Talk:Ninja

Ninjas firing arms?

Ninjas firing arms seems to be more like common assassination attempts than real ninja assassination technique, always shrouded in mystery and using spear-bladed or cutting weapons. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect an assassin in a martial culture, up against high-quality warriors, would use whatever edge he could get. It would be a brutal and very short life if one mucked up. Wrayth (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions

I added a section about historical misconceptions, it's not perfect and could use some work. But who ever keeps deleting it please stop and at least explain why you are doing so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.251.22 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the section, thanks for coming here to discuss it. Although your section is well-written, it's all original research. The section was written completely by you, with no reliable sources to verify what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't for original compositions, it's for reliably sourced information. Dayewalker (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that was why, but I thought over time it would be fixed up by other people, I tried to fix some of that, I don't know if it's good enough for now or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.251.22 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

+I think we should title the whole thing 'Misconceptions'. -Dash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.214.254 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

second ^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.178.127 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — 71.205.178.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Actually helpful suggestions would be nice. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't edit

So sometone please remove everything in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja#In_popular_culture but the main link. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? It's more useful for the reader if such a section contains an one-paragraph summary of the linked article. --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of these 4 examples REALLY well known now are only Naruto and TMNT, while Ninja Warrior is actually a game show and not "works of fiction"? Come on, there's a separate article for this. A link is enough, really. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The other examples are to provide some range other than only story cartoons, Ask a ninja being comedy, Ninja warrior is based on a fictional ideal of what a ninja is, though how this is phrased might be changed. --Nate1481 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually an obstacle course competition (I've seen the women edition). --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

to clarify "an obstacle course competition ... based on a fictional ideal of what a ninja is" --Nate1481 11:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you mean the non-fictional idea of ninja is not running any obstacle courses ever? They don't even dress up or anything. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Geez, at least correct this and add the italics! --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent blanking of entire sections

Hello, I have restored previously blanked sections of this article. While the article is in definite need of more sources and citations, removing entire sections is simply not helpful. OR and citation tags invite editors to find citations for controversial statements, removing entire sections is akin to regressing the article. Removal of references was wholly unjustified, this has been rectified. For future editors, please remember to include inline citations from verifiable sources. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My good sir! If OR and citation tags stand long enough they can be removed, otherwise they stand there forever as misinforming unsourced jibberish. And the references listed that were not inline citations were not used to create material in the article.

I'm aware of many wikipedian's resistance to rapid article change, but articles that have unsourced material should BE rapidly changed!

Articles about legendary or pseudo-legendary folk figures should also be treated with a level of scrutiny due to their culturally-sensitive nature. NJMauthor (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

By those definitions a huge portion of Wikipedia should be instantly blanked out. Resources not having inline citations, although desirable, is not grounds for removal. At the very least you could have moved it under a different heading, like "Further reading". If you have doubts surrounding the information on ninjas/ninjutsu (I do, btw), it would be more helpful if you wrote that information into the article. I've added the last sentence in the lead for that same reason. Deleting huge swaths of information without contributing anything back makes it very difficult for people to assume WP:AGF.

Now, if you're interested in helping to improve this article and the ninjutsu article, let's consider the sources needed to rewrite them. A quick look at the catalogues shows me that books on ninjas are scarce. Most are questionable manuals purported to teach so-called ninja "techniques", some are just pop-culture nonsense. The number of real sources in English could probably be counted on my fingers. Amongst some of the "popular" authors that seem to circle around:

• Ashida Kim is a hack for so many reasons that it's not worth discussing
• Stephen Hayes writes mostly instructional material, his scholarship on historical materials is amateur at best. I consider his writings just tolerable for now, but should be replaced by better sources when available.
• Hatsumi Masaaki is a notable figure and does alright by me. Some of his more contentious claims should be preceded by something like "According to the modern martial artist Hatsumi Masaaki..." in order to distinguish his personal modern interpretation with what is perceived to be "historical" ninja practices (a grey area).

That being said, none of the above are really excellent sources. A handful of historical research has been published in Japanese, but these documents are probably inaccessible to both myself and the readers. Turnbull will probably be used as the main source for now, and I will add extensive inline citations from it. This will give the article a very WP:ONESOURCE feel at first, but I plan on expanding from more sources as I come across them over, probably over the next few months. Feel free to join in. As for the ninjutsu article, there are very few books that can even define what ninjutsu is. A clear distinction needs to be made between what is thought to be historical ninjutsu, and the modern practice of ninjutsu - however related/unrelated. I hope though, that you and I can both at least agree on not removing huge chunks of text from both articles. Cheers. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is better to remove bad information than to leave misinformation for the sake of keeping space. But I'm not looking for an edit war, we'll drop that for now.

You brought up "historical ninjutsu". Not as a matter of debate, but in order for me to understand your position, can you tell me: Do you believe that any evidence exists for "historical ninjutsu"? NJMauthor (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends, I believe there is some basis for what people call ninjutsu. Whether or not that refers to a historically unified concept of martial arts is hard to determine. In my current view there is no central philosophy for ninjutsu, it's more of an umbrella term for things perceived to be related to ninjas. This view could change once I start to do more research, however. This is a short list of things written about "ninjas" at the time, but only about half those items can be considered to contain pertinent information. Unfortunately, none of those documents exist in English, save perhaps Bansenshukai. Either way, it is not Wikipedia's ideal to draw directly from primary sources anyway. I imagine a good article on ninjutsu would have a detailed section on what has been historically interpreted as ninjutsu, followed by much longer sections on so-called "modern" ninjutsu. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"I imagine a good article on ninjutsu would have a detailed section on what has been historically interpreted as ninjutsu, followed by much longer sections on so-called "modern" ninjutsu."

I agree. NJMauthor (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any source for Jiraiya being actually referred to as a ninja in legend? A source would justify the picture remaining there. NJMauthor (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How can there be any doubt? The entire story is centered around Jiraiya, described as a ninja, and his exploits. Or are you questioning what the literature is about? Here's a summary. In this case, you would need to come up with a source that somehow claims that the story wasn't about ninjas. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 05:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Beginning Article Rewrite (Aug 20, 2009)

Note: Naruto is not a reliable source of anything, except maybe misery.
~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is awful. It is a wretched hodgepodge of pop culture fancruft, adolescent fantasy, and unsubstantiated myths. It has drawn criticism (and rightly so) from a whole slew of editors, yet show no sign of improvement over the last four years. No effort whatsoever has been made to ascertain the scholarship of any section in the article, nor to distinguish reality from legend. It is a shameful repository of Wikipedia's failings, rolled together into one tumorous avatar — so that when Wikipedia's critics crone, they cast out their fingers and point towards it in unison.

Starting today, I will begin to rewrite this article, and add to related articles. If no one has any objections, 99% of this article will be rewritten, leaving only a few references, mostly in the pop culture/influence section. Extensive inline citations from credible sources will be used, i.e. not self-promoting pamphlets about the "secret touch of death". Most of the process will likely take a week or more, and minor citations and adjustments will be continuously added as I come across them afterwards. Text may be rewritten over and over as a process of refinement, so please give me a chance to complete things. Primary resources are plentiful in Japanese, but Wikipedia prefers secondary ones, which are considerably rarer, especially in English. If anyone can provide links to credible sources, or just titles of credible books, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. And now, I shall begin. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AMorozov, I will be happy to help you in any way I can. I am one of those many editors who has come in and pointed out the many factual errors without having time to go find references and fix the article. I am still very busy, especially with a large project I need to finish at work this week, and school starting next week. I have been kind of wanting to fix this article for some time, however I do not have the time resources required to oversee the pages mass-renovation. If you are taking the lead on it, I will happily help when I can. Perhaps a To Do List on the talk page will help to focus the other editors who drop by and allow everyone to help in either large or small ways. For many years (probably back in middle school) I got tired of all the garbage that modern media uses when portraying the Ninja culture, so I decided to pretty much spend every waking moment I had for about 2 years researching what Ninja and the Ninja Culture really is. While that was a while, and a computer (with all bookmarks) ago, and I no longer actually have the reference I had at that point, I do still have a fair amount of knowledge regarding the topic that I would be happy to employ in helping to verify accuracy. I can also help with grammatical and format editing. Let me know what you need done and I will try to help out. Otherwise, good luck, you'll need it! Fact-of-the-matter (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer and support. Once I finish the body of the writing I'll probably put up a to-do list and a set of goals. Feel free to comment any time. Good sources are a top priority right now, and if you can provide even just the names of some books, that would help a lot. Cheers, ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking new approach

I thought I could avoid this stage, but I was too optimistic. There is simply too much clutter and useless information on the page to work around, so I've begun a draft with new section delineations here. This will replace the current page when the bulk of it has taken shape. Anyone is free to look and comment on my talk page. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 06:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While discussion on the Ninja Page and any possible objections to a complete rewrite should remain on this talk page, perhaps we should direct discussion about this draft to its talk page. Since you seem to be doing the bulk of the writing (Good for you!) I will help by putting my time into attempting to located good sources (and maybe finding a good standard for judging reliable sources) as well as, once you have gotten some of the rewrite complete, I help proofread it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact-of-the-matter (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with rewriting this, if you manage to succeed there's a barnstar in it for you :). Falcon8765 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both your encouraging words. This is turning out to be much more work than I thought, so it might be a while longer. :) ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite complete

Rewrite is complete. Proofreading needed. Will spend the next few days fixing and creating related articles. Notes and rant in a second! ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor's note: August 28, 2009 (AMorozov) - Future Editors Please Read!

Hello, I am AMorozov, I rewrote this article and submitted it on August 28, 2009. First and foremost I would like to say that I am no martial artist, my interests lie in history, early archaeology, and philology. I took up this article because it was in a terrible condition, a state that thousands of readers view every day. The following is a list of personal thoughts and concerns I would like to address to future editors.

Approach

Researching the ninja is an art in itself, something that one might feel compelled to append -jutsu as its tail. It has become clear to me that there are two stereotypes of the ninja. First is the kind in movies and comic books, let's call that the "old stereotype". And second is the "new stereotype", where the lack of hard historical evidence have led people to dismiss the ninja as fantasy altogether. As with most controversial things, I find the truth to be somewhere in the middle. In determining the ninja's historicity, perhaps a helpful mindset would be, and to sum up in one sentence: "The ninja are spies and mercenaries with an exotic name, and a lot of attached folklore."

Resources

Serious works on the history of the ninja are few and far between. To illustrate, the number of writings on ninjas would be a drop in the ocean of writings on the samurai. To make matters worse, virtually all of those works are in Japanese. Take note here that even a good portion of things written about shinobi during the feudal era do not refer to them in any definitive way (and from their contemporary point of view, why would they?). A quick rundown of what little English sources worked with:

• Turnbull - the primary and only real source available in English. I know others have issues with Turnbull, but personally I feel there's nothing wrong with his research, save perhaps a bit of British aggrandizement (no offense). Almost every English source references his ninja books in some way. From the few Osprey's "Warrior" and related series I've read, they are fairly detailed, and hold up to a surprisingly good standard. However, the Osprey books are simply no substitute for real history books, and are really more tertiary than secondary sources. It is clear that Turnbull is well aware of the void that is ninja-related information, and even with his impressive access to very obscure resources, is only able to put together a flimsy, 60 page book. It also appears to me that he knows full well how history has seldom clearly defined the ninja, and takes good precaution in associating some of his claims directly with them. However, as he is one of the few western Japanese military history historians that hasn't died in the last twenty years, I cannot argue with what he writes.
• Ratti & Westbrook - The listed book here seems fairly well written, but again it doesn't deal directly with the ninja.
• Draeger - Draeger is a martial artist, but seems to have received some academic attention. His work is much more detailed than that of other martial arts "tracts", but some of his earlier stuff makes me wonder. The particular collaboration with Smith used here is of a comparatively higher standard.
• Adams - An unknown to me, and has only been used for facts firmly attested by other sources, or as a source for legends and hearsay.
• Mol - Work cited here is astonishingly well written and researched, something I wasn't expecting...
• Hatsumi and Hayes - Anyone who's looked into the ninja will come across a ton of books written by Masaaki Hatsumi and his pupil, Stephen K. Hayes. At first glance, they appear to be cheesy manuals on self-proclaimed ninjutsu techniques. And a lot of it is. Outside the martial art sections, I believe there is a fair amount of truth in their works, it's just difficult separating that from the myths and exaggerations. I don't really have an idea just how accurate Hatsumi is, sometimes his claims turn out to be well founded. For example, in a published interview, Hatsumi goes on about the mythical number nine for kuji, its power in gambling, Buddhism, and how the number ten would "complete" the arcane cycle, taking one's power "too far". While I had a good laugh at first, this turned out to be strangely accurate in Waterhouse's serious work above, where it was rooted in real Taoist and Buddhist numerology as well as their "magical" applications. Personally, I neither endorse nor condemn these two authors, but warn future editors to take them with a grain of salt.
• Waterhouse - A welcome surprise I stumbled upon. University publication, incredibly comprehensive, huge variety of viewpoints, easily the best source of the bunch. Pity it covers little more than the kuji. It has a few pages devoted to its use in ninjutsu, but most of it cites Hatsumi and Hayes. However, I believe this section is more than trustworthy, as Waterhouse is aware of the problems mentioned above, and takes a skeptical approach while cross-analyzing with his own impressive research. Unfortunately, his article Notes on Kuji is extremely hard to find, only available in a book compilation, which is also quite rare (and expensive!). The Google book preview is frustratingly missing two very important pages on kuji and ninjutsu! This needs to be found!

The Japanese sources I have listed in the Further Reading section should prove to be immensely more informative than what I have gleaned here from tertiary sources. Apparently, the Ninjiden, Bansenshukai and Shomonki have all been transcribed and published in modern Japanese, but like a lot of ninja-related works, they are incredibly hard to find. Even world catalogs turn up blank. I'm not sure if this is because they were published in Japanese, published a long time ago, or some other reason. But with the three major works in hand, along with a handful of others, this article could be completely transformed.

I do not think all of above are reliable. Especially Hatsumi and Hayes because they are Togakure. And Ninjiden is wrong, it's 忍秘伝　Ninpiden or Shinobihiden. Shomonki is wrong, it's 正忍記 Shoninki unless you meant 将門記.--Harada 3nosuke (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that's why Hatsumi and Hayes are not used at all in the article. And it does say Ninpiden and Shoninki in the article, I'm not sure where you're getting wrong spellings... ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ninja, ninjas, and shinobi

The plural of "ninja" can be both "ninja" or "ninjas". I have not applied any specific convention here, and simply used what sounds more natural. If someone wants to take up a convention, feel free to do so.

Shinobi is usually used in historical works, whereas ninja, as an on'yomi reading, was not common until fairly recent times. Therefore, when referring to the ninja as described in a historical document, I have used shinobi. Otherwise, I used ninja.

Pictures needed

I would like to request here some pictures, if anyone can find them please upload them to commons, or contact me. There are some valuable pictures from Turnbull's work, preview here:

• 1. Page 4 - A woodblock print depicting Manabe Rokurō's attempt to assassinate Nobunaga. Turnbull has mistakenly attributed it to Yoshitoshi. It is in fact by one Utagawa Toyonobu (歌川 豊宣 OR 歌川 豐宣, 1852-1886), an obscure artist with few published works. He is not to be confused with with an earlier artist of the same name, nor with Ishikawa Toyonobu. The work in question comes from a series named Shinsen Taikōki, and was published in 1883.
• 2. Page 13 - Drawing of a ninja crossing a moat on a rope, apparently dating to 1801. I cannot read the caption nor signature clearly, if anyone knows, please help.
• 3. One pic not in Turnbull's book. It is of actor Ichikawa Danzo portraying Nikki Danjo (there's a lot of Nikki Danjo drawings out there), and I'm quite sure it's by Kunisada. While the current one is alright, the pic in question is also quite a poignant example and could be a welcome alternative. Date unknown.

Things to improve

These areas need improvement, but it is imperative to cite sources for them. Will add more when I think of them.

• There seems to be a huge wealth of ninja tools and weapons, therefore a subarticle/list for "Ninja equipment" or something along those lines would be a good idea in the long run. Citations super important here, will prevent it from being filled with pop culture nonsense.
• Some mention of ninpō, what it is exactly, is needed.
• Espionage section needs to be fleshed out a bit, with a more general description.
• Lineage: A lot of the people named to be ninjas seem to be related to each other in some way, by family or clan. There's also a sort of clan branching thing going on, but it's all very hard to put together. I'm not sure if they are related by later association, by descendancy, or what. Might be a good topic to tackle.
• Related articles need work, especially the ones about historical persons. There's also too many "random" articles with obscure names. What I mean is, there's an individual name for every item and concept (especially in Japanese), and it would be better to write about them under a unified heading. For example, tennenbishi, tetsubishi, hishibishi, makibishi are all types of bishi (caltrops) and should be put under one title.
• Kuji-kiri: I have reason to believe other seals besides the nine kuji based ones were used, but I don't have a concrete source.
• More sources than Turnbull is required, although this might be impossible for non-Japanese readers to do.
• My prose is a bit repetitive, and stretching it over a long article just makes it that much worse. Feel free to initiate "brilliant" writing, but remember to move cites that belong with the corresponding sentences.

That's all, happy editing. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only recently ordered it, so don't yet know how good it will be, but Tuttle have a new book out: "Ninja" by Zoughari, ISBN 9780804839273 - if their blurb is to be believed, it could constitute a useful source:

"Here, for the first time, is an in-depth, factual look at the entire art of Ninjutsu, including the emergence of the Ninja warriors and philosophy in feudal Japan; detailed historical events; its context in the development of other schools of martial arts; and, the philosophies and exercises of the school today. Based on more than 10 years of study and translation of authentic Japanese texts, including many that have never before been translated, this is the most comprehensive and accurate study of the art of Ninjitsu ever written outside of Japan."

However, I stress that I haven't yet got my hands on a copy, so it could turn out to be tripe... Like the new rewrite, BTW, definitely an improvement. Yunshui (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kōga-ryū article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C5%8Dga-ry%C5%AB&action=history

"Koga Ninja" keeps reverting back a lot of unencylopedic crap. It's annoying. --217.97.233.20 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Namka & Forest Demon

Interesting - on the whole site I can find no mention of the Chinese equivalent of the Ninja, The Namka & Forest Demons.

TTFN. Chunner (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Namka, but I believe Forest Demon refers to Lin-gui, a group of mercenaries around the Zhou dynasty. I've seen it in martial arts tracts, but never in serious academia. It is only mentioned on one line in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, written a few hundred years after. However, this was nearly 2000 years before the ninja and the two are probably unrelated. ~ AMorozov ^〈talk〉 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shinobi vs. Shinobi no Mono

I noticed the word ninja 忍者 is also said to be pronounced shinobi (忍び), which is incorrect. You can get away with saying it is shinobi no mono (忍びの者 or　maybe 忍の者) if you must...and saying people shorten it to shinobi for short. But you can't just take an on reading and switch it to a kun reading, then completely eliminate the reading of the second kanji altogether. It isn't silent. Also, someone may want to tell the editors of the Japanese page on Ninja that "ninja" is mainly a Western use of the word, since the term shinobi no mono (and even shinobi) comes up only once as a list of alternate names. Or maybe just mention that it is in common usage there, too. Outside of the 1960's movie series, shinobi no mono doesn't appear to be very popular.

ow... and ninjas can kill people real fast-like —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erago12 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BF%8D%E8%80%85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.106.237 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nukenin redirects here...

...yet there's nothing about this in the article.

Same with several other lame redirects I guess. --212.91.5.20 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NINGA is how its spelld tim is wrong  [ Unsigned comment added by Jarin jacobs (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)]

"Special Ops?"

The following line bothers me: "A ninja or shinobi (忍者 or 忍び?) is an elite Special Ops warrior..."

"Special Ops" doesn't sound very encyclopedic and more like something from a video game. Why not just change "Special Ops" to "special forces?" It links to the overall article for SF anyway. B

Because Special Ops is an actual term. Special Forces are the groups that carry out the missions. Special ops are operations carried out on such missions, and not necessarily carried out by Special forces. And actually, they both have their own pages. But for some reason someone made a distinction between Special Ops and Special ops. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds goofy to me too. The fact is that ninja were less soldier than mercenary, so I'm not even sure the term is being properly applied. BTW, both Special Ops and Special ops were redirects. I fixed that. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

there are two tipes of ninjas. one of wich is defenseve more than the ofenseve. the defense does not take pride or pleasure in killing as the ofenseve does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.239.149 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.191.137.11, 8 September 2010

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit semi-protected/preload —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.137.11 (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ninja weapons

I would double check your sources for Ninja weapons. According to a Ninja historian, and specialist, the Katana was not the Ninjas weapon of choice. The weapon of choice is the Ninjatou, which is basically a straight bladed katana, with a longer sheath that made for a faster draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.180.95 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ninjato is not a real historical weapon. Writers passing them selfs off as historians like stephen hayes have spreed the myths of these weapons. Its likely there were no ninja specific weapons the shuriken that is famously associated with ninja was a samurai weapon Musashi even instructed in their use for a daimyo. 65.183.214.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Actuallly, the Ninjato is a real weapon, not fiction. It literally means "Ninja Sword/Blade". Also, the tipically portrayed katana ( translated as "sword") is reserved for the Samurai class. The Samurai katana is either passed down through the generatins or forged by the Samurai himself. The samurai katana has spiritual meaning to the samurai for his soul and those of his ancestors who wielded the katana reside(s) in the blade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.115.203 (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone please make a Shinobi no mono series article

I'll certainly expand it once it's done, I just can't make myself to start it for some reason. (Kind of mental block, hard to explain I guess.) And yes, I'm writing here, because the link right now actually redirects...right there to this article. --Asperchu (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tenugui

The article claims that the Tenugui is a cloth used in martial arts. The article Tenugui says nothing about being used in martial arts, defining it as a handtowel. Could someone verify either of the definitions? Thanks. -Zyrath (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi my name is Alfonso and I wpuld like to ask if you will expand more on the origins??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.199.45 (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.29.37.237, 6 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello I'm new to this, but I need this article to be enabled for editing until 10th January for an urgent faculty project, so please can this article be unlocked until including 10th January http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja

Thank you in advance Valentinpp

77.29.37.237 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Any edits you'd like to make to the article, you can suggest here and an experienced editor will make the changes. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: -Atmoz (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clothing: Similar to that of the Samurai?

First, let me insure that I am no historian and have no professional knowledge of japanese history or the history of Ninja. However, I am not so sure that every ninja wore clothing similar to that of a samurai, as historical Japan used a sort of caste system. It is my belief that ninja would have worn clothing available to their station as well as what was monetarily available. I am sure that some ninja may have been samurai or of some high class, but would those who were not have worn the same thing as samurai or some other high class? If they did wear the same thing as samurai, this would then mean that ninja went around wearing fancy hakama and kosode as well as kataginu? I would like to see more research done on what types of people ninja were, class/status, background, etcetera, and also what types of clothing was worn by such people. I am sure that whatever was worn by ninja was adapted for whatever requirements thay had, meaning that there probably was no specific standard to ninja clothing, so a higher class individual may have worn something similar to what samurai wore, but what about someone who was ninja and also, say, worked in a field or rice paddy when he wasnt out ninja-ing around the countryside? Or your common sword-for-hire. What did such a person wear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.10.140 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ninja = Shinobi?

I'm fairly certain that Shinobi are a TYPE of ninja. To be honest I don't know of any other types, but the term "Shinobi" seems to be more applicable to the stealthier ninja. 75.84.122.182 (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ninja=Samurai?

According to several documents, many of the ninja were of the samurai class. Both ninja and samurai followed bushido. Therefore, as just a point, they both had the same codes of honor. Shinobi223 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Shinobi223

More than that some say that the majority were from the samurai class. This article is a mess it focuses on the modern myths of ninja as assassins and spy's as well as the bs of them being counter to samurai. While there are lots of history books that follow these misconceptions the ninjas actually gathered information of disloyalty on various daimyo so the shogunate could claim their lands, as as things like confiscating western art or literature. Some writers also claim that assassinations when necessary were carried out by another group. Most lords whom the ninja found evidence of disloyalty from would not be assassinated because they need to have them commit seppukku with public witnesses.

65.183.214.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC).

Totally agree. I just read this article and it's hardly historical. Reads like a fap off using modern movies as sources, they of course deliberately misinterpreting the historical reality. I tried to edit but then discovered it's a blocked article. Hardly surprising though as nearly every teenage AD&D fan wants to add their mark to this pile of tripe. Seriously why not have another article for the "boring" real ninja of history? And then leave this article for the "fantasy" version? It might serve a better purpose than trying to model this mess into a readable (or even believable effort)!! Oh and BTW before the usual Wiki-fapper comes back with the usual "get yourself an account" mantra, the purpose of WP is to be an open source, it's not open source if you have to log in, so what's the point? I don't see why I should slave over this and be a "part of the team" just to point out the patently obvious! Sic this article sucks.

_____________ Either way the article is a mess If I could remember my sign in and thought some over zealous poster would not change it back I would do personally. But I thought I would be better to discuss it and get someone more experienced to do it. 65.183.214.150 (talk)

"Daimyos"?

Under "Roles", "daimyos" should be changed to "daimyo". Japanese words are not pluralized by adding an "s" to the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.205.138 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ninja never existed

SHouldn't there be some mention that the Ninja was invented by Japanese writers? Or at least a controversy section? There is no evidence they existed, and many of thing people are considering 'real' were created in 1970 movies?

The citation are reference of reverence, or full of assumption without any decent actual historical research. That's not surprising sine there is no historical record. It would be like sighting John Edwards in an article claiming speaking to the dead is possible. Heck, I doubt they have even read the a;;;edged Ninja persion starting with the Onin war.

Did assassination happen? yes. Was there special school or training? no. Uniforms? no. Is he definition of Ninja a guy who kills another guy at night? if so, well them there have been Ninja for all of human history. If you mean anything else? then.. no.

how about some actual references the specifically mention it? preferable in Japanese and copies of the original text that ISN'T a work of fiction.

All that considered; there should, at the very least, be a controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekoid (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like personal opinion to me, were are the references for your statements.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That there never was a "ninja uniform" is hardly controversial. That's an invention that has its origins in kabuki (or some other Japanese form of theater), where stagehands would be dressed totally in black, and meant to be considered "invisible". Thus a stagehand who suddenly does something in the play, would be a ninja, suddenly appearing "from nowhere", or an actor might suddenly become totally black, and thus having made himself "invisible".

To call into question that idea of special schools or training, isn't all that far fetched either. There is not much reliable evidence that there were such things, and there certainly never, historically, existed a martial art of ninjutsu, of course. There may have been some "ninjutsu" teachings that strictly deals with information gathering and such things, but there is no reason to believe that there was any ninja combat techniques or styles. Furthermore, the modern schools of ninjutsu have no legitimate evidence, to show that they are as old as, or have any ties to, the historical ninjas of Japan.

...but to then say that there never were any ninjas, is ridiculous. Just because the modern mythical image of ninjas doesn't exist, doesn't mean that ninjas didn't exist.

Just because the modern image of vikings, foul smelling and wearing horned helmets, is a myth, doesn't mean that vikings didn't exist. (though they didn't call themselves that. Viking was a verb, not a noun)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)