Talk:Ninjatō/Archive 1

Cleanup

Just did some minor grammatical edits on this. However, there are some deeper problems with the article.

1. In layout, it looks as if the writer is comparing the Ninjato to Katana, but that is never actually stated.

2. What is meant by "abounded"? According to my dictionary, abounded means 'a lot of', or to be 'fully supplied'. It doesn't really seem to make sense here.

3. I think it might be better to actually define Ninjato themselves, rather than simply comparing them to another sword. For instance, rather than saying that the Ninjato has a shorter blade than a Katana, maybe the blade length (X # of centimeters to Y # of centimeters) could be given, and then a comment made that this is shorter than the average Katana.

Just some thoughts.

D.R.

Well, the crux of this article is that the ninjato is a fictional weapon, not a real one. There is no evidence of ninjato having existed before the ninja-craze of 80's. See Ninja Ken and Ashida Kim for more of this nonsense.193.143.83.252 08:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Three and a half years later: yes. Indeed. Unfortunately, the current article seems to present it as fact. --67.188.240.71 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Three more years down the road, and this article is still simply presenting unverified fiction as fact. Proposed for deletion. --Binarywraith (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History of the Idea

Even if the sword itself is fictitious, I would be very interested in reading about the history and evolution of the idea that such a sword existed. What are our earliest references, and when do the first replicas and images start turning up? The text of the article claims that "[t]he ninjato was more than likely created during WWII" (but does not say why this might be likely), but a previous posting on this page claims that "[t]here is no evidence of ninjato having existed before the ninja-craze of 80's." Who is right? Was this whole thing invented by Toei (as this page jests) or Ashida Kim or something? Can anyone enlighten me and thereby improve this article? --Iustinus 68.77.132.209 02:30, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Massaki Hatsumi himself states on his websight (that i have completely forgotten the name of, im sure it is easily accesible), that the ninjato was fabricated by the YAKUZA. if the ninja were to use a straight sword while he was tying to impersonate a samouri or blend with that kind of crowd, it would kind of be completely obvious that he was a ninja and they would immediatly try to kill him. they took whatever they could get, even swords of those they killed, they were poor, so they made their own, a cheep knock off of a katana. called, shinobigatana. the idea that a ninjato was ever used by a ninja as a set weapon is completly fabrication and lore. its aggrivating. Ralph, not a user, but aggrivated at the lack of knowlege on the subject matter 09:30, 2 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.152.37 (talk)

Have looked through several of Dr. Hatsumi's (english) books and found no clear statement about swords ninja used. Only one of his recent books deals specifically with ninja, and it doesn't even mention 'em. Most of the schools the doctor actively teaches, with the exception Togakure, seem to have little to nothing to do with "ninjas." Using the man as a source is fine — whatever his credentials may be, he's been accepted by his government and many others as someone who knows something worth learning. But find an actual quote from him or forget it.

Only other "authoritative" source in English are Turnbull's books, are (I think) mostly silent. Problem here is an unacademic approach to the whole ninja concept. What little information we have suggests that being a ninja could mean just about anything and the term could be applied to just about any kind or class of person. The only unifying factors are related to the kind of espionage perpetrated by governments all over the world since recorded history. If nothing else, ninja were spies in feudal Japan.

From this, what is the likelihood these people all carried the same kind of distinctive gear? Clearly wasn't the case for the better-documented samurai, who — particularly, I think, in the more violent eras — seem to have carried all manner of swords. Just as modern soldiers tend to modify or supplement their standard gear, samurai seem to have done the sames. Why would ninja be different?

Short, straight blade does not totally defy logic. This kind of thing was the earliest style of sword everywhere, Japan included. We know that straight swords such as the concealed "cane swords" existed. Seems reasonable enough that a katana-style blade would be more expensive than a simpler, cheaper, weaker straight blade. Stuff we think of as "ninja weapons" are rarely different from traditional farm implements, cheap which would have been cheap and easily modified. Maybe the "ninjato" was medieval Japan's "saturday night special?" Cold War spies had/made zip guns for same reasons. Ninjato may not have existed in any sense of the word, but they're not plainly ridiculous.

I suggest this article be drastically changed. All credible information on japanese straight blades, the eras of their use, how they were made, who used them and for what — all of that should be noted. Segue into what (very) little has been said about the swords ninjas used, exact quotes, by the people who might know (Hatsumi, Turnbull). From there, move on to the pop culture notion of ninjato. Sure we could find earlier and earlier references to them than the 80s. Trace the pop cultural evolution. This could be a really cool entry if we stopped squabbling and got real.

Xerxes88 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninjaken

Since no one has addressed the issues I raised in Talk:Ninjaken#Terminology, I have decided to be bold, perhaps even rash, by changing moving that page, and suggesting it be merged with this one. If you disagree, state your arguments in one of the relevant talk pages. --Iustinus 18:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The ninjaken concept seems to be hatsumi's personal and specific answer to the spurious ninjato that fed the ninja craze, and was probably invented during the 50s. As such, I'd encourage keeping the signature term independant from the more generic one... Of course, hatsumi's ken is no less spurious than the better known tô, but it should remain associated with him, since it has not entered general usage.--Svartalf 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OKay, the history of the idea right? Okay imagine your a trained samuri that just lost

everything in a battle. Your home, family, possesions etc. and you lost your sword out on the

battlefield, or your sword broke. But you still really need to kill somebody. So you go out

to the battle field to find a sword. But all you find are broken swords with no tip. So are

you going to give up? No of course not, people still need killing dont they? So you take the broken sword and re-make the tip on the end. Now the sword shorter. Its also straighter,

simply because the curve doesn't complete. Then since you dont have any money you just simply

use the scabbard the sword came in. But now the blade is shorter, but the scabbard and handle

are longer because they were made for the longer blade.

Not all that complicated and mystical is it? Neither were the ninja. --Bradley--

Um, nice story, but that's not what I meant when I asked abotu the history of the idea. Even if it were, ti woudl need documentation. All *I* was saying was that even if the sword is entirely fictitious (and I make no claim either way), it would be nice to know where and when the legend came into being. If it is not fictitious, well then obviously other kinds of evidence should be listed. --Iustinus 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Massaki Hatsumi himself states on his websight (that i have completely forgotten the name of, im sure it is easily accesible), that the ninjato was fabricated by the YAKUZA. if the ninja were to use a straight sword while he was tying to impersonate a samouri or blend with that kind of crowd, it would kind of be completely obvious that he was a ninja and they would immediatly try to kill him. they took whatever they could get, even swords of those they killed, they were poor, so they made their own, a cheep knock off of a katana. called, shinobigatana. the idea that a ninjato was ever used by a ninja as a set weapon is completly fabrication and lore. its aggrivating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.152.37 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging

I'd suggest merging, once again. I could do a basic merge, but a lot of the information that's in this is not in the other article, and the information that's in that explains a few of the questions about this article. Merging would be mutually beneficial, perhaps with a redirect page in case one or the other name is used?

TIME TO MERGE

I feel the time has come to merge the articles. The title should simply be "Th Ninja Sword" in order to avoid any further confusion, with discussion of name and sword type as part of the article - especially given the proliferation of Hi-Tech 'Modern Ninja' weapons all over the internet. Given that the Ninja are real, and are historically documented, and are famous sword users, it is beholden to us to put this one to bed. Any thoughts ?

Jack

Not Fictional

The first time I read this article I could respect the points it made about ninja swords. Until I read "Mystic Arts of the Ninja" by Stephen K. Hayes of the Bujinkan ninpo organisation. (There's another organisation called genbukan, but I think that's straying from the point). In this book he specifically refers to the ninja sword as a ninjato, and goes on to say that although ninja prefered a curved blade, they ofte had to settle for a chakuto. Dessydes 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty doubts about the authenticity of masaaki hatsumi's titles, and hence about all of his teaching concerning the history of ninjutsu. As for mr Hayes, he was awarded a jûdan in a supposedly "traditional" Japanese school, although he's gaijin and was not even 45 yet. This shows that the school is extremely free with high level grades, and makes the seriousness of said school even more dubious. If Mr Hayes mentions verifiable sources from pre shôwa times, it's all good, otherwise, it's likely just spouting the party line, that is, PR fiction. BTW, just what is a chakuto? never heard that one before. --Svartalf 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all I'm going to do is ask : "Are you a ninja?" and "Did you study under a different school from the X-kan?", because it seems that all roads lead to Masaaki Hatsumi. There is little in the way of historical and factual evidence about ninpo and the ninja. This is both due to ninja secrecy and propaganda from the emperor and shogunate. And why are there no citations for "almost certainly fictional"? Or at least a "citation needed" link. I don't claim to know anything, I'm not a ninja, but if you know something I don't, reply this, and I'll gladly edit some other non-ninja related topic. Dessydes 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Hatsumi claims to be heir to 9 ancient and obscure kobudo ryuha. Trouble is that a) The only people to back his claims seem to be his own students, and researchers who asked him rather than looking for independantly verifiable sources. b) He claims inheritance of both samurai and ninpo styles, which seems fairly implausible c) he insists on being called sôke, which is weird since, traditionally, the sôke was a guildmaster in schools of various arts (theater, crafts etc), but NOT martial arts, d)he openly teaches ninpo to any comer and publishes books on the subject... what happened to ninja secrecy? . Add this with the fact that his bujinkan delivers jûdan qualifications in the time a student in a normal school might barely expect to reach dan 5 or 6... and you find something really questionable indeed. Bujinkan training may be very good, but its claims of being traditional are dubious. Kanô Jigoro also drew on very traditional sources when creating judo, but did not claim to be a Master of its forebearschools if you catch my drift. and I'm not a ninja, I'm a historian who is quite baffled with the fact that authentic ninja lore just isn't there for study. All reliable knowledge of ninja and what they did comes from historic samurai sources... and none of them ever mentioned ninja using a sword different from normal katana or wakizashi. Now, since you've read SKH's book, maybe he does mention sources? Honestly, there is no reason to believe that the ninja-tô is anything more than post 1945 folklore. I hope this answers you. --Svartalf 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My other guess was that you could be a historian. Fair enough, you make some good points, but would you really consider something written by the samurai as reliabe? As a historian you've probably heard of historical propaganda. The Egyptians did not record their losses. There isn't much known about the ninja. I'd like to know how these samurai sources portray the ninja. Perhaps if one looked more into the history of Ishikawa Goemon, one would find better answers. I honestly don't know what to think at this point. Dessydes 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Records from the samurai side of society may not be 100% accurate, but at least, they date from the period events happened, and can be compared with other documents to try and get a fair idea of truth. alleged oral tradition rarely allows such corroboration, and must be accepted on faith at face value, or be cast into doubt wholesale, as there is little a critic can do to separate genuine tradition, from fact deformed in the translation, from complete forgery. And what does Goemon have to do with it? Even though historical documents tend to call "ninja" just anybody who meddled into espionage, sabotage and assassination, regardless of origin and social status, the records never call him anything but a common thief. --Svartalf 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Svartalf wrote:

Honestly, there is no reason to believe that the ninja-tô is anything more than post 1945 folklore.

Even if this is true, I think (as I mentioned above) that this article would be greatly improved by a discussion of what sources do exist, even if there are none earlier than the 20th century. --Iustinus 05:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Does anybody have quotable sources on the matter of ninjatô? All my books that even mention the subject fail to give any, relying on the author's say so or on alleged oral tradition, which equates to the same. That and the fact that all primary sources are in Japanese, which does restrict verifiability of any information. --Svartalf 06:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Found page with reference to chakuto: Katana#Classification_by_date_of_manufacture. Dessydes

I see that you have questioned the word or Soke Hatsumi. At first you point out his cridibility as compared to Master Hayes, but if you had read the "Mystic Arts of the Ninja" I would suggest picking up "The Secret Fighting Art of the Ninja". There you will find that Master Hayes was a student of Soke Hatsumi, and that he gets his sources from schooling under Hatsumi. Also, the term Soke is a proper referal, as Ninjustu is concidered one of the most acrobatic forms of martial arts, and you stated its used in theatrics.

---

You should also know that Stephen K. Hayes has had to recant some of his claims about ninja in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.47 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Fictional

"The scabbard was often as long as a katana saya, as it tricked enemies into thinking that the blade was longer, and the ninja had the element of surprise when he quickly drew his blade and killed the attacker before thay[sic] had even drawn their sword."

This is similar to the way I carry my iPod around in a large wheeled suitcase when I ride the subway, as it tricks muggers into thinking that I'm carrying something other than an iPod. Of course this plan clearly has no drawbacks whatsoever.

Seriously though, this is patently absurd. First of all, a spy would need to carry the most compact equipment possible, which means a scabbard that's about a foot longer than is needed is right out. I'm guessing whoever spread this myth has never carried around a camera tripod, or tried commuting during the rainy season with both collapsible and non-collapsible umbrellas. Secondly, any speed advantage from drawing a shorter sword would be nullified by cumbersomeness of pulling it out of the full-size scabbard and further limited by the shorter reach of the blade.--220.29.92.4 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be more like carrying a smaller moo3 player in an ipod holder to make other people think you have an ipod. and a spy would always be in a tuxedo or an overcoat. The thought that the spy would need compact equipment and thus a long sheath for a short sword is stupid. You aren't thinking that the ninja would need the long sheath or they might as well tattoo "ninja" on their forehead. Might as well hide their short sword in the sheath.-Anonymous

Merging

I am up for merging, however, how many years I have known it as ninja ken. I never heard the expression ninjato until I read it here.

Removed Proposal for deletion

This article should not be deleted. What should be done is, somebody with a clear head (i.e. no neo-ninjas please) should look at both this and the Ninjaken article and merge them. In this new, merged article, both sides of the story should be represented - as it is now, this article is the contra side and ninjaken is the pro side. How else can one understand a set of articles, one obviously written to provide ample proof that this sword is fictious, and the other not mentioning with one single word the high possibility that it is, indeed, fictious? I've already mentioned this on the Project:Japan and Project:Military history talk pages, and hopefully somebody with enough mettle will come here and do the cleanup, if nobody otherwise involved with these two articles is willing to do the deed. TomorrowTime 13:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am a Japanese. this sword is NOT Ninjaken (忍者剣), but Ninjatō (忍者刀) or Shinobi-gatana (忍刀). Shinobi-gatana is more correct term. See ja:忍刀. Yes, this article should not be deleted. MMTD 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just discovered the shinobigatana article on jp.wiki. What we need here is something more along the lines of that article: an article with descriptions of what the shinobigatana were and were not, and also stating clearly that it is not at all certain whether this misterious katana ever even existed. In other words, some of the doubts raised in this, the contra article should be introduced into the ninjato, the pro article, and then the new article can be renamed into "Shinobigatana", which according to jp.wiki is by far the most usual way of referring to these blades. TomorrowTime 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support for a merge with Ninjaken - the Ninjaken term may be incorrect, but the subject matter is the same. (Possibly the Ninjaken needs it's own definition page and the current contents of it merged here). The merged page would have to carefully cover the fiction/non-fiction issue, clearly laying out both positions. -- Medains 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Source

This article is not verifiable. You could be talking about as real weapons as lightsabers. Wandalstouring 19:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said to a few martial arts people in the past, I will consider the ninjato to be non-fictional when one turns up that can be dated to a period prior to Mr Hatsumi; until such a time I will consider it to be fictional - but that's just my opinion. -- Medains 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This implies to me that you know something about the history of ninjato artefacts. Do you? You may notice that I keep asking about that on both talk pages. --Iustinus 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a little, as far as I am aware the only ninjato around are modern, no weapons dated to the correct period that fit the description have yet been found. -- Medains 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe this whole argument would be settled as quickly as a ninja lightning bolt if someone would just cite ONE source for the information in these articles??? Please see WP:CITE for assistance. Alan.ca 08:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources on ninpo

If I remember Hayes correctly there are verified old scripts of other Ninja clans in museums, the problem is only that there is no public knowledge of anyone else than this one school now teaching some kind of ninpo with historical roots. Wandalstouring 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks to LordAmeth, there is a famous Ninja museum at Iga, Mie. Perhaps this helps. Wandalstouring 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Drying Pole

The "Drying Pole" was meant to be a long weapon, Mushashi carved a very slightly longer wooden sword from an oar in order to win the fight. This suggests to me that this reference should be removed. -- Medains 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ninjaken merge

Seriously, I have not see a serious discussion on that subject before it was done, and it needs a real consensus rather than juszt general lack of interest. Personally, I vote Against since both articles obviously deal with different sides of the subject, and since the ninjaken is a hatsumi specific term, it should remain separate.

In any event, before any merge or redirect happens, the matter covered in an article that is not in the other should be transferred, which had not been done. and if any merge happens, it is obviously Ninjatō that should remain, since that is the term of most common usage, ninjaken being only a subset, which term is used mostly by bûjinkan adepts.--Svartalf 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed here. The consensus was to merge. --Eyrian 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are to be merged, then it should be the other way around: ninjaken shoudl be a subsection of ninjatō. Also, Svartalf's point about Hatsumi should be explicitly stated in the article. When I look at ninjaken as currently written, I don't see that. IN fact, I suspect this is why people want to merge it the other way around, which seems highly illogical to me. --Iustinus 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then source your claims. If you write a single, sourced article under a name that is documented, it's unlikely that anyone will change it. --Eyrian 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I make no claims regarding ninja swords period, except that the usual name in English is "ninjato". I don't have a good print source for this. I suppose I could quote my various role playing game manuals if you really want me to. I guess would be oddly appropriate, because the article will have to deal with both "ninja swords in fiction" (as well as in "the public imagination") and the question of whether or not they have an actual history. I know the google test is considered iffy in some circles, but surely it is noteworthy that ninjato turns up over 30 times more hits than ninjaken. (Note also, per SeizureDog's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō and the anonymous user's comments at Talk:Ninjaken#Terminology, the usual name for this sword in Japanese is apaprently actually shinobigatana (which is extremely rare in English, but still gets more google hits than ninjaken).

You are right that both articles are in serious, dire need of sourcing. I have been begging someone to do this as well (and no, I can't do this: I know very little than what I have said here, I don't have the time required for the research. But enough people are interested in the subject that you would think someone would know where to get this information). But surely you don't think ninjaken is superior just because it has one source, to which it only alludes? --Iustinus 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no preference for title; I'm only repeating what people on the AfD have claimed. My copy of George Stone's glossary of arms and armour doesn't even mention the term (and it's got thousands of weapons I've never heard of). --Eyrian 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I nominated both articles for AfD because in over 12 months, nobody has been able to cite a source to prove which article should survive the merge. Both articles remain unreferenced and if something is not done about it, I will be nominating them for another AfD. I came across these articles while trying to clear the WP:BACK merge backlog. Alan.ca 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That's how I found it also. Glad to know the system's working :) CovenantD 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• The two articles have very little difference; in fact, the majority of the text seems to have been copy-pasted from one article to the other. There is no reasonable justification for keeping the articles separate. Merge should be done ASAP. — Red XIV ^(talk) 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I just remain baffled by what conceivable grounds anyone could have had for merging into ninjaken.  Ravenswing  04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Being bold

• Google hits for "ninja-to:" 127,000. [1]
• Google hits for "ninjaken:" 173. [2]

I don't know whose idea it was to merge Ninjato into Ninjaken instead of the other way around, but I can think of few decisions I've seen on Wikipedia this calendar year that make less sense. The debate as to whether the weapon has pre-Meiji provenance isn't one I'm going to touch, aside from suggesting that the Met Museum of Art's room of combination firearms blows out of the water the premise that only weapons that "made sense" ever existed, and the article badly needs a section discussing the controversy as to whether it actually existed. However, that doesn't obviate that this is a highly notable weapon with many thousands of sources for its present existence, and that attempting to AfD or merge it away denotes a startling lack of common sense and rules lawyering.  Ravenswing  23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to mention that Ninjaken is mostly nonsense - did anyone check the Japanese article? I have never heard of the word "Ninjaken" in Japan, and it likely does not exist (so the article should be deleted, not merged). The general consensus of Ninjato for most Japanese is that it probably did not exist, but the word is mostly known by martial arts enthusiasts anyway. Also, there are many referenced to "Ninjaken" in other ninja-articles, like the TMNT movie articles... these should be removed as well. Edededed 07:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

French political cartoon from the late 1890s

[[3]] The sword in this picture looks like a Ninjatō. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.111.132 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd bet chances are much higher that it's just an inaccurate/uneducated representation of a regular katana, rather then it being a ninjato. Oh, did you also notice that China looks like a family size pizza? :) TomorrowTime (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting find, Anonymous. TomorrowTime is almost certainly right (pizza, ha!), and besides, why would a ninja-to be depicted in that context anyway? Nevertheless: straight blade, entirely black hilt, square tsuba... that's pretty impressive. Coincidence or not, inaccurate or not, I have to wonder where the (presumably European) artist came up with that model. But I doubt we'll have any luck finding out :( --Iustinus (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought this picture was interesting because the sword looks identical to the stereotypical ninjatō, right down to the square tsuba. 208.38.111.132 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

THAT is VERY interesting. Great find! 76.103.169.121 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious need for cleanup

This article really needs to be cleaned up. It seems very likely to be "ninja-cruft". Note the unquestioned Hatsumi cite at the top. To be honest, it reads like a bunch of Bujinkaners threw this together from random fantasy sources. A lot of the speculation and original research should be deleted, and replaced with reputable sources. --67.188.240.71 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A few discussion points.

The curvature in Japanese blades is caused by the tempering process, and the curvature varies substantially; some blades are ALMOST straight. If the belief that all shinobigatana were not forged and (differentially) tempered in the proper way arose from the stereotypical depiction of shinobigatana with completely straight blades, then that's nonsense.

The ideal length of a katana varies from person to person. It was usually determined by standing straight, holding the sword naturally, and swinging your arm down at your side. If the tip is close to but clears the floor, the length is correct. Tsuba (guards) vary quite a lot, with fashion, the skill and artistry of the manufacturer, and personal taste being major factors in their design. Replacing them is an elementary procedure.

What precisely are the technical factors distinguishing a shinobigatana from a katana? Is the distinction just a question of the methods and occupation of the owner? Is a shinobigatana and a katana designed for a short person the same thing? The blade need not be as straight and the guard need not be as large or as square as is popularly depicted. I've studied various sword arts (from Europe, China and Japan) and own several (genuine!) katana, and I can appreciate the usefulness of a sword with a length between that of a correctly sized katana and a wakizashi. Ninja are said to have had a wide variety of roles - so saying that because this or that kind of weapon is not suitable for a particular ninja mission, no ninja ever used it, is not a conclusion with a rational basis.

Whether the shinobigatana exists is NOT an issue - it does exist, and some neo-ninja can use them very effectively, along with other types of Nihonto. The real question is, IF the characteristics of a shinobigatana ARE limited to its stereotypical depiction, for HOW LONG has it existed? Perhaps the straightish blade and square guard design is not pre-20th Century, and perhaps it did exist earlier but wasn't the only style of shinobigatana.

The falsely long scabbard concept seems a dubious extrapolation of the idea that ninja always used undersized swords. But samurai habitually wore katana of a size determined in the normal way (however inconvenient it may have been). So if a ninja was given a task that involved blending in with samurai society, he would have desired to appear armed in the manner of a samurai, ergo a slightly longer scabbard. But if a shinobigatana is indistinguishable from the average short katana, then it is doubtful that a scabbard of comparable length to those of non-ninja would be necessary for the purpose of concealing a ninja's true occupation.

I've just been reading up on Dr Hatsumi and it's difficult to deny the depth and breadth of his skill. His claims to authenticity may well be questioned, but the idea that he's not a real ninpo master simply because he's not concerned with keeping ninpo secret is ridiculous. Ninpo no longer has the relevancy to real-life circumstances it once had. So if he thinks it's so great, why wouldn't he want to promote his art like masters of other martial arts promote theirs? He has also said that the popular ninja stereotype bothers him and wants to correct it. 'Soke' is not limited to theatrical/crafts disciplines and is applied to the heads of a number of martial arts systems. If the title were a basis for believing that his teachings are suspect then it's doubtful he would have adopted it. Inheritance of both samurai and ninpo styles is far from implausible. His flexible approach to dan and kyu grades is alleged to stem from the fact that ninpo is not a sports-oriented discipline, is more nuanced, involves more emphasis on mental attributes as well as physical ones, and that many people come to ninpo after having built considerable skill in other disciplines. Even if everything Hatsumi says is absolutely true, there'd still have to be a strong distinction between modern and historical ninja, so my advice is to make that distinction very clear.

Inevitably with a subject like the Ninja there will be a LOT of conjecture - some false and some true - that may never be backed up by solid sources. The best thing to do is to explain the various points of view with the caveat that 'so-and-so states that X, Y, and Z are facts', rather than just say 'X, Y, and Z are facts' with a citation footnote (if there's one at all!) Make it more of a description of a debate (stating sources in the main text) about the weapon, rather than a description of the weapon itself, and cite EVERY source, no matter who or what the source may be.

JP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.171.224 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr Hatsumi is not only skilled at teaching martial arts. His paintings are quite good too. Especially the more explicit ones... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.201.114 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheath

How is a Ninjato carried when in its sheath? Anything special for a fast draw? RJFJR (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Second AFD Proposal

As this article has not been upadted with any reliable sources, even post-merge, I have requested a second review as an AFD. Binarywraith (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Usage" cleanup

To add to the mess surrounding this article, there is some verifiably incorrect information on there about the Usage of the Ninjato. The "chopping motion" refered to is obviously the result of someone writing about swords who doesn't understand them.

Straight bladed swords are just as capable of cutting and slicing as the katana. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC1SN5ierO8&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1usaGT1QW0I&feature=related for examples, and check out http://www.ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2002/jwmaart_cvet_0102.htm to see the effectiveness of a straight blade against the cutting mats usually showcased with Samurai swords.

Any difference in the effectiveness of the cut between a straight and curved blade is not enough to be noticeable, and would hinge more on the quality of the craftsman responsible for the edge of the blade than on whether it was straight or curved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzrouillard (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Has anyone thought to translate the Japanese article on this subject? Boneyard90 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the need for cleanup

For example:

"There was a legend that if a sword would be broken blades left upon a battlefield."

Huh? Okay, I'm an English major and so overly pedantic, but...huh? I would love to edit that, but I can't even figure out what that sentence is trying to say.

Contradiction: Was it used by ninjas?

Your research says the ninjato was not a ninja sword, but you then describe how ninjas made them. I would appreciate it if you look into this.Shinobi223 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Shinobi223Shinobi223 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at clarity

Apologies if these points have been raised but here goes: A typical Katana that has broken at/near the tip is automatically a shorter, slightly straighter sword. It can be used as it is, or crudely ground into a new point. When used in its original scabbard, the fact that it is shorter than it should be makes it faster to draw than it would be if it was still full-length. However, when inside the scabbard, it looks like it is still a completely normal, slower drawing sword, and this mistake could be fatal. Take all this with a grain of salt though - a ninja would have to be impersonating a person with the right to carry a full-on sword in the first place. Otherwise, more easily concealed or improvised weapons make more sense. A long-handled hoe isn't suspicious when carried by a peasant, but its a natural tool for dragging a man off a horse and killing him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.132.180 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think that I'm stating the obvious, but the idea of a specially-designed, specially-crafted assassin weapon is pretty laughable. 1) The weapon immediately identifies the ninja as a super-secret assassin. Keep in mind this is not a time of no-search civil rights laws. 2) The weapon is a costly and specially crafted piece of equipment in a culture where the resources and skill to make it are tightly controlled. 3) The weapon requires the development of specialized technique in a culture where excellent technique for using standard weapons is plentiful. 4) The weapon is too cumbersome for the kind of concealment and surprise attack a knife is easily capable of, while being at a disadvantage against proper military equipment. What niche there is for the weapon is in fighting soldiers or guards head-on, at a disadvantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.134.214 (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources removed

You'll need to explain, with reliable sources, why Ashida Kim aka Chris Hunter aka Radford Davis is unreliable. I know where Ashida Kim links to, but I also know the whole first two sentences are original research, as the sources are not secondary (and the court case says nothing about ninjutsu). So, please explain with sources how he is unreliable.

And you were right about Iaijutsu, I read the book wrong. It was supposed to say close combat and fast drawing (Iaijutsu) techniques. That would be better. Silverseren^C 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it's been more than 24 hours since I left a message on your talk page, i'm going to go ahead and revert you. If you disagree with this, please discuss it here on the talk page first rather than reverting it back again. Silverseren^C 04:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away on holidays for the Christmas break or I would have got back to you sooner.

Ashida Kim aka Chris Hunter aka Radford Davis (as he refers to himself in his own legal documents [4]) is a font of misinformation with regards to most things, including martial arts. Aside from the two-bit magic tricks that he passes off as technique (seriously, it's good for some lols: [5]) it's pretty easy to prove that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Take this interview with him [6] where starting around 1:40 he claims that the first five forms learned in Goju Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Isshin Ryu, and hard Korean martial arts (Tae Kwon Do I'm assuming here?) are all identical. Let's take a look at this claim and see if it can be verified:

Goju Ryu Karate (Gekisai 1 and 2 are always taught first, the other three are the order that I learned them in . . . although I'm not sure that this is standardized across all dojos):

• Gekisai (basic kata 1) [7]
• Gekisai (basic kata 2) [8]
• Saifa [9]
• Sanchin [10]
• Tensho [11]

Shotokan Karate:

• Heian Shodan [12]
• Heian Nidan [13]
• Heian Sandan [14]
• Heian Yondan [15]
• Heian Godan [16]

Tae Kwon Do (WTF):

• Taeguk Il Jang [17]
• Taeguk Ee Jang [18]
• Taeguk Sam Jang [19]
• Taeguk Sa Jang [20]
• Taeguk Oh Jang [21]

Tae Kwon Do (ITF):

• Choon-Ji [22]
• Dan-Gun [23]
• Do-San [24]
• Won-Hyo [25]
• Yul-Gok [26]

If you're still paying attention, you'll notice that the forms contain similar motions but are all quite different. This clearly shows that he's not accurate in his martial arts claims. Don't get me wrong, it's hard to stay mad at the guy who brought us the 'true biography' titled "The Amorous Adventures of Ashida Kim" [27] . . . which I would heartily recommend for you to read (again, purely for the lols). That said . . . he's really, really, really, not an encyclopedic source. :P

There's also the fact that Kim is pretty wild with other historical facts he spouts. In this interview [28] he claims that he has learned his martial arts from the 'Black Dragon Fighting Society' . . . which he goes on to claim is derived from a 6000 year old Chinese school called the 'Polestar School' which he believes has been preserving knowledge since the time of Atlantis. (Please find me corroborating third party evidence if you believe these claims! Kim/Hunter/Davis's stuff is always fun for a laugh!) In the same paragraph he claims that the planet undergoes a cataclysm every 43,000 years due to the Earth's poles shifting (I think this is his version of the Pole shift hypothesis . . . a theory not supported by any scientific evidence. Again, just showing that Kim/Hunter/Davis is not really an encyclopedic source and makes some pretty wild assertions that aren't backed by evidence.

Finally, I think it's poor wording to indicate that Iaijutsu is a method of close combat swordplay . . . that's just not part of the definition of the word. Iaijutsu refers to techniques for drawing the sword. No more, no less. That's the definition here: [29], here: [30], and in the book "Secrets of the Samurai" 1st edition (by Oscar Ratti/Adele Westbrook p.275 second paragraph - I just happened to have my copy sitting out on my desk) as well as on the wiki article regarding the subject. If you would like to see some Iaijutsu techniques performed at longer range check out the video here [31] at about 3:35 and onwards.

In light of the above, I'm going to remove the reference to Kim's material, and also will reword the sentence in the article so that it doesn't sound like Iaijutsu is primarily close quarters swordplay (it certainly has nothing to do with the ninjato). Regards,--Stvfetterly (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Katana statement

This reference is being used to source a statement about katanas. That's fine and all, except that the reference never once mentions the Ninjato and using this statement to compare katanas to ninjatos is pure synthesis. If the author was himself comparing them in the text, then that would be perfectly fine. However, he does not do this, so it is inappropriate to use the reference as it is currently being used. Silverseren^C 03:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• • The author is explaining a possible reason for the often repeated appearance of so called "ninjato as in "short and straight". This comes from a book on ninja by a well known respected author.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Am I missing the word Ninjato in the reference? Am I just not seeing it? Because assuming he means a Ninjato when he says short and straight is original research added onto the synthesis. Silverseren^C 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia is about providing verifiable information that readers of an article can check on themselves, the reference and quote in question refers to the subject of the article and should be included. Ninjato is the so called ninja sword and this author is making a statement on the subject of ninja swords.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• And how exactly have you verified that when the author states "for convenience the ninja would choose a blade that was shorter and straighter than usual", he is referring to the Ninjato? You're assuming he is and assumption does not meet WP:V and is original research. Silverseren^C 09:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for your reference, There is a description in page 18 "Both the length and curve of katana blades varied considerably, and for convenience the ninja would choose a blade that was shorter and straighter than usual."[32] From this description, It is easily understood the description is referring to a nijato because ninjato is used by ninja. The page is currently unavailable for viewing. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, there's no confirmation that that's discussing a Ninjato. Unless the author actually uses the name Ninjato (or one of the synonyms), we cannot assume he's discussing that sword. He could have just as easily been discussing other straight swords of the era that i'm sure ninja also used, such as later versions of the Chokutō, of which the Ninjato is just one type. Silverseren^C 11:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "other straight swords of the era that i'm sure ninja also used"? Isn't that nijato? The Chokutō was used prior to the 10th century. Stephen Turnbull's article is discussing about ninja. Then the sword used by ninja is ninjato regardless whether Turnbull said it explicitly as ninjato. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The 'ninjato' (straight blade/square tsuba kind) may or may not have existed (conclusive evidence either way has not been presented yet). However, it's also the default word for 'Sword used by ninja' (actually the other terms that link to this page 'Shinobigatana' and 'Ninjaken' both literally mean 'Sword used by ninja' . . . and are considered synonyms of 'ninjato' according to our article.) Since both Shinobigatana and ninjaken link to this article, any information about a 'ninja sword' should also be in the article. That aside, any information indicating that the ninja would have used a straighter and shorter regular Japanese sword helps the article to demonstrate a possible historical predecessor for the ninjato of the movies of the '80s and the ninja boom in Japan in the '60s. The quote clearly belongs in the article. Turnbull is clearly discussing the sword used by the (historical) ninja . . . he says so in the quote, and it's in a book that was researched and written about ninja.

As an aside, I added the quote because previously the cite was used to add this sentence: "In reality, the katana was probably the ninja's weapon of choice." which sounded a little too POV pushing (that the ninjato didn't exist - which I may believe, but needs references to be added properly to wikipedia). I'm kind of surprised to see any objection to the quote from you Seren . . . if anything it gives some credence to the possibility of a sword that looked something like the ninjato of movies. --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Other straight swords of the era that ninja used were Shikomizue and Joto. Anyway, it appears to me that the sticking point here is the lack of a mention of the "ninja sword" (ninja-to/ninja-ken/shinobi-gatana) and thus no direct correlation or comparison between the katana and the "ninja sword" in Turnbull's quote. In hopes of rectifying this I've expanded on the existing partial quote from Stage combat: fisticuffs, stunts, and swordplay for theater and film, which makes the correlation: "Ninjato: katanalike sword legendarily used by ninjas". I put it in the history part of the introduction/description which also makes the distinction between history and legend at the same time. Hopefully this will satisfy everyone's concerns regarding this. Cheers.Chanbara (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of/seen those cane swords before, but do you have any references that show them or describe them being used by ninja? I've also never heard of (and can't find a book/website on google) that talks about the 'joto' that you're referring to. Joto means 'to experience' in Japanese doesn't it? I'm going to put a cite tag for this word until a source is found that shows it's some kind of sword.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The shikomizue "cane swords" are described as being part of the ninja arsenal in Hatsumi's book and also in Hayes' book(s) I believe. Multiple examples of them (all with straight blades of varying lengths) are also in the Iga-ryu Ninja Museum (I saw them myself when I visited the museum and have a photo to prove it). And although this isn't necessarily a true-to-life reference, many ninja in Jidai-Geki movies and TV shows use shikomizue, usually when they're disguised as yamabushi (mountain priests). I personally think the Ninja-to is just a Shikomizue with a Katana handle and tsuba (sword guard) tacked onto it (particulary the ones with the hidden dagger in the pointy saya (scabbard) tip, which is very shikomizue-like too). A "Joto" is similiar and essentially the same thing. It means "staff-sword" and is made up of 杖(jo) for staff and 刀(to) for sword. Anyway, I've added a reference/citation for it as requested. Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks!--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to push for one side or the other, i'm here to properly follow what the sources say on the subject and I want the sources to be used in a manner that doesn't fall foul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, as has been done with a lot of Ninjutsu articles, Silverseren^C 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it falls foul, but I may be interpreting it incorrectly. In any event, although I share your concerns I think what we have is the most well researched, heavily referenced, and accurate article on the ninjato possible. And since I'm assuming this probably can't be used as a reference for the article, I'll share it here as I think it's pretty interesting and somewhat suprising. I found a Japanese blog about the ninjato where they refer to is as a "忍者刀KATANA". The swords being sold at "ninja-syo.com" also refer to them that way. So it would appear that they consider the ninjato a type of katana in Japan. Hmmm... Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• In terms of the new reference, i'm very wary of using dojo website pages like this. I'd really prefer if we could figure out which of the four sources used on that page is where they got the specific information we need and then cite that source instead, especially if its one of the Kodansha books, as those are the most reliable on there. Silverseren^C 21:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well if you need further confirmation then searching "Classical Weaponry of Japan" has confirmed that the shikomizue is covered in it (although not much text can be seen). It's also covered in Hatsumi's "Ninjutsu: History and Tradition" (which I have) from pages 106-125. It's refered to as "shikomi-zue" and "ninja canes" in it. And "Pauley's Guide - A Dictionary of Japanese Martial Arts and Culture" uses both Joto and Shikomizue. Cheers. Chanbara (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)