Talk:Iwama dojo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project. Please help ensure that it follows those guidelines as much as is reasonable; if you do not agree with those guidelines, please help us improve them!	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Shinto, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to Shinto. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Focus of article

The focus of this article is very much on the Iwama style/Aikikai controversy. There must be many other things to say about the dojo; if the original buildings are maintained, and the history of life in the dojo both before and after osensei's death. // Habj 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I suggest we merge Aiki Jinja into this article. Sure the dojo and the shrine are separate entities, but still all the aikido buildings in Iwama and what has been happening around them is one and the same concept to most people. Having them as separate articles means info has to been repeated in both articles, if the stories are to be understandable to others than insiders. I am not sure if "Iwama dojo" is the best title for that article though, but I can not think of any better. // Habj 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try - I did a bit a ways back trying to make all more neutral and sounding less like a glee club but was afraid to do too much at once, especailly since the split with Aikikai was so recent. There was no controversy over the changes I did so I suspect that now is a good time to attempt it. I feel that either the Iwama Ryu and Iwama Style articles were started by somone who did not search for what was already there. Good luck and I'm looking forward to your change.Peter Rehse 06:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-merge?

I just started writing an article on Aiki Jinja because for some reason it seemed the Wikipedia search engine couldn't find it. A subsequent search turned this up. I can't understand why the dojo and shrine articles have been merged into one. They are two things, although very closely related, and should have their own separate articles. I disagree that it would be hard for other than insiders to understand the relationship between them, and that it would require repetition. With well-written entries, it would work well this way. I would support splitting them back up again, but don't want to just barge in and do it unless others agree (I see by this history that the "unopposed merge" happened very recently!) If what I see here indicates that I'm not the only one who thinks this article is not "encyclopedic" enough (glee club? :-), then let's make it more so. Also I would make more salient mention of "hono embu" and less of lunch :-)

Finally, just scanning over the dojo article...final line: Tai Sai on May 29th??? This should be April, right? They don't have another one a month later, do they? Geezis, does anybody pay attention to what they're writing!? Djiann 01:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "de-merging" proposal. --GenkiNeko 04:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as there was fairly little information on the shrine, it made sense to merge them rather than the article of the shrine being a short stub mainly consisting of information that also could be found in the other article. Whoever has material for articles with some substance on both subjects, please go ahead. // habj 18:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)