searson 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Picis
I've added three picis to bolster the historical section and did some re-arranging for form. I think there is room for one more technique pici but frankly even form the aikiweb gallery, where we might get permission to use, I could not find a suitable pici.Peter Rehse 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have some rough dates for the pictures in the history section, is this possible? Bradford44 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a "pici", please? I looked in the history section, but only see text and photos. Are picis the diagrammatic hand-drawings of technique that appear in the Technique section? 'Cause I actually had a comment about those :-) Djiann 20:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC Suggestions
This might be a bit wrongheaded of me...but I'm not sure the comments we got on the Featured Article nomination page were actually very useful or well-reasoned. Let's not be too hasty to implement them just because they're the only bits of feedback we received. E.g., the person who said "Techniques section is redundant because judo, aikijutsu, etc. all use the same techniques with the same names". That was really special.

I personally think we should just continue largely in the same direction we were going - general improvements, more citations, better pictures. --GenkiNeko 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent point. In fact, just about the only lingering complaint that I agreed with is that some of the prose is a bit watered down. I think as a result of so many edits for concision, not only did the unnecessary information get removed, but additionally many sentences were over-simplified.  There's nothing wrong with wordiness as long as it is elegant and not confusing. Bradford44 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's been my complaint of the peer review process in Wiki. Write engaging prose and one reviewer says "Too Flowery, this is an encyclopedia"...tune it down and another says "this is bland, boring and not written well".  Can't please everyone.Mike Searson 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly vis a vis the same direction. I also am not too concerned about that last opinion although one thing I was considering is a combination of the the Spirit of Aikido and Ki section, with a slight expansion on Aiki. I'm going to mull that over a bit more before I decide to take it upon myself or even if its worth doing. I must say again that the FAC exercise was not a total loss - I think the article did improve with the feedback.Peter Rehse 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New Pictures Available
Good news! I did some snooping on Facebook, and discovered an aikido student (John Heintz) with some photos he was willing to release for Wiki-use. (Thanks, John!)

They can be found here:
 * Aikido Iriminage
 * Aikido Iriminage 2
 * Aikido Keiko

I'll see if maybe I can scrounge some more from Facebook. --GenkiNeko 03:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Combat Sport?
...I would not call aikido a combat sport, by any stretch of the imagination. Shall I revert the category to "aikido"? --GenkiNeko 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would at least add aikido back, regardless of keeping or reverting the combat sport category (which I agree, probably isn't correct). It's kinda strange to have an aikido category, yet the aikido page is not linked to it!  You might invite the user that made the change to see if there might actually be some justification that we can't think of for it to be listed as a combat sport.  Mrand 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; rv it. See here for more info. JJL 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as Shodokan practices it would be a combat sport. But they're the exception rather than the rule... Bradford44 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aikido fits the definition perfectly. It involves grappling, and is designed to be applied in 'martial' or combative situations. I'm not sure why emotional attatchment to certain concepts and aversion to others is a factor in this, but y'all need to look past the knee-jerk and notice that Tai Chi, and other 'soft arts' are in that list as well. Sorry to poop on your self-righteous "our art is different than those barbaric arts" parade, but aikido is a martial-aka combative- art, regardless of its central philosophy and ideals of peace, love, and harmony with the universe.Wwilson 1 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you on the combat aspect, I just can't get my head around it as a "sport", though. Mike Searson 01:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy WWilson, you would be VERY wrong if you assumed that I had a knee-jerk or an emotion-based reaction. In fact, your assertion and generalization implying that we are slaves bound to such reactions is borderline insulting.  And that was before we get to the "self-righteous" part!  Did it ever occur to you that there might actually be a valid reason that it shouldn't be considered?  Rather than slap presumptuous labels on everyone, let's have a look at the first paragraph for combat sport:

A combat sport (also known as a combative sport) is a competitive contact sport where two combatants fight against each other using certain rules of engagement, typically with the aim of simulating parts of real hand to hand combat. Boxing, sport wrestling, mixed martial arts and fencing are examples of combat sports.
 * If we break down the key words there:
 * sport: has multiple definitions, but seems to apply with the following: "An active pastime; recreation."
 * combat: you could go either way on this one...
 * To oppose vigorously; struggle against. (almost certainly doesn't apply to aikido)
 * To oppose in battle; fight against. (could be argued either way as applying to aikido or not... some would argue that "fight against" wouldn't apply, but "oppose in battle" might...)
 * "fight against each other"... same as combat, in my mind
 * With the notable exception of Shodokan as Bradford44 pointed out above, there is basically no "competition" to aikido.
 * contact: there is surely contact
 * combatant almost certainly doesn't apply: "One, such as a person or a combat vehicle, that takes part in armed strife."
 * Rules of engagement: since there is no competition, it is difficult to have rules of engagement, isn't it?
 * simultating parts of real hand-to-hand combat: sounds accurate
 * And finally, we are left with the examples, which include only sports in which there is formal scoring of some sort or another - which doesn't apply to aikido either
 * In short, a non-emotional person could easily conclude that at least 50% of the key words in the description of combat sport do not apply to aikido. Do you now understand why we there just might actually be a valid discussion on this?  Lastly, just because other soft arts are listed doesn't mean they are listed correctly - please don't use such false arguments.  Best regards, Mrand 02:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in as well. My problem with "combat sport" is also that it's considered a "sport". Shodokan might be an exception, but it's a relatively small style. Aikido does not feature official competitions. Now, you can start arguing about uke and nage, and indeed, both do try to "win" in some sense. But honestly, if we start getting that vague, maybe Kashima Shinto-ryu or Araki-ryu should be called "combat sports". --GenkiNeko 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well whatever you guys decide - but the Aikido category should be listed.Peter Rehse 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sine qua non of a sport is that it has rules that set conditions for winning and losing. Notwithstanding the portions of Shodokan's practice that involve training for and participating in competition, any competitive practice among aikidoka is entirely within their own minds. No rules = no sport. Bradford44 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Combat is pretty much a no-brainer and I'm glad the more logical can agree that a GENDAIBUDO (fer chrissake) would fit in that category. Sport. Hmm... Sports tend to involved exercise and recreation. It seems Aikido fits in there... rules...Well there are certainly a lot of pre-determined techniques and ways to apply them, quite a large list. There are codes and rules of dojo conduct, bowing, kata, waza, warm ups. Seems there a thousands of little rules that govern Aikido. That one didn't hold up well did it? One more to knock down though: competition. Not only does Ki-Aikido have 'international taigi competitions' every year, (as well as the previously mentioned shodokan) but if the angry jury will kindly accept: figure skating. Figure skating is a sport. Do the skaters in a figure skating pair compete against each other? no. They work together to improve, they practice and ultimately they are judged on how well they meet certain criteria before they are given awards at say, the olympics. How does someone get a hakama in Aikido??? oh wait! they practice Aikido with a partner until one day they have a test in which....wait....they are judged on how well they meet certain criteria before they are given awards, aka a black belt. I submit to you that if FIGURE SKATING is a sport, then AIKIDO is a sport. Wwilson 1 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, judging is not a good criteria, nor are rules. LOTS of things are judged in the world that are not competitions nor sports.  I agree that it is a sport, but only because exercise and recreation - not because of the figure skating comparison.  I believe the concern is that "combat sport" has taken on a meaning beyond just putting the two words combat and sport together.  That's why I attempted to analyze the summary of the combat sport article.  Mrand 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(silly side note:)Mrand, it seems you took my post rather personally. I did not insult you (you chose to be 'borderline' insulted), but perhaps your ego couldn't get out of the way of my statement and some of it hit you. I suggest you get out of the way next time. That IS what you are studying aikido for, you are not taking classes in how to take things personally and get upset and offended. Although your reaction does prove my point about being a slave to your emotions. Free yourself. Wwilson 1 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go again with the judgemental/condescending tone. It might seem to you that I took your post personally, but I did not - I was simply pointing out that you were making assumptions that were not true.  My ego was never in the way to begin with (nor do I allow it to ever), so your statement never "hit me".  Don't mistake my short, choppy writing style here for something that it is not.... I don't take anything personally, and I don't get upset OR offended easily (just ask my wife, or co-workers, or dojo-mates).  And I'm not sure what "reaction" you are referring to except that I took the time to actually back up my reasons rather than jumping to conclusions.  In short, for a second time you've assumed many, many things that are simply not true.  You *really* need to stop with the labels, because the ones you are assigning simply are not accurate.  This will be my last response on this matter - it is off topic.  Mrand 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aikido training is definitley combat, and Aikido is definitely a sport, my knee jerk reaction is to say however that it is not a "combat sport", however I could see where one could classify it as a "combat sport". So I would add Aikido and keep "combat sport" too. Mvemkr 15:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Combat sport? redux
As we drifted off topic with some interpersonal conflict there, allow me to restart the discussion, and attempt to frame the arguments a bit. Are the following points true?
 * 1) "combat sport" is a subcategory of "sport" (both semantically and within the structure of wikipedia).
 * 2) "combat" describes what kind of "sport" it is, akin to "team sport", "ball sport", "water sport" (I may be inventing terms, but nevertheless it should be clear that there may be many overlapping categories of "sport").
 * 3) a "combat sport" is a sport in which the competition is effectuated through combat.
 * 4) combat is physical conflict between two or more people, with or without tools.
 * 5) the sine qua non of a sport is a set of codified rules for determining the victor.
 * 6) therefore, for aikido to be a "combat sport", it must have a predetermined set of rules that govern a match and determine the victor, and such competition must involve a physical struggle between the opponents. Bradford44 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My analysis, including response to the previous posts, is that all of the above points are true. Therefore, figure skating is a sport because there are rules to determine a victor. Taigi competition probably is a sport for the same reason, but everyday practice is not, because even if uke and nage are "competeting" against each other, there is no official winner or codified method of determining the victor (even though, informally, one person may feel as if they "won" the practice). Note that kata competition would be a sport, but not a combat sport - no physical conflict. This goes directly to Wayne's assertion that because you are being judged and possibly awarded rank that makes it a combat sport. However, this cannot be so, because even if you are physically exerting yourself, and even though it may (sort of) be in conflict with uke during a test, in no sense are you competing against your uke during your promotional examination or demonstration of your skills. If uke successfully prevents you from executing any techniques against him, it's not as if he therefore gets the rank instead. Further, there are no codified rules for determining the winner of such an engagement. Guidelines, principles and rules of etiquette are not equivalent to codified rules that determine a winner. Bradford44 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice argument there. However two things are still not being addressed: Figure skating practice is not judged every day, only perhaps twice a year, when awards are given. Same with Aikido practice vs. testing. A figure skater pair does not 'compete against each other.. yet it is still a sport, they are only judged by rules once a year, just like a belt test. The 'combat' aspect applies to the use of honest attacks by uke which are combat attacks, punches, knifes, etc. and though the goal is 'combat harmony' with uke, it is still essentially combat. Is uke really punching or not? It is indeed a punch, directed at the nage, with full intention behind it, if it is honest, which is what the article claims aikido involves, 'honest attacks'. Therefore it is also, 'honest combat'. It is essentially paired combat, in which the competition is not against each other, but to get 'the belt'. If you insist on pushing further with this, I suggest you get started going onto the tai chi talk pages and explaining why they are not a combat sport, etc. To be honest, I am not very convinced that the negative reaction to 'combat sports' is not purely based in emotional attatchment to some untrue ideal about Aikido. Aikido is forged in Budo and to insist it is not combat, when the founder spoke often of staring death in the face, is foolish. The competition is against oneself, not the partner, but as I have demonstrated, many sports are like that. Combat does not mean 'ultimate fighting' it merely describes the lineage of the art.Wwilson 1 17:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy Wayne, I agree that the word combat applies to aikido - and in fact, I don't see any strong disagreement with that in the discussion above.  So let's focus on the sport aspect, and more importantly, on the combination of the two words "combat sport", which seems to take on a specific meaning.  To me a combat sport is one in which, through simulated combat with a predefined set of rules, judges determine a winner.  IMO, it also strongly implies that "there can be only one" first place.  And while aikido usually is judged on a predefined set of rules (either every day on the mat or in competition once every however many years ... time doesn't really matter), I don't know about the rest of you, but except in reference to Shodokan, I've never heard anyone be declared "winner", or be awarded "first place" or handed out anything (including belts) based upon placement.  That is the main reason why I don't view aikido as a "combat sport".  Mrand 14:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter what a combat sport is 'to you'. Your subjective opinion does not matter. Use logic to prove your point or get off wikipedia and go to an Aikido forum. Which of course is not a bad thing and I mean it in a positive way. :) Wwilson 1 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the point I was trying to make; thank you, Mrand. Neither I nor anyone else (as far as I can tell) has contested the "combat" portion of the word, only that the absence of rules for determining and awarding a winner mean that it is not a "sport". Bradford44 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand the hard-headed stance you two have chosen to take, and why you have taken it exactly.. A black belt is an award. A gold medal is an award. You are judged by a high-ranking professional/judger at a 'belt test' event, to receive the award. Only a select few who have trained their entire lives are awarded higher belts such as 8th or 9th dan. Can it even be argued that a dan RANKING is not an award that places you into a hierarchy that demonstrates your ranking vs. other practitioners? It seems so to me and I think the burden of proving it otherwise is in your court now. Good luck.Wwilson 1 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what - here's a simple way to settle this. Despite the fact that I think the comparison of a black belt to a gold medal is quite tenuous (because a black belt is a credential, while a gold medal is a trophy - and as an aside, if I received my black belt only as a trophy, I would be looking for someplace else to train), I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument here that: gold medal = black belt, for purposes of this "sport" analysis. That being so, I will give up and stop arguing about this if you can do one thing:
 * simply list or direct me to the official rules that set the conditions one must meet to defeat one's opponent in an aikido match, thereby "winning" the black belt instead of one's competitor, for any style or school of aikido.
 * If aikido is a sport, this should not be difficult - all sports have a codified set of rules governing a match and for determining the victor. Bradford44 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask your sensei what criteria he uses when judging belt tests, I'm assuming smoothness of motion, ability to move from center, relaxation, calm mind, execution of the technique, etc. are all taken into account. If the person being tested fails to accomplish the move, or unbalance the uke, he will not do well in the test. I'm not a sensei so I'm not sure of the exact judging criteria, they are likely similar to figure skating, etc. However, you answered my question with a question. First you need to prove that Aikido DOESN'T have tests, (aka competitions) that grant belt awards that rank practitioners into a hierarchy. If you can prove this is NOT the case, then you win the debate and Aikido can be immediately removed from the list. And TaiChi will come off next!!!Wwilson 1 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's quite simple to prove. Aikido has examinations, but it does not have competitions. The difference:
 * Examinations are are to determine promotion, and one does not "win" the promotion by defeating the other examinees. At the end of the test, if one passes the examination, they may be awarded credentials in the form of a black belt.
 * Competitions occur when two or more people compete against each other according to a codified set of rules. There is only one winner, and the winner may receive a trophy.
 * If tests and competions were the same thing, then school would be a sport. A black belt is not a trophy.  It is analogous to a diploma, or possibly a military rank (surely the military is not a sport in virtue of the process of being awarded rank that establishes a hierarchy). A black belt is (among other things) a recognition of achieving proficiency at a set of skills over a period of time. A gold medal is a trophy, it is awarded when one meets the specific condition of defeating all of one's competitors on a single occasion.
 * And if TaiChi does not have organized competitions in which there are recognized winners and losers, then it is not a combat sport either, it is just combat, or at least just combat training. Now can you answer my question, by directing me to the official set of rules for determining the victor of an aikido match? Bradford44 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ki-aikido.com.sg/Ki-Aikido-InterviewKTWS3.html (taigi competition) http://www.uta.edu/student_orgs/aikido/Assets/Docs/gokyutest.pdf (belt judging criteria) http://www.shugenkai.com/grading.htm http://www.vancouverwestaikikai.com/aboutaikido/06-ranking.html there you go. You still haven't defeated my point. Higher belts are better than lower belts, or the belt is meaningless. Also you seem to be hung up on this idea of trophies and medals defining the sport. Award is a better term, as trophies and medals can also be certificates, or olive wreaths depending on what culture or era you are talking about. whether it's black cloth or plastic looking gold, it's an award for a well done performance.Wwilson 1 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Neither a black belt, nor any other rank, is an award for a well done performance. No one should ever be promoting solely on the basis of performance on a single occasion. Further, a black belt is far more than something one recieves in exchange for successfully executing various techniques. A black belt is the recognition of achievements that were reached well prior to the day of the award. You don't become a black belt because you were handed a belt, you are handed the belt because your instructors recognize that you have reached a certain level of mental and physical development. At that level, the actual belt test is still important, but not as important as the personal assessment that your instructors make on a day to day basis, and awarding the belt is recognition of many years of commitment, loyalty, hard work, right values, right attitude, and technical skill. It's sort of like birthdays, your age may increase by a number on your birthday, but you didn't age a year from one day to the next, the change is merely recognized on that day. This is wholly unlike the kind of award from a sporting event, where you do recieve an award for a single well done performance, and prior performance is irrelevant. Try asking yourself (or your instructor) what is the difference between a 1st kyu and a shodan. I assure you that the difference is far more than a slight increase in technical skill.
 * With regard to the links you provided, I am more than happy to concede that taigi competition is a combat sport, and any school or style of aikido that participates in such competition may be categorized as a combat sport. If such styles are in the majority, then you should certainly categorize aikido generally as a combat sport.  The other three links provide criteria for judging students for promotion, but fail to articulate the rules of engagement between competitors, and further fail to set conditions by which one wins and loses.  Surely you can't have a sport if it is theoretically possible for everyone to win.  In fact, if everyone can win, then how can they be competing against each other? Bradford44 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think bradford, that you are finally starting to 'get it'. However, you seem to still make a distinction that belies a sense of favoritism to Aikido over other sports. Ask any olympic gymnast whether their medal reflects one single event, or their entire life and training up to that event. Aikido is different in that the judges ARE the teachers, so the line between belt test, daily practice, and even attitude outside the dojo are all factored in, but indeed they ARE factored, and judgements ARE deteremined, otherwise there is NO POINT in having belts at all. Which I'm ok with, but since Aikidoka have belts, that MEANS that judgement based on criteria is occurring, no matter how general, philosophical, or personal it is. And finally, haven't you heard that everyone is a winner? you should stop looking down on the idea of sport, and worshipping Aikido as the ultimate anti-sport. It's just not that black and white. If Aikido had no belts, I would agree with you, but it has belts, which makes it a sport.Wwilson 1 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For an olympic gymnast, their gold medal may emotionally and philosophically reflect their entire life of training, but the official rules delineating the requirements for winning the gold medal do not. This is the difference.  Someone could theoretically walk off the street and meet the requirements in the rules and win the medal.  The rules do not require a lifetime of training, only that the competitor meet the physical criteria (such as completing the race prior to the other competitors). Aikido is unlike this.


 * Your argument seems to consist of pointing out how a number of aspects of aikido are philosophically or semantically comparable to a sport, so therefore aikido is a sport. I do not find that persuasive. A sport must have official rules for determining winners and losers of a match between the competitors, and except for taigi and Shodokan, aikido does not. If we're really at an impasse here, I'm content to agree to disagree. What say you? Bradford44 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that everyone agrees that Shodokan has competition and that taigi is competition, but I feel very uncomfortable saying that simply having a competetion or a ranking system means that a martial art (not just Aikido) is a sport. The competitive aspects of judo and karate and other "sport" martial arts isn't the complete picture of these martial arts. Being able to win at competitions doesn't guarantee success in handling a life and death situation, just as reaching black belt (or any higher grade you chose) in Aikido is no guarantee. The founder of Aikido specifically left out competitions and initially avoided the dan grading system for this reason (my understanding is that he started issuing rank under pressure from the pre-war government). A serious view of martial arts training is preparation for a life and death confrontation with possibly more than one opponent. Achieving rank or winning competitions can be an aid to training towards this goal, but is not the goal itself (the skills required for winning competition or preforming techniques suitable for tests are not sufficient to prepare for uncontrolled violence). In my view, judo is a martial art that contains competition as a training tool, but isn't a "sport". When winning competitions or achieving rank becomes the only goal of training, then the activity ceases to be a martial art and becomes a sport. The difference is in the attitude. When people say that Aikido isn't a sport, they are trying to maintain what they view as the proper attitude towards training and the proper perspective on ranking. Edwin Stearns | Talk 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Howdy Edwin, my personal opinion is that it doesn't matter what the founder left out or not (and I know many others feel the same way. Perhaps even Wayne does), so that argument doesn't hold much water for me.  Don't get me wrong - I'm grateful to Morihei Ueshiba for assembling and promoting the art, but I avoid such justifications because things just don't stay the same forever.  The real question is what the definition of "combat sport" is.  I've proposed a meaning, and it seemed like Bradford44 basically agreed with that definition.  Once there is a generally accepted definition, you can decide if it applies to aikido or not, regardless of philosophical arguments or points of view. Mrand 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see this debate continuing. It is plain that aikido (Shodokan excepted) is not a "combat sport". Obviously, as a budo, it relates in some way to some form of combat. But a sport? This notion that belt tests = competitions is very odd logic; I don't think anyone is buying it besides WWilson, to be honest. They are a certification process analogous to receiving various licenses from a koryu. Furthemore, this abstract and technical matter aside, combat sports call to mind things like boxing, wrestling, and sparring martial arts. It is misleading to group aikido into this category. --GenkiNeko 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You're easy to amaze genkineko. Well, I see the walls are thick here, so I'll make a different point: If you look up various definitions of "sport", you'll see there is NOT a consensus that sport is necessarily competitive or requires competition by definition. Perhaps that is the real issue of hand, and the challenge falls to the wwilson_1 haters out there to prove otherwise.Wwilson 1 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Combat Sport page defines a combat sport as a competetive endeavor, though. Transentient 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why Aikido is still listed as a combat sport? From reading this discussion it seems like we have a single wikipedian campaigning to keep the link to combat sports, everyone else arguing against, and the againsts win the arguments. Transentient 16:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that a good argument cannot persude a mass of people? Is wikipedia majority rules?Wwilson 1 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying a good argument cannot persuade a mass of people. I am simply saying that, upon reviewing the debate, you have simply failed to do so. Transentient 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So from a utilitarian standpoint, which is better: A) having Aikido in the combat sport category which is slightly controversial but gives it wider wikipresence and expands pager hits and viewership, which could lead to more folks learning about aikido, or B) leave it isolated with no categorization other than, "other" or just "aikido" and no expansion of the reach of info about aikido. and if you'd care to, suggest a C) option please. Wwilson 1 05:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When assessing the utility of the article as an encyclopediac reference, and not a tool for advertisement, evangelism, or advocacy, option B) seems quite suitable. A) seems rather detrimental. 65.202.215.2 13:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anonymous user! I'd say evangelism is quite an exagerration, wouldn't you? Just making the point that most articles in existence in the wikiverse are somehow linked or connected to others by means of category, thus making them easy to find or delightfully stumble upon or browse. To that end, B seems like a useful and intelligent thing to do. I'm still awaiting the ingenious 'C' suggestion. I also reiterate though that if Tai Chi is a combat sport then aikido is tooWwilson 1 20:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Styles of Aikido
Just a helpful suggestion here. I am wondering if its possible to provide YouTube videos (as a link) of the various styles of aikido. So viewers can have a sense of how different styles of aikido look like? -Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 2007-04-19T19:08:32.
 * Howdy Bill, it is certainly possible, but in my opinion, you'll see as much variation between high-level people of the same style as you will between high-level people of different styles - so I don't know that it would provide any real "comparison". Said a completely different way, IMO, when aikido is done well, the styles are difficult to tell apart unless you really know what to look for.  Mrand 06:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

where to learn in LA
Where in los angeles is a good spot to learn? Tkjazzer 02:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is a page for discussing the article, it would be better to ask a question like this on a website such as Aikiweb. For example, they have a dojo locator that could give you a list of results, as well as message boards where you could inquire further. --GenkiNeko 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But Tkjazzer brings up a good point. In this entry there is no detail on the various schools of aikido which would be nice along with the headquarters of each.  Example: the Seidokan Aikido's World Headquarters is in Los Angeles. Anonymous 14:53, 27 April 2007

-Dori vs. -Tori
Re: recent change on main page of -dori to -tori, then back again, and for those who may be interested: there is no right and wrong in this particular case; both are acceptable. Difference is at the level of personal/dialectal habit or preference. The language "doesn't care". See rendaku. Certain words, esp. common ones like tegami, are often set one way or the other (voiced or voiceless) by history, but I'm quite sure that aikido terms are not in this class of vocabulary. That said, however, there probably should be a standard for use in WP (wrt aikido terminology specifically), but taking a quick look here I don't see anything like that. Djiann 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's anecdotal, but every japanese aikidoka i've met or learned from has used 'dori'. I think a lot of westerners might get 'tori' reading more from when it is explained to them as separate word meaning grab, derived from verb 'toru'. I usually get giggles whenever I don't use rendaku in modern japaenese speech as well. It took me a while to figure out the alchemy of combination pronounciation that happens there. :)Wwilson 1 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Each major style has a hombu dojo in Japan" - OK so what is a style?
This statement is referenced with a link, but that page does not mention the concept hombu dojo; nor does it try to define "major styles". I find that troublesome. Otherwise, we have explicitly stated that Iwama style is not a major style... because Iwama style has no Hombu. While old Saito sensei was alive you could say that Iwama was Hombu, maybe, but it was certainly never declared as such... and most of the Iwama people are back in the Aikikai again. Does this mean Iwama aikido ceases to be a style? Does it make it not a "major style" any more? Was it ever a major style? I don't know. I removed the statement and the ref; if put back I think it should be made clear what exactly the ref supports.

This discussion is related to the problems I see with the template on major styles, that I removed from this article. A discussion about the template is held at Template talk:Major styles of aikido. // habj 12:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The list appears to be of major aikido organizations. An organization is somewhat easier to define than a style. Also, the use of the word style in this instance is contrary to the conventions at WP:WPMA.  On the other hand, I think the conventions on these words creates more problems than it solves. Bradford44 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The WikiProject Martial Arts definition of style vs. org is probably true in some Chinese arts but they are not universal. Probably the article needs to briefly mention that the word "style" is used to describe two different concepts: teacher lineages/ways of performing technique, and organisation. // habj 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Utopia?
A recent change in the History section brought this to my attention: "One of the primary features of Ōmoto-kyō is its emphasis on the attainment of utopia during one's life." Now, I don't know anything (much) about Ōmoto, but utopia isn't something you "attain". Nirvana, maybe (although of course that's a Buddhist concept). Is that perhaps what is meant? Or is it that the followers of that sect believed that they could create a utopia in their lifetimes? Djiann 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the reason Ueshiba tried to start a colony in Mongolia with the other omoto kyo followers and onisaburo was to create a living spiritual Utopia on earth. Mental and physical nirvana as it were. Wwilson 1 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanji?
An anon user went through the other day, and added kanji to the list of techniques (but not to the strikes and grabs). Do we want this stuff to stay? If not, anyone can remove it, but if it stays, there is something to consider. Generally, WP:MOS and WP:MOS-JP prefers we stay as English-centric as is possible or reasonable on the English wikipedia. Additionally, for Japanese terms, the nihongo template prefers this order:
 * English (kanji Japanese)

However, putting the English up-front may be difficult for some of us to accept, where we are so used to thinking solely in terms of the Japanese names of the techniques. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend that despite this, we keep the non-Japanese and non-martial artist readers in mind and follow the standard template form, and allow the Japanese names of the techniques to be secondary and indicated parenthetically. On the other hand, as I mentioned, we can just remove the kanji altogether, rendering my above post moot. Bradford44 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kanji is a nice addition and as long as it remains simple, I think it adds to the article. The rest will get added later - don't worry about it being incomplete. Tkjazzer 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty reasonable the way it is (with the English first). It's the standard Wikipedia way of incorporating 1) Kanji 2) Romaji 3) English into a single entity. And it's not unheard of for aikido schools to use English instead of Japanese as the main language for techniques. --GenkiNeko 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ki - a suggestion from someone who knows nothing about the subject
I have read the article and I'm still completely baffled as to what Ki entails. I'm not an expert on martial arts, simply a curious browser and I found that the article didn't really give any detailed explanation concerning its nature. I think this section falls into the trap of commentary rather than explanation - I imagine it makes perfect sense to someone who is familiar with the subject, it may even be insightful, but to a novice (who encyclopedia articles are directed at) it didn't make clear what Ki actually involves. Simply saying "Ki is most often understood as unified physical and mental intention." doesn't really tell anyone what it is, in my view. I still don't know, is it a philosophy? A specific doctrine? A martial art? A book? A television show?

What I was interested in when I viewed this article was that I remember attending an aikido demonstration and one of the participants performed a section concerning energy which, he maintained, he could focus on a specific point and knock another man standing across the room to the ground. Is this some sort of bastardisation of Ki? I assumed his claims weren't credible and was primarily viewing this article to find out what the real source was, but was left disappointed. Blankfrackis 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

'Ki' is the Japanese pronouciation of the Chinese 'qi', which already has an article on Wikipedia. You might know it better by the Cantonese 'chi'. From my limited study of aikido (only a year), ki from aikido's perspective means the redirection of energy (force) both of yours and the opponent's (please correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps we could have a link to the ki page, which in turn leads to the qi main page? 217.155.104.92 11:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi anonymous user! We already have it linked to the Qi page, if you'll look at the section on KI, the first time it is mentioned, the word "ki" is in blue and linked to the Qi page. Perhaps we could put a (from Chinese 'Qi') to make it stand out more.Wwilson 1 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! I see it now. My apologies. :) 217.155.104.92 06:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aikidoka
This needs to be defined somewhere. It's not important to me that it be in the lede, but should be near the top. It can't just appear for the first and only time as List of aikidoka. JJL 13:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made something of a big deal in the past about the presentation of this term. I have argued that the term is not used in Japan, it is only used outside of Japan as a loanword with a different meaning than it would have to Japanese native speakers. I want WP to reflect this reality. Have you read the discussion of this topic which is on this very page?  I am still working on collecting the evidence I need to justify a concerted editing effort on my part :-) Djiann 18:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit history said not a "fact" that belongs in the lead section and mentioned elsewhere in article already and I was responding to that. Even if it's only used outside of Japan...that includes a lot of aikido practitioners, and that is exactly what they're called. It no longer matters whether it originated from an error or not. Since we have a list of aikidoka, we need to say what an aikidoka is. JJL 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would very much prefer to see the term removed from the lead section, but I refuse to get involved in reversion wars. That said, it's hard to see where else it fits in, unless the sub-heading "Aikidoka" is re-instated (not a bad idea, IMO).  As it is now, the link to "List of..." is under Styles, which seems arbitrary.  I agree that it's not good to use a term without some indication of what it means. Djiann 19:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I resent the implication that I am revert warring...after all, I brought the discussion here in hopes of achieving consensus. I only reverted again because your mentioned elsewhere in article already seemed inaccurate (I thought you believed it was defined later in the article, as I indicated in the edit history). It's not important to me where the term is defined or whether the (verifiable) differences in usage are given; I just think it needs to be mentioned, as it comes up often and an En glish-speaking reader could not be expected to recognize the meaning of an added -ka. JJL 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend any implication that you were edit-warring, merely pointing out why I wouldn't re-revert. I have already agreed the term should be defined somewhere on the page rather than simply having a link which uses the term, under an arbitrary section, to another page. I intend to have the information I need to do some editing before the month is out. Djiann 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand! JJL 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO aikidoka is a pretty insignificant term to be added and defined in the intro paragraph to Aikido. In four years of aikido in japan and america, any books or articles i've read, in japanese AND english; wikipedia is the ONLY place i've encountered the term. I think it's not unfair to have 'list of aikidoka' then when the person clicks on the link aikidoka is defined for them. it just doesn't seem important enough to take up valuable, precious main page space. Especially when the subsequent caveats and edits get added to it ('it's only used in the west' etc.) it will eventually balloon up into a paragraph, a very unneccessary paragraph for the aikido main page. let it be mentioned here, and defined on the aikidoka list page.Wwilson 1 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 183,000 for Aikidoka. It's a very common term, at least in the U.S. JJL 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

the question is not should it be in there. The question is, how relevant to the Aikido article itself is the term, and is it better as a marginal footnote with detailed explanation on another page, or should it disrupt the efficiency and flow of the article to make itself known?Wwilson 1 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a passing reference to it, though I still find the objection to this commonly occurring term difficult to understand. JJL 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Techniques
This section is really expanding big time. I think this will always be the part that most Aikidoists will be salivating to edit expand, elaborate, make caveats for, and so forth, and to keep the Aikido article from being too gigantic I'm thinking it's about time it got it's own 'Aikido Techniques' page. That way those horny for getting their own two yen into the mix will be able to to their hearts content, while the Aikido article itself will not scare off laymen and casual browsers do to it's hugeness and all the geeky kanji references, etc.. What do you guys think?Wwilson 1 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is to really whittle down the entire fitness, techniques, and implementations, the whole thing down to say, two paragraphs on the main aikido page, and expand all that stuff into the 'Aikido techniques' or 'aikido implemenation and techniques' page. The 4 paragraphs about the importance of uke and nage are nice and all, but a bit cumbersome for the intro page to Aikido, as it is hard to just say something about it and be done with it. same goes for tai sabaki, and all the techniques.Wwilson 1 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about putting too great an emphasis on being concise. I think part of what held the article back during FA review was that many sections and paragraphs had been whittled down to the point where they were either bland, uninteresting, uninformative, or all of the above.  Good writing pulls the reader in and encourages them to keep reading.  A reader should suddenly find themselves compelled to learn the answers to questions that they never even thought to ask. A sidebar into a relevant though divergant topic can add color and flavor to an otherwise one-dimensional article. I recently came across the article, Kitsune, which was fascinating. I found its level to detail to be the perfect example of how to comprehensively address a subject, rather consisting of a series of short and simplistic statements containing a wikilink, forcing a reader to read a dozen other articles just to figure out what this particular article is talking about.  I'm particularly thinking about the "Ki", "Spirit of Aikido", and "Styles of Aikido" subsections when I say this, though other places could use also use more detail, in my opinion. Bradford44 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

request to put Martial arts template back up
I like the template and do not think it is confusing. Could you consider putting it back? Tkjazzer 00:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I support putting it back up. Bradford44 13:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys
Imagine my surprise when I could access from China - couldn't last week - and I don't know how much longer I can. I was hoping to be back in Japan by now for another attempt to get Aikido to be a featured article but that will have to wait - or not. CHeers Peter Rehse 05:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)