Jump to content

Talk:Jujutsu/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merger of two jujutsu articles

I've suggested a merging of the two seperate articles: Tenjin Shinyo-ryu and Tenji Shinyo Ryu (jujutsu-system) as they both seems to describe the same thing under different names. Can anyone here make the actual merging please? :) Fred26 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

All done. Fixed with redirects.Peter Rehse 04:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Sambo and Shootfighting

Bart Vale's patented shootfighting traced it's history back to professional wrestling and professional wrestlers such as Gotch, Inoki and Fujiwara. Vale himself was a three year veteran of the shoot style PWFG in japan where he learnt catch wrestling based submissions from Yoshiaki Fujiwara. The whole family of shoot wrestling is based on catch wrestling and not jujitsu. Involving Maeda's RINGS Submission Fighting, Sayama's Shooto, Funaki and Suzuki's Pancrase, Vale's Shootfighting and Paulson's Combat Submission Wrestling fighting.

Sambo has it's influences from 26 national russian styles of wrestling, catch wrestling and Judo( a form of jacket wrestling formed by distilling jujitsu). It's a form of wrestling not jujitsu. It's original name was free wrestling but later on changed to SAMozashchita Bez Oruzhiya. Sambo even includes training of throws from indian wrestling styles of pehelwani and mongolian styles but it's formative influences remain catch wrestling, 26 russian wrestling styles, greco roman, freestyle and jacket wrestling. Freedom skies 07:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So what,, the text in the main page stipulates links for martial arts that maybe influenced by Ju Jutsu. Sambo is, therefore its mentioned. Nobody said Sambo was based on Ju Jutsu.

See The following martial arts have derived from or are influenced by jujutsu or have founding instructors who studied a derivative of jujutsu.

Aikido Karate Kenpo Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Hapkido Judo Sambo Kajukenbo Kapap

The following comment was placed in the article. I have moved it here. David Scarlett 10:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
around April 20, 2006 all the external links were deleted by 'User:Dave3141592'. I sent an email to this user stating that I thought that was not appropriate, as other martial arts categories have external links and I don't see why Jujitsu shouldn't as long as the categorization is consistent. -- User:Hillcrestama

My reason for removing all external links was that I believe a list of dojo websites is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and does not follow Wikipedia policy on external links. That said, the page you've linked to actually does have useful contents (video), and it doesn't really advertise your dojo. For this reason I think that it could reasonably be left in. My only concern would be that having one dojo link there would invite others to post dojo links, although I guess additions of other, inappropriate links could be reverted if/when they occur. I'd be interested to hear what others think about the inclusion or removal of external links in this article. David Scarlett(Talk) 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To further this debate, I shall forward my opinion that links to Ju Jutsu national associations/federations should be left in. Such organisations are few in number and often regulate Ju Jutsu accross a whole country. It is usefull for someone in a particular country to be able to access the website of their national governing body, in order to enquire about taking up Ju Jutsu. Allowing national governing bodies/federations to post links will greatly reduce the number of links for such purposes. Perhaps a seperate sub-page could be generated containing links to all National governing bodies websites in order not to clutter the main page.

Also in adendum to that, if we are going to have links to video clips of Ju Jutsu, perhaps those should be contained in a seperate sub page linked to the main page! Such pages may end up with alot of links to video clips (as one might imagine). That page could be organised so that links are tied to their country of origen, or catagorised by technique.

Hi there- Nov 1, 2006 The link to Hillcrest's free video-clips that has been on this page for 6 months in the Techniques section has just been removed, and it's been replaced with a link to an an "armbar" site. I don't understand this.

However, with respect to the above post, I support a sub-page of video links.

User:Hillcrestama

Nov 2, 2006 Regarding the above suggestion of a separate sub-page of techniques, I created "Jujitsu Techniques" and added a link to this page from Jujitsu. The initial version of the page is oriented by category of technique as was one of the suggestions.

I hope that this resolves the "technique" issue. Many thanks!

User:Hillcrestama

Grading, belts and Dans

Why is there very little on this especially the different belt colors for the different levels? ie what color belt is a beginner? Are they the same colors as Judo?--Light current 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, in old Japan there were only 2 belts (white and black). Beginners started with white belts, and when instructors felt that they had earned respect, the black belt was awarded. From then on there are higher grades. Old schools called these higher levels Den grades. In more modern times, the Dan system has been adopted. In many schools (but not in all), there are 5 Dan grades that test upon technical content of the system, and 4 Dan grades that are given in recognition of service to the school and for development of a system. First Dan is awarded for attaining black belt. 2nd Dan to 5th Dan are technical gradings and 6th Dan to 9th Dan are awarded for sevices to the school or development of the system. 10th Dan is awarded postumously, and usually for the founder of a system.
The reason there is not much on gradings is because there are so many different schools that have their own systems. It would be too confusing to list every systems grading scheme.
For instance, in my system the lower Kyu grades are listed as follows:

White belt, yellow belt, green belt, blue belt, purple belt, brown belt, black belt. There are as many combinations of colours as there are systems.

So technically, you cant get any higher than 5th Dan in Jujutsu. Is that correct? Also, if you asked a 9th Dan if he would like to become a 10th Dan, that would be rather offensive I assume, and one should vacate the area area of the 9th Dan immediately? 8-) --Light current 20:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In many systesm, 5th Dan is the last rank you can learn a sylabus and sit a grading for. Obviously there may be exceptions, there always are. Some systems award 10th Dan to their instructors erroneously. It should be given the founder of a system, or postumously for extreame service or development of a system by an individual. Oft times, for want of increasing ego, folk have turned to inventing a system in order to gain 10th Dan. However, mixing 2 or more systems together does not mean you have a new system, it just means you've got a big ego. Grades and rank are less important than skill and understanding. Just as it is possible to have alot of money, but no class, so it is possible to have many black belts but no skillfull expertise.

Etiquette

I cant see anything on the page about training etiquette (when to bow etc), ceremonial stuff, forms of address to use etc etc. So much missing!--Light current 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette varies depending on systems. Usually it is common amoung systems to use a standing bow upon entering or leaving a dojo. Many schools over do the bowing thing. In Japan bowing is a greeting like hello how are you. When you do bow, the important thing is to maintain eye contact with the person or instructor whom your bowing to. Bowing should be discreet (short), not like performance artist bow on stage. Both hands are held at the sides.

All the stuff about ceramonies and forms of address vary so much as to make a description of one systems oddities pretty pointless.

Pictures

Any body got any dojo training pics more recent than 1920 or so? Surely there must be some out there!--Light current 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Dan

What does the word Dan mean?--Light current 21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy question to answer using Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_(martial_arts)

Answer is : The word dan (段) is Japanese, meaning step or grade.

Yoshin Ryu

There seems to be a rather large oversight by the author of this sub article. Yoshin Ryu was a system founded by Akiyama Shinobu in 1732, and is a distinct system from Hontai Yoshin Ryu which was founded a century earlier by Oriemon Shigetoshi Takagi (born 1635). The distinction needs to be made because other wise there will be confusion between two distinct systems.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshin_Ryu"


Removed from page@

Hara

1. [Common Usage] abdomen, belly; an area a few centimeters below the navel; considered the place where the vital energy is stored and generated 2. 'Belly'. The human body's inner centre of gravity and the source of breath (energy), which is traditionally located about four centimetres below the navel, between the latter and the vertebral column. According to Japanese belief, it is here that profound vital forces reside. Through the Hara men and women can communicate with the universal energy, and there Ki is found. 'Deep' breathing must take place from the Hara, for it is from there that all the individual's physical and psychic forces emanate. The art of concentrating all mental and physical forces on this point is called Haragei. In Buddhism, Hara is called Tanden, the Japanese translation of the Chinese word Dantian, 'cinnabar field', the focal point for adepts of the Dao (Tao). Also called Seika-no-itten. See Ki, Aiki, Kime, Ibuki, Tanden. 3. (hah-rah) "abdomen" Gravity and mass in the human body, traditionally considered in Eastern thought to be the seat of the soul and center of ki. Means the same as tanden. 5. The pit of the stomach; there is a Japanese belief that the centre of a person's being is to be found in the hara. 7. stomach, abdomen, eg., shitahara-lower abdomen 10. The part of the body, usually equated with the abdomen, where the chi, or life energy, is located. Since chi is essential to the performance of the martial arts, locating this spot is a technique practiced by many martial artists. Attention to the hara will increase one's ability to call on one's chi when necessary, which will increase power. The art of calling up this energy is called haragei. The hara is also called tanden, dantian, and tan tien. 129.67.4.64 17:10, 25 February 2006

--Light current 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Judo Section

The section on Judo is highly inaccurate. I am an eighteen-year experienced Judo fighter, with plenty of 'street encounters' too under my belt. I can promise you that Judo teaches all manner of chokes, regardless of whether they are 'trachea' or otherwise. In fact, I do not distinguish between them when choking my opponents or training partners. I simply 'choke/strangle': many attacks go after both the windpipe and the blood vessels. I also solemnly swear that we judoka learn how to break the elbow joint quite efficiently. You see, both strangulation/choking and elbow-locking are part of Judo contests, so being good at them is part of 'the game'. I should also add that many clubs also teach the 'old school' techniques, including wrist and ankle locks, strikes and weapons defenses. In fact, there are hundreds of Judo moves devoted to the 'illegal' techniques, and these so-called 'self-defence' moves are commonly taught to judoka. I should also make the point that Judo contests are not hardly so restrictive as the article-writer thinks. More-or-less you are able to grapple as you like. the referees are only supposed to stop the action in case of gridlock and lack of movement. One major stumbling block of some other grappling styles is that they allow their competitors to spend the whole match locked up in one more-or-less neutral position, stalling the action. Anyways, in sum, the article-writer has not provided accurate information about Judo, and having read other parts of the article, there seem to be other major flaws there as well. The best option, I think, is to erase the article completely and replace it with the translation of the Japanese article provided above. --Kozushi 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well meant. It is true that many Ju-Do schools teach non sylabus techniques that come from old schools of Ju Jutsu, why not! At any rate, the main difference between Ju-Do and Ju Jutsu is the way in which balance is broken before a throw or takedown. Obviously, Ju Jutsu is not limited by rules concerning striking, so throws are effected from an opponents punch or kick, similar to Gung fu. The nature of Wiki means that article accuracy is greatly dependent on the opinion of the writers. That said, it serves as a forum for discussion, where ignorance can be challenged and corrected. In this way, over time wiki articles bring ignorance into question. If Ju-Do practitioners wish to correct information on this article purtaining to Ju-Do, why not, just make sure that what you say represents the official international Ju-Do position, and not interpretations purtaining to the values of one school. Measure twice and cut once so to speak! Lets keep the article going as it is. If you feel something is definatly inaccurate, one should check a definative source before changing it. The other article is Japanese, and doesn't necessary reflect international opinion. This is because many Ju Jutsu Ka who emmigrated to the west did so because of differing views to Kano and his associates. It is healthy that differing views can be debated, such that people constantly challenge ignorant viewpoints.

The links to Old school of Japanese Jujutsu (ie those Japanese Ryu formed pre Meiji revolution) are listed in the derivites section for those interested in the history. Takeda Ryu is another name for Daito Ryu since 'Takeda Sokaku' was a pre-eminent student of both Daito Ryu (learned from his father) and Ono-ha Itto-ryu.

Also, wiki does not promote the advertising of an individual Dojo. We should only allow International and National governing body websites to be listed as a reference so that people who view the JuJutsu page and want to find a reputable club may go straight to a governing body webpage to find one. This also ensures that the links sections are not massive. Therefore, in the Old Schools links section, links should only be added (IF AND ONLY IF) the Dojo website is the official website for the old school itself (ie it should be a Japanese website from the headquarters of the school in question).

Removal of Dojo advertisement

this link is not a national governing body, but just one dojo. If all dojo's wanted to advertise in links section, we'd have millions. Sorry.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.4.144 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 August 2006.

The change that went with the above comment (4th August) was reverted by 12.165.188.130 21:47, 13 November 2006

This one is the same sort of thing, it's not a national body but a single institute.

Unless anyone wants to produce a counter-argument, I'll trim both the above links at some later stage.

TBBle 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

This article suffers from weasel wording. Look at this:

"It is generally felt that the Japanese systems of hakuda, kenpo, and shubaku display some degree of Chinese influence in their particular emphasis on atemiwaza"

"One can hypothesize that clinches may result from two evenly matched opponents who fail to control each other at arms length or further."

"One could venture the opinion that many of them are not credible fighting systems outside the rules and conditions that they operate under."

Who says? Who hypothesizes? Who ventures the opinion?

If their are specific people who can be quoted, then by all means do so. If their aren't, drop the section or rewrite.

ManicParroT 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag from the top of the article since I feel it has come a long way since it was first put in. It still needs work (I think it is borderline class B) - see above.Peter Rehse 03:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?

"Today, the very few traditional jujutsu systems that still exist are in regular use by both law enforcement and civilians alike. Some people claim Himizu Ryu (火水流 Fire-Water School) as one such school. Himizu Ryu is also alleged to be one of the most comprehensive martial systems still in practice today. They have a large curriculum consisting of all four kinds of combat including striking, throwing, restraining and weaponry."

Some people claim? Is alleged to be? They have a large curriculum that's not obviously different than most Ju-jutsu schools? I recommend the removal of this section but will leave it up to the Ju-jutsu experts.

I'm not a JJ expert, but esp. after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himizu Ryu I concur. I have removed it. JJL 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Modern versions of jujutsu

This section is getting ugly and is in serious need of clean-up. Its more advertisement than information. I deleted all links that don't point at a wiki article and then some. Perhaps a little brutal but I am sure the important ones will work their way back in.Peter Rehse 06:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Article Promotion

This article has potential to be a Good Article rather than just B class. It primarily needs sources although a little copyedit wouldn't hurt according to the martial art guidlines.Peter Rehse 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that...

I want to say that I am glad to find this site that I can talk aboyt my mostly beloved martial art. Coyld you please come for a seminar in Greece? I am looking forward to this bye bye!

Japanese philosophy and the effect on jujutsu

This section is clumsy, non-general and seems to be written by someone with limited experience in one art (in fact some of the terms seem to be more karate orientated). I removed it and modified the preceeding section slightly. I'ld like to suggest that if someone finds the information valuable they should start from scratch rather than just restore. I tried to save it but could not.Peter Rehse 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so serious as there are less than a handful but each of those remaining links seem to refer to a very limited subset of jujutsu or area. None of the links really add anything to the article. Personally - with the internal links we have I think the entire section should be removed. Just a suggestion.Peter Rehse 04:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say instead that none of the links currently there should remain. But surely there's some general external web site that's relevant? JJL 12:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I spent a bit of time and could not find a good general site and then this morning we got hit by what, in my opinion, should be avoided. I removed the section for now. Let's see how that goes.Peter Rehse 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Advertising your system

I don't think an encylopaedia article should be used to advertise a particular system of Ju jutsu in preference to any other. Granted, important Japanese old schools deserve a mention in the history section. Claims based on opinion that 20th century schools such as small cirle ju jutsu have re-invented the wheel for instance is pure propaganda designed to advertise a system at the expence of explaining Ju jutsu, which is what the article is supposed to be about. It is worth reminding potential contributors to the article's that Ju Jutsu evolved over 2000 years in Japan. Before that, many if not all of the techniques and strategem probably already existed in Chinese systems of combat. Nobody post 1700 AD is going to invent anything revolutionary in the martial arts, its all been done before. That includes Gracie, and grappling arts. New systems are not being invented or discovered now. They are simply re-discovered. Don't try to take credit for a unique method or system, it doesn't wash. This article should be about Ju Jutsu, not you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.59.203 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Sources

This article is really missing sources and citations (much more important than extranal links).Peter Rehse 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Sources have always been absent for this article. It has been formed by the coagulation of personal opinion and handed down history from instructors to pupils. There are authorative texts on Jujutsu history, but no scholor of these texts has contributed to wiki

I've reasently got a couple of books and can make a start on bits in new year, but will be largely 2nd hand or sources to look to. ::Books are prob less help than I thought.--Nate1481 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also to the person above: you say this like its a good thing, or at least unavoidable, well sourced info is better than hearsay, even if a diffinitive answer is not possible an authoritative opinon (e.g. japanese military historian) is better than unsupported opinion which can be challanged and changed leading to edit wars etc. --Nate1481 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing problem.

The problem with sourcing from books is that one must chose a reputable author, especially when referencing a historical statement. Many Sensei authors give views that they haven't themselves researched. Second hand folklaw written in Ju Jutsu technique books and sourced from the views of the author should not constitute an adequate reference. Rather, it is better to find one's references from books on the history of Ju Jutsu that have been written by scholor's such as post graduate students, post doctorate scholors or professor of history. A good example of a Ju Jutsu history scholor is Stephen Turnbull, who writes many books upon the Samurai. In order to adequately research Ju Jutsu, one would need to read translations of Japanese books written during Japan's feudal period. Information on individual schools is probably most accurately sourced from interviewing the Soki of that school who may have access to historical records of his system.

First sentence changed

It's a minor change, but it's important. Previously the introductory sentence suggested that Jujutsu was a Japanese Martial Art, instead of properly stating that Jujutsu never properly refered to a particular art or system, but rather refers to a whole class of very different systems and schools that were practiced in antiquity and continue to be developed in Modern times. The rest of the article properly reflects this: in fact, the article does a tremendously good job of underscoring this. But the first sentence didn't reflect this important distinction at all.

It's important because many people believe that Jujutsu is a single martial art, much as Kodokan Judo or Shotokan Karate might be. This has much to do with marketing, I think. Judo, a tremendously popular sport and martial art that traces its roots to Jujutsu, often talks about Kano Jigoro refining "Jujutsu" and "removing" a number of techniques considered needlessly dangerous from the art. In actuality, Kano Sensei studied in a large number of different Jujutsu schools throughout his life, and he distilled what he learned from those into one unified system, Judo. But because the Japanese language lacks plurals, one never says that Judo is derived from Jujutsus, which would strictly speaking be more correct.

The result is that lots of (mostly modern) martial arts have attempted to hijack the term Jujutsu and apply it to themselves: a frequent claim, for example, is that their art is Judo with the dangerous bits left in, before Kano "watered down" the martial nature of the original art.

Of course at the time, Judo was seen as a kind of Jujutsu, one of many schools. But again, because most people don't realise that Jujutsu is not properly speaking a single martial art, they instead imagine a sort of lineage: "Badass Samurai Ninja Art - Jujutsu" gives birth to watered down martial sport, "Judo". Consider, for example, how frequently people who don't know better suggest that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is derived from Jujutsu as if the latter were actually some sort of unified system (not that I'm making any disparaging remarks about BJJ, it's a great martial art).

So of course every charlatan grandmaster who wants to impress would-be students adopts the name Jujutsu and claims to teach it. Wikipedia should underscore the fact that saying that you teach "Jujutsu" by itself doesn't mean anything, because Jujutsu itself doesn't really mean anything. There are many martial arts called Jujutsu, which are actually tremendously varied in style, form and philosophy. Unless your instructor can specify what ryu or school he's from, he's pulling your leg. This is a tremendously common martial arts scam.

I've written a lot about this now so I'll stop, but I hope you guys see my point. Cheers! 70.132.11.78 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But cf. the articles for Karate and Taekwondo, say, which also have many substyles; they start as this one did before the change. This is a standard way of describing things and it doesn't mean that there's only one way approach to it or one tradition of it. The Kung Fu page is different, but I think that Kung Fu is used even more generically than jujutsu--it's used to mean all CMA, whereas jujutsu is certainly not used to mean all JMA. Hence I've changed it back (with other changes). I'd be happy to work on this page toward a consensus opening if there is interest in doing so. I think both ways of saying it are defensible, but that this is more in keeping with what's done for comparable articles (like Iaido, which also has many substyles).
As an aside, it is not an uncommon opinion that there is indeed only on jujutsu. I disagree with those who say that there is only one jujutsu, but not everyone feels the same way. JJL 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Can see both sides so would suggest an additional sentence along the lines of "There have always been various sub styles of jujitsu applying the same principles to different sets of techniques, usualty based around diffrent 'ryu' or schools." Modern versions can be left to that section. --Nate1481 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I've made an attempt to do something along these lines; is it helpful? JJL 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. --Nate1481 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good compromise, I guess. Didn't realise that there was much disagreement among those in the know.
As an aside, though, I think that comparing the variety of styles that are called Jujutsu to the various branches and offshoots of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, or Judo fails to underscore how much more variation there is in Jujutsu than in the subdisciplines of those martial arts. But in this case I think the rest of the article does a good job of driving that point home, so it's not really a big deal to me. 70.132.11.78 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Quick point; Judo, karate-do, aiki-do are different systems. The word style refers to differences in personal interpretation of one system; for instance by the esthetic quality of performance by one indivitual compared to another. One could say aiki-do promotes by its movements a more flowing style, whilst karate-do by its movements promotes a more hard/sharpe style. These are descriptions of performance and not necessarily the system itself. In point of fact, all these 'do' systems are branches of specific Jujutsu ryu (deviations). Karate-do is a study of striking within the Ju-jutsu ethos (a sort of specialization). The ethos of the Japanese systems are similar although the technique set may vary. Style is an individual interpretation of any system. Some systems lend well to practitioners of a certain body type, hence they will perform with more grace and style. The point has been made that most divergent systems were developed by certain Jujutsu masters who branched off and started their own schools to suit their own preferences in technique and strategy. However, the root of these systems is the same. The prefix 'Ju' is particularly apt when describing Jujutsu. Many jujutsu ryu remain flexible by avoiding specialization into one branch of the system. Aiki-jutsu, Karate-jutsu and Jui-do all specialize to a greater extent. Just as philosophy has brances, so does jujutsu. And even the branches have sub branches and leaves. If the trunk of the tree is Jujutsu, and the brances are sub-systems within jujutsu, then the leaves are divergent systems. This would leave the roots to be the central ethos of all martial art systems (as a somewhat utopian system perfect in all balance of ethos and strategem). One can never learn everything, so systems look to mimic some pattern or quality of the root of marital arts. Of course trees produce fruit which goes on to form new trees hence proveing that all divergent systems can diverge again and again. I would by opinion say that Jujutsu and Gung Fu as terms mean similar things in Japan and China. Both names refer to trunks which have sprouted many branches. Of course, Chinese martial arts have diverged to a greater extent because they have had more time to develop, and because Chinese systems were not restricted by the ridged Japanese combat tradition (such as armour and etiquette, weaponary and strategy). Jujutsu is not the only name used in Japan for 'martial arts'. Yawara was also used in a similar general context. There are some other names too, but they escape me for now. Jujutsu became the most popular name, that is evident. This maybe because the meaning of Jujutsu (flexible art) is in itself all encompasing. 86.4.59.203 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Trinity.


Did the changes ever appear? As I can see in the article the changes has either not been made or later on deleted/changed..? Dexter999 01 November 2007, 17:03 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jujutsu/Archive_3&oldid=313444356"