Talk:Brazilian jiu-jitsu

message: This unsourced and rather ungrammatical line at the beginning seems more like an attempt to discredit BJJ than to add to a reader's general knowledge:
"BJJ is not considered effective self-defense by many due to its grappling and grappling only."
Intuitively, I could understand that if BJJ is focused *only* on grappling that this leaves its students to fend for themselves in a striking fight, but:
(1) Is this indeed what BJJ does? and
(2) Does anyone have a source for this? 
I'd say we should strike the entire sentence unless someone could supply affirmative answers to the above two questions.  Tks  Jkp1187 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there a particular reason you removed the sources I added to the article about it being a self-defence system? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not effective self-defense? 

message: This is an article about BJJ in general. Too much data on individuals, their fights, their win-loss records, etc. is being introduced. Individuals should be mentioned, with WP:RS, as contributing to the art/sport/technique, but nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your rationale, but Helio is one of the founders of BJJ.  He heavily contributed to the development of BJJ.  Many of his losses led to key improvements in the development of the art. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but descriptions of Helio's career should go on his page. In any event, we need secondary sources that describe how he improved the sport. Data about broken arms and defeats in 14 minutes do not describe BJJ or its' development. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Crazy, adding all of that material about Helio is WP:OFFTOPIC because this article is about BJJ in general.  You Boldly added it, I Reverted, and now we have a Discussion going on. Following the outline of WP:BRD, I think we need input from other editors IOT bring about WP:CONSENSUS on what is the best way to describe Helio's contribution. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new section.  Because BJJ is a hybrid style and famous for things such as the Gracie Challenge where they learn by matches and test it out in order to improve their style I feel it needs to be included. Each match lost brought them back to the drawing board. Additionally, the Kimura vs Gracie match was one of the first televised mixed martial arts contests as well as being attended by the Brazilian President. CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But we must write in summary style. These details like a 3 hour, 45 minute fight do not comply with that guideline. Saying "highly touted" may be editorializing (editor intrepretation) or puffery. The last paragraph of the section had no references. Also, the Aloisio Silva Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Academy is not WP:RS. It may have a section about the history of BJJ, but it is really a spamlink (see WP:NOTADVERTISING).  – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can edit the section and place better sources, but a wholesale deletion is I believe to be extreme.CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes WP:BLOWITUP is the best course of action. As I say, 1 paragraph had no references and the other 2 had multiple problems with detail and RS.  Here is an essay you might find helpful: WP:BETTER.  I benefited from reading it when I started off in my editing efforts.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much data on individual fighters 

message: This article rates a C-class assessment because it is poorly referenced and it fails to give an overall description of the sport. I moved it with hopes that others will work to improve its quality. Thanks to all who assist. – S. Rich (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: The article suggests that Brazilian jiu-jitsu branched off from "older systems of Japanese jujutsu by an important difference that was passed on to Brazilian jiu-jitsu."  Therefore, I believe that it should not be removed from the country of origin.  I don't understand why my edits are getting reverted from different anons when I undo the revision.  The edits undoing my revision are an unexplained removal of content, but they don't seem to get it or message me about it.  Any suggestions?  If I revert it one more time, I get violated by 3RR again.  Thanks.  3primetime3 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004222121/http://equipemestrewilson.com/mitsuyo-maeda/?lang=pt to http://equipemestrewilson.com/mitsuyo-maeda/?lang=pt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210063301/http://www.judodaunicamp.hpg.ig.com.br/historia.htm to http://www.judodaunicamp.hpg.ig.com.br/historia.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330153126/http://bjjteamconde.com/historiaprotugues.aspx to http://bjjteamconde.com/historiaprotugues.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522083358/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/217/217.F3d.1060.98-16386.98-15672.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/217/217.F3d.1060.98-16386.98-15672.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111108182804/http://www.uiowa.edu/~armbar/safety.htm to http://www.uiowa.edu/~armbar/safety.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102032922/http://brasa.brazilianblackbelt.com/2011/05/comprido-felipe-costa-and-caio-terra-united-against-steroids-in-bjj/ to http://brasa.brazilianblackbelt.com/2011/05/comprido-felipe-costa-and-caio-terra-united-against-steroids-in-bjj/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think the following adds anything to the article:
"It has also been argued that the Brazilians didn't actually create any fundamental innovations within the art" given that BJJ is clearly a distinct style that, while derived from Judo, is practiced and has evolved into a very different martial art. Even kosen judo which is similar in execution is markedly different from modern BJJ.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the thesis is promoted by Roberto Pedreira in several books, for example The Untold Story of Jiu-Jitsu in Brazil. I don't know what it's worth. CaféBuzz (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  propose removing a line in the article 

message: Propose changing sections to reflect that there are actually many BJJ federations/organizations. IBJJF isn't even an actual governing body, though I'll concede that the article can reflect as if it is. 
I propose adding UAEJJF, CBJJ, CFJJB, CBJJO, and FCJJ.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBJJF not major or only governing body 

message: This is under the "Etiquette & Customs" section, which is completely unsourced. Does this even make sense? 
DenebDeNoob (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not teaching or explaining techniques to lower ranked students."