Talk:Jujutsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:24, September 17, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Picture for History Section[edit]

Can someone provide an ancient illustration or depiction of Jujustsu? thank you. Asian888 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradiction on date term was coined?[edit]

How can the MAs be known as jujutsu in 1333 if the term jujutsu wasn't coined until 17th century? Doesn't the article contradict itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does. The unreferenced version should be removed. Bradford44 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct then the ryu developed from around 1333-1573 and in the 1600s the term jujutsu started to be commonly used to describe them, and was used retrospectively, in a similar way to how 'martial arts' is used today. The way it's phrased is however confusing and needs a rework. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I rewrote it, so let me know what you think. It is accurate now, and no longer redundant to the previous paragraph, but I'm not convinced it says the same thing that its original author intended to say. Bradford44 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Its better now, but your right in that we need a source (the whole article is extremely short of them) as it may not be as was originally intended.
p.s Does anyone own a book called "A Comprehensive and Neutral History of Japanese Martial Traditions" by R. Source? --Nate1481(t/c) 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Should Kumi Uchi have it's own article?[edit]

There seems to be validity for Kumi Uchi being a seperate art. Perhaps it deserves its own article? Interesting video on kumi uchi here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xTel5viUg&NR=1 User5802 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of weapons within the introductory statement.[edit]

This article includes enough information about weapons that the statemtent "Jujutsu... is a collective name for Japanese martial art styles consisting of grappling and striking techniques. Jujutsu evolved among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for dispatching an armed and armored opponent in situations where the use of weapons was impractical or forbidden." does not appear to be accurate and is misleading.

There used to be discussion on weapons within this talk page. User5802 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Last discussion where this was brought up appears to be the following posting on 05:07, 27 May 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jujutsu&oldid=215256451 User5802 (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Language termonolgy[edit]

There's a section that mentions "The Chinese Character ..." in two places. This should be the "Kanji" character. Kanji is the generic term for that type of character used in multiple Asian languages. 206.222.194.162 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) David Williss

The above statement is inaccurate. "Kanji" is the Japanese reading of "Hanzu," a Chinese character. In fact if you literally read the "Kan" and "Ji," they are translated as "Chinese character." Kanji is not the generic term, it is the Japanese term. There is something else that should be pointed out in the introduction (elsewhere in the article as well perhaps) with regards to language: Jujutsu actually should be translated as "The art of flexibility," though the modern Chinese character means in Chinese "softness," in Japanese it can also mean "flexible." Perhaps the reading given is the most widely known reading of Jujutsu, and therefor need not be altered, but a mention of the flexible is important. Also the link with the character "Ju" shows only Chinese definitions. There are Japanese readings given but not definitions. "Yawarakai" means flexible. 75.212.44.224 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The meaning and translation "Jujutsu"[edit]

As far as I know the word jujutsu does not literally mean the "art of softness" nor "way of yielding", however it is in my belief more an approximative translation.

I am not completely sure of this, nor do I have any quotable material, however (again; as far as I know) Japanese is extremely difficult to precisely translate to English (or any other Western language).

Besides, "ju" also means 10, as shown here in the article Japanese Numerals.

How about editing it to "a possible meaning of the word "jujutsu" is "the art of softness" " or "an approximate translation of the word "jujutsu" is "the art of softness" "?

--DKDexter999 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Isn't the spelling jujitsu more common in English as found on thefreedictionary?. Unless I get any opposing views soon, I intend to rename the article with this spelling.--Chrono1084 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No, "jujitsu" is a common misspelling, and is incorrect. Interestingly, this mistake is currently only really made by non-Japanese practitioners of jujutsu. The kanji for "jutsu" is the same one used by every Japanese martial art like iaijutsu, kenjutsu, ninjutsu, etc. Asymnation (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So, according to you, the Japanese people know better how to spell in English than The Free Dictionary? You'll have to do better than that if you want to keep the actual title.--Chrono1084 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

thefreedictionary.org is not a source. Try e.g. something out of Cambridge[1], where we find "ju-jitsu (mainly US jiujitsu)". Ju-jitsu and jiujitsu are spelling variants, both acceptable. No evidence of unhyphenated "jujitsu" there, but Webster's also has "jujitsu, jujutsu" and variants. Google books seems to indicate that "jiu-jitsu" is the most common variant, followed by "jujitsu". The spelling jutsu is also acceptable, albeit clearly less common than jitsu. It is, however, linguistically more accurate. Both spellings are arguable: you either pick the most popular even if less accurate or encyclopedic, or the more encyclopedic even if less popular. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to always choose the popular spelling one as Wikipedia should be open to all but since you showed that the jujutsu exists in some dictionaries and you confirmed that it's closer to the Japanese pronunciation, I'll let the title as it is.--Chrono1084 (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand the "open to all" argument, although I keep encountering it all the time. How is an article less "open to all" if it is conscientious about its spelling?

That said, I think your proposal has some merit. It is always a good idea to consult OED directly instead of wasting time with crappy online dictionaries (OED is also online, but not crappy:) In the opinion of the editors of OED, -jutsu is a "former" spelling:

"ju-jitsu Also formerly jiu-jitsu, -jutsu, ju-jitzu, -jutsu; and as one unhyphenated word. [ad. Jap. jūjutsu, f. jū (Chinese jou [soft, gentle]) + jutsu (Chinese shu, shut art, science)."

So according to OED at least, the majority spelling is ju-jitsu. It also tells us there are nine other acceptable spellings,

jiu-jitsu, jiu-jutsu, ju-jitzu, ju-jutsu, jujitsu, jiujitsu, jiujutsu, jujitzu, jujutsu

--dab (𒁳) 10:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The current form is based on Wikipedia's Manual of Style that states Revised Hepburn romanization should be used. As different authors, organisatiosn and historical periods used several different variations keeping it at the current title seems the most sensible option. --Natet/c 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The mos recommends this for romanization of Japanese text. What we are talking about here is a Japanese term that has already been loaned into English, and which we are now using as an English word. What applies here is WP:UE. --dab (𒁳) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:UE says "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Wikipedia:Romanization." There are multiple widely used forms so which one is best? (As an example in the sources for the article 3 different variations are used) Using a current romanisation avoids any debate on bias for a specific organisation that prefers that particular from. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is widely referred to as simply 'Jiu-Jitsu' in the US but in Germany "Ju-Jutsu" refers to a reconstituted style developed there and "Jiu Jitsu" to the Japanese type. If you can show that a specific form is used predominately internationally for Japanese type jujutsu then I would agree to using that but I don't think that it possible. --Natet/c 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
@dab Thanks for the link, I didn't know that, it's best to follow established rules.
@Nate, what I regret is that the current title spelling seems to be (maybe very) rare in the English. According to your exemples, ju-jitsu and jiujitsu which are very common and the only two spellings of the Cambridge dictionary shouldn't confuse anyone.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am opposed to the change, ~2m ghits doesn't seem 'rare' though not at high as some other variants, the question is still what to change it too? There would also be the issue of changing all the articles that use this version while avoiding chaging the names of organisations. --Natet/c 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I am in here for not to say yes or no to a possible change, but I bet the most important thing is that a Wikipedia user is brought to this page without failure, no matter how he/she spells it, and that's already realized. If a user is brought here anyway, and that happens automatically unlike paper dictionaries, what is the problem after all? Will a change to the title affect how a trainee attain better this art? I don't think so. Is it a wrong spelling? It's at the minimum least not. Is it really rare? --- forget about "web" search, try at least Google Book search; I don't see the number of hits really "rare." Yet, how would YOU, as an English native pronounce this word. It's somewhat amazing the pronunciation tied to this article is that of a Japanese. Many English dictionaries including the ones available online provides us pronunciations that are so deeply loaned into English that they are probably not easily recognized as 柔術 by a Japanese person who doesn't speak well English. Honjamaka (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would oppose renaming the article. There are several variant spellings, and whatever one is chosen would still not be the correct one. It seems to me that since this is about a Japanese martial art, it makes sense to have it named the way it is now, even though other alternate spellings may be frequently used. In any case, "Jiujitsu" redirects to this article, and the most common variants are mentioned in the first few words of the article, so I see no problem. Omnedon (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a majority of users who opposes the renaming, the actual title will be kept.--Chrono1084 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sport Jujitsu/jujutsu[edit]

There's been some edit warring on the spelling in this section. Questions:

  • Is "Sport Jujitsu" a style with its own discrete history, under the oversight of some governing body (perhaps the Ju-Jitsu International Federation or some other organization)? Or,
  • Is sport jujutsu a generic term for all organized competitive jujutsu, of which many styles and organizations exist (only certain segments of which are under the purview of governing organizations that use the Jujitsu spelling)

The spelling in this section should hinge on which of these two questions is gets a "yes" answer. My first impression, based on a little googling, is that it's the 1st question, and that either Sport Jujitsu (or Ju-Jitsu) should be used in this section, but that the section needs tweaking to explain the relationship between the organized competitive sport and jujutsu more generally. Just a guess at this point.

Regardless of the answer, edit warring is not an effective way to get changes implemented. Show us why the changes are right! /ninly(talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Ninly about edit warring, and note that the term has been reverted to "Sport Jujitsu" again, 4½ hours after Ninlys' post here. I have also tried to discuss the matter with an involved editor, but they did not reply.
Are we to say, Jujutsu/Jujutsu, (as the article is named) but when adding a sport element,"Sport JuJitsu" not "Sport Jujutsu"? That seems to be the view point being pushed here by several very new editors. Personally for me it has always been ju-jutsu or jujutsu. If the Brazilian version wants to call it "Jujitsu" thats fine, in articles related to Brazilian Jujitsu, Ju-Jitsu International Federation or similar. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have posted on that talk page, too, but it seems to get blanked consistently, indicating that the user has little interest in actual discussion beyond edit summaries. That user has posted on my talk page, too, and later blanked those comments (see the 3 following diffs). I have just now contacted another editor that is making similar changes – assuming it's not the same user or a cohort, since that page shows a history of page blanking, too. /ninly(talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur with 220.101... Jitsu is acceptable in the context of BJJ and the JJIF, but not in the broader sense of jujutsu. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 'Catfish Jim'. The pro BJJ pov seems to have spread to Guard (grappling) too. (please excuse my un-AGF). @ Ninly, yes I saw those posts, and noted the similarity in edits and blanking. Certainly odd that up to 3 new editors arrived later making edits. (though some were reverting our 'original BJJ' editor, if I recall correctly). I may have triggered this by editing a Mixed martial arts fighters' article to be more encyclopaedic! :-( <sigh> - 220.101 talk\Contribs 14:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to learn Jiu-Jitsu, you need to learn Judo first (because 99% of the Judo techniques are coming from Jiu-Jitsu). That's the way the Japanese Samurai learned to fight for many centuries. And then you get one of those old Judo books from Kano, where he also described deadly techniques and leg locks aso. Because the real Jiujitsu is extinct nowadays, although in Europe there are some schools teaching it, but missing the proper education of Judo, so that's no real deal. And "Brasilian Jiu-Jitsu" is just Judo...mainly ground-work Judo. A good Judo fighter always wins agains Brasilian Jiujitsu, because BJ is just a small part of Judo. And certainly Judo is a lot stronger than modern Jiu-Jitsu-"free fighting", because I just need to defend my chin and grab the opponent and throw him on the flow. If somebody wears clothes or a gi and can defend against a boxer and kicker, he always wins. But without a gi, you need wrestling techniques, that's why Judo fails in free fighting. Never mind, because people wear clothes on the street ;). So go learn Judo for self-defense! 178.197.234.33 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://smaa-hq.com/articles.php?articleid=10. Content entered in 2003; it seems likely that more content was entered at that time, but I have not been able to identify a source that clearly predates the article. Many mirrors of Wikipedia have picked up the content since.

Identified infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Confucianism[edit]

Please watch the contributions of this user, their edit was completely ridiculous and appears to be personally motivated. They claimed Japan didn't adopt neo-confucianism, which is a major point in the development of modern jujutsu. There is an actual article on neo-confucianism in Japan Neo-Confucianism in Japan and its opposing philosophical schools Kokugaku who tried to expel foreign influence from Japan especially confucianism. For those who speak Japanese here is a Japanese government website with the same details, http://www.city.miki.lg.jp/bunka/jugakusha.html. This will also be added as a reference for further deterrence which shouldn't be needed. 27.33.143.93 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I made a mistake on name or categorization. In Japan it is called 朱子学/Cheng-Zhu school or 儒学/Confucianism (no "neo" prefix), not 宋明理学/Neo-Confucianism. But I still don't understand the philosophy had anything to do with the Ming government's emissaries. Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As for the dissection, only Daitoryu says Yoshimitsu did it and it's not verified. The first recorded dissection in Japan was 1754 by Yamawaki Toyo. See [2] This is the translation. This Daitoryu page says " The detail of its development in the Edo period (1603 ~ 1868) and before is not clear. There are no books or no records about Daito-ryu". If you could read ja, see this. I think it is more accurate to say "it was said that Yoshimitsu..." . As for quan fa, I could not find any Japanese jujutsu pages mentioning it. I'd like to know when and where in Japan did the emissaries visit? And who saw the demonstration? Because it was not easy to meet foreigners in Japan and I think not many people saw it. Oda Mari (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe I understand your meaning, although it appeared you were opposing Neo-Confucianism. It was at a time of political importance with the ending of Hideyoshi's war which had caused great strain to Korea and China. The adoption of neo-confucianism which was the state ideology of Korea and China, was of great relief to those nations as it meant Japan was unlikely to invade, so political exchange and cross-cultural was opened during the early Edo period (especially with issues such as the wokou). Quan Fa had no importance to jujutsu, although I do see how that article change can be interpreted that it may have. It was trying to portray the opening of cross-culture between the neighbouring counties and their martial arts (focussed on striking techniques) which influenced the development of more striking techniques in jujutsu at the time (which were later reduced). However, to reduce article size or "waffling on" I simply used one example from the book although it lists many other examples, such as a single Samurai family called the Shimazu clan annexing the Ryuukyuu Kingdom (homeland of karate). Therefore I agree and have changed that part (the reference is old and difficult to translate) although I believe the change in general is well informative and improved the article a lot. I regret the misunderstanding in those couple of sentences. 27.33.143.93 (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is a difference of opinion, you should discuss it here. Please have a read of WP:AGF before making accusations of self-interest. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading text on page[edit]

In the description section, there is a bit describing the contents of jujutsu training:

In jujutsu, there are five main sectors ("arts") of training. The first, the Art of Blocking, is used to defend against attacks. The second, the Art of the Fulcrum Throw, is employed in modern judo. The third, the Art of the Non-fulcrum Throw is employed through throws that involve little or no contact with the opponent. The fourth, the Art of Escaping (Hakko-Dori), is very crucial in many styles of Jujutsu. The fifth is the Art of Striking (Atemi-Waza).

This was added in 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jujutsu&diff=195904600&oldid=195542379

The description is a part of some specific jujutsu system and their system of organizing things. Most jujutsu schools do not separate their curriculum in such a way, and certainly no traditional Japanese jujutsu system does. Most likely the text is copy&paste from some modern jujutsu school description.

I strongly recommend deleting the entire paragraph as it doesn't really add anything that has not been said elsewhere.

80.223.84.100 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Daito ryu Aiki Ju-Jutsu[edit]

Daito ryu Aiki Ju-Jutsu has no proof of being an koryu just some claims by its members. They just want to sound more important that's all and that 9. century nonsense is just wet dream of them. So unless they can prove it with historical documents its just a lie and it shouldn't be listed as koryu. Me176.76.94.156 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Judo[edit]

"...although many who study judo still believe as Kano did, that judo isn't a sport but a self defense system creating a pathway towards peace and universal harmony through the art and physical exercise." - This is very wrong. Judo practioner all know that Judo is a sport, but they also say that Judo is more than a sport, heavily affecting the mind and spirit, like all martial arts are meant to do. It's not a question of "or" but a question of "and". So I strongly suggest the author to learn some basic logics. 178.197.234.33 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Catch Wrestling a Descendant Art?[edit]

What are the prerequisites to include a martial art as a descendant art? For example, yes it has been said by certain martial artists and historians that catch wrestling was influenced by jujutsu. But it has also been said that for example judo was influenced by western wrestling too(as in case of fireman's carry). However nothing of that is mentioned in judo article, let alone having it under parent arts. Same in jujutsu article: just blanket term of Native Japanese Martial Arts parenthood. No mention of possible Indian or Chinese influences. So in this light, how much info of how prominent jujutsu influence we have to call catch wrestling a descendant art? In catch wrestling article it looks better balanced since Jujutsu IS mentioned, but after several other parent arts. In here it seems bit awkward finding catch wrestling among sambo, judo or aikido; styles that have heavily borrowed and built upon jujutsu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.98.87 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)