Talk:Modern schools of ninjutsu

Image copyright problem with Image:Ninjutsu.jpg

The image Image:Ninjutsu.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

What happened to the section regarding Jizaikan?

---

There is no citations for the Kuroi Ryu. It sounds fishy that a style passed down in secret for generations in Japan is suddenly exposed in the Netherlands. More like a fake background to sell some gym memberships. Lets see some citations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.46.88 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Western Ninjutsu

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has originated "Western Ninjutsu." The style is also called Montgomery Style Karate. (The U.S. government certifications in martial arts are certifications to preform or teach "karate," regardless of the martial art style). Dr. Maasaki Hatsumi of the Bujinkan is now teaching Montgomery Style Karate under the name Western Ninjutsu as the standard martial art system for the Bujinkan. Dr. Hatsumi is teaching the nine traditional components of the Bujinkan to nine Japanese masters of Western Ninjutsu so that the ninja arts can be independantly developed. The Chinese goverment has introduced Montgomery Style Karate to its citizens, and 75% of the population currently practices for two hours a day (as of June, 2010). Montgomery Style Karate has ninety-nine fighting sequences that kill in six steps, so government agents can usually kill America's enemies in five seconds with ten moves or less if some of the specific techniques are dodged or blocked by the enemy. Montgomery Style Karate achieves results in one year with a student that otherwise would take forty years of conventional karate training. The training breakthrough comes through training the concepts with documents, and students can become karate experts just by studying the documents alone. Karate experts in conventional styles have been training for fifteen to twenty years. Naturally, training with a qualified instructor on kinesthetic exercises along with reading the conceptual essays is best. People who are interested in working for the Central Intelligence Agency are encouraged to contact the CIA and ask about what kinds of martial arts backgrounds are favorable for retraining in Montgomery Style Karate. <Note to Wikipedia Editors: you can verify all of this information with the Central Intelligence Agency. Reference this note on June 14th and the code name Mr. "A". For security, I am discouraged from revealing my legal name, but my code name for the CIA should be sufficient.>

That sounds super cool. But to be on Wiki we need access to published articles and public documents. It sounds like MSK is probably still classified.Greenshinobi (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm part of a super secret ninja school that teaches people how to generate fireballs from all our bodily orifices to kill people. And I mean ALL our bodily orifices. It's a little uncomfortable sometimes. Unfortunately, we have no documentation either, so people keep thinking that we're full of crap (when in reality we're full of fireballs). Anyone can verify my story though . . . you just need to contact your local police department and ask them if they have a 'Mr. E' there. Keep repeating this code name, 'Mr. E' over and over no matter how angry the person on the other end of the phone gets, this is just how we keep our cover. They will eventually ask for your name and address, and if you give them that, then they'll send me out to your house personally. True story. :P --Stvfetterly (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Quest Centers

Quest Centers are listed in the 70's. This is complex because Hayes taught in the US in the 70s, but the legal Quest Entities didn't come online until the 1990s... We could put a line for SKH in the 70's or 80's and add (see Quest Centers) and put them in the 90s? Thoughts? Anyone have suggestions? Greenshinobi (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Donn Draeger

Donn Draeger's expertise on Ninja's and such things is not stablished as to use him as a source to invalidate these schools' claims or to determine who was "the last of the living ninja". How would he know? It is his POV but it is not something that can be proven. I guess http://www.koryu.com/index.html is more of the kind of site or reference that _can_ be used as NPOV: true research institutes that deal with the historical ninja thing and deny the probability of a conexion between modern schools and ancient ones. This is more encyclopedic, at least this is why I think Dreager's asseveration is out of place... Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Donn Draeger is a reliable, independent source. I agree that his opinion alone is not enough to establish the fact that there are no more ninja with connection to the historical ninja schools. The quote from him is valuable for two reasons:

• The article reads "Many in the martial arts community...". We need to establish at least one of the many.
• We must let MPOV exist in this article: the experts who believe in the historical link and those who do not.

I think this article particularly is improved by this quote. jmcw (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim that Donn Draeger is a reliable independent source about Ninjutsu is not established in the article and could be questioned regarding the specific claim: Where does it say that Draeger is an expert in ninjutsu and Koryu as to be able to claim who was "the last living Ninja". How can _this_affirmation_ be of substance based on a single comment by Draeger? Koryu.com, on the other hand, is a serious organization and, without trying to point who was the last ninja and who was not it does state clearly the concept that modern ninjutsu or ninpo schools are probably not really linked, historically, to the ninja of feudal Japan. I believe that this point is better represented by these organization such as http://www.koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html or http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/510/koryu.html besides I do believe there should be better quotes and references that one that claims to know exactly who was "the las living ninja" an aseveration that needs real historic validation which would be difficult to assess. What is in question here is not that the real historic value of claims made by ninpo or ninjutsu or taijutsu schools of ancient roots is dubious. What is in question is that it is not verifiable who the las living ninja is or was or could have been. Draeger is claiming that Fujita Seiko was the last living ninja and no other: this is a little specific. I do not know if I make clear what my objection is, it is not that some if not all historic roots claims are more legendary than historic for modern ninpo or ninjutsu or taijutsu schools: these are, probably, more legend that historic truth. But the claim itself is not verified, at least not to my knowledge. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has an important function

This article has an important function: documenting the modern ninja movement.. There are historical ryu that taught ninja skills and there are large modern schools that teach ninja skills. The historical ryu have been studied a long time: references exist to establish their Wikipedia articles. The modern schools (like many areas of martial arts) might not yet been studied by reliable independent sources.

Although large and world-wide, the modern schools might not have sufficient quality references for their own Wikipedia articles (as with Genbukan). I think the extensive use of non-independent source is (in the context of this article) quite useful: it an acceptable Wikipedia practice which documents the modern ninja movement.

Because all the material in this article is presented as 'claims', I find the use of primary or non-independent sources valid. The lead paragraph warns a reader about the difficulties of the claims. If any of the modern schools are (in the future) discovered to be a hoax, this article will still be valid. jmcw (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Would there be support to rename this article to 'Modern schools of ninjutsu'? jmcw (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern schools of ninjutsu makes more sense than the current name. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody commented I did the name change. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Genbukan

It is iteresting that Genbukan's article was deleted and Shoto Tanemura's article also but i.e. Bujinkan has an article and Masaaki Hatsumi has an aricle, Fran Dux has an article, Stephen K. Hayes has an article (who was also trained by Tanemura when at Bujinkan,as I read in blac belt magazine, Donn F. Draeger has a page that looks like a fan page, Akban has a page, etc.

Is there a _real_ reason why Genbukan's page and Shoto Tanemura´s page were deleted?

I really don't see it from the citation below and what I remeber of the original articles.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_September_15#Genbukan

Cheers!

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the original page for Genbukan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genbukan&oldid=448737196

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genbukan&oldid=292888031

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genbukan&oldid=355692061

I mean: really I do not see any more notability issues or need of deletion of these pages on NPOV grounds compared with many other existing martial arts pages. I do think personal preference is being imposed over real notability or verifiability of what is claimed in subsequent revisions of this article.

Truly there is an explanation?

Cheers!

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugei Ryuha Daijiten

There are some references here to Bugei Ryuha Daijiten and to Watatani Kiyoshi, but wikipedia's article on the subject indicate a lack of notability and lack of secondary sources for the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten article. So we are using unverifiable not notable information in order to question the verifiability of other information? When does this trying to deny verifiability and notabily and trying to erase schools that are not to this or that person liking? This looks like one of those MA tournaments or seminars or reunions where every school tries to deny the verifiability of another schools: it seems ludicrous to me to use the Encyclopedia to try to promote and demote personal affiliations and choices! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I come from reading the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten and it does not seem to say what people are saying it says...

http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=FaTfuuIlmqcC&pg=PA171&dq=Kiyoshi+Watatani+Takamatsu.&hl=es&ei=q3PMTuLOBYausQK0vIjnDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Now I do not understand at all! It seems that there is a lot of confusion around these things.

"In modern times <Takamtsu> was instrumental in perpetuating Ninpo traditions" "In 1984 <Tanemura> ... established his Genbukan organization and began to propagate Takamatsu's traditions..."

It seems something is amiss..

Cheers!

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation

This encyclopedia and it's entries regarding Ninpo/Ninjutsu do not seem to add up to the descriptions given on this article. Pages 162 to 171 can be read via Google Books. There are quite a bunch of references to the encyclopedia and the encyclopedia has quite an impressive list of colaborators and editors... The article on the Wikipedia reads as an ensemble of bits and pieces that have not been placed on proper persepective because of some assumptions without proper research. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite the information based on what the reference actually says. Silverseren^C 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK: will do as soon as I get the time: cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I like this quote from the encyclopedia . . . it may be applicable to this modern ninja article: "Yet there are no ninja today, only practitioners of some of the techniques and students of the tradition. Achievement of some rank in a school teaching ninjutsu cannot make one a ninja any more than learning techniques with a sword can qualify one as a samurai" - G. Cameron Hurst III, Martial arts of the world: an encyclopedia, 1st edition, p. 361--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes: that sums up the issue: like trying to figure out how a fight with a long sword might have been handled or could be handled is quite different from being a medieval knight. Practicing some modern form of Taijutsu is not "being" some sort of "ninja" doing modern kendo or jujitsu or aikido or judo is not "being" some sort of ancient "samurai" even if some of the people involved in developping the arts go back to some of the Budo or Zen or Shinto or Buddist philosophies or try to understand from some more or less ancient sources what some ancient warriors might have done when developping the _new_ arts, or even if they try sometimes to reconstruct somewhat what might have happend in a duel of sorts for a movie or for acting or in the Dojo. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)