Talk:Modern schools of ninjutsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Modern Schools of Ninjutsu)
Jump to: navigation, search

Image copyright problem with Image:Ninjutsu.jpg[edit]

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 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Western Ninjutsu[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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?, 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 or 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[edit]

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)


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.



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

This is the original page for Genbukan:

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?


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

Of the links you posted above,
  • [1] - 100% references are directly from the Genbukan. No independent sources to establish notability.
  • [2] - 100% references are directly from the Genbukan. No independent sources to establish notability.
  • [3] - 100% references are directly from the Genbukan. No independent sources to establish notability.
You need to read WP:N if you're honestly confused why the Genbukan articles you posted were not considered notable. If you can find some independent sources that support it (grabbing a few BB articles that were mentioned in the AFD discussion and maybe some additional newspapers/books that aren't written by Genbukan members to support it), and want to flesh it out a bit I don't think that anyone would have issue with the creation of another Genbukan page.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not post Genbukan articles. I might have visited some of these articles at times and might have added some info but I am not the primary author of these articles. In the affore metioned discussion:

This sources are mentioned:

Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux, Gabrielle Habersetzer,Roland Habersetzer. p703. Takagi Soshin Ryu.

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation, Volumen 2 Thomas A. Green,Joseph R. Svinth. Ninpo in the Modern Era. pp 170-172.

And from what I can gather this happened: aditional sources were asked for, Black Belt Magazine articles specifically, they were provided and thus some tags removed. Articles were retagged demanding for the third party information but the person who added the info thought issues had been addressed. The pagged was semiblocked and the IP user understood somebody wanted extra info and provided the above mentioned encyclopedias, which, for some reason, were completly ignored in the AfD discussion and article was removed.

That is what I, myself see. Maybe, some day, I might take the time and study the Martial Arts of the World Encyclopedia, I am even thinking of buying it along some Draeger books, and maybe I'll write a Genbukan article for the Wiki, although, if it will be erased because Tenanemura _is_ making on _his_ webpage some unsubstantianted claims, What is the point in doing all that work?

What is the point to contribute to the wiki if somebody that dislikes the subject comes along and destroys the work?


--Crio de la Paz (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From the Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation "In 1984 Tanemura (Tsunehisa) Shoto (1947-) who was a student and trained with Kimura, Sato and Hatsumi, established the Genbukan organization and began to propagate Takamatsu's traditions..."

From Encyclopédie technique, historique, biographique et culturelle des arts martiaux "Takagi Yoshin-Ryu (Jap): ... Hatsumi Maasaki et Tanemura Shoto l'ont repris dans leur enseignement".

Appart from the Black Belt Article by Andy Addams "The Battle for Ninja Supremacy" of DIC85 which I do not see how is not an independent source. Andy Adams was a (is?) foreing correspondent working out of the foreign press club in Tokyo. He (Adams) also conducted an interview with Hatsumi regarding in some respects Tanemura on 86, where Hatsumi depicted Tanemura in a bad light.

There is also Yim Young's article on Steve Hayes that mentions Tanemura as one of the people that trained Hayes and John Stewart article on Hayes that does the same, besides articles written by Hayes himself, but articles by independent correspondents and articles about Hayes, Tanemura and Hatsumi on the discussion page on Genbukan and on the AfD were equated: as if saying that an article written about Jigoro Kano is as much a primary source as an article written by Kano.

One of the issues was notability, as I recall, but the ammount of dojo's around the globe or the attention or the ammount of students or the articles were all deemed not evidence of notability: that is baffling...

This is what makes one wonder: why write Wiki articles so people can just destroy them just because they do not like the subject?

--Crio de la Paz (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the post above by Stvfetterly:

I do not know where did or do people get the idea that is linked with Genbukan, or that is linked with Genbukan. And as I recall was not related to Genbukan (it is broken now) and I am not being able to access which I believe is not related to genbukan either. If 6 out of 10 references are not related to Gebukan that makes 40% related to Genbukan not 100%.

At the time: rereading the AfD and discussions and else what happened was that _all_ sources were related to Genbukan. This was modified and these sources added by an IP address and the tags removed. Tags were added againg without explanation and without verification, tags removed -> semiprotection -> explanations on talk page regarding that _40%_ of references were Genbukan -> demands for Black Belt Magazines Articles -> Privided -> other sources -> provided including other magazines, dojo's around the globe, and encyclopedias -> AfD -> Discussion where articles in BB Mag, other magz, different sources, multiple dojo's etc. were provided -> article was deleted without a pausible explanation.

I believe the issue was that some people are confusing a modern evolution of "ninpo taijutsu" "bikenjutsu" "bojutsu" and some other arts trying to emulate some traditional ways with "being a ninja" without reading about the arts or knowing about them. So, in the AfD it is stated that "The Japanese Consulate said "Only legends of ninja remain". Ninja were a historical fact - I do not critique these articles. I see a group of modern martial artists who created a business out of a myth. Modern ninjutsu does not have reliable sources" these personal believes, that these schools are "a business created out of a myth" without any substantiantion are what warranted the deletion of the article, not WP:N, encyclopedias, magazines and other independent sources had been provided to back up the existence and notablity of Genbukan. It was personal belief on "businesses created out of myth" what warranted the deletion of articles regarding Genbukan and Tanemura and has kept warranting them, time and time again. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sources you've brought up Crio:
  • [4] - This one directly copies it's information from this wiki page. Wiki pages can be edited by anyone, that means that it's not a valid source of information.
  • [5] - This is a blog written by people who only give their first names (Curtis, Joyce, and Logen). Not really a good source of information, as anyone could write a blog.
  • [6] - Dead link as you mentioned
  • [7] - Dead link as you mentioned
If you're keeping score, that makes all reliable references that exist invalid, and all other links in the article directly related to Genbukan. I'm not (and I don't think that the average editor is) trying to say that ninjas don't exist. There's plenty of documented historical evidence of them. If you can find enough references that exist, are valid, and are not directly related to the Genbukan then make an article!--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Still no explanation of the reasoning behind the AfD discussion or the blocking of the page. The only reason for the deletion and blocking I still see is the one I provided "businesses created out of myth" no other reason was provided in the AfD. There was an interest in blocking an IP from editing a page while the IP user (or users) were learning about wiki and prividing more info and finding out about the Wiki and providing more and more info, at first stuff that migh have been questionable, then encyclopedias and all: I will not do the job of a group of people just because Stvfetterly commands me to. People willing to edit were compelled not to because they were blocked from doing so because of personal believe: "businesses created out of myth" of some wiki editors. As I stated about I myself might do the job, if I find the time (I have a family, a job, and multiple occupations) and am not willing to loose my time because some people are jealous of Tanemura Shoto's achievements or his business. I might even buy some of Draeger's books and one of Encyclopedias mentioned above and might share a little in the wiki, if I find the willingnes and the time. But editors should avoid the intention of blocking new IP users without trying to guide them in a more willingful manner towards better documentation without letting their POV on subjects getting on the way. I might one day do an stubb on Genbukan or on Tanemura or on another subject but I might be wary of doing them since there are people clearly (to me) trying to block the devolpment of the wiki. That is what I can gather, at is, at least, what I can gather. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have some complaint about this AFD discussion (I wasn't a part of it and don't know all the details). If you think that the Genbukan article has been treated wrongly, then you should raise a WP:DELREV and get it reinstated. If you have a problem with a specific person operating against wiki policy then check out WP:DR and try to resolve the issue. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And it does not make "all realiable references that exist invalid" if you check above it makes all references that IP addreses were able to add invalid. When they could not add any more and Black Belt Magazines articles, other magazine articles and Encyclpedias were asked for to validate they were provided. Does Stvfetterly claim that Black Belt Magazine, the other magazines quoted, the different reporters that covered the articles, and the encylopedias, _all_of_them_ were either related to Genbukan or were all so questionable that none warranted enough notability to warrant a wiki article and thus -> deletion? I mean I just went to the Brazilian Jujitsu page and all reference are to brazilian jujitsu related pages, not a single independent source is provided, no secondary sources, no sources independent of the subject, etc. Don Draeger sources and the sources provided to justify, by the IP people are not only similar, much more material was provided to justify Genbukan. It could be argued that most books justifiying what Aikido is are aikido books, thus not independent from aikido. Now: here all dojo's somehow teaching Genbukan, along other arts, or that have studied Genbukan or Bujinkan or anything related to Ninpo are being treated as being "primary" I believe this is plain wrong. A martial artist that has a dojo and has trained Judo up to his 3rd or 4th Dan and Jujitsu up to his 3rd and 4th Dan and relates his experiences training with Shoto Tanemura is somehow Shoto Tanemura himself? Hayes is somehow Genbukan because he trained under Tanemura in Bujinkan? So anybody that read about String Theory is invalidated about writting about it? So any secondary source automaticaly transforms itself into a primary source but only in modern Ninpo related stuff? Because it has been argued that, since Hayes trained in Bujinkan he can't be a secondary source for Genbukan. But Hayes is not related to Genbukan nor Hatsumi, as per example... I'm sorry but I do see a bias in this AfD against modern Ninpo/Ninjustu in relation to other content and specially other marital arts content and I do think it has to do with people thinking that other people are claiming that they are "true ninja's" which this is not true: anymore that a modern judoka does not think he is a "true samurai". And I do train in Genbukan and know what I am talking about and nobody over there thinks himself as a "ninja" (at least nobody in his right mind). Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your complaints seem to be the following:
  • 1. There were additional Genbukan references that were not included in the Genbukan article.
If this is the case and it's bothering you, you should create a new Genbukan article with good references! That's the beauty of wikipedia . . . good references tend to trump personal opinion.
  • 2. You believe that all martial arts pages only use primary sources. You listed Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Aikido as examples.
Let's take the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu page and look at a few sources so you can see the difference between it and the Genbukan deleted pages that you've listed above:
  • Virgílio, Stanlei (2002) (in Portuguese). Conde Koma - O invencível yondan da história. Editora Átomo. p. 93 - This is a historical book about a prominent Judo practitioner (Mitsuyo Maeda) who taught Judo to the Gracie family.
  • Edward, Chad. "Untangling a sport that transcends style", October 30, 2007,, The Cincinnati Enquirer. - This is an independent article about Jiu-Jitsu (in relation to MMA competition) written by a journalist.
  • Higashi, Katsukuma (1905). The Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu (Judo). New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons. p. 544. - A book written about Judo from before Brazilian Jiu Jitsu even originated.
  • [8] - A boxing website with information about the suspension of Royce Gracie (a prominent BJJer) for use of steroids.
  • [9] - Masahiko Kimura (a prominent Judo guy) wrote this article).
See how there are many sources here that are not primarily affiliated with Brazilian Jiu Jitsu? These are the kind of independent resources that you need in an article to prevent it from being deleted.
  • 3. You believe that there is a bias against modern ninjutsu.
If you see something that doesn't seem right, then change it, or let someone know so that they can modify it. As stated earlier, you can always take it to a dispute review if you disagree. Hope this helps. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugei Ryuha Daijiten[edit]

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...

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..


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

Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation[edit]

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. SilverserenC 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)

Get rid of all the Random Capitalization[edit]

Including in the very title (should be Modern schools of ninjutsu). -- (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph discussion[edit]

Silver Seren asks why his lead paragraph was shortened in my copy edit. There are two main reasons.

  • The first reason is that in many respects, the syntax I used is more concise (so more is said to summarise the content of the article in fewer words). One example of this is, where Silver Seren wrote, "also began to be developed" I might have written, "were developed". Weasel phrases such as "Claims to teach" or similar were removed.
  • The second reason relates to the instructions in the MOS,
"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

Silver Seren's edit is not brief. It covers a lot of specific information such as the names of individuals, which while interesting for someone familiar with the topic, is only confusing for a non-expert. Also, the MOS says,

"The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."

Silver does not define the topic; his lead assumes the reader knows what a 'modern school of ninjutsu' is. And, as above, it is overly specific. The main point of this article is that the authenticity or worth of these modern schools is regarded with varying degrees of support. The specifics of the history, apart from a general reference to date belong in a new section called "Introduction" or "Background" in between the lead and the section titled "1970s". Perhaps this is something that could be considered as an improvement. I mentioned to Silver that I would not undo anything but I am interested in the opinions of other editors. Let me know what you think. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the entire article and the sections therein. Considering the size of the article, that means about 3 paragraphs, two paragraphs to summarize the 30 years of schools that are discussed in the article and one paragraph to discuss the controversy section. Your version wasn't summarizing anything. SilverserenC 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren and I have clearly different notions of the lead paragraph/lede. It is also clear we are both editing WP in good faith. I would like to ask the folk at Tea House for their opinion. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren suggests a combination of part of the shorter lead with a longer part.

I think this improves the lead paragraph because it orientates non expert readers to the article as well as providing a precis of its contents for others and I thank Silver for his kind consideration. I still have some concern about the way the controversy concerning the historic authority of the schools is presented in the lead paragraph. For example, as a non-expert, I read para 2 line 3, "claim to be descended from historical ninjutsu styles" and I am left wondering if the modern schools make statements that are untrue. (When someone says 'they claim' it suggests what is said is false in some way). Because of this I assume, whether it is true or not, that the article has been written by someone with an "axe to grind". Also, without a reference for the last line, "A number of people in the general martial arts community deny the existence of any true ninjutsu being taught today because of these concerns", I wonder, how many people, who are they, are there 2 people or 2 million? It sounds like an opinion rather than fact but not addressed as such, so as a reader, I am likely to disregard it. Anyway, it's just one thought, so I'll leave others to reach a consensus on this. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I can see the issue. I'm afraid i've mistakenly given the impression that I am biased against the topic. Definitely not true. In fact, I only wrote the lede as I did because I was doing my best to appease the Wikiproject Martial Arts group of editors who, as far as I can tell, all think ninjutsu is fake and have been singlehandedly writing ninjutsu related articles that way. I have no real opinion on whether it is real or not and i'm just trying to follow the sources. You should have seen the arguments I got into over my improvement of Togakure-ryū (check the talk page). No, no, i'm in full agreement with you. This article is biased as all hell. I was planning on improving it, but I never got to it. Instead, I did the next best thing and made a better lede to at least make some sort of appearance to readers of neutrality, even if the article wholly fails at it. While I am fairly adamant about the necessary length of the lede, feel free to propose any sort of wording changes you want for it. I will likely be in full agreement with you. SilverserenC 09:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren, many thanks for your reply. It is very nice that we are both on "the same page". I understand now. I'm sure there is a way to present the varying points of view that will be helpful to the reader. I will read around the topic sources, as you have, and give it some thought. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

BARNSTARS for all contributors[edit]

I want to say that all who are contributing to this section are showing professionalism, maturity, and intellectual integrity by trying to write a fair, well sourced article for Wikipedia.

Let's face it, this topic is a real-life mess. There are supporters and detractors with well articulated positions. HOWEVER, between them is a vast sea of lunatics!

By working to write a solid Wiki article on this subject we are doing a service to the community and to one another. Thank you all and let's keep working on this so we make the Martial Arts WikiProject shine as one of the best subgroups. Greenshinobi (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dojo directory[edit]

I'd say about half of these so called "modern ninjutsu" schools are not worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. Some are completely without citations, some cite only single primary source, some are blatant self-promotion, and most are not more notable than your average garage band. Who wants to clean up this mess? jni (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Interesting that, whenever a Genbukan article is published it is destroyed "ipso facto", but it's direct competition, Bujinkan, always get's away with a large article without getting deleted or into a deletion war. Same thing goes for Hatsumi vs. Tanemura. I really don't get it. It is as if Shotokan Karate had it's place with Gichin Funakoshi but God forbid Kyokushin and Mas Oyama had a page. Or Judo had a page but brazilian Jujitsu had not. It just does not make sense to me to allow a system and a reject a competing system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Style of information about "Ghostblade School", and misused templates.[edit]

I just read this article and couldn't help but noticed that the style of the paragraph about this "Ghostblade School of Shadow Warriors" dojo has a way more advertising tone than the rest of the article. On top of that, there is a website linked in the articles introduction/overview ( that only leads to a server side error page, two misused templates in the school's paragraph, and one misused AND misplaced template below the articles references. Seems like someone blatantly advertised their project here instead of writing neutral...

I'm really new to Wikipedia so unless instructed what is the right course of action to take here, I'll just leave it at calling attention to the problem. Thanks to all of the contributers hopefully well-meant efforts. (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted - poorly worded and quiet obviously an advertisment.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Modern schools of ninjutsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)