Talk:Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I made a point of checking with the original deleting administrator (User:Cirt), as well as with WikiProject Books and WikiProject Martial Arts, before creating this page (see here, here and here). It bears minimal resemblence to the previous page (which, as a non-admin, I've not been able to view) and has instead been created entirely from sources. The topic may be the same, but the article is not, and WP:G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Yunshui 雲‍水 23:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Yunshui, I've not been able to view the previous version. If it's substantially different from the original please remove my CSD. Jakejr (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I, also, contest the deletion. This reference [1] provides significant coverage of the book and says "The venerable Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere (ADS) by Westbrook and Ratti, is almost The Standard Akido Textbook." (p170 or seach "ADS"). maclean (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion Again

This page should not be speedily deleted because - again the speedy deletion tag a few days after the issue was discussed and resolved. Substantially improved article from deleted version where the question of references was paramount. This new version is well referenced and makes good case for notability. --Peter Rehse (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Standard Text

That should be changed - since pretty much all instructors I know are more critical about the book both as a teaching tool and, especially when you look at their number system, as any sort of standardization. I am not sure Carrol Shifflett (who by the way quotes me in the same book) is correct in this respect. I reworded it to avoid the term Standard.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm not sure about that change - Shifflett actually says "[ADS] is almost the Standard Aikido Textbook", but says nothing about its appearance in aikido libraries, so the statement is no longer supported by the source. If you object to the statement, I suggest removing the citation there entirely. I agree that it's heavily criticised by many teachers, but aside from Phillip Rasch's review in Black Belt and Stefan Stenudd's website review (both in the article already), I haven't found any expert sources which have published such criticism; there are far more which praise it. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel like quibbling so please forgive in advance. She says "It is a standard found in most aikido libraries" which is not the same thing as "it has become the nearest thing aikido has to a standard text". I think it is a good reference to have in there so let me try again.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Aikido instructors are very polite and usually steer their students to their own organizations books. I have a copy and in the days I had a coffee table I had it accessible - mainly to show Grandma and other more benign visitors what I did for fun. It is a pretty book.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see - I'm looking at page 170 of Shifflett (hence my above quote) - you're looking at page ix, which is hardly surprising given that that's where the link points to... Page ix does indeed say exactly that about aikido libraries; I no longer have any objection to your changes. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not Delete

This book by Ueshiba the pretty much end-all-be-all textbook not just for aikido, but for all of the related styles, including jujitzu, daito-ryu, even judo. I don't know of any instructor of any of those disciplines who does not have a copy, and I mean the old grey cloth hardcover. I am very surprised that anyone would ever consider deleteing this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)