Talk:Morihei Ueshiba

Article improvement - citations

I'm currently working - slowly and sporadically - on bring this article up to first Good, and then hopefully Featured status over the coming months. Any assistance would naturally be appreciated. One question I'd like to pose is the issue of reference formatting; given that Ueshiba's biographical information will likely be drawn from a few extensive sources (the introduction to Budo, Training with the Master, Invincible Warrior and Life in Aikido, if my copy ever arrives...), it seems to me to make more sense to rearrange the references as short citations. WP:CITEVAR requires consensus here before doing so, though, so I'd be grateful for other people's thoughts on the matter. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Go for it.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality: supernatural abilities, Morihei's friends and enemies, etc

I just noticed this article was submitted for GA, and I wish I'd raised this question sooner. This article fails to address the numerous claims that Morihei Ueshiba displayed superhuman talents throughout his life, such as feats of incredible strength, telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and so on. He claimed that he could dodge bullets by seeing a beam of light ahead of the bullet's path, and numerous stories tell of Morihei reading minds. Others include taming wild bears, and even being a supernaturally gifted farmer. The stories have a Paul Bunyan-like air to them. Many are quite contradictory, such as examples of Morihei not knowing his own strength and sending innocent bystanders flying with a shrug, or dragging a man for miles without noticing, or accidentally breaking the ribs of horses he rode with his mighty leg muscles. Quite the opposite of the sensitivity and self-control one would expect of an aikido master.

You could argue that these claims are absurd on their face and so it's unencyclopedic to repeat them, but one of the main sources for these tall tales is John Stevens, who is relied on heavily. Three of Stevens' books are cited some 18 times here. Which tells us that a Wikipedia editor decided to pick and choose when to trust Stevens and when to ignore him. Using a source that selectively violates the no original research policy.

The is neutrality problem is exacerbated by the article ignoring sources which challenge the truth of the tall tales about Moriehi, and which analyze why such stories were created. In particular, I think this article should include the opinions of Ellis Amdur from his book Dueling with O-Sensei, as well as various online sources, where he theorizes that Morihei allowed the spread of the wild tales and encouraged the belief that he was a Shinto god as a way to deal with his his anxiety of influence in relation to Takeda Sokaku and Onisaburo Deguchi. Amdur argues that Takeda Sokaku was not the evil man that Morihei later made him out to be, as a way of forging his own identity. Amdur also notes that biographers of Morihei fail to make clear the imperialist and right-wing nature of Morihei's close associates in the prewar period, which calls into question the image of him purely as a peacemaker. Specifically, Morihei's efforts to end the US oil embargo can be seen as an effort to give Imperial Japan a free hand to conquer its neighbors. Ellis Amdur isn't alone in making these points. See articles by Gaku Homma, who was an uchi-deshi in the last years of Morihei's life, [1][2].

I should probably tag this article with {{Neutrality}}, but for now I think the GA nomination should be reconsidered until the published sources are given a more balanced treatment. Note that many feel that the mythologizing of Morihei Ueshiba is disrespectful and dehumanizing to the man, and would want a sober, rational assessment of the myths as a way to properly honor his actual accomplishments. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to use Duelling with O-Sensei, but to the best of my knowledge Ellis published it himself. A case could certainly be made that he's an authority on the subject (he quite clearly is!), but - again, to the best of my knowledge - he hasn't ever been published by a recognised publishing house, at least not on the martial arts (I'm not sure about his psychology books). Might fall afoul of WP:SELF, I don't know. My copy's on indefinite loan to a friend and has been for a few years, but if you've got access to the text, Dennis, I've certainly no objection myself against putting something in to balance the Yoda-like portrait that one usually gets of Ueshiba.

Given the state of GA at the moment we probably have at least a month to make changes before the review gets picked up, so let's get some of this stuff in there. I'm hoping to get hold of a copy of A Life In Aikido fairly soon (by Kisshomaru, so probably a bit biased, but looks fairly thorough) which we can also use to pad it out. Yunshui ^雲_水 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ellis is essentially reading Stevens and other historians alongside us, and combining it with his recollection of conversations he had with Terry Dobson, Kazuo Chiba and others who knew Morihei Ueshiba,and then giving his opinion on the plausibility and interpretation of the mythic feats we read about. So it's within the realm of commentary and opinion -- Ellis is an expert on Ellis's opinions. I think it should be written in the form, "Stevens has said Ueshiba tamed bears, used kiai to make crashing streetcars land upright, read minds, etc. Ellis Amdur has said he thinks the reasons for these extraordinary myths are ..." Gaku Homma's commentaries are similar, self-published on the web, but they are an accurate representation of Homma's opinions about events he witnessed. In the case of both Amdur and Homma, I think I've seen interviews published on the Aikido Journal website which repeat the same opinions they self-published, so if I can find them it would help overcome that issue.

Leaving that aside, we have to either reject Stevens entirely, as unreliable, or else accurately portray what he said about Morihei Ueshiba in at least two of his books, that he really did, according to Stevens, do magic.

I'll see what I can do to help bring this into the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I just remembered that all of the chapters in Dueling with O-Sensei were originally published in Aikido Journal, so the WP:SPS issue is avoided there too. The journal has editorial control and so the contents are reliable sources as far as that goes. The book form is self-published, but we should be able to accept that they are essentially the same as the journal articles. If anyone really wanted to challenge the source, we could locate and cite the original journal articles for the same effect.

We should locate other sources that are also skeptical of Ueshiba's superpowers as well: our goal is to represent fairly both those who assert he did wondrous miracles and those who are skeptics. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me that we are talking about a Controversies Section - it should not disrupt the main body of text which is a pretty neutral. The traditions of Ueshiba's super-natural escapades do not permeate all of Aikido and I think one should be careful not to attribute too much weight to some of the more outlandish.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, having a controversy section is acceptable, especially given that it's easier to stuff it all in its own section. But ideally each point of dispute should be placed in context, or in chronological order, per WP:CRITS, "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". So differing opinions about the real intent of the Mongolian expedition belong in that part of the narrative. Claims that Japanese officers broke their hands on O-sensei's head in basic training belong in the part of the article that recounts his enlistment in the Army. Discussion of the claim that he was a Shinto god belongs in the postwar period. And so on.

I know it's easier said than done. This is a very challenging biography because this is an enigmatic man, and one of our most thorough sources, John Stevens, is the one blandly asserting Morihei could "use the Force" to do magic. So given the choice between nothing and a controversies section, we could have a controversies section. But even better would be to upmerge all such contend into the appropriate point in his timeline.

However, there's another aspect: the re-interpretation, and re-invention of who Morihei Ueshiba was after his death. Gaku Homma says (see Aikido for Life) that latecomers, often aikidoka who didn't know Morihei, invented their own imagined O-sensei to further their own goals and help create the international brand aikido. That would go in a section at the end of the article, like a Legacy section or Legend section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that having a "Legend" (or "legendary abilities" or "mythology") section is far preferable to having a "Controversy" (or "criticism") section. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Kisshomaru vs Stevens

I'm partway through Kisshomaru Ueshiba's biography of his father, and I have to say emphatically that I find it far more reliable and plausible than John Stevens's work. In Invincible Warrior (the title speaks volumes), Stevens claims Morihei once dragged a huge bundle of kudzu vines down a road, and accidentally snagged a man in the process, dragging him for miles but Morihei doesn't notice because of his superhuman strength, and he says he played tug of war with draft horses, and was immune to cold, and could "read the character" of any person who previously touched water he bathed in. As Devereux1978 (talk · contribs) just added, Stevens credulously reported that Morihei twice dodged bullets in a firing squad. This is a sloppy mixup in The Shambhala Guide to Aikido. In Invincible Warrior, Stevens is less muddled: in Manchuria Morihei was the victim of mock execution torture by the Chinese. At a different time, in a bandit attack, Morihei said he could dodge the bandits' bullets because he saw beams of light proceeding them. Yeas later, Morihei boasted that he could dodge bullets and so a firing squad was set up to test this. Morihei somehow teleported behind the marksmen when they fired (Invincible Warrior pp. 60-61).

In contrast, Kisshomaru's description of his father's life events is not so hyperbolic, and he repeatedly shows a dispassionate willingness to point out weaknesses, flaws and mistakes on his father's part. He points out that Morihei's careless attitude about finances placed a serious burden on his wife and children, crediting Hatsu with her resourcefulness in keeping the children fed when Morihei's mind was elsewhere. Kisshomaru's description of his father's teenage battle to defend some fishermen against rich profiteers, and his father's time in the army, are far more believable and balanced. The choices Morihei makes later in life make much more sense in Kisshomaru's humanized version; Steven's version of Morihei is illogical because he presents him as infallible. Morihei's failure to help the fishermen explains his motives and tactics in his later successful efforts to protect the temples in his district, for example. Stevens whitewashes that failure so the tale doesn't hang together.

I think the body of this article should cite Kisshomaru's A Life in Aikido as the main source, and citations of Stevens should be removed. A new section, Posthumous myths and legends should catalog the list of supernatural powers, and even godhood, attributed to Morihei. It is in this section where we can cite Stevens, since he is the main proponent of these supernatural claims. This would be an appropriate place to discuss the debunking of these claims by Gaku Homma, Ellis Amdur, and others. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I am going to delete the Devereux addition mainly because it does not fit into the text - it was just tossed in all by itself.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough about deletion of what I wrote; am pretty new to Wikipedia, and understand your reasons... Matthew Devereux — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Morihei Ueshiba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I've decided to review this article. I will hopefully start the review shortly, but before I do this is how I normally go about it: I'll usually read through the article starting immediately after the lead, and make comments as I go. These comments do not necessarily relate directly to the Good article criteria, but should in most cases. I believe that if I'm going to review an article, I may as well give any feedback I can, regardless of whether it relates to meeting the GA criteria. I read the lead last. Once I've finished reading through, I normally check the references and images (although sometimes I check these as I go). It's here I'll normally spotcheck the references (to see that they verify the relevant statement) and also checking to close-paraphrasing. If I find any problems with close paraphrasing I'll fail the article immediately – I'm not comfortable passing an article if there is a chance it contains a copyright violation. I see this as a collaborative process, so if you have any questions feel free to ask, and I'll make sure that I check back regularly. -- Shudde ^talk 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Early years May want to link samurai, Confucian, Shingon Buddhism  Done " which he found intriguing" -- not clear from context if him refers to Ueshiba, or his schoolmaster  Done Is it normal to refer to Morihei Ueshiba as Morihei or Ueshiba after he has been introduced? I'm not sure what the convention is within Japanese biographies. I'm pretty sure we use the surname (just as in other biographies), so I'll work to change instance of "Morihei" to "Ueshiba". "than the regulation 5' 2"" -- would be good to have a conversion in there, especially as the Japanese normally used the metric system right?  Done Remove the links to Tokyo and Tanabe late in that section. Done "As a young man, Ueshiba was renowned for his incredible physical strength." -- this seems to come out of nowhere. Could this be put in some context?  Done (I hope) Hokkaidō "unsettled by the Japanese" -- I assume it was settled however? Considering the importance of this, maybe clarify it  Done There are several maintenance tags in this section that need to be resolved. "In Hokkaidō, the young Ueshiba met Takeda Sokaku at the Hisada Inn in Engaru, in March 1915" -- at this point would be good to say who Sokaku is, rather than relying on the wikilink. Done "After thirty days with Takeda" -- with him?  Done "He received the majority of the important scrolls awarded by Takeda at this time including the Hiden Mokuroko, the Hiden Ogi and the Goshin'yo te" -- as someone unfamiliar with the topic I'm confused by this sentence. What is means by receiving a scroll? What is a scroll and why would one receive it?  Done hopefully this is clearer now. "for the system from Takeda in 1922" -- the system?  Done "when Takeda visited him in Ayabe" -- Ayabe has not been mentioned before this point  Done "under the Daitō-ryū name" -- again find this a little confusing, what is under the "Daitō-ryū name" -- is "Daitō-ryū" not the name of the system itself?  Done Most of the text covered above stems from an earlier version of the article, before I got my hands on it - I'll have a look for sources, but if none are available much of this may have to go. It strikes me as the sort of info that would have been verbally handed down in an aikido class, not something we could use. "as, at the time, many people actually were trying to kill him" -- why would someone want to kill him, a footnote would be fine here  DoneRemoved the paragraph; I can't find it in the source. Onisaburo Deguchi and Ōmoto-kyō " he made a detour Ayabe" -- English  Done "and a dojo - the first of several that Ueshiba was to lead - was constructed" -- would be good to have spaced endashes or non-spaced mdashes as per [WP:DASH]] here  Done "First Ōmoto-kyō Incident" -- why was the compound raided?  Done What was the purpose of their trip to Mongolia?  Done "authorities - fortunately" -- WP:DASH  Done "After his spiritual enlightenment in 1925" -- do you mean "After this spiritual enlightenment in 1925" ?  Done "He faced and defeated numerous challengers" -- this may require some explanation  Done "aikido" has not been introduced yet Good point; it wouldn't have been called "aikido" at that time. Changed to "martial art". "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony in Ueshiba's honor every April 29 at the Aiki Shrine in Iwama." -- again this comes out of nowhere Figure it needs to go somewhere - at the close of the section about Omoto kyo seems logical. Alternative suggestions welcome. Tokyo "The appeal of this course of action was greatly increased when Ueshiba was questioned by the police immediately after meeting Deguchi" -- maybe "The appeal returning increased after Ueshiba was questioned by the police following his meeting with Deguchi"  Done "would eventually become the" maybe "eventually became the"  Not done grammatically I think the current phrasing is more correct, given that we are speaking of contemporary events. Maybe say who Kano was, so "was visited by Jigoro Kano – the founder of judo"  Done Would be great if those two single-sentence paragraphs could be merged or enlarged. Iwama "17 acres " -- again consider {{convert}}  Done remove the wikilink to "Tokyo",  Done "being used as a refugee centre" -- from what?  Done Development of aikido Consider linking Budō  Done I think it would be valuable here (or earlier in the article, other than the lead), to have a brief description or explanation of what aikido actually is. This would aid the non-experts (such as me!) greatly. Done This section is quite technical, and has a lot of jargon. Consider trying to simplify it a little (especially after the Ueshiba quotes). I'll come back and read it again after you have given this a go. Because at the moment it's quite a struggle for me to understand (may not help it's a little late here!) I've made a few changes here - unfortunately, as a practitioner of several martial arts, I can't really tell what's unintelligible technical jargon and what's immediately comprehensible - it's all easy reading for me. If you could suggest a few specifics, I'll see whether I can change it some more. Okay think I'm done for today. Generally not too bad. Found that some things moved around a little bit, and I understood previous sections I had read only after I had read further along in the article. On the other hand some sections had prose that was very very nice to read, Early years in particular was quite impressive. I'll come back in a day or two and check the lead, references and images. Hopefully my comments above are helpful, but please understand this is a subject I'm not very familiar with – on the other hand, this may be more helpful if you're ever thinking of Featured status! Any questions or problems feel free to ping me. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 12:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC) @Shudde: Thank you very much for this helpful review. I've started to address some of the issues you've mentioned already - look forward to making future improvements with you. Yunshui 雲水 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) {ping|Yunshui}} -- I'm very sorry I haven't got back to this sooner. This is one reason I don't review more GA's, because I'm never sure how busy I'll be in the week or two following. I'll definitely get back to this review in the next few days. Thanks for your patience, and again I apologise. -- Shudde talk 10:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC) No rush, and no apology needed - the article isn't going anywhere! Look forward to hearing your comments when you're free to re-review. Yunshui 雲水 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Second pass Sorry to have taken so long but I'm back to finish the review. I'll add any further comments below: "and destroying the main buildings on the site" -- I think you mean "destroyed the main buildings" otherwise it reads that he was arrested for destroying the buildings, rather than that the police destroyed the buildings following the arrest.  Done "and to this end he had put about propaganda" -- "out propaganda"?  Done "In 1942, the martial art that Ueshiba developed came to be known as aikido, and is now known worldwide." -- this is unclear. Does it mean that the martial art was invented in 1942, or just given the name aikido in 1942? I would actually consider moving the sentence to the beginning of the next paragraph. Done moved considerably further down to the paragraph on naming, which should make it clearer. "The real birth of aikido came as the result of three instances of spiritual awakening that Ueshiba experienced." -- maybe "The development of aikido came as a result of three spiritual awakenings experienced by Ueshiba." -- not sure "birth" (or "conception") should be used to describe something that develops from three separate events. Maybe play around with this sentence a little. Done "At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budō is God's love" -- I would consider inserting a simple description of budo (as per WP:MOSQUOTE) in here -- it will help non-experts greatly. "At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budō [– the martial way –] is God's love"  Done You've used both "World War II" and "WWII" in the article. I would double check that the Japanese use "World War II" rather than "Second World War" (like the British), and then use the same term throughout the article.  Done "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sokaku.[1] The basic techniques of aikido seem to have their basis in teachings from various points in the Daitō-ryū curriculum.[24] In the earlier years of his teaching, from the 1920s to the mid-1930s, Ueshiba taught the Daitō-ryū aiki-jūjutsu system he had earned a license in from Takeda Sokaku." -- I would merge these paragraphs. The second paragraph seems to flow directly from the last sentence of the first. Done "His early students' documents bear the term aiki-jūjutsu" -- because of where this sentence is located it's not 100% clear who "he" is  Done "Takeda took charge " -- should this be "Sokaku"?  Not done Takeda is the surname (per MOS:JAPAN#Names_of_historical_figures "a larger total curriculum, a greater use of weapons, and a more linear approach to technique than would be found in later forms of aikido" -- this is confusing until the end of the sentence, which meant I needed to read it twice. Maybe "Compared with later forms of aikido, the earlier incarnations had a larger total curriculum, a greater use of weapons, and a more linear approach to technique"  Done I'm not sure what "a more linear approach to technique" means -- could this be clarified.  Done (I hope) "These methods are preserved in the teachings of his early students" -- does this mean that they still teach these methods?  Not done I figure since the linked articles show that they're all dead, the answer is pretty clear! " influence from Ueshiba" do you get influence from, or influenced by?  Done "more changes into the art" -- "more changes to"  Done I've still got to check the images and footnotes. I know I've added a lot of comments on the Development of aikido section but it does read much better than when I first went through it. I'll get onto the rest of it soon. Sorry for the delay in returning to the review. -- Shudde talk 08:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

• File:Onisaburo Deguchi 2.jpg -- is there a non-dead link to the source? Requires a US copyright tag, and may need to be moved from commons to en.wiki if it's not PD in the US
• File:Morihei-Ueshiba.jpg -- is there a more information on the source? Same situation above re US copyright.
• File:Takeda Sokaku.jpg -- no author information. Source is dead, would be good if a live link could be found. Tag could be wrong, we don't have any author information. No US tag.

I'm taking some advice with regards to the images; I'll try and deal with these once I've considered the options. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Footnotes I'll just pick some random footnotes and check they verify the statement(s) they're from, and that there is no close-paraphrasing. There are 36, so I'll take 9 at random. [1] -- accessdate for this (and other online sources) would be great. Especially valuable if links go dead. As per WP:INTEGRITY, consider moving some of the citations around in. "In Hokkaidō, the young Ueshiba met Takeda Sokaku, the founder of Daitō-ryū aiki-jūjutsu at the Hisada Inn in Engaru, in March 1915. Ueshiba was deeply impressed with Takeda's martial art. He requested formal instruction and began studying Takeda's style of jūjutsu in earnest, going so far as to construct a dojo at his home and inviting his new teacher to be a permanent house guest". partly  Done, I've checked all the online citations today and added today's date as an accessdate for thsoe that didn't have one; I've also converted all the references into {{cite}} formats. Please double check no close-paraphrasing. Remember it doesn't have to be identical to be a violation. See [3] -- the main statement I'm a little worried about is " He also trained in Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū jujutsu under Tozawa Tokusaburō for a short period in 1901 in Tokyo and judo under Kiyoichi Takagi in Tanabe in 1911".  Done, well-spotted. [2] -- will AGF here [5] -- will AGF here [10] -- checks out, no evidence of close-paraphrasing. [16] -- supports statements and no close-paraphrasing. But the description (title) doesn't match [4]  Done [17] -- no close paraphrasing. [25] -- no close paraphrasing, supports statement. Again needs an accessdate  Done [29] -- no problems here [32] -- more information on this source is required. If individual pages within the website are needed to verify individual students, then the specific pages should probably be used. Also, there is a {{citation needed}} tag in the Students section. Done removed this, the other two sources support the text. A couple of other comments (haven't checked these for close-paraphrasing or accuracy), but [18], [22], [33], [34], [36] could use more detailed descriptions as per the other footnotes you have here. Lead maybe briefly say (half a sentence?) what the Ōmoto-kyō movement is  Done " Ōmoto-kyō movement in Ayabe, serving as a martial arts instructor and opening his first dojo." -- is this a run-on sentence? Maybe "On leaving Hokkaido in 1919, Ueshiba joined the Ōmoto-kyō movement in Ayabe, where he served as a martial arts instructor and opened his first dojo."  Done "He accompanied the head of the Ōmoto-kyō sect, Onisaburo Deguchi, to Mongolia in 1924." -- may want to expand this a bit.  Done Is it worth mentioning somewhere in the last paragraph the number of students he helped train?  Not done I'd be very surprised if there was any reliable record of this figure anywhere. Ok think I'm done! I'll come back and check everything soon. If you have any questions, or need clarification on anything, please feel free to ping me. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 11:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nearly done!

@Yunshui: Regarding the images, I'm certainly not an expert in copyright law etc. But from what I know, commons can only host images that are PD in the US -- so that definitely needs to be looked at and clarified. Those other concerns also need to be addressed as well. I'll add a note to the WT:GAN page and see if we can get someone else to us know. I don't want to pass the article with any image problems, and don't want it to sit on hold for no reason either! Once it's sorted though. It'll be a pass.

The following are only minor things that I will AGF you'll address the best you can. So them being here does not stand in the way of a pass, but like I said, I'll AGF (because they're minor) that you can decide whether they should be addressed or not.

• Still not sure what "a more linear approach to technique" means?  Done, well, excised, actually. I assume that whoever inserted it was trying to show a distinction between the direct, thrusting and entering movements of Daito-ryu and the softer, circular movements of modern aikido, but since I can't supply a good source for that distinction, I think it's best left out.
• "These methods are preserved in the teachings of his early students" -- so thinking about this again, I think the reason I found this confusing was that are Ueshiba's early teachings not also still around (somewhere), so maybe "These methods are also preserved in the teachings of his early students" -- also could elaborate on teachings (as they are all dead) -- do you mean teaching manuals, manuscripts etc? Anyway will leave this with you.  Done reworded this bit.
• I'm not actually sure [32] is a reliable source. But I'll let you decide. You should probably change the formatting however. Not sure you've formatted it the most appropriate way. What about Teo, Derrick. "Students of O'Sensei – Morihei Ueshiba (1883 – 1969)". Derrick's Den. Archived from the original on 16 May 2006.

I'm not sure about it either. I'll see whether I can come up with something more reliable.

• Some of the ref's could use ISBNs if they exist [20], [25]? And accessdates [21]?
• Regarding adding something on students in the lead, I was not thinking a precise number, rather something similar to the statement "Over the years, Ueshiba trained a large number of students, many of whom have grown into great teachers in their own right." that is already in the article.
• Are you happy with all the information in the Students table? A lot of it is not directly referenced.

No, not really. It's a bit of a cruftmagnet; I've cleaned it out a couple of times, I think. I'm now slowly going through and sourcing each line individually.

That's it. I'm really sorry that the review has taken so long, especially considering you have addressed my comments so promptly. I hope my review wasn't overly picky or pedantic. My style is usually one of over-caution when reviewing, I try to be as careful as I can. I really enjoyed the read, he is an interesting fellow, and it was nice to learn about something I don't know anything about. I think the article reads well now, and the Development of aikido section is relatively easy for a novice like me to understand! You should be proud of the article. Hopefully it'll be a pass soon! -- Shudde ^talk 10:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise - I'd rather get a nicely crafted article at the end of the process, especially since this is one that I'm doing up, rather than creating from scratch (which is much my preferred way of getting GAs). I'll take another pass at the refs - the images are a bit of a sticking point, though. I'm pretty sure the Takeda one is going to be okay, but I have a strong feeling the other two may be contentious. The image of Ueshiba himself is, I think one that was released into the public domain by the Aikikai for use in dojos around the world, but I'm having trouble confirming that. Other people's images are a pain; I might end up just uploading some new pictures myself, with correct licences.

Incidentally I'm away all next week - anything that isn't done by the weekend isn't going to get done until at least the 18th, just so you're aware. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 10:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So with the first image listed above, it appears that the website likely no longer hosts it, although the Internet Archive is able to display a cache of the page: here, showing that the photograph is dated to 1930 and thus should be PD. For the second image, the source doesn't list the age of the image or any other indication that it's PD. For the third image, the website is accessible on the Internet archive (here), but there is no indication that the photos are old enough to be in the public domain. So it appears that unless more information is found, there's no evidence that either the second or third photographs should be PD.--ɱ (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Thanks for the feedback, but what about being PD in the US? As these images are almost certainly all post-1923? If they are PD in Japan, but not the US, should they be moved to en-wiki from commons? -- Shudde ^talk 10:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of an edit conflict, was going to specify that Japanese PD images that are older than 1996 should be PD in the US via Template:PD-1996; do use both licenses.--ɱ (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sweet. That simplifies things a little. -- Shudde ^talk 10:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Takeda Sokaku.jpg should be PD in Japan, as Takeda Sokaku died in 1943, so can't be from later than that. -- Shudde ^talk 10:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wax figures. (Nah, that photo's fine, just the second one then is problematic; but you'd still need the US 1996 tag on all of them)--ɱ (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ɱ, you have my undying gratitude. I've updated the images with {{PD-URAA}} and updated the sources for all three as well (the Takeda one I've re-sourced to a more stable site). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that for the second one. I assumed the uploader was correct in their claim that the photo was from 1930, but after a few moments thought - there's no way Ueshiba looked like that when he was in his 30s, given that he looked like this in 1942. The picture we've got must date to the early sixties. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather annoyingly from a PD point of view, it appears to have been taken in 1957. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ueshiba in 1922

I've uploaded this → as a possible alternative - low quality, and of a much younger man, but indisputably old enough to be public domain. Any thoughts? Yunshui ^雲_水 12:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That one appears to be valid. Another possibility is this clearer photograph. Also, to be clear, File:Takeda Sokaku.jpg should state what you mention about his death making the photo pre-1943. And you plan to delete File:Morihei-Ueshiba.jpg then?--ɱ (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's even better; uploaded as File:Morihei Ueshiba Ayabe 1921.jpg. I'm really not sure about the 1957 photo - I'm certain I read/heard somewhere that it was one of the photos made freely available for dojo around the world to use on their kamiza, but I've looked all over for evidence and can't find any proof. It seems odd to me to use the 1921 photo, since any aikidoka's natural mental image of Ueshiba is of his beardy-wizard phase - but then again, I rather like the idea of the infobox showing a different side to him. I'll put it in and see whether anyone objects (I suspect they will...). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem that nearly every photo of him was taken during the last years of his life. The 1921 one will have to do for now, and should be acceptable for the GA review.--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sweet. Images look all good. Will pass ASAP. -- Shudde ^talk 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Morihei Ueshiba --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Morihei Ueshiba. 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/20170301092525/http://aikidojournal.com/2011/10/19/historic-photo-the-amazing-chameleon-photo-of-o-sensei-from-1922/ to http://aikidojournal.com/2011/10/19/historic-photo-the-amazing-chameleon-photo-of-o-sensei-from-1922/
• 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/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170921192614/http://aikidojournal.com/2015/11/08/from-aikijujutsu-to-aikido-where-did-it-come-from-how-did-it-evolve-by-stanley-pranin/ to http://aikidojournal.com/2015/11/08/from-aikijujutsu-to-aikido-where-did-it-come-from-how-did-it-evolve-by-stanley-pranin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170227233344/http://aikidojournal.com/2016/05/08/historical-photo-takuma-hisa-the-bridge-between-daito-ryu-and-aiki-budo-by-stanley-pranin/ to http://aikidojournal.com/2016/05/08/historical-photo-takuma-hisa-the-bridge-between-daito-ryu-and-aiki-budo-by-stanley-pranin/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170622022242/http://aikidojournal.com/2016/02/22/when-koichi-tohei-and-morihiro-saito-met-for-the-last-time-october-29-2001-by-stanley-pranin/ to http://aikidojournal.com/2016/02/22/when-koichi-tohei-and-morihiro-saito-met-for-the-last-time-october-29-2001-by-stanley-pranin/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morihei Ueshiba. 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/20170315001549/http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2009/01/14/ueshiba-and-timing-pre-war-vs-post-war-technique-by-gary-ohama/ to http://blog.aikidojournal.com/2009/01/14/ueshiba-and-timing-pre-war-vs-post-war-technique-by-gary-ohama/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency concerning Omoto-kyo??

Hi Wikipeople. The article states "His association with the extreme right-wing is understandable when one considers that Ōmoto-kyō's view of world peace was of a benevolent dictatorship by the Emperor of Japan, with other nations being subjugated under Japanese rule." However, the page on Omoto-kyo doesn't really make any reference to this at all. The citation for the above quote is a martial arts encyclopedia. Are we sure this is a decent description of the religion? I have no idea at all - I'm here for info, not an expert. 2A01:CB15:3FA:B900:D5DE:77F1:D3DA:1829 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)