Talk:Shodokan Aikido

Translation from German wiki

Hello all,

I have written an extensive article about Shodokan Aikido in German. Does anyone mind if I would replace / complete the present article against an English translation of my German article?

Hendric Stattmann --80.218.34.196 00:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, how good is your English translation ability? - Nat Krause 03:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may have a look at the English part of www.shodokan.ch... I wrote / translated most of it myself.

With regards, Hendric --Hendric Stattmann 09:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tomiki or Shodokan?

I recall hearing that Kenji Tomiki-sensei himself preferred the name 'Shodokan' aikido, probably considering calling a style after himself to be rather arrogant. Perhaps the page's main title should be changed to reflect this. I believe Shodokan is also the current official name of the ryu.

It's kind of complicated. AIUI, Shodokan is the official name of the style controlled by the JAA and affiliates. However, there is some political conflict over the name, as the Waseda University group (where Tomiki founded the style) resent that the style is named after the Shodokan hombu dojo, which was formed later. "Tomiki Aikido" is the usual compromise. But then there's the fact that other styles descended from Prof. Tomiki's style, such as Karl Geiss' Fugakukai, also refer to themselves as Tomiki aikido. So Tomiki Aikido "proper" is synonymous with Shodokan Aikido but less divisive, while "greater" Tomiki Aikido also includes offshoots. — Gwalla | Talk 21:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really not so complicated - the Waseda group have been on board for quite some time now. Still, as long as Shodokan Aikido links to the same article its no biggy. Peter Rehse 03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We need an administrator's help to move Tomiki Aikido to Shodokan Aikido mainly because the latter is a redirect page to the former. I've asked for help to do this. The three other language articles on Tomiki Aikido all are titled Shodokan Aikido - I think the English article should be the same.Peter Rehse 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Judo Influence

I deleted the reference to Judo influence because it leaves the impression that the techniques taught include Judo techniques that were not taught by Ueshiba M. In actual fact Tomiki was very clear that the practice of Judo and Aikido were separate. Where similar Aikido techniques were found in Judo or other Koryu the relationship is made known but that is not the same as importing techniques. The greatest Judo influence was the inclusion of randori (already mentioned), the way ukemi is done (safer for randori) and the absence of hakama during usual practice (again safer for randori).Peter Rehse 03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since it is well known in the aikido world that "Tomiki aikido is influenced by judo", it is probably better to explain what these influences are than just removing them. I added something back - please improve. / Habj 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and hopefully improved.Peter Rehse 13:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor

Was Tomiki sensei a university professor, or is it a try to translate a Japanese title to English? If the latter, I think it should be rephrased or removed since it is confusing. // Habj 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He was a full Professor of Physical Education (specifically to teach Judo and Aikido) at Waseda Daigaku.Peter Rehse 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just asking since the translation of various honorific titles to "Professor" etc are not uncommon. // Habj 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its a fair question - way too many people adopt academic titles for martial arts in the west. As an academic I find it annoying. As an aside it was really weird a couple of weeks ago to have a couple of French people refer to me and my assistant as Professors during the after training beer.Peter Rehse 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Caps

I have removed unnecessary and AFAIK incorrect capitalization in the text, of words that are not true names. Regarding Shodokan Aikido - should it be Shodokan aikido or not? My take is, if it is the word of an organisation it should - otherwise not. I.e. Aikikai is an org, thus capitalised, Aikikai aikido is the aikido done in Aikikai and thus no caps are used on aikido. Regarding Shodokan Aikido, I do not know what is referred to - the organisation, or the way of training. // Habj 22:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually both Aikikai Aikido and Shodokan Aikido are proper names and therefore Aikido should be capitilized. Aikido in isolation should not be for the usual reasons. Aikikai and Shodokan could be used by themselves with the aikido implied but again if Aikido is included it should be capitilized. Shodokan refers both to the organization and possibly much more than the Aikikai a way of training.Peter Rehse 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Penalties

I hope no one minds that I added "chui" and "shido" to the scoring section. Could someone write something about Hansoku-make and Itami-wake? Flynn-sensei never explained these to me.

Hey no problems - I think the whole article needs expansion. Right now the emphasis seems a bit heavy on shia - I think it would be great it there could be some description of the role of kata in Shodokan training. I've been thinking of doing that myself for quite a while but time is not being kind to me at the moment. Give my regards to Sean but you need to ask him about those terms rather than some faceless one on the internet.Peter Rehse 02:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

styles template

IMHO the "major styles" template is more trouble than value. I have removed it from the articles and started discussion on Template talk:Major styles of aikido. // habj 12:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement - February 2010

Following a request from Gwalla, I am posting the following suggestions for improvement for this article:

• The article does not cite any references at all. Given the recent wave of proposals and nominations for deletion of martial arts articles, I would not be surprised if this article comes under scrutiny soon. (I am not one of the contributors who has been proposing/nominating articles for deletion, but I have been involved in some of the discussions.) To be on the safe side, all key facts should have at least one to three reliable, secondary sources cited. I personally aim for at least one source per sentence as a guideline (even if they are not all reliable, secondary sources); more if the sentence is long or covers more than one point.
• As it currently stands, I see very little that suggests the subject's notability to me. I notice that this Aikido style is "the only style of aikido to hold regular competitions" and places "more emphasis on free-form randori sparring" but these seem to be the only things to distinguish this Aikido style from any others. (Are they significant differences? What is the norm in most Aikido schools: no competition, or irregular competition?) The article does not convey any sense of the subject's notability.
• The sections "Past Directors of Shodokan Aikido" and "Shihan" should be merged into one section (possibly "Leadership"). If the two sections can be expanded a bit, it might be worth keeping them as separate sections.
• The "Kata" subsections ("Junanahon", "Koryu Goshin no Kata", et al.) should be merged unless they are going to be expanded. There are only one or two sentences for each subsection. The introductory text for this section notes that these kata are some of the "more important" ones, but I do not see anything that tells the reader why they are considered so.
• The two main paragraphs of the "Competition" section need rewriting to make it easier for the reader; as it stands, the use of tanto and toshu forces the reader to work hard to understand the text. For example, toshu is both the name of the first form of randori and the name of one of the two participants in the second form of randori. While this may be factually correct (I do not know), the text could be rewritten to make things clearer.

Most of these are suggestions for short-term improvement; if someone were to expand the article to C class or higher quality, these might no longer apply. I hope these suggestions help. Janggeom (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanto

Is the "tanto" in text like "In tanto randori, there is a designated attacker (tanto) and a designated defender (toshu)." a tantō? A knife is mentioned: "Tanto shido - Failure to mind the knife". If so, somebody should change the os to ōs and wikilink it at least once.--ospalh (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Organization of Shodokan Aikido

According to discussions I had with Sakai-sensei at Shodokan Hombu, Shodokan Aikido legally split from the Japan Aikido Association (JAA) sometime in early 2013 and is now organized under the aegis of its own NPO (registered non-profit organization) in Japan, named Shodokan Aikido Federation (SAF). The official website for SAF is now http://shodokanaikido.com/, whereas the JAA (which is no longer affiliated with the name "Shodokan") appears to have retained use of the http://www.aikido-kyokai.com/ URL to promote "Tomiki Aikido". In late December 2013, I will visit the Shodokan Hombu offices to ascertain the particulars of the organizational structure changes, so that I may update this entry. Mottomo (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Give him my regards. I have no idea how to alter this entry to reflect the changes beyond what is already written since I don't think two separate wikipedia articles are justified or that all the political issues have a place in a wikipedia article.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The logo used in the article, is named "The Shodokan Aikido symbol", this choice of logo is somewhat confusing and misleading to the uninitiated especially as the official website that is quoted in the connected box, appears to be a link to one specific organisation that of the official website of the SAF organisation who appear not to actually use that particular logo themselves. The logo appears to be the logo that is used by the JAA organisation who are a different organisation altogether. Another thing that might confuse the uninitiated is the title of the article "Shodokan Aikido" which is as the article states, merely one of the available styles of aikido to play but as the logo appears to be a more an organisation specific logo and not the generic symbol that is used by every organisation that play the shodokan style, whether they affiliate to the name or not is confusing. Because the website link is that of the SAF official website, which makes the article appear more of a promotional advert in favour of the shodokan aikido federation, especially as superficially the article would appear to present itself as an article that is about the style of aikido and not specifically an article about the SAF. It is an article about the SAF then the page title should reflect that otherwise it should therefore, remain more of a neutral article than it currently appears. Maybe if the article reflected more about and named more of the organisations and the various splits that have taken place between the various organisations that play the shodokan style then that would make it more neutral. So then if the article is to be more neutral than it is at the present then it should either name more of the available organisations for players to join than it has already and it should not display the logo of one specific group and it should not promote the webpage of any specific organisation in front of that of another. Another thing that is confusing is that at the bottom of the page of the article, it links itself to the wikipaedia aikido organisations page, which suggests that the page is an organisation article page and not a neutral page that is about an available style of aikido. Chunlinc (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of an organisation specific logo may lead the uninitiated to believe that it is an article about or an article that at least favours the particular organisation who uses that logo, so maybe the removal of it would reduce ambiguity, but definately keep the japanese kanji used in the info box as no one organisation can lay claim to the kanji nor can they benefit from its use in front of another organisation. Also because the article links itself in the Categories section to "Aikido organizations" then the same applies to remove it, as shodokan aikido is a style and not an organisation and presumably the article is not intending to be an article that is about any specific organisation or it should change its name to shodokan aikido federation or which ever organisation it intends presenting. But as it is supposedly to be an article that is about a style of aikido, a style that is known as Shodokan Aikido, then the removal of it from catagories "aikido organisations" would demonstrate this better. Even the other catagories link it uses is questionable, I refer to "shodokan aikido" as it too is somewhat confusing and contributes very little to the improvement of the article as it is a sort of circular link that takes you back to the same article page via one extra click and definitely would not be missed if it were removed. Chunlinc (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the article but the icon (logo) is style (not organization) specific - the original still hangs at Shodokan Honbu which is now the SAF headquarters. You are confused with patches which is different from the icon for both the JAA and SAF. Secondly the organizations category was chosen a long time ago to distinguish the main styles of Aikido - Shodokan being one of them. It was considered too complex to get overly concerned between what is an organization and what is a style - a situation even more complex with other styles of Aikido.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No confusion with patches whatsoever, the JAA http://www.aikido-kyokai.com/en/ display the logo on their website, while the SAF http://en.shodokanaikido.com/ display a different logo and make a feature article on their web page over the use of the logo crest http://en.shodokanaikido.com/2015/shodokan-logo/ and I am more than aware of and understand the situation over ownership of, copyrights to and synonymous recognition to both the name and the logo icon crest so no confusion with the patch. Chunlinc (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your most welcome, as your picture, was taken at the SA Honbu at a grading, or should one say the SAF Honbu as it is today, is the picture that is displayed on the article, it is fair to say that your allegiances would still lean somewhat towards the SAF, and splits are always traumatic events and force the children too often to choose between mummy and daddy and can leave a nasty taste that lingers long after the event, therefore, your impartiality on this issue may well be tainted by the good old Japanese quality of loyalty, but if the article is about a style and not an organisation then linking it in categories to "aikido organisations" serves no purpose in aiding clarity as it is blurring the vision of the uninitiated into believing that the style named "SA shodokan aikido" and the organisation formerly known as "SA shodokan aikido" or "SAF shodokan aikido federation" as it is known today are one and the same, and as you rightly point out the complexities of the situation are already overly complicated, then by keeping the style of SA linked to a category that is for organisations and not styles, will only further cloud the issue by misdirecting the uninitiated to associate them as being the same, and that will never help the matter, nor does its inclusion improve the article in anyway, and that is why its removal would be the more prudent move.Chunlinc (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should my leanings be in any particular direction I was a member of the organization before the split and know the principles on both sides of the divide quite well. A large number of people that consider themselves JAA graded where that picture was taken and in fact all my grades are JAA. To infer bias from a picture taken long before the split is frankly insulting. My edit history in this article and in aikido in general has been geared to provide balance where it is needed and in fact the article does a decent job explaining the situation. Now I do have to ask, since your edit history has included, besides a couple of comments on AfDs, edits only on this page and my user page, what your interests are. It may be that you are a new user but the normal convention is we do not edit other people's user page.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I quite rightly pointed out that splits are always traumatic events and force the children too often to choose between mummy and daddy, although in your favour you state that you know the principles of both parties, and i will take that to mean that in knowing them that you understand and appreciate both of them, but it still sounds like when things came to a head that you deployed the old Japanese quality of loyalty more towards mummy than daddy, because i can feel your passion and over sensitivity of the issue, frank to polish this one off I shall be leaving that raw nerve alone in the future. My interests on wikipaedia are aikido, kendo, iaido, martial arts in general, and anything that I stumble across that takes my interest, but I'm currently researching and interested in looking at the varying degrees of neutrality that are used in articles from across the complete wikipaedia site, just as it mentions neutrality in the header of this talk page. I have found that across the wikipaedia site there appears to be a serious discrepancy between the genres and how the cliques that follow that particular genre interpret and allow other editors of that genre to interpret the areas of neutrality, in good faith. Not to reveal to much of my research I have found that in some of the genres the acceptance of what amounts to be no more than anecdotal evidence goes unchallenged, unlike the martial arts genre. Anyhow, if your interest lies in that aspect i will not spoil things for you and i will leave you to discover things for yourself. But all that aside it doesn't alter a jot the fact that an already overly complicated situation, is being further clouded by keeping the style of SA linked to a category that is for organisations and not styles, and its inclusion doesn't improve the article in anyway whatsoever. Chunlinc (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

appeal for current JAA member

Appeal to clear up a source question issue asked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fumiaki_Shishida that affects this article, therefore, an appeal for a current JAA member with current insight, who is able to definitively clear up the question of, is the source http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 listed in the fumiaki shisida article sound ? The question is raised in so much as the source states that shishida is " Currently a member of the Board of Directors and a technical director of the JAPAN AIKIDO ASSOCIATION." And when this statement was used recently in an update on this article, then the update was readily undone and the reason given for its undoing was that it was incorrect information. The question isn't about the undoing of an update as I have no issue with the update being undone, but in the action of undoing of the update for that reason it raises the question of, if the information is indeed incorrect, then the http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=612 source is not a sound source and its inclusion therefore, in the fumiaki shisida article and any other wiki article is questionable. But if the source is sound and the statement is correct, then there can be no objection with it remaining. Chunlinc (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

misleading redirect

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_Aikido_Association&redirect=no

I don't know who has created or allowed this redirect, but it takes whoever clicks to search for "japan aikido association" to an article that is supposed to be a neutral article about a style of aikido.

It is blatantly misleading and promotes only one of the two main organisations of that style of aikido, i refer to it promoting the JAA, this redirect gives the suggestion that the JAA is shodokan aikido

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shodokan_Aikido&redirect=no

and this is not only incorrect but it grossly puts at a disadvantage the other main organisation, i refer to the SAF shodokan aikido federation. And as the article that the redirect leads the searcher to, again is supposed to be a neutral article that is about the style known as shodokan aikido and not an article that is about any specific organisation, therefore, action needs to be taken and the available options that would be in the true spirit of both aikido and the wikipaedia site would be to either remove the redirect altogether or alternatively and purely in the interest of balance and fairness then the creation of a redirect that allows any searcher who is searching for the "shodokan aikido federation", to be redirected to the same article that this redirect takes the searcher to. Chunlinc (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)