Talk:Bujinkan

message: Please see this discussion before drastically changing the lead section. --Nate1481 12:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I think this is unwarranted and suggest removing this warning. Wikipedia has detailed entries on video games and comic books, but a nearly four-decades-old global martial arts organization, with hundreds of dojos and thousands of members internationally, isn't "generally notable"? It is, by far, the largest Ninjutsu organization on the planet, ever--and everyone is interested in ninja. The references list on the page isn't bad, either, though it could be expanded, sure. But suggesting merging or deleting this article doesn't seem to make sense. It could potentially be merged into ninjutsu, which is what it is best known for, but the Bujinkan includes more traditions than just the ninja lineages...
Kosmocentric (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a fairly well spread martial art, the article subject is clearly notable. The article could be better sourced, which is something else. Why not replace the notability-tag with something that just concerns sources? --83.178.195.155 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: without reliable sources, the notability is not established. When a subject is truly notability, there are many reliable sources to prove it. Add some reliable sources and we can take away both tags. jmcw (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I added some references and removed the notabilty flag, I think that since there are Bujinkan dojos all over the world, from Japan to Australia, the US, all over Europe and so on that it is unquestionably notable. MiCkE 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this article could be notable but without third party, reliable sources, the notability is still questionable. One strong third-party reference, please! jmcw (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

text: We've got references to Karl Friday, the Nihon Kobudo Shinkokai, and others discussing the organization's claims to be a survival of historic ninjutsu; that these scholars and organizations feel the need to speak on this is evidence in favor of notability. I've removed the tag based on that, though something that shows notability besides the controversy would be good to have. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Notability Guideline flag 

message: Does anyone who is interested in this article understand what a "reference" or "in line citation" is?  Wiki is not about your personal opinion or what you think or believe, it is about verifiable information!!!!Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Thank you for your insight. jmcw (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: References and citations

message: I concede from the beginning that this remark is a matter of taste. The raw URL link to a google book says nothing about the reference.
http://books.google.com/books?id=87fQYLdcHrUC&pg=PA30&dq=Junan+taiso&hl=en&ei=Nh9BTeuHCoKKlwfCxYHyDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Junan%20taiso&f=false
 says little: it is like describing the bookcase and the shelf on which a book sits.
'Websters Quotations, Facts and Phrases, 2008, pg 30
 is a useful reference: it describes the book itself. jmcw (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I do not disagree. Just that the bare link gives no clue as to who the author is or its reliability. jmcw (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google book links 

message: There are 2 main branches to this Ninpo thing: one is Bujinkan the other Genbukan. Most stuff regarding Genbukan and Soke Shoto Tanemura have been removed for lack of indepedent sources and notability.
But Bujinkan does not seem to be held to the same standards.
--Crio de la Paz (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After a similar concern was raised by Crio on my talk page, I have discussed this perception in some detail there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the picture that had been deleted (leaving a red link) but should we move the other one up to the infobox or is there another one that can be posted there? Leefkrust22 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bujinkanji.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: bujinkan is no different than NINJUWUSU ninjutsu, ninjuwusu started 1938...40 years before this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.37.74 (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  we can not allow a system invented in 1978 to become offical without proper support of linage and traning documents. 

message: It seems so many anti-bujinkan people have the same problem here. Lets assume for a moment that Togakure Ryu is unsubstantiated... Bujinkan is made up of 9 ryuha, if one is unsubstantiated there are 8 more. And for those who don't know, Those other eight are entirely verified. Now I agree with those above, unproven doesn't mean not true, but even with that aside Togakure ryu makes up a VERY small portion (and grows even smaller every year) of the bujinkan curriculum. This article above all else is spotted with referenced information but full of opinionated lines making jabs at the art, it's effectiveness, it's training methods. All of which are clearly opinions of a person who has personal beliefs and a vendetta against the art. Wikipedia is not the place for it.
As a second note the claim is often made "togakure ryu hasn't been proven real so bujinkan has no real ninja ties." might want to slow the roll on that sort of logic as Gyokko ryu and Koto ryu (possibly others), both entirely verified, where passed through, influenced and modified by well reputed ninja families. That may not make them "ninjutsu" but at the very least they have ninjutsu ties and are ninpo taijutsu.
What is important is this article needs to be written without opinions and jabs as well as without broad generalizations based on questionably verified sources on a specific case.
TekioBudo (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinionated and misinformed 

message: Interesting that, whenever a Genbukan article is published it is destroyed "ipso facto", but it's direct competition, Bujinkan, always get's away with a large article without getting deleted or into a deletion war. Same thing goes for Hatsumi vs. Tanemura. I really don't get it. It is as if Shotokan Karate had it's place with Gichin Funakoshi but God forbid Kyokushin and Mas Oyama had a page. Or Judo had a page but brazilian Jujitsu had not. It just does not make sense to me to allow a system and a reject a competing system. --186.26.113.114 (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genbukan 

message: Bujinkan is a joke  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.179.10 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bujinkan, a Joke... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bujinkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904191109/http://scholar.harvard.edu:80/chrismm/pages/bugei-ryuha-daijiten-1978 to http://scholar.harvard.edu/chrismm/pages/bugei-ryuha-daijiten-1978
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713030758/http://www.shinjin.co.jp:80/ to http://www.shinjin.co.jp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011013427/http://www.martialtalk.com:80/forum/archive/index.php/t-20024.html to http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20024.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225161222/http://blog.bushinbooks.com:80/2006/07/05/authenticity-and-the-bujinkan/print/ to http://blog.bushinbooks.com/2006/07/05/authenticity-and-the-bujinkan/print/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003091532/http://www.budotaijutsu.co.uk/budo_taijutsu/gyokushin_ryu_ninpo.html to http://www.budotaijutsu.co.uk/budo_taijutsu/gyokushin_ryu_ninpo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bujinkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723075519/http://edmonton.tenchijin.net/ to http://edmonton.tenchijin.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified