Talk:Ninja/Archive 3

Turnbull's other, neglected ninja book

Is there a specific reason why Turnbull's 60-page picture book "Ninja AD 1460–1650" is used as a source in the article, rather than his more extensive and arguably more scholarly approach on the matter titled "Ninja: The True Story of Japan's Secret Warrior Cult" from 1992 (ISBN-13: 978-1853141171)? Noldis 13:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noldis (talk • contribs)

More alternative names for the ninja

It might be a good idea to add the following terms: 素っ破/透っ波 (すっぱ）and 乱波・乱破 (らっぱ）. Their historical usage may need some research, but they are certainly used in this sense by Yamada Futaro and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.196.85 (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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) 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.

My books have long gone, but shinobi was used by Hatsuumi and Hayes not to describe ninja, but is a title applied only to the teachers of the art. The word has been described as "teacher of the warrior ways of enlightenment". It was not said by either party to mean male ninja, while kinoichi was for women.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How Hatsumi and Hayes used the words is irrelevant. Shinobi has a certain meaning, and it does not involve being any kind of teacher. Not in English and most certainly not in Japanese--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

—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)

Katana is not a proper name and is not capitalized.

Katana can be either straight or curved. There is no rule on that. That is like saying Korean swords are all straight when it is not so. Also, the correct words for the long/short swords are daito/shoto.

The sword is slid into a scabbard, not a sheath and the scabbard was longer for having room for accessories such as a tanto knife in the tip of the scabbard. It was not for a faster draw of the sword.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The katana is always curved. It can vary greatly in how curved it is, with some katana being almost straight, but they are always curved. As to the notion of it being longer for accessories, such as a tanto in the tip... That is a notion that I find very hard to believe... Do you have any evidence of that?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The ninjato is not a real historical weapon. Writers passing themselves off as historians like Stephen Hayes have spread 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).

Ninjato was a historical weapon. Only differences between the samaurai swords and the ninja's were that the ninja used the sword, primarily, as a tool, not a weapon because they had a very dull blade.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? Also, what use is a sword, if it is dull?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Ninjato is a real weapon, not fiction. It literally means "Ninja Sword/Blade". Also, the typically portrayed katana ( translated as "sword") is reserved for the Samurai class. The Samurai katana is either passed down through the generations 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)

Ninjato does not mean "ninja sword/blade". "Ken" is the word for sword.

Samurai DID not make a sword ever. The trades were beneath them in their minds. Also, the samurai did not have the time to craft a sword as an apprenticeship was required for making them. To this day, to make a true samurai quality sword, you must be licensed to do so.

You are correct in the spiritual meaning they put on their blades.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ninjato does mean "ninja sword". While ken (劍) does mean sword, it is usually used for straight swords (though it is also used for katanas occasionally, as in e.g. kendou and kenjutsu). Tou (刀), however, also means sword. Usually referring to curved blades. In fact, it is the same kanji as is used for katana (刀), so saying that tou doesn't mean sword, is almost like saying that the katana isn't a sword. It is also used in words like nihontou, shinai, bokutou (which is also known as bokken, but only outside of Japan), daitou and shotou, all of which clearly refer to swords.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The section saying they used katanas sounds like utter BS with no historical basis. The fact it says they "probably" used, and even preferred it indicates it is not a fact, and should not be here. Katanas, as another stated, were legally restricted to samurai, while ninjas were not samurai, and therefore could not own or use a katana. They could not have carried one on their person openly, so it'd be unlikely that they trained with it, since they could only use it during a select few missions. (It's also BS, however, that samurai made their own katanas. A blacksmith makes the katana. Samurai are not Jedi in Star Wars, they're warriors/soldiers. They were training to use the weapon, not make it.) And, that part of the article goes on about things they could do with the katana... I've never in my life heard of katanas being used like that. The paragraph starts off admitting other blades are on record as being used, then pushes the katana out of a personal agenda of the author. Ninja/shinobi were not a load of awesome soldiers/warriors who ran around with samurai weapons illegally. They were people who could slip around unnoticed, such as women. The image of shinobi being a load of awesome male warriors who run around in all black, with a sword is fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.238.118 (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Katana as Japanese do not pluralize words.

Katanas were not so much restricted. The dual blades of katana/wakazashi were only for samurai.

Many of the uses stated for the ninjato were said to be done. We do not know the facts of any "historical" information.

There may have been many ninja, but the term shinobi was only reserved for the teachers of ninjustu and is not a synonym for ninja or a word for male ninja. Shinobi means "teacher of the warrior ways of enlightenment".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

While words tend not to be pluralized in Japanese, they do tend to be so in English. Just because it isn't pluralized in Japanese, doesn't mean it shouldn't be, when it is used in English.

As to the idea that katanas were not that restricted... yes they where. Not originally, mind you, but when the combination of katana and wakizashi was exclusive to the samurai, so where katanas in general.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue of ninja no being able to carry around katana, due to them being restricted to samurai is nonsense. That legal restriction was a late one ...and the idea that ninja could not be samurai... I'll deal with that in another thread. The statement "people who could slip around unnoticed, such as women", is fairly ludicrous ...and sexist. Also, shinobi were male! The female ninja where called kunoichi. Yes, the black clothes and the such, is nonsense (not to mention samurai forging their katana. That would be extremely rare, if it ever happened)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Read above about shinobi. Anyone who taught ninjutsu could be a shinobi, including women. Women taught the kinoichi and, therefore, were shinobi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I explain above, that you're wrong about that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2013 (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)

A samurai can't be a ninja/shinobi, period. They would have to commit suicide for committing many of the dishonorable acts ninja/shinobi do. It was two entirely separate things, with two different codes. They're in complete contrast. You can't be both. But, to back your point, this also means they were rarely ever dressed like samurai. If carrying samurai-specific weapons was illegal (and it was), then trying to pass as one likely was illegal, too. Pretty good odds, also, that dressing like a samurai wouldn't work. People wouldn't know who they are, where they come from, or what they're doing there. They'd stick out, and be questioned. Shinobi were supposed to blend in, and slip by. They were supposed to be in roles like servitude, prostitution, etc. They would dress up as things for missions, sure... But, you likely couldn't get away with ease in pretending to be a samurai.

To assume that all samurai blindly adhered to the samurai code of honour is ludicrous! Also, I would like to point out that most of what is today considered as being Bushido, is a fairly modern construct. Bushido was mostly formalised and refined, during the period of peace and later. You could do a bit of not so honourable things, without it being a big deal ...and very dishonourable things, as long as no one knew about it.

Thus being a samurai, who is also a ninja, would be a very easy thing to do ...and in what way would a samurai not be able to blend in and slip by?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. ...and you say that ninja had a code. Do you have any evidence of that? D.S.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ninja/Shinobi wear something called a shinobi shozoku which is made up of gloves,skin tight shirt,tami boots that reach your knees, a close fitting under shirt, a close fitting,not skin tight, but close fitting jacket, a scarf and a hood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.33.54 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, why on earth would someone wanting to blend in and go in and out without notice or suspicion, want to wear clothes that shouts "I'M A NINJA! BEWARE!"?

They might as well inform their assassination victims, that they would arrive and then go in through the front door, introducing yourself as the assassin. Or, when you are supposed to go somewhere on a spying mission, go there and declare that you are there to spy on them.

...and more importantly: Do you have any evidence of that? It is firmly established that the black ninja costume of popular culture (and the "shinobi shozoku" is, essentially, nothing more than that), is an invention that came about from stage hands in Japanese theatre, who were in view, but wore black all over, thus signalling that they are "invisible", i.e. people were to simply ignore them and pretend they weren't there.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, the travelling Miko type ninja wears clothings of a miko, and acts like one to blend into the society, or at least was said to do so. This might be the best uniform one can think of for ninjas, the disguise type. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Miko don't travel. They stay at the shrine, that they are a miko for. Thus you cannot have a travelling miko. At least not while they are wearing miko clothes. Not if you want to blend in, in any case.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2013 (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)

Japanese characters often have multiple sounds associated with them. The kanji that make up 'ninja' can alternatively be read as 'shinobi.' There is no difference between ninja and shinobi. It is simply an alternate reading of a single set of characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.169.136 (talk)

50... is partly right. But the characters for ninja (忍者) cannot normally be read shinobi. Hitomaro742 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That does not make 50.41.169.136 wrong at all. There are plenty of Japanese words that don't quite conform to how the kanji would normally be read. However, having checked one dictionary, it seems that shinobi might actually be 忍び, rather than 忍者 ...but I wouldn't quite rely on that one dictionary alone, to settle the issue. Either way, the words ninja and shinobi mean the same thing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that dictionary is absolutely correct (unless it failed to include the other definitions of shinobi, and simply claimed it meant the same thing as a ninja). I am just not sure if the kanji 忍 by itself can be read as shinobi. Additionally, in Japanese shinobi has several other meanings, and is principally used as an adverb (i.e., "to do something in secret"). The word ninja is far more common in Japanese when referring to the people being discussed in this article. Hitomaro742 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "ninja" is far more common? In modern times, perhaps, but is that also true historically? Either way, the words "Shinobi" and "Ninja" are used interchangeably, as they refer to the same thing (shinobi being able to refer to other meanings, which it seems that it can, is largely irrelevant).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ninja and shinobi are NOT synonymous. To be a shinobi, you must be a ninja. To be a ninja does not make a person a shinobi. Shinobi means "teacher of the warrior ways of enlightenment" and, therefore, is reserved for them only. Shinobi could be make or kinoichi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.89.79 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Shinobi does not means "teacher of the warrior ways of enlightenment". Not in any way. You clearly know nothing of the Japanese language (as you have previously proven, with your assertion that "tou" doesn't mean sword, when it is, in effect, the same word as "katana").--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Shinobu is to endure something. Shinobi could be "enduring" - "Ninja" is just "one who endures" and could possibly, not conventionally, also be read as "shinobi-mono."70.65.2.249 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

True. That doesn't mean that "shinobi" wasn't used to refer to ninja, however, as more or less an abbreviated form of "shinobi no mono"/"shinobi mono"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2013 (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 alleged Ninja person 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)

I'm still confused. There is absolutely no evidence ninjas existed historically and that NEEDS to be represented in the article under "controversy." You guys can play pretend with all of the speculative coolness of ninjas all you want, but their lack of historical evidence needs to be represented.

Again, I point out to you, that even though the modern image of ninjas is almost purely mythical, there did exist ninjas, historically. They were the spies and assassins of feudal Japan. Those were called ninja, or rather shinobi. (kunoichi, if they were female, though those were more rare, and were mostly the "blend in and get info" type, I think. That's my impression at least)

They didn't wear a "ninja uniform", or any great amount of black (as neither did anyone else, and they'd stick out like a sore thumb), they didn't have a "ninja sword" or any other special "ninja weapons" (unless it was very hidden and covert), they didn't have a special martial art (of which there is no evidence, nor reasons to believe it existed ...or indeed any reasons for its creation). The idea that they had special schools or training is also debatable. I'd guess some may have had, under certain periods, but with none existing for most of the time. Either that, or there never were any.

All of those things I mentioned, are mythical aspects that were generally made up much later. Most of it already made up in Japan, but with some of it latter added in Hollywood.

Even with all that, the idea that ninjas (or rather shinobi) never existed is simply ridiculous. I see no reason for such a claim. Japan had its share of spies and assassins, in its feudal era. Those were ninja. Thus ninjas existed historically--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really hard to prove a negation, but if we're going to get something approaching an authoritative view of the topic, I think we need to seek out some Japanese military historians. (One of my degrees includes history, but I regard myself as an amateur who has been reading a lot of Japanese history stuff.) About all I am willing to say on the topic is that there are no firsthand non-Japanese accounts for the period when the ninja were supposed to be 'formalized' or 'active' in various ways, and the first printed accounts appear to be pure fiction, especially by a prominent Japanese author who was writing around 1830. (Sorry, my memory is currently slipping on his personal details.) I'm extremely doubtful that there could have been many secret villages of ninjas from anytime after Toyotomi ordered the survey and big census (which was a few years before 1600). Assassins and various professional killers? Certainly. Pervasive secret societies? I doubt it. Shanen (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well... that there are no first hand non-Japanese accounts, is not surprising, as there were pretty much no non-Japanese in Japan, at the time. As to secret villages... well, whether they existed, and for how long, is debatable and secret societies may have existed, but there is no sign that they were pervasive or long lived, if they did exist

...but none of this is really relevant to whether or not ninjas existed, at all. They effect the exact nature of ninjas, but not their existence, which is the topic that this section is about.

As I've said before: Ninjas as they are portrayed in modern fiction, isn't something that ever existed historically (and that is an undeniable, solidly proven, fact), but ninjas undoubtedly did exist and there is evidence for this:

There were professional spies/assassins in Japan. Those would be called shinobi (i.e. ninja). Thus ninja did exist. Q.E.D.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To any who claim ninja/shinobi are made up as a whole... Look up ninjutsu. It's real. They are not made up. What's fictional is the black-clad, special sword-wielding, male warrior image. Shinobi by no means had to be male, or warriors. They were spies, assassins, and saboteurs. They were supposed to blend, not stick out, seem unlikely to have done it, and have ease in getting access to where they need to be, and to information. (I.O.W. If going to speculate, most were probably women.) This article used to be good years ago... As always, some moron who wants to pretend they're more educated than they are re-did the article entirely, for their own ego. This problem has been out of hand on wiki sites for years. Flip a coin for if the page you need to use on this, or any other wiki will be reliable. (I honestly think most of the problem is children, and teenagers. The writing level, and what they push as the truth often gives a big flashing neon sign that it was either a kid, or someone with the mentality of one. It seems kids act like writing a wiki page is them typing up a school paper... Which they do badly... Then, they try to keep grown ups studied on the subject from fixing the page, or from fixing their misspellings and bad grammar. - Adults also often do it, in ways that they will pretend they have degrees, or they push a political, religious, racist, sexist, or monetary agenda. (Many of those could also be kids. If they're going to lie about things like having a masters in psychology, there's no reason to doubt they didn't also lie about their age.)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.238.118 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence that ninjutsu actually originates from what was practised by the ninja of old? If so, you'd be the first person to ever do so. There is no evidence that ninjutsu is anything other than a modern invention, based on the ninja of myth (not the ninja of history).

In fact, why would you even want to have a special combat art? Not only is combat something that a ninja would only do, if they have failed badly, but... The amount of work required to developed it and keep it hidden... To not let people know you practice it, for fear that they'll instantly know you are a ninja... Why not simply practice the martial arts that are already there? You get no benefits, but countless drawbacks, from having a ninjutsu art.

As to the speculation that most ninja were women... That is a fairly extraordinary claim, in need of rather extraordinary evidence. There is no real reason to even speculate that such was the case.

...as to your comments on why people are writing in a fashion that you do not approve of... That is NOT acceptable on wikipedia. Those statements are in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as well as Wikipedia:Assume good faith--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone had blanked ninjutsu and turned it into a disambigaution page

I'm going to fix it now, I just wanted to tell you guys. Also, it really needs a cleanup, a copy edit, and more citations (maybe even a complete rewrite, just like the that this article got some time ago). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Or I'd propose for the sections "training" and "equipment" of this article to be summarized here and mostly moved to ninjutsu. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And in an unrelated note, doesn't Momochi Sandayū (just a redlink now) deserve his own article? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well why dont you do some work on the article instead of just returning it to an incomplete and inaccurate state.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Well why dont you do some work on the article", because I did, and also proposed an idea that you didn't even comment on. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

1. The second paragraph of the "Assassination" section should talk about Nobunaga escaping death twice and then being killed so that the account is chronological which is probably more appropriate.

2. "Ninja utilized a large variety of tools and weaponry, some of which were commonly known, but others were more specialized."

This sentence does not work well. The word "but" is a disjunctive conjunction. It should introduce a contrast but it doesn't.

3. "Simple gardening tools such as kunai and sickles were used as weaponry so that, if discovered, a ninja could claim they are his tools and not weapons, despite their ability to be used in battle."

This sentence needs to be rewritten. It needs past tense and it doesn't make much sense at the end.

ICE77 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

The "darts" under weaponry in not directed to the right page. It is going to the darts game and not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dart_(missile) 66.161.248.82 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible Error in the Etymology Section

There's a possible error in the etymology section of this page. The author states: "Kyonuichi...literally translated to "Nine and One". The meaning for this name is derived from the number of orifices on a female body. A male has nine, a female has one more (the vaginal opening)" This seems inaccurate, as both men and women have only 9 orifices. Moreover, "and possesses the skills to make use of this orifice as well" is vague, and could be interpreted as crude and sexist, rather than a denotation of sexual espionage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.82.43 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 November 2013‎

I've gone ahead and just removed this from the article as being unsourced. I can't find any sources that support it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's kunoichi, not kyonuichi. On to the more serious bits: I guess they didn't count the penis as an orifice? Or they did and they, correctly, recognized that women have two orifices at the crotch: The one they urinate through, and the vagina (they are separate, if close to each other). As to the supposed sexist implications... We're talking about feudal Japan! They were massively sexist! Every culture/civilization/people were sexist, back then! Also, kunoichi were no doubt tasked with using sex, as part of their tool-set, to get their job (be it espionage or assassination) done. I would argue that the claim of "nine in one", referring to the orifices should be put back (albeit with sources), as a claimed source for the word. I don't know how true it may be, or where it comes from, but it is a claim that you'll encounter, if you look up information on ninja.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Zarlan. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the etymology of the word kunoichi (so long as the info is sourced, or noted as uncertain), or in making reference to the kunoichi's practice of sexual espionage. It was rather the wording of the sentence that concerned me, as it was vague, and seemed as though the author was nudging us with his or her elbow while giving a wink, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and is out of context with the rest of the well written article. Then again, maybe I'm a jackass. I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.82.43 (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well that makes your initial complaint a lot more clear. Re-reading it now, I see what you meant to say and I agree on pretty much all points. While I certainly think that it is an etymology that should be included, it needs to be properly written and sourced. What was written was unclear, confusing and unsourced. Not having the it there, is probably better than to keep the old version.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Gorbylev

[1] and [2] - Alexey Mikhailovich Gorbylev (Алексей Михайлович Горбылев) is expert on Japan Ph.D. - Защита кандидатских диссертаций сотрудниками МГУ в 1999г. Институт стран Азии и Африки. Горбылев А.М. Культ гор в средневековом мировоззрении Японии на материале памятника XIIв. "Седзан Эти" : Культ гор в средневековом мировоззрении Японии На материале памятника конца ХII в Седзан енги (Сказания о горах) тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК 07.00.03, кандидат исторических наук Горбылев, Алексей Михайлович. Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.....Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. Could you re-write that in a way that makes sense?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Point - the text between the quotes of the rules Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I used quotes that relate to this problem. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in no way clear, in what way those quotes relevant. You need to explain.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

All right. First. Alexei Gorbylev a Candidate of Sciences PhD in history (on Japan). Therefore, its sources fall into the category scholarly material. Second. His opinion as a scientist sufficiently reliable sources, to be reflected in the article with the attribution "According to". Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he has a degree, doesn't make his work scholarly material. That's not how it works. Furthermore, you still have yet to address the fact that you only use the works of one person, as your sources. It would be okay if it was just about his opinion, but a persons opinion is only worth adding to Wikipedia, if they are notable. Alexei Gorbylev isn't notable.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability says about the importance of the article, and not its individual parts. We do not require Notability at every sentence of this article? The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Degree means that Gorbylev expert on Japan. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

True. I thank you for correcting me there. I would, however, point out that it says: "Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." ...and I'd say that this falls foul of WP:DUE (also note WP:FRINGE). Not to mention the problems that PRehse mentions below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 22:18 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you, again, make your whole comment into a link (I've changed that). That is not, good. It makes things a lot messier and difficult to read (and what you write is difficult to read, even without that).

The prominence of Gorbylev's views, be it in published sources, academia or anything/anywhere else, is practically non-existent. It is not, in any way, significant or prominent. Thus any mention of it, in the article, would be to give it undue weight and would clearly go against WP:DUE.

Thank you for making it all the more clear, why the things you wish to include, should not be included.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Answered below. Let's keep the discussion in one place? Below is the quoting of Gorbyleva. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

First reference is to a University web page, second is to a book classed as fiction and the third is a website peppered with pictures of fantasy babes. The whole entry is book spam at the very least and adds nothing to the article and more specifically to the text which they refer to. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first reference being to a University web page is fair enough. It's supposed to verify the persons degree, after all, and it's a specific page, not just the main page. I put it through google translate, and... I couldn't find his name anywhere. Thus the source doesn't seem to verify what it is supposed to. As to the third book... Those fantasy babes are what is called ads. The book itself... Well it looks more like a blog post than a book. At best it is someone (illegally ...which, regardless of ones views on pirate copying, is not really acceptable on Wikipedia) reproducing the content of the book on a site. As to any source that can verify if it is scientific, peer-reviewed or just plain fiction...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried googleing "Alexey Mikhailovich Gorbylev". I got a lot of hits, but it was other people. I tried adding "Japan". I got nothing (aside from this Wikipedia article, that is). I tried it with "ninja". Nothing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

А.М.Горбылев. Ниндзя. Боевое искусство - another edition of this book: А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу (second source - А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу or А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу). Аннотация. Эта книга написана человеком, сочетающим в одном лице историка-япониста и практика традиционных японских боевых искусств по школе Катори Синто-рю. Она совершенно уникальна в том смысле, что автор опирается на материалы,, практически неизвестные за пределами Японии: исследования японских историков нин-дзюцу, старинные хроники, трактаты самих ниндзя. Книга читается словно захватывающий боевик, но при этом все, что в ней говорится, исторически достоверно. - Abstract. This book is written by a man, combining in one person yaponista historian and practice of traditional Japanese martial arts school Katori Shinto Ryu. It is quite unique in the sense that the author relies on materials, Virtually unknown outside Outside of Japan: Japanese historians study ninjutsu, ancient chronicles, treatises themselves ninja. The book reads like an exciting fighter, but That's all, what it says, historically accurate.. А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу or А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу - citation in scientific papers. Now these sources will be used? Everywhere he Горбылев, but not Gorbylev. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I could point out several problems with the sources you mention, but...

WP:DUE. That is all I need to say.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE - requires you to specify all points of view from reliable sources, but in the right proportions. Full removal of article opinions Gorbyleva contradicts requirements indicate all viewpoints of reliable sources. The requirement to use only English sources in the article contradicts WP:Systematic bias#The nature of Wikipedia's bias. For comply the proportions i agree to the mention in the article According to expert on Japan Ph.D. Alexey Mikhailovich Gorbylev (Russian: Горбылев, Алексей Михайлович) there were no really "special ninja" martial arts, they had used martial arts, typical for Japan and mention his book in literature (as a reliable source). Do you agree? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The prominence of Gorbylev's views, be it in published sources, academia or anything/anywhere else, is practically non-existent. It is not, in any way, significant or prominent. Thus any mention of it, in the article, would be to give it undue weight and would clearly go against WP:DUE. - А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу - citation in scientific papers (and this is only one of his works). Need an overview citation on his other works? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE does not specify that we should specify all viewpoints in reliable sources.

It clearly specifies that we should include all significant viewpoints. Gorbylev's viewpoint is insignificant.

As you like to quote WP:DUE (without understanding it at all, it seems), lets quote from WP:DUE:

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." (note that a "see also" link would be impossible, as the view is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also the "Flat Earth" idea is held by a much larger group, than Gorbylev's viewpoint ...which is only held by Gorbylev)

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

Hence this is too insignificant a view, to be allowed on Wikipedia.

Also "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." (and Gorbylev's view is held by less than an tiny minority group. It's just one person)

As to the citations... А.М.Горбылев. Путь невидимых: подлинная история ниндзюцу shows a search result, not the amount of citations of a specific paper. Also the search result does not show a single article by Gorbylev, much less how many citations it has. If, on the other hand, I search for his name, I do get one paper.

Either way, if I go with the link you provided, or a search on his name, it still results in, at most, 3 citations. That's practically nothing.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I Look other sources for his position. In the literature article his book as a reliable source can be included? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Those sources are only reliable sources for what they, themselves, say. Not for what conclusions that Gorbylev derives from them.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In the book Gorbyleva are facts - more than opinions. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No. It states what Gorbylev believes to be true. Thus it is his opinions. None of what he says, is confirmed fact, in any sense.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Balance. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. - Currently, the article no other points of view on martial arts ninja. Absolutely no. Therefore, a common point (more prominence) of view on this issue is still unknown to us. Therefore in the present time the conventional wisdom (At the moment, until other sources) is Gorbyleva opinion. There are more prominence or are relatively equal in prominence point of view on martial arts ninja in scientific sources? That is all I need to say. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A claim that has no prominence has no place in Wikipedia. Whether or not it has any opposing claims doesn't matter. To include insignificant claims, held by a minuscule minority, is to give those claims undue weight.

As to the claim that there are no other views on the issue... That is pure nonsense. There are several views:

• That there is no such thing, as a ninja fighting art. (ninja arts, if there were any, were about other things. Not fighting)
• That there was a ninja fighting art called ninjutsu. (though not as Gorbylev describes it. Certainly not a previously unknown art, by any stretch of the imagination)
• That we do not know. (this is not an absence of a view. It is a valid view, in its own right)

Furthermore, this issue is already covered in the article, at Ninja#Training.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ninjutsu is a martial art: In fact, fighting was a last resort - ninjas were skilled in espionage and defeating foes using intelligence, while swinging a sword was deemed a lower art - This partly confirms the opinion Gorbyleva. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. In fact, it rather undermines his claims.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Troll Во-вторых, средневековые разведчики старались не ввязываться в бой и предпочитали удирать при первой же возможности. - Secondly, medieval scouts tried not to get involved in the fight and chose to flee at the first opportunity. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're accusing me of being a troll, eh? That's an ad hominem attack. A clear failure to assume good faith. If you think I am wrong, explain in what way I am wrong. Don't just accuse me of ill intentions. That is just lazy and disruptive. You haven't even bothered to give any reason, as to why my behaviour would be trolling. Such accusations cannot be made without evidence.

As to the notion that scouts and/or ninja would not engage in fighting, but flee at first opportunity... that an obvious fact that everyone has known since ancient times. No one has disputed it. Thus it is irrelevant to this discussion.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My take on this: [3] --Niemti (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That is hilariously shit ...but not really relevant to the discussion. Funny, but not appropriate.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

BBC News, Japan Japan's ninjas heading for extinction

This source is suitable for an article? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No single source should be the basis for an article. It could be used as a reference within an article if it is relevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Currently, in Japan there are one or two real ninja, but they have no heirs." Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ninja tried not to engage in open combat and have focused on espionage and tricks." Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article contains some information, but it is all debunked by countless reliable sources. There is no reliable evidence for any of the claims.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem, as in what's this "countless reliable sources" dogma at stake here? As for unique fighting styles and village-based isolated societies / clans - the facts is that in 1579 the backwater Iga's peasant-ish warriors soundly defeated and routed an expedition of Oda Nobukatsu's (Oda Nobunaga's son) veteran professional soldiers [4] before they were finally crushed by a massive kill-all campaign personally led by Nobunaga himself 2 years later. [5] About who were those guys, Mie Prefecture (Iga Province as it is known today) sez this: http://www.pref.mie.lg.jp/gkenmin/hp/igabito/ninja_map/en/about_ninjya.html --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the countless reliable sources dogma? Fact.

...well I'll admit that I was a bit overdoing it, by saying that "all" the claims are debunked. The article claims, for example, that ninja were spies and assassins, and that's clearly true. But it's mostly debunked.

"the facts is that in 1579 the backwater Iga's peasant-ish warriors soundly defeated and routed an expedition of Oda Nobukatsu's (Oda Nobunaga's son) veteran professional soldiers"

Even if that is true, that doesn't demonstrate that Oda's troops were defeated using special ninja fighting style(s). Thus it is completely irrelevant.

"[6]"

A google search? Are you kidding me!?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Google BOOKS search. For example, [7]. What exactly are your dogma's "countless" sources, and what exactly in the article did you edit? Btw: they were not assassins (usually). --Niemti (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A google books search is still a search result ...and thus beyond irrelevant. As to my "dogma" sources... I have no dogmas. Drop the insinuations and questions that include an assumption that I am wrong/irrational.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are your "countless" sources, and what exactly in the article did you edit? I really wonder what's there to be so "beyond relevant". They won Round 1 due to their special tactics and skills (guerrilla warfare-like), despite being outnumbered (and outgunned, literally). In Round 2, they were forced to fight regular battles and there were some hoplessly desperate Alamo-like last-stand defences in their wood-and-earth "castle" forts against cannons, but the combatant casualties were roughly the same anyway (4,000 Oda troops died in 1581, fighting against some 4,000 Iga no mono; the Oda also slaughtered noncombatants and burned everything). I'd say it made them pretty damn good unconventional warriors (in the sense of fighters), no? Or am I still "kidding you"? --Niemti (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"What exactly are your "countless" sources"

Now that is a proper, unloaded, question. Hence I do not mind answering it. Let's look at the claims in the BBC article:

• "the country does have one, or maybe two, surviving ninjas." Who are these two? First you have Jinichi Kawakami. He claims not to be an heir to ninjutsu by blood, but that he has learned the art from his master Masazo Ishida. What do we know of Masazo Ishida? Nothing. What evidence do we have of Masazo Ishida having learned authentic ninjutsu? None. What about the "maybe two" guy? That's the (in)famous Masaaki Hatsumi. See Masaaki_Hatsumi#Ninjutsu_lineage and the sources it cites, for ample evidence that his claims are without evidence (and also a mention of why Jinichi Kawakami's claims are also dubious).
• The ninja suit. To their credit, they at least acknowledge that the notion that ninjas wore black, is wrong ...but they still say that they did wear the stereotypical ninja suit. This is wrong in so many ways, and for so many reasons. There exists no evidence for such clothing. Why would a spy wear clothes that shout "I am a spy!"? This is one of the most stupid myths about ninja, ever. Ninja#Outerwear covers this, how it is wrong and where the myth came from.
• Shuriken. These were weapons of the samurai. There is no evidence of any special "ninja shuriken". For more info and for sources, it should be enough to mention shuriken (which, naturally, cites sources which confirm this).
• Kusari katabira. Same as shuriken. See Kusari (Japanese mail armour) and the sources it cites.
• Bo-hiya. Same thing. See Bo-hiya (Japanese fire arrow) and the sources it cites.
• The ninja sword. Such a weapon never existed. See Ninjatō and the sources it cites.

...and I could go on if you insist, but I'm getting tired of this and what I have covered should be enough.

"and what exactly in the article did you edit?"

Which article? The BBC article? It would be impossible for me to edit it. The Wikipedia article? ... Who cares? What does it matter? What relevance does it have to anything?

"I really wonder what's there to be so "beyond relevant"."

It's such a basic thing, that I don't really know how to respond. It's a search result! That's not a source. It says nothing! Go read WP:RS.

"They won Round 1 due to their special tactics and skills (guerrilla warfare-like), despite being outnumbered (and outgunned, literally). In Round 2, they were forced to fight regular battles and there were some hoplessly desperate Alamo-like last-stand defences in their wood-and-earth "castle" forts against cannons, but the combatant casualties were roughly the same anyway (4,000 Oda troops died in 1581, fighting against some 4,000 Iga no mono; the Oda also slaughtered noncombatants and burned everything)."

Citation needed.

...also: "Iga no mono" is Japanese for "people of Iga". We are talking in English. Say "Iga people" or "...of the Iga side". There is no excuse for just mixing in random Japanese words, for no good reason. It's fine if it's a name (like Musashi, Koshien or Nihon Ki-in), or a concept that we don't have in English (like sushi, hikikomori or yūgen), but something as basic as "people"?

When speaking in one language, what possible reason is there, to needlessly sprinkle in words from a different language, when you could simply use words of the language you are using? Why would you want that?

For چ (Kurdish for what/which) riyuu would you hoshii that? In what Weise would that förbättra anything?

Either write in English, or in Japanese. (and if you write in Japanese, get out of the English Wikipedia)

"I'd say it made them pretty damn good unconventional warriors (in the sense of fighters), no?"

What evidence do you have that they were unconventional fighters? Also: Being an unconventional fighter isn't enough to make you a ninja. What evidence do you have that they were ninja? Do you have any evidence that any tactics, strategy or fighting styles they used, where ninja arts?

So far, you haven't even provided any evidence that the event even happened.

To be fair, linking to a Wikipedia article (as I have done), doesn't count as a Reliable Source according to Wikipedia policy, but... There are reasons why they aren't allowed as sources on Wikipedia articles, but those reasons don't really apply here. A google search, however... *facepalm*--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I was interested in your apparent denial of "secret" villages and the "fact" of no special combat (yes, combat) tactics - because of "countless sources", not some sudden rants about the shuriken or what not. Unconventional - this not how the samurai fought their battles, and not what they excepted (they excepted an easy victory over what they thought was a bunch of mountain-valley dwelling hicks, both outnumbered and outgunned, and facing an army with a record of kicking asses all around). 'People from Iga' is what the 'ninja' (a neologysm) from Iga were called back then when hiring themseles outside of secluded homeland during the great civil war era. This very article ninja mentions 'Iga' 53 times (including in the lead: "In the unrest of the Sengoku period (15th–17th centuries), mercenaries and spies for hire became active in the Iga Province and the adjacent area around the village of Kōga, and it is from their ninja clans that much of our knowledge of the ninja is drawn."). "Citation needed" I've provided (Google Books English-language selection, choose any of your particular liking, they all agree on how the Oda clan's Iga conquest campaign(s) went like), it's not my business you disregarded literally all the literature readily available. And of course I meant the Wikipedia article, and the revelence is I see you now even deny the very Iga-ninja connection, and so I need to check what damage you might have inflicted here. It's also really strange you apparently didn't even hear of the most pivotal event in the articler's subject's history (with Oda Nobunaga's face even illustrating this article). --Niemti (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

"I was interested in your apparent denial of "secret" villages and the "fact" of no special combat (yes, combat) tactics - because of "countless sources", not some sudden rants about the shuriken or what not."

Really? Because what you said, was that you were interested in my denial of the claims made in the BBC article, due to countless sources ...which is exactly what I provided evidence for.

As to your claim that I deny "secret" villages and the "fact" of no special combat (yes, combat) tactics - because of "countless sources"... That is a separate issue.

You made a claim about what happened in Iga. You provided no evidence for it ...and no a search is not a source. To repeatedly putting forth a search result, when I have pointed out that it isn't valid, is either spamming or trolling. Either way it is not productive.

You made claims about what kind of tactics were used in Iga. You provided no evidence for it.

You made claimed a connection between those tactics, and ninja. You provided no evidence for it.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

What this article claims, is that Oda Nobunaga invaded Iga province and wiped out the organized clan. It says nothing about those clans being able effectively fight him off, initially, before being overwhelmed by his superior numbers, nor does it make any comment on their tactics or style of fighting, during the conflict. Furthermore, a lot of the sources used in this article, are not universally accepted as reliable. In fact, a lot of claims in ninja and ninjutsu, are backed by highly questionable sources. I'd revise a lot of things, in both articles, but... It'd be too much work.

...oh, and looking back at your comments, I see you once mentioned an article from Mie Prefecture. I'd deem that as highly unreliable, as they are massively biased. It is, very much, in their interest, for people to accept the popular perception of ninja and their connection to Iga

"'People from Iga' is what the 'ninja' (a neologysm) from Iga were called back then when hiring themseles outside of secluded homeland during the great civil war era."

Well then say "people from Iga" and not "伊賀の者". (also, I am not convinced that is the case)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

New info on ninja.

I just read the TvTropes page on ninja. The TvTropes page linked me to another article, this one on Kung Fu Magazine. The latter article, written by some guy named Anthony Cummins, claims to have debunked some of the biggest myths concerning ninjas today, and also provided examples of possible Chinese influence. Now I'm not an expert on ninjas, so can someone read the above Kung Fu Magazine article and tell me is it accurate?

Also, this Wikipedia page on ninja needs some cleanup. Look at the citations. About 80% of them came from Osprey Publishing, rather than multiple different sources, as this Cracked article pointed out.

There needs to be a Controversy section added to acknowledge that many sources believe that ninjas are a myth.

"Now I'm not an expert on ninjas, so can someone read the above Kung Fu Magazine article and tell me is it accurate?"

I wouldn't say that I'm an expert either, but I am somewhat informed, so...

While that article doesn't seem to qualify as a Reliable Source, for Wikipedia... Yeah, it's pretty much completely correct.

"Also, this Wikipedia page on ninja needs some cleanup. Look at the citations. About 80% of them came from Osprey Publishing, rather than multiple different sources, as this Cracked article pointed out."

Oh, I couldn't agree more! I find most of the sources to be rather dubious, to be honest.

"By the way, some people seem to have confusion over the term "ninja", and uses it to describe both ancient Japanese ninja and modern day ninjas. I think there should be a distinction between the two. Ninja describe a phenomenon during feudal Japan, so modern day ninjas should be called "neo-ninjas" rather than "ninjas"."

While I fully agree with what you are saying, there would be some problems with using such terminology in the Wikipedia article on ninjas, given that Wikipedia is supposed to use common terminology, not promote the use of new terminology (...though such promotion can be done outside of Wikipedia and I would encourage it). Still, I agree that the article should make it clear when it is talking about genuine, historical, ninja and when it's talking about modern day "ninja".

You're right, Wikipedia should not come up with new terms. However, I'm not the one who came up with the term "neo-ninja", I read it on another website discussing ninjas. Plus, I think "neo-ninja" is an okay term. Here's the definition of "neo" from The Free Dictionary: "neo - new; recent (e.g. neolithic), new and different from the original (e.g. neo impressionism)". Finally, many Wikipedia articles use "neo-": neo-Nazism, neo-confucianism, neosocialism, etc.

That bullshido.org uses neoninja isn't really relevant, as it's just one site. Just because the term is used by a rare few individuals and/or groups, doesn't make it a notable term. While neo- does have a clear meaning and the meaning of the term neo-ninja would thus be instantly recognizable and understood, that's beside the point.

Furthermore, the fact that Wikipedia articles use terms like neo-Nazism, neo-confucianism and neo socialism is completely irrelevant, as those are already very well established terms.

I'd like to agree with you, as I'd be in favour of using neo-ninja in the article, but your arguments don't quite work.--

Off Shoot of Old Chinese Tradition

When a society breaks down and civil wars ensue, there are always mercenaries. In the West, they became brigandeers and contardores under a rogue captain. In China and Japan, they became retainer soldiers under a warlord.

During the Warring State period in China near the end of the Zhou Dynasty, warlords acquired thousands of mercenary retainers as "house guests". Each guest brought a special skill to the service for hire. No one with any skill was refused admittance. Skills in fighting, killing, spying, stealing, lying, and plotting are especially valued. A haven for all sorts of criminals and undesirables. Because of the mishmash riffraff collections, personal loyalty to the warlord was especially important. When a warlord is defeated, it was the duty of every retainer to avenge him. The unemployed retainers became homeless assassins. The requirement for achieving their goal is "patience" and "suffering". Some endeaverd years of planning and some endured years of disguise to avenge their lord. The longer the patience and the deeper the suffereing, the greater the glory. They became folkheros and remained popular even after Qin Dynasty conquered all warring states and unified China. With a centralized government, these mercenaries soldiers went underground and regrouped into "black societies" and "houses". Some of them hired themselves out as bodyguards, especially as escorts for rich people or for transporting valuable cargo. They founded many schools of martial arts all over China. The more famous ones are Shaolin in northern China and Wudan in southern China, fists in the south and kicks in the north. Every Chinese kid dreamed of running away from home to join them.

Not surprising, when Japan entered the Warring period, the warlords adopted the Chinese mercenary retainer system. As each warlord is defeated, the unemployed mercenaries became wandering raffians plaguing the society. Some found employment as assassins and spies, others became thieves and robbers. They not only adopted the same training and weaponary, they also adopted the same Chinese name, Patient Suffering Ones, "Ninja" in Japanese. However, instead of runniing away to join them, the Japanese created Ninja Amusement Parks. What a clever idea!

VimalaNowlis (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nakagawa Shoshunjin

The article misspells Shoshunjin as "Shoshujin". Check the source that is cited for the correct spelling. 74.91.108.178 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

The in popular culture section has too colorful language, and seems to subjectively read like a conclusion of an essay. It seems to create a subjective conclusion and lots of unsourced POV. What do you all think? --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Tactical clarification request...

The first sentence in the final paragraph of ==Tactics==, beginning "Tactics martial arts ninja in sabotage and assassination was..." currently seems somewhat jumbled. (Possibly another ninja distraction tactic? ;-) 31.50.164.46 (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Portrait of Oda Nobunaga, by Jesuit painter Giovanni Niccolo, 1583–1590.

Hello apologies have never commented on a page before and am definitely not an expert but I am surprised by labelling of the Portrait of Oda Nobunaga, by Jesuit painter Giovanni Niccolo, 1583–1590. It looks like a 19th/early 20th century photo. Is this definitely a 16th century painting? Nat40 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

photos

i think the article needs more photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.234.178 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Diet

Let's add a section about the ninja diet.

"Foods eaten by the ninja. For health, ninja avoided meat, fish, dairy foods, and sugars in favor of a diet centered on whole-grain rice and vegetables. Also, to avoid being detected when sneaking or hiding, they avoided foods that might lead to body odor."

Benjamin (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

References

More sources

For anyone serious about editing this page, there are some good sources in this book:

http://www.tuttlepublishing.com/books-by-country/ninja-attack

I'm far from an expert, but beyond that book, I've lived in Japan and visited a few Ninja museums. While they have their touristy aspects, the curators are very willing to talk about how much of the popular ninja image is wrong. For example, ninjas were spies. They were supposed to blend in. Swords didn't make you blend in, they were for samurai only. Japan to this day does not allow regular people to own swords (or firearms for that matter) except under certain circumstances, to the point where if a civilian commits suicide by gun in Japan, people are often incredibly worried about how that person obtained it (because it happened while I was there). Carrying around a sword would be like having a stolen police car, with the punishment being death.

There's already talk about this page needing varied sources, so here's one point to start countering some of the more dubious notions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dengarsw (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

While the citations aren't as specific in this (the linked) article on Sword Hunts, it suggests that swords weren't always prohibited for the peasantry, and in some cases were quite common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt?wprov=sfla1 2601:600:9C80:B670:CC3C:C1BF:D27D:284F (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible error in citation

To avoid confusion it should be clear what a ninja really was, but I cannot see "The functions of a ninja included espionage, sabotage, infiltration, assassination and guerrilla warfare." in Ratti & Westbrook 1991.

I replaced the source and description.--Sacchisachi (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Outdated ideas

I think this article needs to come up to date on its details. Shuriken, katana, kusarigama, these were all Samurai weapons.

I definintely think the Osprey and Adams (1970) sources are outdated and proven wrong by newer research. For example: Using a katana to gain a higher foothold would severely damage the blade, considering the quality of japanese steel at the time as well as the general construction of the katana.

Koga Ricu

Koga Ninja Legionnaire1987 (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Streamer link seems out of place

I'm wondering why there is a distinguished disambiguation link to the streamer at the head of the article -- does it belong, is there any precedent, etc. Ninjas are a cultural icon with widespread variations and homages to be found throughout the cultural zeitgeist, but singling out a currently popular streamer in the article's disambiguation line seems like a product of recentism. There is some precedent to this, the unqualified Prince article being the most obvious example, but Prince took decades to prove his staying power. Internet personalities are relatively ephemeral, and their staying power is difficult to judge given the lack of barriers for building a YouTube, Twitch, or Mixer audience relative to other media. Such a distinguished disambiguation link only seems appropriate if the subject of said link will be commonly sought out for decades to come. -- sarysa (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems a deliberate hijack of a popular topic to drive traffic to a niche and little-known individual. Disambiguation contains a People section listing individuals with much higher social profiles and fuller bodies of work. I am aware of "assuming good faith" precept but this sticks out like proverbial dog's balls and is exceedingly tacky in the context of a largely historically factual article.2001:8004:1246:FED:21D0:1025:FB03:13B0 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ninja&oldid=981193648

Please undo this revision, it is both grammatically and factually incorrect. 2001:4898:80E8:2:B926:C89C:772E:E9B5 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Done - Snori (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Im the president of the united states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:4400:F3B0:95BA:5BE1:81D0:F673 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

I would like to add to some facts about ninjas Cgilbert2003 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 15:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo in the Etymology section "忍の者" instead of "忍びの者"

The Etymology section uses "忍の者"(shinobu no mono) instead of "忍びの者"(shinobi no mono) both https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E5%BF%8D%E8%80%85/ and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BF%8D%E8%80%85 uses "忍びの者" EightHorseman (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 04:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"The first recorded use of espionage was under the employment of Prince Shōtoku in the 6th century"

This seems dubious. Do Ratti and Westbrook cite a primary source? The current implication of our text is that the information comes from the Nihon Shoki, a very early work with coverage of Prince Shōtoku, but no such passage appears in that text, at least in the Aston translation (and the relatively few instances of 廐戸, 厩戸, or 聖徳 at http://www.kikuchi2.com/jodai/shokiall.html support the idea that Aston's eight index entries for the prince is all she wrote). This site (not necessarily reliable, but at least written by someone proficient in Japanese, which is more than could be said for a lot of writers of martial arts books published through Tuttle in recent decades) attributes this story to a number of seemingly very late texts: I don't think we should say that "the first recorded use of espionage was in the 6th century" when the extant record of that comes from the 17th century or later, but I'm reluctant to remove the text outright because I've never heard of Ratti or Westbrook -- were they professional historians or Japanologists with access to better resources than I have managed to locate? Were they referring to an entirely different supposed use of espionage by Prince Shōtoku in the 6th century appearing in a source from 9th or 10th century? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Prince Hikaru Genji and a ninja"

This scene or something like it appears in the 1951 Tale of Genji film, and in this Kunisada print from a century earlier, so I suspect it comes from an Edo-period pop culture version of the Genji, such as Nise Murasaki Inaka Genji, but I can't seem to verify it -- I'm very reluctant to trust Turnbull on this matter, but he seems to agree with my intuition on this point, and he even mentions Kunisada as the text's illustrator. I'm fairly certain the narrative doesn't appear in any standard text of the Genji. It seems a little misleading to be linking our article on Hikaru Genji (and calling him a "prince") without clarification of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)