Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morihei Ueshiba/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017.

Morihei Ueshiba

 * Nominator(s): Yunshui 雲 水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese martial artist who founded the art of aikido. I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple of years now, and reckon that it's as good as I'm going to get it without outside input. Yunshui 雲 水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1921.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Morihei-ueshiba-c1918.jpg, File:Onisaburo_Deguchi_2.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1922.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_1939.jpg, File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, File:Takeda_Sokaku.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Original publication dates for these images are basically impossible to come by - all have been reproduced in a wide range of sources over the years. The subject matter, however, clearly shows that they were originally taken prior to 1946 (thus meeting the requirements of Japan-PD), with the exception of File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, which (again, based on the subject matter) is also old enough to be PD in Japan - though in this case it's slightly less certain, and I'm happy to remove this image if it's a stumbling block. Yunshui 雲 水 08:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The PD-1996 tag requires that it was published before a certain date, as well as being PD in Japan before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I certainly can't be sure it was PD in Japan in 1996 (indeed, it very likely wasn't) so I've removed that image. Thanks for picking up on that. Yunshui 雲 水 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Were the others published early enough to meet both requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All taken prior to 1946, thus PD in Japan in 1969 (prior to 1996) and thus PD in the US; so yes, the others should all meet both requirements. Yunshui 雲 水 12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to clarify: they were all published (not just created) early enough? Can we add earlier publications to the image descriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, the actual publication dates are impossible to ascertain - these images have been so widely circulated that their origins are lost in the mists of time. However, requires that the image . Since these pictures could not have been taken after 1946 (given that they show Ueshiba during the 1920s and 30s), they comply with the PD requirements. Yunshui 雲 水  09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In Japan. For US, PD-URAA requires . If we can't demonstrate a pre-1978 publication, and we don't know the first publication, we can't meet that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake; I was reading the PD-URAA as having or criteria rather than and. Well that's this FA fucked then. There's no way I can prove original publication date for these images, as I've said, and removing them instantly negates FA?#3. I guess you'd best mark this as a quick fail. All that work down the drain... Yunshui 雲 水 08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we show any publication before 1978, even if it wasn't the original? Failing that, could alternatives be found, or could one or more images have a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to anything from Japane pre-1978 that contains these images (they largely existed in private collections), and there are no free alternatives that I can prove were published before this date. Fair use wouldn't apply, because free imagesdo exist, I just have no way of proving that they are free. Yunshui 雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If we can't prove they're free, we assume they're non-free - and so fair use could potentially be applied, if we can't prove that any image is free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's like picking a scab; despite dewatchlisting this page I still find myself checking in on it... I've uploaded a new portrait under FU guidelines, though I'm still not sure that FU applies. Anyway, it's in the article now, at least until the next review! Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also added a location map to highlight the various places he lived (should be no problems with that, since it uses the standard Japanese location map) and a photo of Ueshiba with some students which is correctly licenced via OTRS (I've also checked the OTRS ticket; it uses the standard text). One could make an argument that the presence of Ueshiba in this image (which is indisputably free) negates the FU rationale for the main image; my personal opinion is that the group image isn't of sufficient resolution to provide an accurate "visual identification of the person in question". I've scaled a cropped version up to infobox size off-wiki, and it's just a messy blur of pixels, totally unsuitable for the top of a biography. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also added: File:Aiki Jinja.JPG (public domain image taken and released by uploader)., would you mind offering your take on these images? Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All current images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88
Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and comphrehensive article. I have done the biographical part of the article—which amounts to the bulk of it—and thought I should write down my comments now, before proceeding to the remainder. I made some minor edits myself. I hope they work.

You will see from these comments that I don't have much to say. Most are minor; perhaps the least so is my niggling concern about the academic credibility of the so-called "Aikido Journal", which is invoked as a reference on several occasions.


 * It would be useful to have a brief, even half-sentence, explanation of the "Shrine Consolidation Policy". The name doesn’t tell us much, and if Ueshiba was involved in opposing it, an explanation is relevant to the article.


 * "Leaving most of his possessions to Sokaku..." – use “Takeda” for consistency given the previous paragraph mentions him frequently?


 * The Aikido Journal is labelled a journal, but it is clearly not in the academic sense, and I'm not immediately convinced of its academic credibility for Featured Article purposes.


 * The Wikipedia article for Shūmei Ōkawa does not support the statement that he was a war criminal; the article says that his trial was aborted on the ground of mental illness.


 * "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony..." This is the first mention of this ceremony, and goes over the head of the reader unfamiliar with the term "Aiki-jinja Taisai".


 * Is there any reason for Ueshida’s permanent move to Tokyo in 1927? The article gives no explanation, which is peculiar given his reluctance to go there just months earlier and his desire to return to Akabe so quickly.


 * "In his later years, he was regarded as very kind and gentle as a rule, but there are also stories of terrifying scoldings delivered to his students." – This general statement of character does not seem to be attributed to a reference. The reference cited for the subsequent sentence supports only the individual example of one form of scolding (which does not seem particularly terrifying).


 * Many occasions of the word "however" are unnecessary, especially the two occasions in which it appears in consecutive sentences (grating on the reader).


 * "Takeda Sokaku" – the use of diacritics in his surname is inconsistent.

I also note some dispute at Talk:Morihei_Ueshiba about the use of John Stevens as a reference. Some comment on that would be appreciated. I did not have the impression that the reference was being used to support anything outlandish. It seems that the outlandish claims in the article have been deleted since 2014, but I would appreciate reassurance that Stevens is not so off-base that he should be ignored entirely. Syek88 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this thorough review. I've addressed most of the points you've raised above (and will do some more work once I have some books to hand). With regards to the sources, Aikido Journal is, as you say, not an academic journal, despite the name. Originally Aiki News, it was a periodical and later website published by Stanley Pranin, who is widely regarded in aikido circles as the most prominent historian of the martial art. Most of his work is ostensibly self-published, it's true, but if you were to ask any aikidoka for the foremost source on aikido's history, Pranin would be the first name to spring to mind.
 * John Stevens is the most well-known translator of Ueshiba's work into English, and has been published by at least two mainstream publishing houses that I know of, so he is easier to pass off as a reliable source. His biographical work is generally no more more outlandish than Kisshomaru Ueshiba's (who also repeats the claims of bullet-dodging, accidental-person-carrying, tree-uprooting and so on). I've left these out since almost without exception they are reported in the sources as either hearsay or Ueshiba's own recollections (which, given how patently barking he was, may not have been entirely reliable). Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 09:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these replies. The new article on Jinja seirei is a great idea (my only minor question now being whether "Shrine Consolidation Policy" is better as a common noun). I'm tending to think that the Aikido Journal and Stevens fall into similar categories: sources from within the world of Aikido. In an ideal world we would have two or three detailed biographies written about Ueshida by credible academics from outside the Aikido world. But we don't. The next best thing to do is to be as judicious as possible in the manner in which high-quality sources from within the Aikido world are used. I'm satisfied that has been done here. The best I can probably do, given that I have not been reviewing Featured Articles for long, is to flag the issue for whoever does the source review. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My second tranche of comments now. I don't think the "Development of aikido" section is quite up to the same (very high) standard as the biography. Looking at the history of the article I can perhaps see why: it has been there for a lot longer, and improvement efforts since 2014 have focused on the biography:
 * I had previously recommended not to expand this section overly since Aikido itself is a Featured Article and covers this.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly concur with not expanding the section; I don't think expansion would be appropriate at all. If anything, I'd be open either to reducing its size or the more radical step of amalgamating the relevant parts of it with the biography. Syek88 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "It is unusual among the martial arts for its heavy emphasis on protecting the opponent and on spiritual and social development." - I can't see the book referenced, but the suggestion that either of these characteristics is "unusual" appears quite stark, and the book referenced does seem to be an Aikido source. Unless the source were fully independent, it might be best to state the two characteristics without the comparison with other martial arts.
 * The "spiritual awakening" language leaves me a little uneasy. This sentence in particular: "Ueshiba developed aikido after experiencing three instances of spiritual awakening." It might be better to say something like "Ueshida described three spiritual experiences that led him to develop aikido." In that way, the article avoids any implication that it is verifying that these experiences took place or that they amounted to "spiritual awakenings". I would say the same about the reference to "spiritual enlightenment" in the lead of the article.
 * "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sōkaku." - the passive voice plus double-adverb doesn't read very well.
 * "The early form of training under Ueshiba was noticeably different from later forms of aikido..." - There are a number of aspects of this paragraph that I'm unable to trace to the Green & Svinth source cited. The paragraph has been in the article for a very long time. It started off uncited at all.
 * "As Ueshiba grew older, more skilled, and more spiritual in his outlook, his art also changed and became softer and more circular." - what does "more circular" mean?
 * More circular means less direct - would the latter work.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It still sails over my head a bit... Syek88 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's likely to be it from me. Thanks again. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To the lead - "It is now practiced in many countries around the world." - "in many countries" could be superfluous?
 * The "Development of aikido" bit was, as you say, part of the article that I'd done very little with. I've now reordered it, changed some of the wording per your suggestions above, and added a few more sources. Thanks for giving me the impetus to sort it out a bit! Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had another couple of read-throughs of that section and I'm now marking my review down as a support. I have one point for other reviewers and the FAC delegates: the point I raised above about the extent to which the article relies upon sources, such as Stevens and the Aikido Journal, which are written by Aikido followers (if that is the correct term). I didn't feel qualified to comment further upon this issue and its relevance to the Featured Article criteria in this case. Syek88 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Dank
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
This is an unfamiliar topic for me, please excuse silly questions ;)

Infobox
 * Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?
 * "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

Lead
 * Do I have to know what a dojo is?
 * "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

Early
 * "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.
 * "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

Ayabe
 * "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.
 * "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?
 * "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

Awama
 * I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

Students
 * I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

Interesting article, thank you! I only looked at the prose, simply trust that you used your many sources well. I'd like more images, but understand that in FAC time, every new image is a new problem ;) - If you also want to look at an unfamiliar topic: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and the kind words, Gerda, but as Nikkimaria has established above, there is literally no way for this topic to ever become a Featured article (it's impossible to include suitable images that comply with the PD requirements, and you can't have an FA without images). As such, I'm no longer trying to make FA improvements; in fact the whole process has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that frankly I think I'll just dewatchlist it and go do something else. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pity - are the images really that much of a problem. I had thought they were acceptable but admit to being totally confused with the jargon.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is saddening. I'll alert a commons admin, who solved my last image license problems, - often it's just a missing license. My expert for FAC image problems is RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Going through the FA process can be full of roadblocks which on the face of it are insurmountable.  Help would be appreciated.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm back here, I figure I should address Gerda's points: I think this is relevant; since his other children had some influence on history (Matsuo by marrying Nakakura (the one-time inheritor of Ueshiba's martial art) and Kisshomaru by being the actual inheritor) it seems reasonable to indicate why the other two did not. How big a can of worms would you like to open? The problem is, adding a selection of students in the infobox could easily seem to elevate them above the others mentioned in the article body - cue edit warring as readers try to make sure their teacher/lineage head gets included at the top of the page... Even if we restricted it only to students who developed their own schools of aikido, you'd still have ten or so names in the box. To my mind, a link to the table of notable students is still the best way to do this and still keep both a stable article and a reasonably-proportioned infobox. It would probably help, I've wikilinked the term. That was rather clumsy wording, you're right; I've restructured the sentence to make it more readable. Changed this to make the subject of each sentence clear. More clumsiness on my part; rewritten for clarity. God idea, done. Not a lot; it's now gone. The debate over whether he was teaching aikido at this point is a long one (I think the name would have been Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-jujutsu around that time), so I've removed the term (and improved the sentence structure as a result). By all accounts it didn't actually have much influence on him - he was in a pretty remote, rural part of Japan and was largely self-sufficient. The only major effect of the war on him was the prohibition on martial arts by the occupying forces - which Ueshiba ignored anyway! I'll have a dig around to see if there's more to say on the subject (the Iwama section is quite short compared to the others and I'd like to flesh it out if I can), but most histories seem to agree that Ueshiba's day-to-day life wasn't particularly impacted by the war. I haven't made any change on this as yet; I'm going to have a think about what information needs to be in there and how best to organise it. Many thanks Gerda for your suggestions (especially the bits that needed rewording; very much obliged for those!). Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I like what you did, and am close to supporting. I was always told that a link from the infobox to below in the same article was a no-no, - how about a separate little article "List of students ..."? Which would also remove the appearance of the table from FA consideration. We made Franz Kafka works, when the list got too long ;) - The infobox could link to it, as Beethoven's to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, that's a bloody genius idea! I've always hated that table - changing that section into a paragraph or two on his relationships with his students and the international spread of aikido would be much better. I'm strapped for time right now, but I plan to do some more work on this tomorrow, so I'll implement this change then. Thank you so much for this solution! Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What I've actually ended up doing is modifying the existing article List of aikidoka to include this information (since almost every student was already listed there) and deleting the table. I'll have a rummage through my books and see if I can flesh that section out a bit. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And on further consideration: I've now incorporated the content of that section into "Development of aikido", since it seems more relevant there. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I like what you did! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I've missed it somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. To whoever completes the source review, I should draw your attention to Syek88's point in their review above about sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Sources have now been reordered to match their order in the text, supplied with URLs, and reformatted to use the same citation formats, so hopefully that should make this review a bit easier for whoever picks it up. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 10:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Cas Liber
Taking a look now....
 * Refs formatted consistently.
 * FN 7 used once. material faithful to source.
 * FN 8 used twice. material faithful to source.
 * FN 36 used once. material faithful to source.
 * FN 38 used twice. material faithful to source.
 * Earwig's tool has a false positive as it is a site that has used Wikipedia material. Otherwsie clear.

All looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Just a quick one on sourcing; glancing through with a view to promotion, I noticed that a few citations to books (e.g. refs 1, 2, 3 and 9) have links but no page numbers. Is there any particular reason for this? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Super quick flying-visit nominator response: I'm going to hazard a guess that these are older references from before I started work on the article, but won't have time to check them out until probably Wednesday. Pretty sure I own most if not all of the books cited, even those I didn't add myself, so I can probably dig out page refs. Thanks for the review, Cas Liber! Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually I can answer that now - the page references for those books are given in the text, using . Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 21:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.