Talk:Mitsugi Saotome

Encyclopedic
This article still sounds a bit too much like written by an adoring student with too little distance to his/her subject. / Habj 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits Provided By Patty Saotome
Patty Saotome has provided some critical edits of the article. Shoshin Shrine Dojo has been struck and replaced with the correct Aiki Shrine Dojo. A few dates have been corrected along with a few other minor changes. --manji 07:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

American?
Did Saotome-shihan become a naturalized US citizen? If not, we need to remove Category:American aikidoka. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw the discussion topic in Mitsugi Saotome's discussion page, and saw that Hiroshi Ikeda has been removed from this list, over the lack of citable sources that indicate that they are naturalized US citizens.

I am wondering why we are restricting "American Aikidoka" to US citizens. It seems to me that teaching in the US on a permanent basis is neccessary and sufficient to be an "American Aikidoka." Does use of the term "American" or some other place name cause some Wikipedia guideline to come into play that forces this? If so, I would like to see that listed in the discussion page for any teacher who is removed from the list for the purpose of clarification. If the definition is up to us then I really think the country they teach in, or in the case of most of these guys, built organizations in, is more important than whether they are greencard holders or full citizens. FYI Both Ikeda Sensei and Saotome Sensei are naturalized US citizens but this is not frequently documented since nobody really cares. Transentient (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've switched the article back to Category: American aikidoka. Categorizing a teacher who has lived in the US for over twenty years as a Japanese Aikidoka defies common sense. The reason he has a wikipedia page is because he is an Aikido instructor - he is an Aikido instructor in America - classifying him as a Japanese Aikidoka seems misleading to me. 64.214.53.2 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?
I get a fatal error when I attempt to use the duplication link:
 * Downloaded document from http://rogov.zwz.ru/Scilib/Military/Aikido.djvu - Reported at OTRS 2012062210005376 by the copyright holder (60613426 characters Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 242453705 bytes) in /home/dcoetzee/public_html/duplicationdetector/compare.php on line 297

If you just download the Aikido.djvu file (which I presume is posted there by the copyright holder), it does not appear that the content contains significant infringement. The following passage from the wikipedia article is also in the "About the Author" section of the book (last page of the djvu file):
 * When asked about his decision to move to the US, Saotome said "I meditated on Ōsensei's spirit for three days and three nights and I felt it was his wish that I should go. This country is a great experiment, a melting pot of people from many different cultural backgrounds living together, the world condensed into one nation. The goal of aikido and Ōsensei's dream is that all the peoples of the world live together as one family, in harmony with each other and with their environment. The United States has the opportunity to set a great example."

However, this quote is reproduced in many other places, such as:
 * http://usfaikido.com/about-aikido/about-mitsugi-saotome-shihan/
 * http://aikido-shobukan.org/?ref=2
 * http://www.aikidorgvtexas.com/asuhandbookbw.pdf

I do not know the origin of the quote, but it appears the the publication is reprinting a quote from an older account. I was under the impression that quotes were not eligible for copyright in the first place. And if this is the only bit of text 'copied' from the book, I would expect it to fall under fair use anyhow.

Given the error in the duplication web app, I would expect the copyright holder to point out more specific xamples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.146.225.4 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolution to Copyvio
From Wikimedia Foundation legal:

Regarding the copyvio on this article, there are two considerations, both arguing against removal.


 * 1) The WMF was not properly served; and
 * 2) DMCA takedown notices are only effective against incidents of copyright infringement on our site.  Because we aren't hosting infringing material, there is no copyright infringement for us to remove.

I have reinstated the article. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)