Talk:Togakure-ryū

Historical accuracy

Pages 19-20 of "The Way of the Ninja" by Masaaki Hatsumi (ISBN: 4770028059) seem to contradict what is written in this article. Shima Kosanta Minamoto no Kanesada was a 16-year-old vassal (in 1181) under Yoshinaka and is said to have trained in the Togakure area. In 1184 (when Yoshinaka died), he was heavily wounded in battle and rescued by a Taoist known as Kasume-gakure ("Hiding in the mist"). The Taoist trained him and eventually he changed his name to Togakure Daisuke and established Togakure-ryû.

This needs to be corrected unless someone wants to dispute this book.

The passage of text in this book, apparently, has been duplicated here: http://www.freewebs.com/hibukimono/

Eradicator (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I've started to play around with the format of the article to try and improve it. Thus far, I've simply removed the bias from the first line, and moved the sources to the end (adding my own source).

I've left the 'unverified' tag, as I haven't checked the specifics of the history, nor the techniques themselves (given that I don't know much of the Togakure-ryu).

As for the kyoketsu-shoge having no formal techniques, I shall have to verify that as well. I've trained in some techniques for it, but whether they're actually from densho for it, or simply applications of "kara-te" taijutsu to the weapon, requires checking it.

--Sasuke Sarutobi 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no bias on the first line; it must be said somewhere in this article that the "history" of Togakure ryu herein is derived only from sources inside Bujinkan. In particular, there does not exist any secondary sources by academic historians that acknowledge even the existence of Togakure-ryu before Meiji restauration and Takamatsu's time, much less a history dating several centuries before the amalgamation of the very first koryūs known to historians. Katori Shinto-ryu is barely 600 years old. In fact, the dating "c. 800 years" ago places the birth of Tokagure-ryu earlier in history that the birth of ryū-ha itself as a political institution. See e.g. Friday: Legacies of the Sword or G. Cameron Hurst III's books about the origins and meaning of ryū-ha system (the Wikipedia article is quite naive and need rewriting). jni 18:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some edits I made. . .

I removed the "Dr." in front of Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi. His doctorate was awarded by what was found to be a diploma mill, and even before that fact became publicly known, Hatsumi asked people to stop referring to him as Dr.

I changed a bit of the formatting as well as correcting how some paragraphs were constructed in respect to the Japanese words being used. The grammar needed to be touched up a little bit as well.

More edits need to be done to bring a more neutral stance to the page. This info is all Bujinkan sourced. There is more information on Togakure ryu available from other sources. If anyone feels so inclined they may research Togakure ryu's connection to Kukishin ryu. There is also connection to amatsu tatara.

Paradoxbox2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoxbox2 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

More edits...

I tightened up the shape of the formal techniques among other things like a general cleanup, but this time around no time for citations follow up or attributing the Bujinkan Dojo martial arts organization as the main source. Julia Rossi 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Bugei Ryuha Daijiten states that Toda Shinryuken (Ishinsai) died in Meiji 13 at the age of 73 and that Takamatsu’s birth took place four years later but the list of soke says that Takamatsu was born in 1887 and Toda died in 1909. These 2 sections contradict each other.

According to the Bujinkan...

There are a number of problems with this phrasing. Its blatant passive aggression lowers the the article to the status of problematic content. It's also used inconsistantly. 'According to the Bujinkan, The oldest copy of the densho of Togakure ryu (which is in the possession of Hatsumi Masaaki) is written on the same physical scroll as the densho of Gyokko ryu.' Here you appear to imply that there are other, older versions of these documents, which it is clear from your tone is a view you do not subscribe to. For the record, it is my opinion that Togakure ryu was created by Takamatsu Toshitsugu in the mid-twentieth century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.104.197 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yon-Po Hiden?

What is this? Everything I've ever read (training notes of other trainees) or been taught refer to only Sanpo Hiden (Senban Shuriken, Shuko, and Shinodake), and another Sanpo Hiden (Metsubushi, Kinteki, and Happa) of the kyusho in the Ryu's taijutsu. These also fall in line with Buddhist themes in this and other ko-ryu (三宝 sanpo refers to the three Buddhist treasures). Can a source be provided for the Yonpo Hiden? Stslavik (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

So, it can be established that a school called "Togakure-ryū" has been reported since the late 1960s.[1]. The claim that this school is based on the content of a physical manuscript is much more difficult to trace. On the face of it, this is something taught by Masaaki Hatsumi since the 1960s, and a valid topic within Bujinkan.

But as soon as claims on physical manuscripts are thrown around, we need better references. All information on this is based on Black Belt magazine and assorted websites. There is no evidence that any of this is based on anything other than simply the word of Masaaki Hatsumi. I don't even see any claim as to the origin of the "original manuscript". If Masaaki Hatsumi sat down with brush and ink one day, he could just have produced this manuscript himself, which would make the content of such a manuscript no different from the voice of Masaaki Hatsumi in any medium. The claim that any of this has a connection with 12th century Japan, rather than 1960s Japan, either needs reasonable substantiation, or it needs to go. Or, much more plausibly, this manuscript is written something in best faith by Toshitsugu Takamatsu, perhaps in the 1950s or 1960s. As such, it would be an interesting document of samurai traditions as they stood in the early 20th century (Takamatsu was born in 1889), directly informed by Meiji era traditions due to Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu. Yes, this would be interesting in its own right. No, we cannot substantiate, on the sources presented so far, that this is the case.

Since Hatsumi from the 1960s apparently had been throwing around claims of an "800 year old art", implying that it is based on an "ancient manuscript", admitting now that this was written by an old samurai in the 1950s based on Meiji era tradition would be a bit of an anti-climax. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Black Belt Magazine article is available online (Google Books) [2]. jmcw (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that this article is presented in what Wikipedia would call 'Primary source' format: the author (Andrew Been, a freelance writer who contributes frequently to BBM) presents the material as claims by Stephen Hayes. jmcw (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting content to separate Bujinkan article

• Against for now. I do not think that it is necessary because there is not enough worthwhile content in this article to do that. However, I suspect that enough content could be generated to make that worthwhile.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Against Currently this entire article barely has enough content to be notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

um, this article isn't notable except as a dubious claim by Bujinkan. The "split" should actually be a "merge".

To those that like to insist on stating, in Wikipedia's voice, that this is about a medieval tradition: show us the references. By references, I mean of course scholarly references independent from the airy claim made by Hatsumi in 1981. No, a "lulu.com" publication of 2010, likely as not based off the Wikipedia page, is not a "reference". If you do not have any references to support there is evidence of such a tradition in the 12th century, you have no business claiming as much on Wikipedia.

You may argue that this is notable even as an unsubstantiated claim within Bujinkan -- in this case establish notability. Perhaps you want to begin with establishing the notability for the Bujinkan article itself before trying to create sub-articles on the topic. You are interested in Bujinkan? Well, then go and try to get that article into decent shape. After you have done that, there will be ample time to dwell on tangential sub-topics. --dab (𒁳) 11:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that even one scholarly reference would be very valuable to this article. jmcw (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to find even one scholarly reference as scholars don't spend their time studying stuff derived from ninja gokko (childhood ninja games). Our article Bugei Ryuha Daijiten claims that this standard encyclopedia of Japanese martial traditions mentions Togakure-ryū, can someone who can read Japanese and has the book verify that please? I know this reference mentions some of the Hatsumi ryus, but unsure if specifically Togakure ryu is there. jni (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

The bulk of the sources in this article are taken from Bujinkan members, or articles written using only Bujinkan members as their primary source of information. Since the Bujinkan has a direct profit motivation to create a false historical lineage, these references don't seem to be very legitimate. I've tried to indicate the source of various claims through the article, and have added additional references regarding the historical legitimacy of claims made. Please provide a reason if you would like to remove these changes. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The way you reworded it made the article seem POV, as if the style didn't exist, though it is quite clear that it does, from the Martial Art of the World Encyclopedia for one, and that it is discussed in ancient documents. Secondly, you are adding words like claimed for Takamatsu, when he is the 33rd Soke, he is stated to be as such by the group, so he is. Thirdly, you are adding citation needed templates to sections that are already fully referenced. Lastly, you are adding in unreliable sources into the article.

I know that other martial arts have an issue with Ninjutsu existing. I personally don't understand why it is such a big deal, but I am here as an editor of Wikipedia to keep the article neutral and not POV biased against the style. Silverseren^C 15:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Attributing the claims made to the sources of the claims doesn't mean that the style does not exist. There are a couple good sources that do indicate that there is some historical basis for this art. I have no issue with ninjutsu, Togakure-ryu, the Bujinkan or any martial art practitioner - provided that they can back up their historical claims with facts and sources. Takamatsu claims to be the 33rd Soke of this art. Many individuals and historians disagree with him (such as the ones listed in the sources that I've cited that you've twice removed), and say that he made his 'ninjitsu' up. Either way, at the very least this article should be strongly worded to indicate whenever a source/claim by the Bujinkan or a Bujinkan instructor about historical ninjitsu is made. Their findings do not agree with those of historians, and appear to be motivated by a need to claim some kind of history to market their schools. Again, I have no opinion on the quality of martial art taught by their school, just that they are not a reliable source of history for ninjutsu. I will revert my citations back in and attempt to reword them in a more NPOV way. It is vitally important for the integrity of the article that should stay in however.--GuitarStv (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There, I've done what I can to indicate that Hatsumi and Takamatsu have no documentation to back their claims of a ninjitsu lineage. This does not change the fact that Togakure-ryū is documented as having existed long ago in 'The Rough Guide to Japan', and in 'The Immortals: History's Fighting Elite'. Information from Bujinkan sources (and Black Belt magazine articles written using Hatsumi or Hayes as primary sources) should be taken with a grain of salt, since they have a vested interest in making claims about the history of Togakure-ryū.--GuitarStv (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted you again because you've done a number of things that are improper for a WIkipedia article.

1) The lede of an article is, generally, a summary of the rest of the article. The amount of references used in it are to be minimized, so citation needed templates in the lede are improper.

2) The sources you added, such as this, this (and likely biased considering the answer to the heir question), and this, are all unreliable sources. They cannot be used in a Wikipedia article, because they do not have reputation for fact-checking.

3) You added other citation needed templates to parts of the article that are clearly referenced.

If you have an issue with any specific references, let me know and i'll do my best to replace them. But please do that add in the improper formatting and references from before. Silverseren^C 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

First, please stop with the wholesale reverts to this article. You are reverting changes that you are not complaining about (including requests for citation, updating the authors first name in one of your citations to the name shown on the cover, and an update to indicate the date of information realted to schools of Togakure-ryū. If you have an issue with an individual section please update it.

Regarding your issue with the sources that I've added to the article:

• http://www.koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html - Koryu.com does in fact have a reputation for fact checking. They produce a lot of research about martial arts from feudal Japan. Please explain why you think that this site does not have a reputation for fact checking.
• http://iganinja.jp/en/faq/index.html - website of the official Iga ninja museum in Japan. Please explain why this museum does not have a reputation for fact checking.
• http://www.mardb.com/ninjutsu-and-koryu-bujutsu/ - I honestly don't know much about this article, other than the fact that I've read it through. Can you please explain which facts are not checked and what makes the article invalid?

Finally I'd like to point out that there are some issues with the following sources (used to collect the majority of the information in the article), namely that they are all from the same source . . . Masaaki Hatsumi and the Bujinkan organization:

• Hatsumi, Masaaki (1988). Essence of ninjutsu: the nine traditions. Contemporary Books. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Morris, Glenn (1992). Path Notes of an American Ninja Master. North Atlantic Books. pp. 1–2. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Glen Morris, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andy Adams (October 1982). "The Roots and Reality of Ninjutsu". Black Belt. 20 (10). Active Interest Media: 45–48. Retrieved Octobr 10, 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Levy, Joel (2008). Ninja: The Shadow Warrior. Sterling Publishing Company. p. 47. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - Written by Joel Levy, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andy Adams (October 1986). "Ninjutu's Leader Opens Fire". Black Belt. 24 (10). Active Interest Media: 36–40. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• Jim Coleman (February 1983). "Ninja in the modern world". Black Belt. 21 (2). Active Interest Media: 20–25. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Wilhelm, Thomas (2010). Ninja Hacking: Unconventional Penetration Testing Tactics and Techniques. Elsevier. pp. 10–12. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - Written by Thomas Wilhelm, instructor of Bujinkan
• Andrew Breen (December 1992). "Trick or treat?". Black Belt. Active Interest Media: 30–34. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) - Written from information from primary source, Masaaki Hatsumi, head of Bujinkan
• Hayes, Stephen K. (1990). The ninja and their secret fighting art. Tuttle Publishing. p. 22. Retrieved October 16, 2011. - Written by Stephen Hayes, former instructor of Bujinkan
• Darryl Caldwell (June 1985). "The Ninja Web". Black Belt (Active Interest Media) 23 (6): 15. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 17, 2011. - Written by Darryl Caldwell, instructor of Bujinkan
• Stephen Hayes (January 1978). "Ninjutsu: A Martial Art of Mystique". Black Belt (Active Interest Media) 16 (1): 76-78. ISSN 0277-3066. Retrieved October 20, 2011. - Written by Stephen Hayes, former instructor of Bujinkan

If you were to remove the Bujinkan related bits there are almost no citations in this entire article. I'm not suggesting that we delete everything, just that an indication is made that this information all stems from the same source - The Bujinkan and people who depend on revenues from it for their living.--

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvfetterly (talk • contribs)

You are the one making wholesale changes to the article and removing information from it that are in the sources.

In order, Koryu: A book publisher saying that they do not sell books about ninjutsu is not a reliable source for saying that there is "no research" about Ninjutsu. Iga-Ryu: A ninja museum for a specific style saying that only their style is the real one isn't really a reliable source for whether other Ninjustsu styles exist of not, as the Museum is related to Iga-Ryu and biased from it. MARdb: There is no author or references listed and it is stated on their Disclaimer page, much like Wikipedia does, that their information cannot be relied upon to be accurate and they are not responsible if it is inaccurate. Thus, unreliable source. Silverseren^C 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the version by GuitarStv and Stvfetterly over SilverSeven's revert. Revert was too wholesale, valid citation needed tags were removed, citation from Bugei Ryuha Daijiten (The most comprehensive scholarly encyclopedia about Jap. martial arts!) was removed without discussion as "unreliable source" (duh!), dubious claims about 34th soke almost nobody outside Bujinkan believes were inserted back etc. etc. jni (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously biased in this regard, considering your comments here and here. You are not a neutral editor in this regard. Silverseren^C 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

So? Do I need to hold the obvious ninja bullshit in high regard to be considered as neutral editor? You don't seem to realize that there has been a constant flow of unreliable ninja-crap to Wikipedia over the years and several editors have participated in removing poorly sources material and biased edits from ninjutsu related articles over and over again. And you discovered this "controversy" a week ago? I think you are little out of your depth here. jni (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And they are the same person, by the way. Silverseren^C 20:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some additional remarks:

1. http://www.mardb.com/ninjutsu-and-koryu-bujutsu/ contains content that has been deleted from http://www.koryu.com/library/ninjutsu.html so these are two revisions of same page basically. Internet Archive would help here.
2. If the lead section cannot contain citation needed tags, then just don't put the disputed Bujinkan statements (34th soke, history is real, lineage is real etc.) there.
3. This statement by Silverseren defies logic: Secondly, you are adding words like claimed for Takamatsu, when he is the 33rd Soke, he is stated to be as such by the group, so he is. Uh oh, he is the 33rd soke if the 32nd, 31st, ... 1st sokes have actually existed, not otherwise. Obama is the 44th president of USA because the other 43 have existed and held the office before him, not because some cult-like group says so. Nobody is disputing that Bujinkan claims this, it just happens to be not true (and not even WP:V verifiable which is a far less strict condition than being true). jni (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• You haven't presented any reliable sources that dispute the history. The sources I have in the article, including the Encyclopedia, consider Ninjutsu and its nine styles to be real. We don't automatically say everything is only suspected to be true when we have no reason not to believe it. The Martial Arts of the World Encyclopedia specifically says that there are records of Ninjutsu and its Ryu styles from the time periods of when they emerged and later when they were used in stealth operations. Silverseren^C 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to remove the www.mardb.com reference from the article as a duplicate of the information found at Koryu.com I have no issue with that. However, you have not explained why the other sources that I've provided are not reliable. Just saying that something is so does not make it so. The iga ninja museam and koryu.com links are important as they are the only sources in the article not linked to the Bujinkan that deal with the 'modern ninja' claims being made. Please understand, nobody is claiming that Ninjitsu isn't real or didn't exist in history. All that I'm trying to indicate in the article is that Masaaki Hatsumi is making historical legitimacy claims that are unsupported by literature (other than that produced by his organization). I have already indicated why using Bujinkan sources (directly from Bujinkan members) is not really reliable or verifiable.

BTW, Sorry about any confusion caused by the two logins, I use a separate one for uploading things to Wikimedia and sometimes forget to log out of it before posting on Wikipedia. --Stvfetterly (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedia article that you have provided above: Martial Arts of the World Encyclopedia indicates that the section you're referencing was written by Ron Roy. Ron Roy is a member and instructor of the Genbukan . . . which is an offshoot of the Bujinkan.Check here, he's listed as 'Roy Ron'.--Stvfetterly (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that the Koryu and Iga-Ryu sources aren't literature either. In fact, there is no indication that either of them are reliable and neither of them even mentions Togakure-ryu.

You have yet to present any reliable sources that discuss that the stated history of Togakure-ryu is incorrect. Saying that people who write articles on the subject are connected to it in some way doesn't mean much. I'm sure I could do the same for any other martial art, as people aren't going to write about it if they don't have a reason to do so. All of the other Japanese martial arts listed in the template do the same, that doesn't mean the information in them is wrong. You have to give proof that it is thought to be wrong to say so in the article, we don't doubt the veracity of every article subject on Wikipedia outright when it is sourced. Silverseren^C 22:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting what is being shown here. If I pay 20 people to say that I'm ten feet tall, and I get them to write books about me being ten feet tall, and we make an industry based on the claims that I'm ten feet tall . . . it still doesn't make me ten feet tall. It would still be wrong to include that I'm ten feet tall in a wiki article. I have no issue with the references in the article that have been provided that do not come from the Bujinkan. I'm not even asking you to remove all of the items in the article that are taken from Bujinkan sources, just to indicate that the claims are made by one organization and that there is dissent among other historians as to the legitimacy of these statements. The Philosophic burden of proof lies with the person or group making claims about a topic. In this case it's the Bujinkan with their 'historical lineage'. Russell's teapot argument would suggest that the only logical way to proceed is to require proof of any assertions made. They have provided no historical documents or written records that can conclusively link the organization to the ninjutsu practiced and taught feudal Japan.

As to your other comment, if you find any other martial arts articles claiming lineage without references (other than groups that stand to profit from claiming a history), it is your duty as a Wikipedia editor to fix them. If you are unwilling or unable to fix them, I'd appreciate it if you can point them out to me and I'll see what I can do. Information should be clarified wherever possible on Wikipedia, for the benefit of all readers. Regards,--Stvfetterly (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that's not how Wikipedia works. If you don't have reliable sources for this hypothetical "dissent among other historians", then we must report the information that's included in the available sources. There was actually a discussion about this a while back on WP:V and, while I did oppose it, but i'll concede to the community, we report what is verifiable, not what is true. So, even if the history stated in this article and reported on in sources isn't true (and you have given no evidence that it isn't true anyways), we still have to report it like it is, unless and until other reliable sources are found that disagree with this true. And, even then, we don't rewrite the entire article to have words like claimed and purported, we add a section titled Criticism or Controversies and we add the information in there, with an accompanying sentence or two in the lede. We do not suddenly throw all the prior sources out and only go with the sources that criticize them.

What you're doing here is both throwing out the information contained in the sources at hand, but also not providing any sources that show that the current sources being used are incorrect. In a sense, you are violating out original research policy by putting your own opinion into the article without any backing. Silverseren^C 03:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not yet explained why the sources I provided are not reliable. The Bujinkan sources that you're claiming are legitimate all come from the same source, thus they are all are examples of Self Published Sources. Simply having many self published sources does not make the Bujinkan correct or authoritative. It doesn't make them wrong either. I have merely modified the article in line with various third party references that exist. This is not original research. I understand that you have made many contributions to this article. Please understand that you do not own the article, and no matter how you personally feel about the Bujinkan, dissenting views and third party references should be presented. You've also been unable to explain why Koryu.com or the museam of Iga ninjas in Japan are not valid sources. Until you can explain why self published sources should be used and third party sources should be discarded, I will not be able to comply with your demands for changes to the article.

Please also note: wikipedia does not require that something be published to be used as a resource. Just because they're not in book form does not make a reference invalid. You seem to be a little confused about this point. Regards,--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I already explained why they were unreliable or don't apply above. The main point about both of them is that neither mentions Togakure-ryu in any form or fashion. For one, Koryu is a book publisher saying that they do not publish books about ninjutsu, their opinion on whether ninjutsu is koryu or not is a far lower form of source than the others used in this article and there is no reason to believe it is reliable. If you want to have their opinion mentioned, fine, but it is nowhere strong enough to rewrite the article as you have done. And Iga-ryu is even more obvious, they're saying that only their practitioner is a real ninja. It's obviously biased. They've given no reasoning why the other schools aren't "real", they're only promoting their style, that's it. Using that to say "Neither Takamatsu , nor Hatsumi have been recognized as having any historical relation to ninjas or ninja schools" is incorrect and, yes, original research, because Iga-ryu doesn't mention either them or Togakure-ryu at all.

Again, you have yet to present any actual third party sources that are reliable and critical. What you changed the article to is still original research. Silverseren^C 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Koryu.com is a publisher involved with historical books related to the ancient martial arts of Japan. They deal with Koryu arts on a day to day basis. Please explain why their expertise is not reliable. The fact that Togakure-ryu is not specifically mentioned in the Koryu article is irrelevant. If I found an article about vegetables that didn't specifically mention celery, it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to celery. Togakure-ryuis currently taught as a modern, ninjitsu-derived art. The Koryu article indicates that they do not know of any surviving modern ninjitsu-derived arts. The only people who disagree are Bujinkan. That makes this article completely applicable in this case.

If you want to discount the Iga ninja museum as being biased because they're an original source then to prevent bias I can see your argument and somewhat agree with it. They are a self published source, and should be used to supplement the article, not as the primary source of information (as per Self Published Sources). However, the same rule must be applied to material that the Bujinkan (by their many related instructors / magazines / offshoots / websites) has published. Due to the point that you've raised, I have no issue removing all information in the article sourced from the Iga museam that you dispute . . . provided we remove all Bujinkan sourced material as well. If the Bujinkan material were to be removed, then the Koryu article that is used to dispute this material would no longer be necessary, and I would have no issue with removing it as well. That would leave the following sources:

• Richmond, Simon; Dodd, Jan; Branscombe, Sophie; Goss, Robert; Snow, Jean (2011). The Rough Guide to Japan. Penguin Group. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
• Cawthorne, Nigel (2009). The Immortals: History's Fighting Elites. MBI Publishing Company. p. 40. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
• Kornicki, Peter Francis; McMullen, James (1996). Religion in Japan: arrows to heaven and earth. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. Retrieved October 16, 2011.

Please indicate if this compromise is acceptable to you, I will be ready to rewrite the article based on these changes.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, checking the references above, Kornicki, Peter Francis; McMullen, James (1996). Religion in Japan: arrows to heaven and earth. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. Retrieved October 16, 2011. uses Hatsumi Masaaki as primary source, thus is yet another Bujinkan related reference and should be omitted.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the Iga-ryu source if it's used in a proper way. I'm not sure exactly what it could be used for, beyond saying that "The Iga Ninja Museum stated on its website that Kawakami Jinichi, honorary director of the Iga Ninja Museum, is the only true heir of Ninjutsu". Is that what you want in the article? If you think it's necessary, then I guess we can add that. I'm not sure what it gives to our readers though. Silverseren^C 18:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that your previous point makes much more sense. We should not base the whole article on self published sources. I've removed the Iga ninja ref'd material as well as the Bujinkan ref'd material now.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

See, now you're not even being reasonable. Interviews with subjects are not Self-published sources, neither are ones that use books by subjects as references. You've essentially vandalized the article. You're not here to improve it, you're here to make it look as horrible as possible. Silverseren^C 18:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was your idea to remove the self published sources (a good idea, it is actually a wiki policy). It's not my fault that almost the whole article was based on them. I'll do what I can to clean up the article without Bujinkan resources. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(out-dent) I think we are losing the perspective here. When using un-controversial primary source material, it is often presented as 'claimed' to leave the un-verified state clear. Controversial material not supported by reliable third-party references should be removed (or marked with 'citation needed'). Rather than using koyru.com a a reference, the site has many articles by respected authors (such as Meik Skoss, Dave Lowry, Diane Skoss, etc): these authors (and their articles) should be referenced rather than the book publisher. jmcw (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And I think the 'The Rough Guide to Japan' is not the most dependable, academic, peer-reviewed source. jmcw (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't really the claimed language, it's the removal of content, the addition of citation needed templates to the lede, and other things. The addition of words like claimed is really not something I care about that much. And there's been little to no indication from reliable sources that it's actually controversial. Silverseren^C 21:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If several reliable sources are in conflict, then there is a MPOV and all sources/POV should be reported. If an editor feels a statement needs a source, they may/should mark it with a 'citation needed' tag. If the editor believes that there is no reliable source, they may remove the material. If a second editor disagrees, they must find a reliable source in order to return the material. jmcw (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's for unreferenced material. The lede is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, it's really not supposed to have references, if one can manage it. And I haven't noticed any real "conflict" between sources, the only conflict i've noticed is a few of the dates, like one source says Takamatsu died in 1972 and another says he died in 1973. Silverseren^C 21:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any editors having problems with the historical school. The modern school does not have good references: theoretically, all mention should be removed. jmcw (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The same references are discussing both. What exactly isn't "good" about them? Silverseren^C 22:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[3] <g> jmcw (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me now. Silverseren^C 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is just another primary source to be approached with caution. jmcw (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• To any interested wikipedians, please bring your opinions and discussion here: Togakure-ryu dispute resolution page. Thanks, --Stvfetterly (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugei Ryuha Daijiten

Here are various quotes and translations from various editions of Bugei Ryuha Daijiten that I collected from the 'net:

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

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

Togakure-ryū (Nin)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that each of the three quoted editions claims that the lineage of Togakure-ryū is of suspect and is deliberately made to appear older than it actually is!

There is still a question how to classify Bugei Ryuha Daijiten as a source for this article. On the other hand it is a well-known encyclopedia, even if it is about a specialist topic, and encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. But on the other hand one of its authors (Watatani) was a friend of Toshitsugu Takamatsu, so he likely got at least some of his information directly from Takamatsu. This exceptional case could make the encyclopedia entry about Togakure-ryū a primary source! If we accept BRDJ as primary source, then the 1963 edition could as well be the oldest primary source about Togakure-ryū. In any case, we have now verified that Togakure-ryū indeed existed in early 1960s. Now only if someone could verify it existed for the first 800 years or so as Bujinkan sources claim, contradicting BRDJ which says the history is backdated. jni (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So it was this that was removed in the 4th edition of the Bugei? It's kind of annoying that they don't give their own opinion on how old it is, they just say that it is not as old as 11th century. But, at minimum, if it was practiced by Toda and his family, it would be from before the Meiji Restoration of 1866, correct? Actually, even if just by Toda alone, as long as he practiced it before he was 38, it would be before the Restoration. Are there any reliable sources that actually give a guess then on when it was established? Silverseren^C 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote "there are many points/places where embellishments have been added and people appearing in the genealogy are also made older than they actually are" suggests that claims made regarding an unbroken lineage should be regarded with some skepticism. I'm not sure that you could even assume that the art was practiced by Toda and his family because again, you would be relying on the word of people who are attempting to falsify historical records. Has anyone found any (non-Bujinkan) information regarding Toda and his family? It seems very hard to find anything more than the name.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the 4th edition is the 2003 version, from which I don't have an exact quote about this topic in my notes. This edition was posthumously edited by certain Yasuhiro Saito, whose qualifications to edit this encyclopedia are unclear to me. Original authors of BRDJ, Watatani and Yamada, where scholars who read original mediaeval sources and published their research in dozens of books and articles, some (all?) of them in peer reviewed journals, but I have been unable to find any information about this new editor of the 2003 book. He could be anybody and changed the text for any reason whatsoever, as far as I know. If Toda Shinryūken Masamitsu died 1908 (Wikipedia article claims 1909, without citation), then Takamatsu was just 18 or 19 years old at the time (Wikipedia claims he was born 1889 and cites some random website about this, but this contradicts BRDJ 1969 entry quoted above). If we accept the Wikipedia birth year, it is certainly possible for a teenager to practise few years diligently and gain mastery of the art and perhaps achieve headmaster level of expertise, but how common is that and how well has the tradition been preserved when teacher died so soon? Note that the 1963 and 1969 editions of BRDJ have a different date for Toda's death year, Meiji 13 (1880), which is years before Takamatsu was even born. However, this is widely accepted as error in BRDJ that was corrected in the 3rd edition. I don't know if 1969 BRDJ is wrong about Takamatsu's birth year as well or not ("Takamatsu’s birth took place four years later" [counting from Toda's incorrect death year Meiji 13 (1880) so about 1884)].

But the real problem here is that the BRDJ information about Toda comes from Takamatsu. Also all information about Toda in books written by Hatsumi or other Bujinkan members comes via Takamatsu. All secondary and tertiary sources just quote those earlier Hatsumi/Takamatsu/Bujinkan sources. It does not matter how many people write new books about this if they just recycle the same argument that is oral history as told by Takamatsu. Nobody has ever produced a document that does not come from Takamatsu about Toda Shinryūken Masamitsu. There is only this single source that claims Toda even existed. Takamatsu could have invented him to fabricate a history for his martial art. There is simply no independent verification about this, one way or the other. jni (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

@Stvfetterly: Except that sentence isn't saying that the lineage as a whole is untruthful, it's saying that the ages on the list are older than they should be, meaning the Togakure-ryu is probably younger than it's stated to be. If you just involve the Toda family, it would be around the 17-18th century.

@Jni: I find it hard to believe that he didn't exist, since he is said to be the leader of a number of martial arts styles other than Togakure-ryu. The issue may be that information on him cannot be readily found on the internet. Oh, and question: Is the author of this related to Bujinken? Because, if not, then that book may deserve a looking through, since it's discussing the modern events of the style. And what about the author of this book? And this one? And one last one here? Silverseren^C 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, where do you think a book titled Ninjutsu: historia, tradición, y técnicas de Bujinkan Dojo got its information? And Ninja-to: Das Schwert der Ninja seems to be about ninjato, a fictional weapon that does not exist. Also most, if not all, knowledge about the other 8 ryus Hatsumi claims to represent can be traced to Takamatsu so there is little point of dragging history of say Gyokko ryu into this discussion. The histories of other Bujinkan ryus are likely fabricated or at least backdated too. jni (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the whole lineage is false, just that they have shown to falsify some of the historical record. Primary sources of this type tend to carry some bias, but this indicates tampering with historical records. The fact that they have been proven to fake some data would make me leery about accepting their word regarding the other claims. I'm not sure I follow how you're jumping from "some ages aren't what they were claimed by Toda Shinryūken" (the claimed successor immediately prior to Takamatsu) to "The history is all legit for the whole Toda family part of the lineage". Could you explain that reasoning please?--Stvfetterly (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Jni: But do you have proof that's where they got their info from? Maybe in the end of the book, i'll have to check. I would assume though that the people aren't associated with Bujinkan, since you didn't comment on that. And, actually, those links have nothing to do with Gyokko Ryu. I was looking up Gyokko Ryu to find information on Toda, when I found those books, which also have extensive information on Togakure-ryu, if you enter it into the search bar.

@Stvfetterly: I was just giving an example. The Bugei did not say the entire lineage is false, we can state in the article that they said that ages and other info were extended, according to the Bugei. It would be really helpful if there was a source that actually gave a guess on the age of the style because, like I said before, if Toda studied it, then it would have been before the Restoration. But, for now, all we can say is that a friend of Takamatsu said that the lineage contained embellishments and extended ages.

Question: Why do the paragraphs change so drastically from version to version. Like, the statement that Toda died younger than possible to teach Takamatsu is removed in the most recent 1978 version. Was that incorrect information from Watatani that was changed? Silverseren^C 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

From the passages, it is clear that embellishment of the historical account took place. At the least the '34 generations of ninja masters' Bujinkan claim should be looked at with some pretty healthy skepticism. All that the articles can ensure is that Tokagure-ryu was passed from Toda to Takamatsu orally. We can't be sure that it predates the Meji restoration because there exists the possibility that Toda may not have even studied it . . . he may have created the thing when he was older (trying to pass something on to the next generation, create a legacy, etc.).

The 1978 version was revised by the original authors, it would stand to reason that they updated the book with the information available to them at the time. They may have found new information that Toda did not die too young to have taught Takamatsu, accounting for the change.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Then we should use the Bugei in the Criticism section, using it for the statement that the lineage contains embellishments and extended ages for the people listed. We don't have any direct sources that states that Toda didn't teach or learn Togakure-ryu from someone else at this point and, until we have a reference that says that, we can't either.

Also, Alpha Quadrant just responded at the DRN discussion, saying he doesn't think the sources I used were primary. Now, can we please change the article back to what it was before and incorporate the sources you guys have been discussing here? Silverseren^C 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Alpha Quadrant understands the issue that the editors on this page have with the Bujinkan sources. We're not arguing that Togakure-ryu never existed, the argument is that only the Bujinkan and affiliates are claiming that modern teaching of Togakure-ryu is in any way related to historical Togakure-ryu. This is an important distinction, because in the article that you want to revert back to it contains the following 7 references to Bujinkan historical claims:

1. After Togakure, the title of Sōke (grand master) was passed down through other practitioners that kept the style secret from the outside world. - Unsourced claim
2. The 33rd Sōke, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, became renowned throughout China and Japan for his martial arts abilities and also his extensive knowledge that resulted from learning the Ninjutsu skills. Passing on the title of Sōke to the 34th, Masaaki Hatsumi, it was Hatsumi who took the style public, which has resulted in the ninja craze in the Western world. - Claim of lineage, supported only by Bujinkan
3. Since then, the Togakure-ryū style has been passed down through the years until it was given mastership to Shinryuken Toda, the 32nd Sōke of Togakure-ryū. He began teaching the style to his grandson, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, since Takamatsu was five in 1893. When he turned 19, Takamatsu was announced as the next successor of the Togakure-ryū style, becoming the 33rd Sōke. - Claim of lineage, supported only by Bujinkan
4. Not long afterward, Takamatsu announced that Hatsumi would be the 34th Sōke of Togakure-ryū. - Claim of lineage, supported only by Bujinkan
5. Lineage - This whole section is entirely based on Bujinkan teachings. The Bugei ryuha daijiten passages that we have should be enough to call this section into question. Until we get a more reliable resource, I think that it should be removed, or indicated that these are the claims of Takamatsu/Hatsumi/Bujinkan.
6. The original Togakure-ryū dojo utilized four special weapons. - This claim about the original Togakure-ryu dojo is made by Bujinkan sources, and likely from information found in Takamatsu's scrolls. I don't have an issue with the Weapons section staying, but we should find a better reference than the one provided.
7. There are 18 training areas that Togakure-ryū focuses on. The areas are constantly updated to remain relevant to modern threats that practitioners will need to face.[15] The training areas include:[16]

• Ninja ken - OK, I can get along with most of the weapons references, but a 'ninja sword'? Really? I assume that because this is not 'Kenjutsu' or 'Iaido' this references the ninja-to. Can you find any historical reference that the Ninja-to was actually used by ninja? Why would a secret organization that's trying to make it's warriors indistinguishable from the average Japanese person use an easily spotted distinctively shaped weapon? I can find at least one that suggests they just used your average run of the mill katana (which makes more sense):

"the katana was probably the ninja's weapon of choice, and was sometimes carried on the back." - Turnbull, Stephen (2003), Ninja AD 1460–1650, Osprey Publishing, p.18

So, where did the ninja-ken come from? Is it actually historically documented somewhere (other than Bujinkan sources). There's a reference that I found here that indicates 'Ninja-ken' doesn't even match up with Bujinkan claims: http://books.google.com/books?id=1Ze0-x2ROuQC&pg=PT62&dq=Bujinkan&hl=en&ei=RIUuTb-JB4H48Abs9-WtCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=Bujinkan&f=true .

Unrelated to historical claims, but this point should also be updated from the article:

• Currently, there are 20 dojos for Togakure-ryū in Japan that house 100 instructors and around 100,000 students. There are also around 50 international dojos teaching Togakure-ryū outside of Japan - This claim is from a magazine in the 1980s. Either a more recent reference should be provided, or it should be reworded to indicate that this was true in the 80s. There are likely more Bujinkan Togakure-ryu dojos around today.

If you're OK with rewording/moving the claims in the article to be NPOV (rather than as shown above), maybe adding a section below entitled 'Bujinkan Historical Claims' to group together the Bujinkan sources then I would fully support these modifications. Simply leaving the article as is (full of Bujinkan claims) and only adding a small section at the bottom for the many dissenting historians does not make the article NPOV though, and I think you would find objection to that from several editors on this page.--Stvfetterly (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jni seems to be arguing that Togakure-ryu never existed if you look at the DRN discussion. I would like to point out that, thus far, the people who are claiming the lineage isn't correct are either Watatani (affiliated friend, thus primary source) or competitors with the Bujinkan organizations (like the Iga Museum), and competitors are also considered primary sources. But let me go in order:

1. How about: After Togakure, the title of Sōke (grand master) is stated by current Togakure-ryū masters to have been passed down through other practitioners that kept the style secret from the outside world. Does that work better?

2, 4. I don't think there should be any opposition to the Takamatsu to Masaaki part of the lineage, that's the one part that's quite clear and obvious.

3. According to Hatsumi, since historical times, the Togakure-ryū style has been passed down through the years until it was given mastership to Shinryuken Toda, the 32nd Sōke of Togakure-ryū. He began teaching the style to his grandson, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, since Takamatsu was five in 1893. When he turned 19, Takamatsu was announced as the next successor of the Togakure-ryū style, becoming the 33rd Sōke.

5. Until an independent source is found or parts of the lineage are each individually independently identified, how about an intro line for the Lineage stating, "As stated by the Bujinkan organization, the lineage in the line of Sōke (grand masters) of Togakure-ryū, beginning with Daisuke Togakure, is as follows:"

6. How about, The original Togakure-ryū dojo is believed to have utilized four special weapons, because i'm not sure if we're ever going to be able to specifically differentiate between the weapons of different styles here, since all of the styles used similar weaponry.

7. How about, "There are 18 training areas that contemporary Togakure-ryū focuses on. The areas are constantly updated to remain relevant to modern threats that practitioners will need to face.[15] The training areas include:[16]" Since I don't think what the modern styles does is in any doubt. And, as for Ninja ken, i'm fairly certain it means the katana. The ninja-to is known to have been made by Hayes, it has nothing to do with the list.

The Criticism section would also have a one to two sentence summary (more if more reliable sources with criticisms are found) in the lede, along with having a section. That, combined with the tempered language above to show that it is Masaaki or Bujinkan stating things, we should be good. Silverseren^C 14:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple minor quibbles with the language:

1. How about: After Togakure, the title of Sōke (grand master) was stated by Toda Shinryuken Masamitsu to have been passed down through other practitioners that kept the style secret from the outside world. This way we avoid calling anyone a 'master' of style, and we attribute the claim to its source.

2, 4. No issue with Takamatsu->Hatsumi transmission, but claiming 33rd and 34th Soke implies a historical basis for what they're saying. The 33rd/34th bit should be removed from those points, or the sentence modified to clarify that these are claims of the Bujinkan. The Renowned through China and Japan part for Takamatsu and the resulting in the ninja craze part for Hatsumi may need some tweaking or at least a non-Bujinkan citation as well.

3. According to Hatsumi, since historical times, the Togakure-ryū style has been passed down through the years until it was given mastership to Shinryuken Toda, the 32nd Sōke of Togakure-ryū. He began teaching the style to his grandson, Toshitsugu Takamatsu, since Takamatsu was five in 1893. When he turned 19, Takamatsu was announced as the next successor of the Togakure-ryū style, becoming the 33rd Sōke. - Clearly indicates who's making the claims . . . works for me.

5. Until an independent source is found or parts of the lineage are each individually independently identified, how about an intro line for the Lineage stating, "As stated by the Bujinkan organization, the lineage in the line of Sōke (grand masters) of Togakure-ryū, beginning with Daisuke Togakure, is as follows:" - Also clearly indicates source . . . works for me.

6. Bujinkan sources believe that the original Togakure-ryū dojo utilized four special weapons - I like this a little better . . . it more clearly indicates source.

7. "There are 18 training areas that contemporary Togakure-ryū focuses on. The areas are constantly updated to remain relevant to modern threats that practitioners will need to face.[15] The training areas include:[16]" - This works for me. Regarding the 'Ninja ken' bit . . . should we just change it to 'Kenjutsu'? I mean, that's even what it's referred to as in the Bujinkan source that I linked in.

With the addition of a criticism section, this edit makes the article sound much more balanced. I support it. The criticism of the Iga Ninja museum as a source that you mentioned on the dispute resolution page should also be included in this section. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Fine by me.

2, 4. How about: "Toshitsugu Takamatsu, the stated 33rd Sōke, became well-known throughout China and Japan for his martial arts abilities and also his knowledge from studying Ninjutsu that he then imparted on various Chinese nobles. Passing on the title of Sōke to Masaaki Hatsumi, the stated 34th Sōke, it was Hatsumi who took the style public, which has resulted in the high amount of media and public attention on ninjas in the Western world." I changed a lot of the two sentences actually. Does that fix the issues?

6. How about "The Bujinkan organization believes that the original Togakure-ryū dojo utilized four special weapons".

7. Sure, whichever clarifies better to the reader.

Sounds good. Silverseren^C 15:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Last (minor) quibble:

"Bujinkan sources indicate that Toshitsugu Takamatsu (the stated 33rd Sōke), became well-known throughout China and Japan for his martial arts abilities and also his knowledge from studying Ninjutsu that he then imparted to various Chinese nobles. Passing on the title of Sōke to Masaaki Hatsumi (the stated 34th Sōke) it was Hatsumi who took the style public, which has resulted in the high amount of media and public attention on ninjas in the Western world." - I think that I could get on board with this, it indicates the source of claims and sounds pretty neutral. Everything else is fine by me. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Silverseren^C 16:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to do the honors or would you like me to do them, Stv? If yes to you doing them, go right ahead. Silverseren^C 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any consensus regarding splitting the article, if everyone is OK with the changes we've discussed above, I'll revert the page tomorrow and have a go at implementing them.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

? Silverseren^C 06:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Made a couple minor edits in addition to what was discussed to clarify/make the article read better. Hopefully this is OK.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just two things.

1) The Don Draeger section in criticism needs to be fixed, because it's slightly misrepresenting what's said in the book. He specifically points out that modern ninja served as espionage agents and that Seiko was the last one after WWII (since they aren't needed anymore). I'm not even quite sure this is a criticism at all, because he says directly afterward that Hatsumi is one of the modern authorities conducting research on ninjutsu.

2) The MARdb source seems to be quoting from some source on Karl Friday and Ellis Amdur. If possible, we need to find the original sources for these statements, since MARdb is more acting as a wiki version for them. So we need to find "“Re: KOGA NINJITSU or NINJUTSU (whichever you prefer )” rec.martial-arts. 1999/06/09" and "Friday, Karl Dr. “Re: Ninja and Ninjato” on the Japanese Sword Art Mailing List. May 19th, 1999." somewhere online as the original sources to verify that the information stated by MARdb is accurate. Silverseren^C 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to find better sources next weekend. I'm training for a tournament at the moment, and won't have much spare time over the next couple months.--Stvfetterly (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

This article in its current form is about the historical ryu. What about a section in Schools of Ninjutsu for modern Togakure-ryū? That would clearly be about the modern school and as the other sections in that article are documented with primary/non-independent sources, the issues here would be resolved. We could add a 'see also' to this article. jmcw (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would support separating the two into Togakure-ryu (historical) and Togakure-ryu (modern). There should be enough material to do this. Schools of Ninjutsu could link to the modern Togakure-ryu page. What do you think Seren? --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is, is the Schools of Ninjutsu article supposed to be about the modern Schools, the historical schools, or both? Because, right now, it is only covering the modern Schools. And I don't agree with splitting the information here. THis article is meant to be an overview of everything on Togakure-ryu, including the modern claims for it. And there isn't enough information about either the historical version or the modern version to treat them separately (the historical version especially). I don't think they should be split in this article for now. There is not enough historical info to bother, because otherwise you're going to be left with the article as it is currently, short and with little to no possibility of being expanded. Silverseren^C 15:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren, it is about the quality of the references. This short article has good, reliable, independent, verifiable references: nothing more needs to be done here. In the 'Schools of Ninjutsu' article, the context for using less perfect references is established. Unless we find a very good references connecting the historical with the modern, I think the modern claims fit better in the other article with the other modern claims. jmcw (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using primary sources when they are being used for information about themselves. The article how it was before was discussing the style properly and Stvfetterly and I have been discussing in the above section how the sentences from the prior version should be changed so readers understand that the information is coming from primary sources. Other than getting that across, there was nothing wrong with the sources. Plenty of articles use primary sources, even extensively, such as autobiographies from people far in the past. Silverseren^C 16:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this proposed split really original research? There are no sources that make this distinction between historical and modern schools, on the contrary we are stuck with low quality sources that confuse the two, sometimes deliberately. jni (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Suiko

Does the reference to Empress Suiko really come from Draeger's book as cited? Google books search hints it does not: [4] And why is this legendary origin of ninjutsu even mentioned here and not in ninjutsu page where it belongs? This can mislead readers to think Suiko had something to do with Togakure-ryu. jni (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Something missing from weapons?

The section says that there are four specialized weapons, and then outlines the first three...and then nothing. I'm guessing something got dropped? Can we reword this, or put back the weapon, or...something? --Beska (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources state that there are four secret weapons of Togakure ryu, but I haven't found one that describes all of them yet. The first reference in that section describes two of them and the second reference a third. But I haven't found a proper reference for the fourth weapon yet. If you could help find one, that would be great. Silverseren^C 23:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugei revisited

Is it really necessary to have information on all three versions of the Bugei? They all say pretty much the same exact thing and it just sounds repetitious to include quotes from each version. Silverseren^C 15:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to include all three entries since the full Togakure write up changed quite a bit between them, but the theme of 'embellishment' is constant between them all. This allows the reader to come to their own conclusion regarding the information. Using direct quotes seems more NPOV than simply writing that all three versions of the Bugei agree that Takamatsu's genealogy information can't be trusted. --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you also include what the most recent version says? Silverseren^C 18:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add it.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kain Dōshi is Kagakure Doshi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bujinkan

Teachers seem to be different in the page of "Bujinkan". 60.39.39.111 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They're just spelled wrong. If you look at the attached source, they are spelled like they are in this article. Silverseren^C 20:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand kanji(Chinese character) of "Kain Dōshi"?. I am a Japanese. I want to look for the Japanese documents that Kain Dōshi is described. 60.39.39.111 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I do not. You may want to go ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject China or other areas like that to see if they can help. Otherwise...good luck, I guess. I do hope you're able to find something, since it would be nice to be able to expand the early history section. Silverseren^C 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[5][6]

忍者について何冊かの著書もある初見によれば、彼の武術の始祖は、たくましく田舎で底辺の生活をしていた民兵組織を持つ山の民であり、秘伝の術と中国の唐朝から亡命した将軍が伝えた哲学と奥義を有していたという。

初見の権威は、前任者である33名の師範から受け継いだものだが、これを遡っていくと、12世紀の戸隠流の始祖、仁科大助にゆきあたるとされる。

初見はこのことを裏付ける証拠はあまり存在しないことを認めている、あるものと言えば、基本の術を伝える残された巻物だけだ。

There is not original source of information proving the history of Togakure-ryu. "Masaaki Hatsumi" only has a book conveying basic technique. "Masaaki Hatsumi" accepts that proof of the history is not possible.

Because there is not original source of information, I cannot look for Kain Doshi. Do you think that the story of the founder("Masaaki Hatsumi") is true? 60.39.39.111 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know whether it is true or not, I am going off of the available sources. Though it is interesting that those sources say that Yoshiaki Togakushi is the last ninja, and then we have other scholars saying other people are the last ninja. Obviously, they can't all be right. It does go to show though that they are all trying to push their own version of events, from those pushing Togakushi to Donn Draeger saying the last ninja is Fujita Seiko, then to Kawakami Jinichi saying he's the last one, and then Hatsumi saying Takamatsu was the last. It's all very interesting. Maybe all of them are wrong? Silverseren^C 23:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The genuine ninja does not announce that oneself is a ninja(lol).

Anyway, the history of Togakure-ryu which "Masaaki Hatsumi" talks about does not have proof. The history may be forged, but probably the technique book will be genuine.

It is dangerous to believe his remark blindly. Then bye-bye.60.39.39.111 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fix or merge

The article establishes that there are claims made by Bujinkan about this supposed school. This is fair enough, as long as the topic is treated strictly within "Bujinkan", and dependent on the notability of Bujinkan.

If this is supposed to be an article about 12th-century Japan, kindly base it on academic literature on medieval Japan, not on Bujinkan and derived martial arts journalism.

If it cannot be shown that the existence of this thing has as much as been discussed in actual academic literature, the entire thing needs to be merged into Bujinkan, or the article must at least make clear that this is exclusively about unverifiable claims thrown around by Bujinkan. We do not do article on bona fide medieval topics based on martial arts websites. --dab (𒁳) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the current use of Togakure-ryu. It also incorporates the primary sources discussing its use in the past, while acknowledging that there is no current evidence for its existence in the 12th century. Silverseren^C 20:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the style is used by several organizations besides Bujinkan, including Genbuken, Jinenkan, and in Hayes' Quest Centers. So merging to Bujinkan would be inappropriate. Silverseren^C 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

what "style"? This isn't a "style", it is an alleged historical school of the 12th century. A 12th century school cannot be "used" in the 21st century. Either it existed or it didn't. There is no evidence that it did, and you are trying to perpetuate a hoax article. Your "reference" for a claim that something called "Modern Togakure-ryu" (whatever that is, it isn't the topic of this article) is taught by "Genbuken, Jinenkan", etc. is Hatsumi, Masaaki (1988). A primary source, by the guy who is responsible for the hoax in the first place. I am sorry, Silver seren, but doesn't this kind of intellectual dishonesty make you feel ashamed even a little bit?

I repeat: either produce scholarly evidence that this has anything to do with the 12th century, or else make this an article about some sort of dodgy claim by Hatsumi. Then treat its notablility as dependent on that of Hatsumi, not on the huge notability an actual medieval style of Japanese martial arts would obviously enjoy, if it was only real. --dab (𒁳) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The article very specifically points out that the existence of the school is the 12th century is unverifiable and includes a section that discusses opposition to the idea that it was that old. I don't see the issue here. The article is very clear when it points out who alleges what information is true. Yes, there is no evidence, the article says that, multiple times. Silverseren^C 08:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

However, the article also specifically discusses how the current school is based on what is known about the techniques and style of the old school. If what you said is true, then no modern school of martial arts should be considered related to the historical version. This is clearly not true. And TOgakure Ryu is very clearly a school taught under that name today, such as here. Silverseren^C 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Re this edit. You restore the "reference" I objected to,

• Cawthorne, Nigel (2009). The Immortals: History's Fighting Elites. MBI Publishing Company. p. 40. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

with the summary "Black Belt magazine is not self-published". Please explain how I am supposed to assume good faith for an absurdist approach to editing Wikipedia such as this. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you had removed some of the Black Belt sources, but I see now that you just rearranged things. I do disagree with you changing the lede back to the horrible version it was way in the past, rather than a summary of the article.

Furthermore, I don't see why Nigel Cawthorne is an unreliable source. Especially for basic information on ninja hierarchies,. Silverseren^C 08:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unacceptable. Now you reverted with the edit summary asking me to use the talk page, right after I took the pains to point out exactly why your behaviour already was unacceptable both on the article talkpage and on your user page. No, you are not going to get away with defending a blatant hoax just based on WP:ILIKEIT, or ignoratio elenchi. Don't try to make this about procedure when it is painfully obvious you are doing it because you do not have a case. If you want to "save" this article, sit down and present scholarly references. If you cannot do this, step back and let people fix it. It's really as simple as that. Cawthorne is a journalist. I have no idea why this guy has his own bio article, but that's not the issue here. Does "MBI Publishing Company" tell you anything? It does Author funded publishing . We see this frequently in topics where some fringe theory is desperate for "printed" references. So people do "author funded" printing and then try to present this as "references" for Wikipedia. I am not asking you for journalism, I am asking you for scholarly references. Do you know what this term means? If yes, please go and find one. If no, please don't edit here. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your change was not just to remove the one source, which we could discuss, but also to change the lede back to the version that is clearly not a summary of the article.

And I don't know what scholarly reviews you're expecting to find. It has already been stated that there is no evidence for the historicity of the school, this is pointed out in the article. And you're not going to get a scholarly review for the modern school, academics don't work like that. But none of that has anything to do with the notability of the school. It is discussed in a number of places, as shown in the article and in sources like this and mentions in places like this, this, this, and this. From the avaiklable sources, it appears to be quite the big thing in Spanish language countries. Silverseren^C 08:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is broken. Look, there are two possibilities, either there was a Togakure-ryū in medieval Japan, or there wasn't.

1. if there was, kindly make this article about the medieval topic, based on decent historiographical sources, and cut out all the "Bujinkan" stuff as irrelevant. If it is a historical topic, you cannot base it on the "Rough Guide" and assorted hearsay claims by martial artists, it is for the historians.
2. if there was not, pray make this explicitly about a topic of Bujinkan, a martial arts outfit founded in the 1970s, and their diverse pie-in-the-sky claims, but don't pretend to be discussing medieval Japan.

It's one or the other, I don't know which, but at least make clear which you think it is. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The ebb and flow between serious history and Bujinkan fantasies has been going on here forever. I like and endorse your recent edits. Now waiting for next Bujinkan fan-boy to appear to rewrite this based on their fabricated history and hagiography sources. Bujinkan organization is a martial arts cult whose members are mostly clueless idiots who think everything their cult leaders claim is based on reality just because the said cult leaders have written a few dozen books purporting their very own spin of Japanese mediaeval history. Conclusion should be clear to anyone who has read through most the material relating to this "controversy": Either Hatsumi or Takamatsu invented most of the history of Bujinkan to create false aura of prestige to their martial art. Real history scholars do not discuss Bujinkan and its history for the same reason as physics professors do not discuss astrology; the subject matter is either non-existent or obvious nonsense in actual reality that we live in. Article should be written so that it is clear to unsuspecting readers that this is about stuff this one organization claims is true, but that actually isn't. jni (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, guys, I made so many concessions on this in the past. I've reverted the article back, but i've added even more specific wording in the lede to show that it's history is disputed. Good enough? Though i'm going to remove the Karl Friday stuff, because it's sourced to a blog that's unrelated to him and to an unverifiable mailing list. Friday needs to get himself published on his opinion about Togakure-ryu if we're going to use him as a source. Silverseren^C 15:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been tinkering with this article for over a year now, but you still don't seem to get what is going on with Bujinkan related topics, not just in Wikipedia but in Internet at large as well. This "controversy" has been going on for decades. Why do you even bother rehashing minute details of this topic forever? This has been discussed to death years before you even heard about it. It is too bad you managed to promote this dubious article to appear on main page, educating every random site visitor about that unverifiable nonsense about "Kain Doshi" and this having been founded centuries before the very beginning of ryuha system in sengoku period Japan. What do you benefit from promoting the Bujinkan-POV at every turn? Everyone who really knows their stuff has moved on and is ignoring this topic. The ranks of people ignoring this pseudoninjutsu stuff comprises overhelming supermajority of academic historians specializing in Japanese mediaeval history, Japanese bugei scholars, serious martial arts hobbyist historians, and many people with enough common sense to realize all this ninjutsu "information" gets promoted by single fringe organization run by a guy with a bogus Dr. degree. Well edit this article however you like it, I'm not going to start an edit war or anything but will join the ranks of sensible people and not waste any more time with this. I'm guessing this article will be forever one of those where the truth is to be found in talk page. jni (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Togakure Ryū

I apologize for that, but if you go to the Bujinkan Wikipedia page, and go to the Ninpo section where it talks about The 18 disciplines, it has the same list as the one this page has. However, for this page, the source it gives doesn't seem to align with the list or gave (the 18 disciplines) while the Bujin’s source actually does align with the list it gave, as well as the list this source gave. I don't think I'm making a mistake, but if I am, I apologize. I don't mean to mess hard work up. TheFastestHumanAlive (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be best to replace the reference here with the source from that page, rather than just removing all sources and leaving the section in this article unreferenced? Silverseren^C 02:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That. That is… right, but source 16 also lists 8 disciplines as opposed to 18, so its like 3 different sources with conflicting information. TheFastestHumanAlive (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would view that as just not listing all of the disciplines and only the 8 more prominent. It at the very least doesn't conflict if those same 8 are also included in the 18 from the other source. Silverseren^C 03:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What about the source 18, Silver? For the sword techniques section for the ninja, it says Kenpo/bikejutsu instead of Kenjutsu like how the source says. Kayanjutsu isn’t there for the ninja section. Shinobi Iri, Bakutsu do not seem to be there. Water training is on the samurai side. Sui-ren (water training) is on the samurai section and like the Wikipedia page for it is just not related to water stuff. Idk if I’m making a mistake or what TheFastestHumanAlive (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We would just have to choose which source to go with. Or, if the conflict seems like a real disagreement between sources, we could list both separately. We should be looking to best incorporate the sources that exist, though if one is more academic and higher tier quality as a source than the other, then we'd preferably go with that one. What's your opinion on the sources available that you're discussing? Silverseren^C 20:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)