Jump to content

Talk:Bujinkan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kennin (talk | contribs)
94 edits
Line 223: Line 223:


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. --[[Special:Contributions/186.26.113.114|186.26.113.114]] ([[User talk:186.26.113.114|talk]]) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (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. --[[Special:Contributions/186.26.113.114|186.26.113.114]] ([[User talk:186.26.113.114|talk]]) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

* I am a former member and teacher of the BJK. I still am loosely attached to the organisation and I still study and train the schools within this amalgam style, but in a more traditional way, meaning as individual styles. I do not accept the claims of Tanemura, as he unrightfully declared himself head master to be the successor of the nine schools of Hatsumi. Still I completely concur with what you are saying. It is not right if Genbukan related topics get deleted. Same goes for Jinenkan if that also happens. It just isn't right for a neutral encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. So yes: Genbukan and Jinenkan topics should be perfectly possible! [[User:Kennin|Kennin]] ([[User talk:Kennin|talk]]) 07:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:12, 30 September 2015

WikiProject iconMartial arts C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconJapan: Sport Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:38, December 4, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sport task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art add yourself!

Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art

Lead

Please see this discussion before drastically changing the lead section. --Nate1481 12:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I drastically changed the lead section, but mainly with an eye for improving clarity for readers coming in with no knowledge of the Bujinkan. The main issue in my mind was that previously, a reader didn't really find out that the Bujinkan had 9 schools until the last sentence of the paragraph (it was only sort of implied earlier). Hopefully my version is a bit more clear, but if not, I welcome discussion! Also, I added third-party references which I think should address the concerns about notability. Vinchenzo8 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a link to the wikipedia page for Sorious Samura in the first paragraph? This does not seem relevant and was perhaps meant to be a link to the page for "samurai" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.239.71 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Notability Guideline flag

I think this is unwarranted and suggest removing this warning. Wikipedia has detailed entries on video games and comic books, but a nearly four-decades-old global martial arts organization, with hundreds of dojos and thousands of members internationally, isn't "generally notable"? It is, by far, the largest Ninjutsu organization on the planet, ever--and everyone is interested in ninja. The references list on the page isn't bad, either, though it could be expanded, sure. But suggesting merging or deleting this article doesn't seem to make sense. It could potentially be merged into ninjutsu, which is what it is best known for, but the Bujinkan includes more traditions than just the ninja lineages... Kosmocentric (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Hatsumi is is the grandmaster of the nine remaining Ninja traditions (if there are others, they are not public, and we don't know about them). The Bujinkan is his school. Saying this is "not notable" is laughable and circumspect.

THAT SAID: the article could use additional citations and external sources. Given the coverage Grandmaster Hatsumi has in the western press (given honors by several U.S. Presidents including Regan, Bush, and Clinton), this should be an easy task. I support the removal of the notablity flag. 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Greenshinobi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenshinobi (talk • contribs)

I also think this is an unwarranted warning, the article needs work, perhaps, but I as a donating member find it disturbing that several "X-kan" articles are placed for deletion for suspect reasons... if people have trouble finding verification of claims, I am more than willing to assist in finding sources that comply with policy. Fraterm (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could I suggest adding one or two reliable, third-party references to the lead paragraph? This would be more than enough to establish notability and verifiability. jmcw (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a fairly well spread martial art, the article subject is clearly notable. The article could be better sourced, which is something else. Why not replace the notability-tag with something that just concerns sources? --83.178.195.155 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: without reliable sources, the notability is not established. When a subject is truly notability, there are many reliable sources to prove it. Add some reliable sources and we can take away both tags. jmcw (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, why do people who want to edit find it so hard to write an inline reference into the article. You just find a reference in a book, many are available to read online and you find a valid reference and add it to the article. I will eventually get around to doing it here if no one does it first. Sometimes it takes these tags to get people to stop making UNREFERENCED editsSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have detailed entries on God Of War, here including the sex minigames but the Bujinkan is not notable?

We have entries on captain america and other characters from the Marvel,Capcom and other fantasy universes, but a global martial art's organization isn't "notable" enough?

wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.106.44.16 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references and removed the notabilty flag, I think that since there are Bujinkan dojos all over the world, from Japan to Australia, the US, all over Europe and so on that it is unquestionably notable. MiCkE 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article could be notable but without third party, reliable sources, the notability is still questionable. One strong third-party reference, please! jmcw (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've got references to Karl Friday, the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai, and others discussing the organization's claims to be a survival of historic ninjutsu; that these scholars and organizations feel the need to speak on this is evidence in favor of notability. I've removed the tag based on that, though something that shows notability besides the controversy would be good to have. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations

Does anyone who is interested in this article understand what a "reference" or "in line citation" is? Wiki is not about your personal opinion or what you think or believe, it is about verifiable information!!!!Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you for your insight. jmcw (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Samuraiantiqueworld's comments. This topic could be a flag ship example of a good Wikipedia article in the Martial Arts portal. Let's jump on it and clean it up. The number of available citations out there is staggering (I'm talking books and news print, not web). And if you're not here to clean up Wiki pages and make them better, please go to other martial arts web discussion forums where you can have all the freedom to say or do what you want. Greenshinobi (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Greenshinobi, thanks and I agree with you completely, with so many people who contribute information to martial arts articles on wiki I can not understand why reading some real reference books and verifying or removing BUNK information is not happening, at the same time you are reading these references you learn new information or confirm information you already knew, its a win-win situation. I have seen article after article with few or no real third party references, no one who goes to wiki for facts and information on a particular subject can benefit from an unreferenced article. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Samuraiantiqueworld, I beg to differ about the availability of third party information on the subject, and it could be said of any martial art highlighted on wikipedia that there is likely to be alot of self serving information incestuously provided. Why Judo is not routinely threatened with notability deletion is likely how embedded it is in the world culture because it's a business around the world and is an olympic sport. I wonder at the reasoning for the exceptionally critical application of wikipedia standards with regard to Bujinkan/Genbukan and Ninjutsu in general and have to cast doubt on the genuine desire for improvement by people involved. It seems to be more of the somewhat organized http://bullshido.com MMA/BJJ crowd trying to exterminate information about any martial art that seems in the slightest to hint at any kind of spiritual benefit to me. I hope that you genuinely are meaning to just improve the article and overall wikipedia quality but have some doubts. Fraterm (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References for editors to read


Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the problem here is with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (I will not comment every entry in this list). The first entry in the list is a book written by Masaaki Hatsumi: this is a primary source, not a third party source. Number 9 is published by DH Publishing: from [1], 'DHP covers a wide range of themes, including cosplay, ninja, movies, manga, anime, tattoos, nightlife and J-pop." This is not clearly a reliable source. The last entry is published by O-Books and written by Jock Brocas: are these reliable sources? What is needed for this Wikipedia article are reliable, third-party sources. One article from Journal of Asian Martial Arts or Black Belt (magazine) or a book by Donald Draeger would end all of the discussion. jmcw (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you completely, I made this list as a way of having in one place all available references so that I and anyone else interested in the subject can easily go from one reference to another and compare what is written and decide if the information should be used as a reference. Please feel free to add any references you know of and make notes on the ones that are not third party references and ones you consider to be valid references. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of these references provided are poor sources . . . most of them are primary(Bujinkan) sources:
Steven K. Hayes - Former Bujinkan instructor, Glenn Morris - Bujinkan instructor, Robert Morgen - Bujinkan student (via Glenn Morris), Jock Brocas - Bujinkan instructor, Hiromitsu Kuroi - Writes books for official IBDA (Bujinkan) courses
Religion in Japan: arrows to heaven and earth - Uses Stephen K. Hayes as primary resource, Martial arts of the world: en encyclopedia - Uses Stephen Hayes and Masaaki Hatsumi as primary resource, Ninja - Jim Olhoff - This is a children's book, and I've got to question the actual research that went into it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concede from the beginning that this remark is a matter of taste. The raw URL link to a google book says nothing about the reference.

<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=87fQYLdcHrUC&pg=PA30&dq=Junan+taiso&hl=en&ei=Nh9BTeuHCoKKlwfCxYHyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Junan%20taiso&f=false</ref>
says little: it is like describing the bookcase and the shelf on which a book sits.

'<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=87fQYLdcHrUC&pg=PA30&dq=Junan+taiso&hl=en&ei=Nh9BTeuHCoKKlwfCxYHyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Junan%20taiso&f=false Websters Quotations, Facts and Phrases, 2008, pg 30]</ref>
is a useful reference: it describes the book itself. jmcw (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The links I provide go right to the part of the book I am referencing, anyone who wants to take the time can click on the link and read the text in the particular book used for a reference, this is far better then just listing a book and having to search for the information in the book. Many of the current references on many martial arts articles are dead links, or links to online articles that are unreferenced, some references are links to other wiki articles etc. Having a link which goes directly to the part of a book that contains the referenced text is a vast improvement.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If and when the article gets referenced properly with no reverts or disagreement on the references I or anyone else will be able to go back and add the additional reference information...I would have no problem doing it.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV

There are 2 main branches to this Ninpo thing: one is Bujinkan the other Genbukan. Most stuff regarding Genbukan and Soke Shoto Tanemura have been removed for lack of indepedent sources and notability. But Bujinkan does not seem to be held to the same standards. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a similar concern was raised by Crio on my talk page, I have discussed this perception in some detail there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bujinkanji.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bujinkanji.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the picture that had been deleted (leaving a red link) but should we move the other one up to the infobox or is there another one that can be posted there? Leefkrust22 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth is wrong with you?

"Made up a martial art in his childhood?" Haven't you ever in your childhood pretended you knew kung fu or karate or something when you didn't? Did your "Moves" get used in combat? I sincerely doubt that, and I also sincerely doubt Bujinkan does not teach real ninjutsu. It is proven Toshitsugu Takamatsu was a true ninja, and you have serious problems if you believe the writer on that article, who may have just been a Bujinkan dropout who wanted revenge. That, or the said "friend" of Takamatsu's was upset that non-Japanese are learning Ninjutsu. Name ONE major martial arts association in Asia, in fact, in the native country of the art, that's fake AND internationally successful. I didn't think so. I used to enjoy wikipedia so much, I got an account on here. I now regret that every time I read one of these formerly great articles turned to garbage by a bunch of random haters. So if any of you ever come to your senses, turn your ire on areal liar about ninjutsu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinobi 224 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugei Ryūha Daijiten, 1978, Pages 626 - 627, Watatani & Yamada:

戸隠流( 忍 ) 高松寿嗣が編成した系譜である。戸田真竜軒の口伝による伝承と いう。戸田真竜軒( 一心斎 )は明治四十一年九十歳にて死去。この 系譜によれば、異匀という者より発し、養和年間の白雲道士の白 雲流より分かれ、甲賀・伊賀両流の忍術になり、百地三太夫の系 統を経て、紀州藩名取流に入り、戸田信綱以降は戸田氏に伝承し たことになっている。系譜は諸伝の資料や口伝を参照して潤色を 加え、文献上実在の人物も実際より年代を古くしている点がある ように思われる。

Togakure-ryū (Nin)

Takamatsu Toshitsugu ga hensei shita keifu de aru. Toda Shinryūken no kuden ni yoru denshō to iu. Toda Shinryūken (Isshinsai) wa Meiji 41-nen 90-sai nite shikyo. Kono keifu ni yoreba, Ikai to iu mono yori hasshi, Yōwa-nenkan no Hakuun Dōshi no Hakuun-ryū yori wakare, Kōga - Iga ryō-ryū no ninjutsu ni nari, Momochi Sandayū no keitō wo hete, Kishū-han Natori-ryū ni hairi, Toda Nobutsuna ikō wa Toda-uji ni denshō shita koto ni natte iru. Keifu wa shoden no shiryō ya kuden wo sanshô shite junshoku wo kuwae, bunken jō jitsuzai no jinbutsu mo jissai yori nendai wo furuku shite iru ten ga aru yō ni omowareru.

"This is the genealogy organized by Takamatsu Toshitsugu. The succession is an oral tradition from Toda Shinryūken. Toda Shinryūken Masamitsu passed away in 1908 at the age of 90 years old. According to the lineage, Ikai originated the school, and in the Yōwa period (1181-1182), it separated from Hakuun Dōshi of Hakuun-ryū and became the Kōga and Iga schools of ninjutsu. The lineage passed through Momochi Sandayū and entered into the Natori-ryū of Kishū domain. From the time of Toda Nobutsuna, the tradition was passed on to the Toda family. The genealogy includes embellishments by referring to data and kuden about persons whose existence is based on written materials and traditions in order to appear older than it actually is."

Bugei Ryūha Daijiten, 1969, page 537, Watatani & Yamada:

戸隠流( 忍 ) Togakure-ryū (nin) 高松寿嗣が、大正後の忍術読物の流行を利用して新しく編成した 系譜である。戸田真竜軒の口伝による伝承という。戸田真竜軒( 一 心斎 )は明治十三年に七十三歳にて死去。高松はそれより四年後 の生誕。この系譜によれば、異匀という者より発し、養和年間の 白雲道士の白雲流より分かれ、甲賀・伊賀両流の忍術になり、百 地三太夫の系統を経て、紀州落名取流に入り、戸田信綱以降は戸 田氏に伝承したことになっている。しかし、その系譜は、諸伝の 資料や口伝を参照して、潤色を加えた点が多く、文献上実在の人 物も、実際より年代を古くしているなど、なかなか苦心の労作で ある。

Takamatsu Toshitsugu ga, Taishō ato no ninjutsu yomimono no ryūkō wo riyō shite atarashiku hensei shita keifu de aru. Toda Shinryūken no kuden ni yoru denshō to iu. Toda Shinryūken (Isshinsai) wa Meiji-jūsan-nen (1880) ni 73-sai nite shikyo. Takamatsu wa sore yori yon-nen ato no seitan. Kono keifu ni yoreba, Ikai to iu mono yori hasshi, Yōwa-nenkan (1181) no Hakuun Dōshi no Hakuun-ryū yori wakare, Kōga - Iga ryō-ryū no ninjutsu ni nari, Momochi Sandayū no keitō wo hete, Kishū-han Natori-ryū ni hairi, Toda Nobutsuna ikō wa Toda-uji ni denshō shita koto ni natte iru. Shikashi, sono keifu wa, shoden no shiryō ya kuden wo sanshō shite, junshoku wo kuwaeta ten ga ōku, bunken jō jitsuzai no jinbutsu mo, jissai yori nendai wo furuku shite iru nado, nakanaka kushin no rōsaku de aru.

"This is a genealogy newly put together by Takamatsu Toshitsugu, who made use of (took advantage of) the popularity of written materials on ninjutsu after the Taishō era. The transmission is said to be based on oral teachings of Toda Shinryūken. Toda Shinryūken (Isshinsai) died in Meiji 13 at the age of 73. Takamatsu’s birth took place four years later. According to this lineage, the ryū originated with a person named Ikai, separated from Hakuun Dōshi of Hakuun-ryū in the Yōwa era, became the Kōga and Iga-ryū of ninjutsu, passed through the lineage of Momochi Sandayū, entered the Natori-ryū of Kishū domain, and from Toda Nobutsuna onwards came to be passed down by the Toda clan. However, this genealogy refers to a variety of traditions and oral teachings, there are many points where it has added embellishments, it has made people whose real existence is based on written records older than is actually the case, and so it is a product of very considerable labor."

Bugei Ryūha Jiten, 1963, page 293, Watatani & Yamada:

戸隠流( 忍 )Togakure-ryū (nin) 戸田真竜軒( 一心斎。明治十三年死、七十三歳 )の口 伝によれば、異匀という者より発し、養和年間の白雲 道士の白雲流より分かれ、甲賀・伊賀両流の忍術にな り、百地三太夫の系統を経て紀州落名取流に入り、戸 田信綱以降は戸田氏に伝承したことになっている。し かしその系譜は諸伝の資料や口伝を参照して潤色を加 えた点が多く、系譜にのっている人物も実際より年代 を古くしているなど、真竜軒が幕末のころに新しく編 成したものと思われる。【次頁の系図参照】

Toda Shinryūken (Isshinsai. Meiji-jūsan-nen [1880] shi, 73-sai) no kuden ni yoreba, Iin to iu mono yori hasshi, Yōwa-nenkan [1181] no Hakuun Dōshi no Hakuun-ryū yori wakare, Kōga - Iga ryō-ryū no ninjutsu ni nari, Momochi Sandayū no keitō wo hete Kishū-han Natori-ryū ni hairi, Toda Nobutsuna ikō wa Toda-uji ni denshō shita koto ni natte iru. Shikashi sono keifu wa shoden no shiryō ya kuden wo sanshō shite junshoku wo kuwaeta ten ga ōku, keifu ni notte iru jinbutsu mo jissai yori nendai wo furuku shite iru nado, Shinryūken ga bakumatsu no koro ni atarashiku hensei shita mono to omowareru. (jipeeji no keizu sanshō)

"According to the oral teachings of Toda Shinryūken (Isshinsai, died aged 73 in Meiji 13 [1880]), a person named Ikai originated the ryū; in the Yōwa era [1181] it separated from Hakuun Dōshi's Hakuun-ryū; it became the Kōga and Iga-ryū of ninjutsu; it passed through the lineage of Momochi Sandayū and entered the Natori-ryū of the Kishū domain; and from Toda Nobutsuna onwards came to be passed down by/in the Toda family. However, this genealogy refers to various written records and oral transmissions and there are many points/places where embellishments have been added and people appearing in the genealogy are also made older than they actually are. Thus the genealogy can be considered to be something that (Toda) Shinryūken newly arranged around the end of the Tokugawa shōgunate." (lineage chart appended on the following page).

Please note that the standard academic reference for anyone doing research into the field of ancient Japanese martial arts' indicates several times that Takamatsu's claims of lineage (at least regarding Togakure-ryu ninjutsu) are suspect and cannot be trusted. Also see information from Koryu Books (url=http://www.koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html), Dr. Karl Friday (Japanese Sword Art Mailing List - Re: Ninja and Ninjato), Donn Draeger (url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_o73NOjb4p4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Comprehensive+Asian+Fighting+Arts&hl=en&ei=c_-qTrH6L8mjtgfY__nWDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), Ellis Amdur (rec.martial-arts - Re: KOGA NINJITSU or NINJUTSU). In fact, other than the Bujinkan organization and affiliates . . . there are no claims that there's any connection between historical ninja and Takamatsu/Hatsumi. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that "a childhood friend says" and other weasel words by people trying to use Wikipedia pages in order to attack a martial art they do not like or do not trust are cearly Uncyclopedic and POV. They are even more unverifiable than claims to be soke of this or that Ryu: one can see the videos or go train or try ones luck against Matsumi or one of his top students and see what is effective and what not. One can compare the techniques teached with other claims on the Ryu. But there isn't any way to verify what Stvfetterly quotes: it does not matter how often you quote an unverifiable source it still unverifiable. Lack of documentation does not prove something is not, it just says there is no documentation that says it is so. And generations do get lost in times inmemorial when oral tradition is not verifiable by documentation or scientific fact. One thing is to say that certain claims are not substantiated with documentation or scientific fact, verifiable fact. Another is to use the Wiki to promote or demote martial arts according to one's own tastes and preferences.
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is related to the above section, I'll move it there.
There's an easy way to verify what I wrote. Go to a library, get a copy of the book, translate it. This is completely in line with verifiability criteria used for Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability if you are still confused.
Regarding the 'a childhood friend says' quote, thank you for pointing it out to me. I agreed that it was POV and immediately rewrote it with a referenced source. I'm not sure what else you would like me to do.
BTW - Proposing that a bunch of stubs created by me be deleted (multiple times in some cases) out of some kind of rage and need to punish me doesn't seem like a very mature thing to do. Especially when these deletion requests are baseless. Regards,  :::--Stvfetterly (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No rage here and the deletion requests are not baseless. Wiki is not a place for self promotion or promotion of products, it is not an advertisement site. What it seems to me you are doing is using the Encyclopedia to promote specific people or products without proper justification, and demoting others. We should not have articles based on what childhood friends claim to know, seems to me. I do not know what "multiple times" means. I had not seen the articles I proposed for deletion before but it seems to me that Wikipedia is not the place to announce a brand of soap, or the carrier of every brazilian jujitsu figther. These articles do not seem to be encyclopedic or to have notability. if I am wrong then I am wrong: I would not delete them but I think it does not make sense to keep every stub that people make to promote a product or a martial artist or any other thing. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe it is Encyclopedic, sourced or unsourced, to use as base for shading doubt on something what "a childhood friend said". It does not seem something veryfiable or worth noting. It is worthy of note that there are unsubstantiated claims. "Purpoted" or other frasing seems to try to imply intentional wrong doing or intentional misleading and that would have to be proved. And as I check in, i.e. Merriam Webster dictionary, and as I read the frasing on this page it does seem there is a vendetta against these "Modern Schools of Ninjutsu" that claim to teach some Taijutsu and Bojusu and Bikenjutsu with some links to Ninpo that are claimed but where claims seem to be more legendary than historical. It seems to me that articles like those about Genbukan, Shoto Tanemura, Maasaki Hatsumi, Bujinkan, etc. are under attack: some people go after them even when the fact that they claim some links to ancient Ninpo and Ninjutsu that are not fundamented and seem more legendary than historical, and they go after them with rabidness, and do not stop until they get the articles deleted or they seem to be glad that the article makes the martial arts themselves seem fake. These is not NPOV. The purpose of the Encyclopedia is to inform about what is notable and interesting with guideliness and fundament, not to promote or demote according to the preferences of each. I could go and say that brazilian jujitsu is not a true martial art (which I do not believe, by the way) but a shameful copy of true Judo. That would be POV, no matter how I do it. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue that I have with modern ninjutsu is not practice or the teaching of it (I'm not a student of ninjutsu, and am not qualified to make judgements about it's efficacy). The issue is with false/unsupported historical claims made, which abound in this article. Other than the Bujinkan and affiliates, there are no sources in this article that give credence to Hatsumi's claims of anything to do with historical ninja. It's important to indicate this often to be encyclopedic . . . otherwise it would be POV rather than neutral. The claims of a childhood friend are valid, and are important to note when the childhood friend also happens to be one of the most important researchers in the field of martial arts. The wording that you're still complaining about was removed when you commented on it. If you would prefer, rather than indicating the source of historical claims, the article could remove all Bujinkan-related (primary) sources and instead rely only on reputable third party sources . . . but this would likely require the removal of nearly all content. Please let me know what you would prefer. Regards,--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There is a difference on claims being false and being unsupported and being sustained in legend. I agree that if a claim is proven false it should be noted, if it is unsupported it should be noted. If it seems legendary, based on oral traditions that embelish it, it should be noted. I do believe that, appart from Bujinkan there are no other sources that verify any link to ancient ninjutsu or ninpo as claimed, and that the claims are sutained in legendary oral accounts. If an important researcher in the field is quoted, that also was a childhood friend, it should be duly noted (that a notable researcher in the field that was a childhood friend said this, not a childhood friend as such). You say that "the wording I complained about was removed": I took the liberty to rollback the article because I saw what seemed to me excesive wording trying to imply falsehood (which is not verifiable) instead of unsubstanciated claims (which seems to be more like it). This was a couple of days ago. As per content "Notability Guidelines do not limit content within the article" in Wikipedia:Notability. i.e. if you are going to do a page or a stub on a brazilian jujitsu practioner it is not required that the information within the article does not include information from brazilian jujitsu related sources. i.e. if you make a stub about a product it would be important to have a source as reputable as the NY Times, but the article itself _can_ have information from the product's site. I have not studied in Bujinkan myself either or in any brazilian jujitsu schools... I did train Taekwondo may years ago in different schools and systems and did a tiny little bit of Hapkido. Nowdays I go and try to train some in a Jujitsu/Taijutsu/Judo place that _is_ linked to Genbukan, among other schools: the top Sensei there was top level Judo and Jujitsu guy in my country, who trained with the master that brought Judo here and won may national and international championships. That said it seems to be true that claimed links trough generations to ancient ninpo/ninjutsu is based more on legend and oral tradition than on verifiable historical fact and these should be noted in an encyclopedic way. I do believe in the Wikipedia and want to make it a good reputable source on information, with apropiate guidelines which must be followed by us all and procedures and verification. i.e. I have particular POV on costarrican politics but they should be kept for myself when documenting articles on the mater. It is different to say that something is false than to say that there are unsubstantiated claims which are in doubt by so and so (reputable source clearly stated in the article) or that are based on oral tradition and legend and not on veryfiable historical fact. And this is not about what "I prefer" I do not own the content of the wiki, it is not for me to choose single handedly the notability guideliness: I just read them and try to comply to the best of my knowledge. Cheers and sorry if I did anything to upset you.--Crio de la Paz (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, how can this still be an issue. It has long become clear that this alleged medieval tradition cannot be substantiated. Whatever secret genuine tradition there may or may not exist, if it cannot be substantiated, it isn't for Wikipedia. Yes, it is Wikipedia's loss if it doesn't accept your word for it, but that's the rules of the project. Why do we still have a Togakure-ryū page containing nothing but airy claims? If you cannot provide academic references that there is, indeed, the slightest positive evidence that there is anything resembling historicity in there, why keep trolling Wikipedia about it? I have no idea if Bujinkan is or is not notable. For better or worse, it has its own page. What we cannot allow is that it keeps spawning other articles about pseudo-medieval items which no medieval scholar has ever heard of or written about.

Seriously, I do have the impression that the Bujinkan people should just care less about Wikipedia and care more about their own training and advancement in whatever it is they are doing. --dab (𒁳) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we can not allow a system invented in 1978 to become offical without proper support of linage and traning documents.

bujinkan is no different than NINJUWUSU ninjutsu, ninjuwusu started 1938...40 years before this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.37.74 (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated and misinformed

It seems so many anti-bujinkan people have the same problem here. Lets assume for a moment that Togakure Ryu is unsubstantiated... Bujinkan is made up of 9 ryuha, if one is unsubstantiated there are 8 more. And for those who don't know, Those other eight are entirely verified. Now I agree with those above, unproven doesn't mean not true, but even with that aside Togakure ryu makes up a VERY small portion (and grows even smaller every year) of the bujinkan curriculum. This article above all else is spotted with referenced information but full of opinionated lines making jabs at the art, it's effectiveness, it's training methods. All of which are clearly opinions of a person who has personal beliefs and a vendetta against the art. Wikipedia is not the place for it.

As a second note the claim is often made "togakure ryu hasn't been proven real so bujinkan has no real ninja ties." might want to slow the roll on that sort of logic as Gyokko ryu and Koto ryu (possibly others), both entirely verified, where passed through, influenced and modified by well reputed ninja families. That may not make them "ninjutsu" but at the very least they have ninjutsu ties and are ninpo taijutsu.

What is important is this article needs to be written without opinions and jabs as well as without broad generalizations based on questionably verified sources on a specific case.

TekioBudo (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Genbukan

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. --186.26.113.114 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a former member and teacher of the BJK. I still am loosely attached to the organisation and I still study and train the schools within this amalgam style, but in a more traditional way, meaning as individual styles. I do not accept the claims of Tanemura, as he unrightfully declared himself head master to be the successor of the nine schools of Hatsumi. Still I completely concur with what you are saying. It is not right if Genbukan related topics get deleted. Same goes for Jinenkan if that also happens. It just isn't right for a neutral encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. So yes: Genbukan and Jinenkan topics should be perfectly possible! Kennin (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bujinkan&oldid=683430385"