Talk:Aikikai

Adding technique list
I think we should add more to this article of Aikikai aikido, like a list of techniques. Look at the Yoseikan Aikido article for example. It's a lot more organized and a lot more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.216.212 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aikikai is more of an organization of dojo and aikikai affiliated organizations than a specific body of techniques or grading syllabus. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Styles template
IMHO the "major styles" template is more trouble than value - maybe esp. regarding the Aikikai, who in this article is defined as an organisation rather than a style. I have removed the template from the articles and started discussion on Template talk:Major styles of aikido. // habj 12:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of doshu kisshomaru and moriteru
I have a permission from the Aikikai to use those Photos. Aikido Philippines (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proper name correction
I made some minor spelling corrections but the words Aikikai and Aikido are proper nouns. Aikido is the name of a particular form of martial art and Aikikai is a particular style within Aikido. Otr500 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Organisational structure
The Aikikai Foundation is an incorporated entity in Japan. It is headed by the doshu, the successor to the founder of aikido.

The Aikikai Foundation is in charge of the Hombu dojo, which is also named Aikido World Headquarters. It is sometimes called the Aikikai Hombu to distinguish it from the headquartes of later aikido organisations. It is located in Tokyo, and the dojo building contains a total training area of 250 tatami mats. (The Aikikai Foundation also manages a satellite dojo in Ibaraki, and sends instructors around Japan on a continual basis.) The term "Hombu" is sometimes used loosely to refer to the upper echelons of instructors at the Hombu dojo and particularly the Doshu.

In Japan, there are about 1300 other training locations affiliated with the Hombu. These are united under the All-Japan Aikido Federation.

Overseas, there are about 60 foreign aikido organisations recognised by the Hombu. These are ostensibly national aikido organisations that each represent many dojos and many students, with the gradings of their students being legitimated specifically by the Hombu. (The Hombu has proceedures for examinations and recommendations of aikido grades and instructor titles, and ideally this ensures a degree of international consistency and serves to prevent local instructors from boastfully exaggerating their own ranks.) However, regardless of recognition, all foreign aikido groups remain organisationally independent from the Aikikai Foundation.

The students of recognised dojo worldwide are loosely referred to collectively as the Aikikai school of aikido, although this "school" is not an official organisation. Their aikido technique may be referred to as aikikai style, although this encompases a wider spectrum of technical styles characteristically than later (and smaller) schools of aikido.

The International Aikido Federation is the primary global aikido organisation. It has member organisations from about 40 nations (for example, the All-Japan Aikido Federation is one member). The IAF currently admits only one member organisation per country. All members must be recognised by the Hombu, so the IAF exclusively represents the Aikikai school. The IAF is a nominally democratic organisation (currently each member nation has equal vote regardless of how many aikido students each represents, and special roles are taken by the Doshu and a council of senior instructors to safeguard the technical integrity of aikido).

The IAF demonstrates aikido at the World Games, and represents aikido to the globe. The IAF also organises International Aikido Congresses every four years, facilitating direct training between aikido students of different countries, and with the world's most senior instructors, and also providing a channel for official communication with the Hombu.

Some sources: Japanese wikipedia articles (plus google translate); Aikikai Foundation website (including organisational structure diagram which may be broken on Firefox, financial reports, and regulations); IAF website; IAF Chairman Prof. Peter Goldsberry "Inheritance" articles on aikiweb forum. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Aikikai logo
File:AIKIKAI-logo-07CBA50695-seeklogo_com.gif

What's with this logo? It is not shown on the Aikikai Foundation website. As far as I can tell it is not currently used by the Aikikai Foundation at all, I think it may be an obsolete former logo? (I can see it is similar but different from the IAF logo.) Even the Aikido Phillipines official website now represents them with a different logo (namely "Aikikai Foundation" in Japanese and English text using the font and colour scheme of the current Aikikai Foundation website). Wikipedia user "Aikido Philippines" can you provide any evidence that the logo is still officially used (anywhere at all) by the Aikikai Foundation?

As such, I don't think that logo is an appropriate emblem for the top of this article. Because it is not (or no longer) widely used to represent the aikikai (and because the Aikikai Foundation does not display it prominantly in locations such as its homepage). In fact, I'm not convinced that image is notable enough to warrant inclusion in wikipedia at all, unless someone can show it is not obsolete. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Aikikai Foundation uses that logo, the IAF copys the logo and modify it. I have permission from the Hombu dojo (and Aikikai) to use the logo for educational purposes only. Sorry for my inconvenience to put information to the logo.Aikido Philippines (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Where or how does the Aikikai Foundation use it? Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Foundation didn't use the logo publicly. The logo is only use for celebrations, meetings, and ceremonies. We can found the Logo in our hakamas, yudansha certificates, belts, and dogis(Aikidogis). I have permission to use the logo for educational purposes only.Aikido Philippines (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I have checked yudansha certificates (produced over the last few years by the Aikikai Foundation), they do not have the logo. Nor do yudansha passport books. I have looked at many hakama, belts, and gi, and have not seen the symbol (in fact the traditional preference from Hombu seems to be for plain training gear unadorned with any logos/branding unlike many martial arts schools and even aikido groups elsewhere), and besides, the Aikikai Foundation do not run their own clothing business (so I don't see how your clothing branding is even relevant. The closest would be the Aikikai Foundation's recommendation of the Iwata store in Tokyo, so are you claiming Iwata sometimes affixes a tag with this logo in addition to Iwata's own logo? Who is your clothing supplier?). Can you give any specific examples of how the logo has been used recently at particular celebrations/meetings/ceremonies? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is found in the tag of a certain hakama, gi, and belt. Our main supplier, Iwata, just like you said, delivers gis and hakamas with a tag either the logo of Aikikai or logo of Iwata co. Same as the belt too. The certificate is being send in a box like container with the logo of Aikikai. Sometimes the logo appeared at the certificate either in the signature of the Doshu or in the Side of the certificate.Aikido Philippines (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, (haven't seen the box the certificates are sent in but) I've managed to find some examples of clothing tagged with that logo. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also discuss whether this article is supposed to be about Aikikai in general or the Aikido Foundation specifically. I emphasise that the Aikikai Foundation is a legal entity that legally and organisationally does NOT affiliate with or encompass any groups outside of Japan. I think this legal entity is less notatble than the global phenomena of groups that identify more abstractly with "aikikai", and that the central topic of this article should be the latter. Do others agree? If there were a universal symbol that represented the aikikai, I suppose it would be the current doshu, or else the Japanese calligraphy for the word AIKIDO or that stereotypical image of O'sensei sitting with greyed beard (since these two things adorn the front of most aikikai dojos, although to some extent those two symbols may be shared by other aikido schools also).

Also, was there a specific objection to the image that was removed, of the IAF congress seminar? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Aikikai not a style
Aikikai is not a style, it is the main core of all Aikido styles. Even though it is called Kobukan during the pre-war years, it's still created by O-sensei. The name Kobukan is the early name of Aikikai. The art Aiki-Budo is the early name of Aikikai Aikido or Aikido. For example, Gozo Shioda's Yoshinkan Aikido is not a umbrella art of Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu, is an umbrella style of Aikikai, therefore Yoshinkan is just a separated style originated from Aikikai. Not just Yoshinkan, but also Yoseikan (Minoru Mochizuki), Shodokan (Kenji Tomiki) and Shin'ei Taido (Noriaki Inoue). The art Aiki-Budo is the precursor of Aikido but still related to Daito-ryu but O-Sensei created it so every style created by O-Sensei's students, who studied Aiki-Budo, is an umbrella organization of Aikikai.Aikido Philippines (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree in part. Aikikai is not a style, aikikai encompases a relatively broad range of styles (since each of osensei's students learned something slightly different, but relative among all the aikido schools that exist now, aikikai had the most of osensei's students, since aikikai was the default school, hence the technical diversity that has always existed in its senior ranks). That section of the article still needs revision to make this more clear. However, I think you are exaggerating your case when you say aikibudo is just the early name of aikikai aikido specifically, and not just of aikido generally. I suspect it is debatable whether the aikikai organisation was created by osensei or instead by some of those after him. Using your example of Gozo, I understand he never broke away to start his own school, rather he just set about continuing training (and expanding) in a time period when everybody else had stopped instructing or gone elsewhere, and that osensei even tended to express a warm (rather than exclusionary) attitude to such branches. (If we were concerned with how the average style of yoshinkan is different to the average style of aikikai today, then the evolutions in osensei's own training before and after the divergence would be one of the relevent factors.) Likewise, some of the Iwama styles might have had a claim to being more legitimate than aikikai, because osensei arguably abandoned hombu (leaving those who would become the aikikai senior echelons) but continued his focus in Iwama personally. Ki society might appear the first true breakaway from aikikai, but there are grounds for one to argue that actually it was aikikai that had broken away from Kohei. (We certainly know that osensei considered his religion to be an important aspect of what he did, and that the aikikai deliberately resists adopting this component.) Anyway, I think the article needs to speak in context of the modern perception of aikikai as just one element under the category of aikido schools. I think the true primacy of aikikai must lie in the numbers: both the cross-section of seniors it started from (this is the grounds for calling aikikai the main trunk of the tree of osensei's synthesis and not some lesser offshoot branch) and the number of students it has today (if we look at the leaves and fruit of that aikido tree as it now is today then we expect aikikai to make the greatest portion); not in some reinterpretation of very early history. All that said, even if we're not decided on "average" style differences typical between aikikai and the best known alternative aikido branches (e.g., competitive Tomiki, mystical Ki society, militant yoshinkan, the emphasis of weapons in Iwama more than in Hombu. What might it mean to say aikikai is more traditional than others? Is there any tension between the aikikai membership selecting for emphasis on loyalty/lineage whilst the head of the foundation has interests served by inclusivity?), I also do think it is at least still possible to identify and briefly describe such a thing as "Hombu style" (and also particular doshu's styles). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging Hombu here?
Discussion is being held at Talk:Aikikai Hombu Dojo. --83.188.196.6 (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Done (noting there was only agreement voiced). Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Census
How many people are in the Aikikai? For example, how many yudansha, how many students in total, or how many person-hours of aikido training occur each year? Surely one of the most important pieces of imformation for this article would be an estimate of the size of the topic group.

Ditto for aikido overall (e.g., non-aikikai). That is, surely the next most important information would be the answer to the question, what portion of aikido is aikikai? (E.g., are latter groups competitive or minor? And which among them are the next most significant today? Can we create a pie chart?)

Is Japan still the main location of aikido/aikikai, or does more now go on outside than within? (That is, can the above requested affiliation figures be broken down by organisation, and hence location?) An answer to this question would be particularly notable because of the strong emphasis of the japanese/western distinction within aikido. (Would be interesting in conjunction with the lower ceiling of grades achieved by foreigners, 7d v. 9d, or the longer grading requirements, e.g. nidan takes 2 years at hombu but typically 8 overseas.)

The Japanese WP article seems to be saying that Aikikai makes up 80% of aikido, and (in some sense) 160 million people of which nearly two thirds are in Japan. Isn't there a better reference for this than some DVD..?

The minutes of the 1996 IAF congress note somebody there asked after these types of figures, but I've not noticed them supplied. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Doshu
I have corrected the spelling of 道主, which should be どうしゅ, not どうしゅう. The original came from the EDICT dictionary (which I edit.) It was a mistake, which has now been corrected.JimBreen (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hombu Tatami
Genegun says the number of tatami mats at Hombu is 219 (105+72+42): "I have counted the tatami in all three dojos and unless I am mistaken somewhere, I can't get to the 250 tatami figure displayed on the Aikikai website". What the Aikikai itself actually says is "The five-story dojo includes three separate training areas totalling 250 tatami.", and the Japanese version of that page has additional interesting historical detail (incl., that previously it was 80 tatami).

I think tatami is often used as a measure of room area, not just as a count of mats, and this looks consistent with the Aikikai's phrasing. I guess the main mat area can be no squarer than 6 by 6.5 mat lengths, so presumably you get nearly an extra 6 tatami worth of area just by counting whatever polished wooden floorspace is alongside the kamiza of that room, which is nearly enough to round to 250. Another problem is that so far we only have independent research versus a biased source. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to get unquestionabe data on the actual number of straw mats, I will provide photographic evidence for all three dojo (whenever I find good conditions to take proper pictures) Genegun (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I counted the tatami again tonight and I am positive on the numbers so I guess Cesiumfrog is right in his interpretation. Genegun (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The original school
The article repeatedly makes emphasis of aikikai being the original school of aikido. Is that really necessary? It seems quite petty. The Aikikai honbu dojo is the successor of O Sensei's original school of Aikido, but then in the article the Aikikai's precedence is proven by the Aikikai organisation being registered in 1940 -- something separate from the school as was pointed out in the preceding discussions. In that context it is perhaps worth noting that Ueshiba Kisshomaru took over the Tokyo dojo in 1940 after 5 years of training (IIRC). After that history becomes somewhat contradictory. It seems that after the war until 1955 or so there was no real fulltime Aikidojo. Then came the Yoshinkan and Aikikai was reestablished soon after, but most sources are related to either branch and for that reason and others are not conclusive. What I found is that Terada trained with Ueshiba Kisshomaru starting 1950, moving away to start the Yoshinkan with Shioda in 1955. So there must have been some Aikido going on in that time, which is at some tension with what others said, namely that there was no Aikido to split from when the Yoshinkan was founded. In this afterwar period, Ueshiba Morihei seems to have only spent small amounts of time at Honbu dojo, which is also reflected in the divergence between Saito's techniques (started Aikido in 1946 in Iiwama) and that of senior Honbu instructors. To me, Saito's technique seems closer to Shioda's than to Kisshomaru Ueshiba's. This is certainly complicated by O Sensei placing different emphasis in his teaching in Tokyo and Iiwama.85.181.21.201 (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aikikai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517202950/http://aikikai.or.jp/jpn/organization0.htm to http://www.aikikai.or.jp/jpn/organization0.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605095151/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=151 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=151
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226185117/http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=308 to http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=308
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170304152321/http://aikidojournal.com/2016/01/14/is-o-sensei-really-the-father-of-modern-aikido-by-stanley-pranin-2/ to http://aikidojournal.com/2016/01/14/is-o-sensei-really-the-father-of-modern-aikido-by-stanley-pranin-2/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * KisshomaruUeshiba.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * MoriteruUeshiba.jpg