Talk:Parkour

State of the article

• Need to carefully consider items included in Parkour in popular culture, make sure items are relevant and good examples. We are merging the parkour in popular culture article with the parkour article.
• Need to craft better standards for grammar and terminology. The article is still somewhat inconsistent.

• "Parkour" or "freerunning" should be lowercase unless it's the first word in a sentence.

• Parkour gyms are starting to appear across the world, such as APEX in Colorado, Tempest Freerunning's gym, Parkour Vision's gym, etc. This seems ripe for mentioning as it develops. Worth exploring.
• Some parts of the article need to be organized a little better.
• Still some controversy about parkour / freerunning wording of different parts of the article should be considered. It seems the consensus is that "Parkour and freerunning are similar, but separate disciplines." We have decided to not merge the articles.
• Review and edit the Wiktionary terms for parkour and freerunning.
• The reference list could use updating.

• Note: reference 12 is not found in archive. {{dead link}} was added.
• Note: reference 17 should be checked on a flash-capable device.
• Note: reference 47 needs to be isolated or corrected.
• Note: reference 48 needs to be isolated or corrected.
• Note: reference 50 requests not to be archived in robots.txt file. {{dead link}} was added.

---

Please feel free to update this with whatever topics are most relevant. Thanks! Dhechols (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think that if you archived Image edit war, it could be removed from the current talk page, merge with freerunning is worth retaining in the current version of the talk page (we could put links at the top of that subsection to freerunning, not that efficient, even some to discussions about merging that are on the freerunning talk page). mystery (talk) 19:42, August 16^th, 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Category

The summary block says it is recognized as an Olympic sport, but there is no mention of it as competition, demonstration or even recognition of an organizing body in the Olympic articles. Can this be clarified or corrected?Mzmadmike (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sport / no sport?

"It is often mis-categorized as a sport"

I don't think referring to Parkour as a sport is wrong. It might be the same as going for a ride with your bicycle or just jogging. Most of the cyclicsts and joggers never participate in a competition and are not interested in it at all. For them it is just about working for their personal fitness - like traceurs do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.100.59 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC) bar camp it is open to opinion but most of the top traceurs have stated it is not a sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.8.59 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC) although i have just began to study this, it seems more like a martial art than a sport. not to mention that the definition of "sport" usually involve competition.(this is a newbies view) It may or may not be a sport, but under no circumstances is it a martial art. There are moves in the discipline that came from martial arts (i.e. the diving roll), but it is NOT a martial art itself.

Regardless of if it's a sport or not, it still says "it is non-competitive" in the first paragraph, then goes on to say "is a competition sport" in the second paragraph. Rather glaring contradiction there. Linns (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to reach a conclusion, and then decide whether or not to remove the sport category.

"A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner and loser can be defined by objective means. ... Non-competitive activities may also qualify, for example though jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation, they may also be informally called "sports" due to their similarity to competitive games."

-taken from sport.

Im saying its not. mystery (talk) 03:12, August 10^th, 2011 (UTC)

Injuries

Injuries, sometimes permanent, from jumping, twisting and falling are common.

There is absolutely no evidence to back this up and the cited source is irrelevant as it is not a study conducted by medical personnel. I'm removing it. Designer1993 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there is not a policy or guideline that demands such a statement be sourced to "a study conducted by medical personnel." Rather, Wikipedia's policies demand that it cite a reliable source. Comments before I resore this? (Injuries, sometimes permanent, from jumping, twisting and falling are common.<ref>Naimi, Shahla. 26 March 2009, ''Fairfield County Weekly'', "[http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=12248 Blood In, Blood Out. Want to try parkour? Then get ready to sacrifice your body.]". Accessed 6 April 2009.</ref>) - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I wouldn't consider this to be reliable source however because the article states the Traceur in question had to visit the emergency room 28 times. The Traceur himself posted a comment on the article stating that the visits to the emergency room were entirely unrelated to Parkour. Designer1993 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Because someone (who could be anyone) claiming to be the person in the article claims the emergency room visits were unrelated to Parkour does not establish anything other than, well, that someone (who could be anyone) claiming to be the person in the article claims the emergency room visits were unrelated to Parkour.

Whether or not something is a reliable source is not governed by one person's claim they misinterpreted one detail. In any case, if the dismiss the ER visits, we're left with the following: "They're willing to pay their dues in blood from the slaps against the pavement. And sprained ankles from vaulting and twisting to get from one location to another? It happens. More experienced traceurs like Ninja don't seem to mind the bleeding much. Or the pain, for that matter. Ninja — whose right hand is permanently damaged from the common parkour injury of pavement slapping — has seen the emergency room 28 times." That still supports the piece that was removed.

Also, we have injuries described in many of the sources already in the article. We have "death defying leaps"[1], "the ones who aren't smart about it, start getting hurt"[2], parkour-online discusses injuries more than once[3][4][5], "Separated my shoulder...I clipped a foot and fell into the gap and hit the wall. At first, I thought I broke my collarbone. I also cut my head. I drove home using one arm." and "The last guy who did that hit his face...Bit through his lip." and "he landed hard and banged his shin...His hands were scraped and bleeding"[6], "I've split a shin" and "If you fall, you just learn from it - even breaking my legs wouldn't stop me" and "Free running can be seriously dangerous. We would advise against this activity" and "Putting yourself at risk of breaking a limb or worse is not a good idea and it puts emergency services under unnecessary strain"[7], "a possible connection between Fu's death and parkour"[8], "You do fall and you do get a few bumps and bruises"[9], "they're lucky they didn't kill themselves" and "twisted ankles and nasty scrapes" and "Spoon misjudges, sending broken glass cascading down a stairwell on the other side of the window, and falls about eight feet to the ground...administering first aid and calling 911. As they wait for the ambulance...holding his arm in a tightly wrapped bloody T-shirt...it looks like he has cut a tendon in his wrist...He is later flown home to Phoenix for surgery

"[10]... That's from the first 30 sources. I'm sure there were others, but a lot of the source links are broken.

Back to the point at hand. Clearly parkour does often lead to injuries. How do we want to work that in? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me on this SummerPhD.

Thanks for linking me to all those articles. How about we put this in instead?

Parkour is a considerably dangerous activity and injuries are fairly common due to incorrect technique (especially among novices).

Feel free to tweak that as you see fit. I appreciate it thanks! Designer1993 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my tweak: "Parkour is a considerably dangerous activity and injuries are fairly common." Granted, "fairly common" is POV, but I can live with it. Yes, "incorrect technique" can certainly lead to injury in any sport (or similar activity). However, I see nothing to indicate that "correct technique" exists in any objective way (i.e., there is no central parkour authority to state "X is correct technique, Y is not". Also, there is no indication that such technique is proof against injuries. (Somewhere out there, there is someone willing to argue, essentially, "If it causes injury, it is not correct technique.") Next, novices amy or may not be more prone to injuries. Maybe novices don't stop when they should, increasing injury risk. Or maybe novices are more apt to doubt their abilities and not try that risky leap... Or both. Or neither. Who knows? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I put fairly common because I am thinking about all the other sports (i.e. skateboarding, football) that have a considerably larger injury count (although probably because Parkour isn't as widespread.)

Thanks for your help on this. Designer1993 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Back to the point at hand. Clearly parkour does often lead to injuries. How do we want to work that in? - SummerPhD"

Simple. Like any Wikipedia article, we can add that in when we have a good citation. The citation you give from Fairfield County Weekly is not primarily bad because the source is unreliable, but because it is anecdotal - it is based on the experience of one person. Go read Wikipedia:Verifiability. For example "the source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." This means if you want to use that citation, you need to say something like "one traceur called X has had numerous visits to the emergency room". Which shows just how useless a citation it is. Also "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", thus I am reverting your revert. All the citations you give about are anecdotal. With anecdotal evidence, the most you can say is "Parkour is dangerous for some people", which would probably get removed anyway for being weasely and redundant. If you want to add something about how Parkour is dangerous in general then you need some evidence to back that up - ie. some kind of controlled study of many traceurs. ··gracefool☺ 03:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Parkour in popular culture

I think this section is in need of serious reconsideration. For example, Super Mario 64, although it includes freerunning moves, isn't explicitly done with that in mind. Assassin's Creed on the other hand, was created with parkour/freerunning in mind.

Let's try to keep our examples as relevant as possible. Dhechols (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Parkour in popular culture

The popular culture spin-off is up for deletion again, and one of the popular suggestions is a merge to this page. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. 71.199.158.35 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed content from the Videogame section

Most of the stuff there is both fancruft and unrelated to the topic. I understand there is a minority who's really passionate about parkour, but come on! Not every guy running and jumping over walls is practicing parkour. In the case of videogames, unless their creators actively mention parkour, you're doing OR by claiming it's there.

Here is a list of games where I suspect the claim is OR or unsupported:

• Tomb Raider: Lara jumps and runs. But where does she claim to be doing parkour?
• Prince of Persia: the Prince jumps and runs a lot, but he doesn't even do additional acrobatics in the old 2D games. Do the creators claim it's parkour?
• Splinter Cell: I doubt Third Echelon agents are trained in parkour. The game doesn't claim they are. They are just very agile.
• Flashback: similar to Prince of Persia. It's an even worse example, since there is no wall-running or backflips or anything like in the latest PoP games.
• The Hunter from L4D: OH, COME ON! The guy wears a hoodie and jumps! Where is the parkour in that?

I removed all these instances. Please only add them again if the author specifically claims it's parkour-based, and please avoid OR. 201.216.245.25 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Video Game Vandalism

"Mario 64 Mario rocks your World with his wicked Parkour skills of jumps, triple jumps, wall jumps, long jumps and vaults, on his epic journey to become a star hoarder in this 64 bit masterpiece." I love Mario 64 (I grew up with it). But, really? Can this even be considered parkour? I'll edit it unless it doesn't even qualify as PK, at which point the sentence should be flat out deleted. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited some of the video game stuff. I noticed a few uses of "you." This article should not be a tutorial. Yes, it should give a basic overview of the moves (as it does), but it needs to sound at least mildly encyclopedic. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mobile Apps under Popular Culture

Created a mobile apps area. These are apps that either show parkour or teach parkour. Seems more relevant than Mario Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeep.aradhya (talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the original suggestion, the itunes link was removed. Mobile Apps are a part of modern culture. Happy to reach a consensus solution on this but a page that lists Mario brothers as anything to do with Parkour but rejects mention of how Mobile is being used to see, enjoy and learn parkour makes no sense. Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya

The trivia section is bloated and can be reduced in size by removing the Mario Bros and other similar trivia. As far as mobile apps, this is also trivial and IMO it should not be included because many things feature mobile apps but that doesn't make them encyclopedic or notable. In any case the link to the mobile app site is spam and it is not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. K. Wikipedia is not a guide book, and not here for video promotion. Most of the popular culture section should be taken as "passing references". Span (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Popular Culture "Trivia"? Why not just define Parkour and keep it encylcopedic? If history of a subject is relevant why not the present? Further, should an enclycopedia really be self contained? Today's world is interconnected and web and mobile based - case in point wikipedia itself! Should users come and read about a subject and then go back and google it to find either popular culture or other places? Perhaps we should remove the entire popular culture section and just have founding and unassailable statements from David Belle and Simon Foucan. I believe a definitive source of information should cover all or as many aspects of the subject matter as possible. Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya

Bottom line: spam. I agree the section is bloated with very trivial content, and is almost as long as the mother article, and should be cleaned up. I'm very busy in RL right now and with another Wikipedia project and can't guarantee I can help do the job but eventually it should be dealt with.(olive (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Quote from above: Bottom line: spam. I couldn't agree more with this pithy description of the situation. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! Since we are all agreed Popular Culture is spam and folks are busy, I am going to remove the pop culture section altogether. I propose to do that on saturday. Hope that is ok! Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for that. That would be a pointy edit. Please consult WP:CON, WP:POINT. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: dogmatic and territorial. Its been a fun "democratic" process. My congratulations to you all. Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention our policy of WP:NPA. Best of luck. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What 'personal attack'? Pradeep.aradhya just sounds disappointed the engagement in her/his good faith edits. Fair enough. No, we are not a democracy and do edit by specific guidelines. I don't know what the guidelines say about apps. I've had a root around and can't find anything directly mentioning them. On the face of it, anything not explicitly informational, anything partisan, trying to sell you something or there for promotion purposes would count as spam. Wikipedia gets a great deal of spam. The link you offer seems to be directing viewers to the 'Apps Store' to buy said apps. Wikipedia is pretty careful about posting links to videos also, given copyright limitations. For the record, I agree that the whole of the popular culture section should come out as the points feature "passing references" to parkour and little substantive content. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote from the comments above: Bottom line: dogmatic and territorial. I am sure this is a reference on the editors here, not on their contributions. Such personal comments are covered under NPA. No? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid this, but just a comment - I would say that the term Bottom line: dogmatic and territorial. is more of an oblique accusation of wp:own (specifically the "territorial" bit) rather than a personal attack. Equally unacceptable (imo) but I didn't see it as a personal attack, more of a scattergun blast in the general direction of all opposed to his edits. a_man_alone (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You can interpret the nuances of the statement a number of ways and reach a different conclusion. That's fair. But personal comments are by definition ad-hominem arguments at the end of the day. Civil discourse is better served by avoiding them. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

True - I'm only pointing out that my intepretation of the comment was different, yet the conclusion was in fact was the same: unacceptable, but for different reasons. a_man_alone (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact I can see your point entirely. You made a very fair observation. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to bite the newcomer. Imo, the guidelines are not there to circumvent civil discussion. If discussion is reduced to waving acronyms at each other we become just so many lawyers. The onus of grace is on us, because he have more of idea how it all works. Anyway, no point in adding layers of bickering. Best wishes Span (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote: Now acronyms make us become just so many lawyers. Interesting. Under this criterion all of Wikipedia is full of lawyers because this is how policies and guidelines are referred to and all I did was to try to educate this new editor by referring them to a few policies with easy to click acronyms. I did not know I had to bring the orchestra along and serenade them to them, especially after they started personal comments. I did not bite this new editor since I just obliquely referred to NPA and did not directly accuse them of violating it. It is easy to say Anyway, no point in adding layers of bickering after you managed in two or three lines to mention WP:BITE, which in itself is bitey toward your fellow editors for no particular reason and then you added the insulting comment The onus of grace is on us..., just in case you did not make your comment enough of a sermon, or criticism directed at your fellow editor already. Good work. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And another point: Before getting all excited about newbie biting and related issues, one has to ask the question: Is being a newbie an excuse for incivility and name-calling? I mean, if you are a newbie, are you supposed to be oblivious to good manners? Can calling people dogmatic and territorial be excused on the basis of newbiehood? Don't newbies know that it is not nice calling people such things? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening

Hello,

I've modified the opening paragraphs with the following structure: Intro/definition paragraph Define traceur Acknowledgement of other names / use in practice

I've reworked the opening paragraph to not include the "debate" between parkour/freerunning/l'art du déplacement, and instead to only acknowledge the use of the terms and their different meanings. It is not beneficial to include philosophical debate on wikipedia, only to state the facts.

Thanks, and if you can improve it further, please do so.

Dhechols (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole first parapragh needs some changing. ^{See last change here.} My own revisions are as follows:

Parkour (sometimes abbreviated PK) is a way of conditioning the body and the mind by learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency. Originating in France, the non-competitive sport's main purpose (or: Originating in France, the main purpose of the non-competitive sport or, Parkour is non competitive. Originating in France, its main purpose) is to teach participants how to adapt their movements to their environment by vaulting, rolling, running, jumping and climbing. Using their surroundings to their advantage, traceurs (parkour practitioners) train to be able to identify and utilize alternate and more efficient paths. Parkour can be practiced anywhere, but areas dense with obstacles generally are preferred. mystery (talk) 03:07, July 24^th, 2011 (UTC)

• I like this - <Originating in France, the main purpose of the non-competitive sport...> However, the use of the term "originating" is still very controversial. Perhaps consider the phrase, <Originally developed in France,...>?
• I still think <...alternate and more efficient paths> should be <...alternate and sometimes more efficient paths.>, because the alternate path is not always the most efficient path in a real parkour situation.
• I don't completely agree with <...areas dense with obstacles generally are preferred.>, because the area of training is dependent upon the traceur's goal for the day. For example, if the goal is speed and endurance, a barren soccer field would suffice.
• Fantastic consolidation on your part. All of the main ideas are conserved. Great edit!

-Glelin (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I didnt know there was a difference, IMO its the same meaning. Nevertheless, either way is fine. If we do decide on Originating in France shouldnt it be Originating from France? Just saying.

• Youre right there, how about alternate or more efficient paths, but either way is fine.

• Yeah, but I dont think it should be left untouched in an encyclopedic article. Could we try this: To practise other Parkour moves, areas dense with obstacles are generally preferred? - That auctually sucked, edit it?

Here is where we are currently (I mean agreeing on, I havent edited the main page yet):

Parkour (sometimes abbreviated PK) is a way of conditioning the body and the mind by learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency. Originally developed in France, the main purpose of the non-competitive sport is to teach participants how to adapt their movements to their environment by vaulting, rolling, running, jumping and climbing. Using their surroundings to their advantage, traceurs (parkour practitioners) train to be able to identify and utilize alternate or more efficient paths. Parkour can be practiced anywhere, (work this part out please) mystery (talk) 19:22, July 25^th, 2011 (UTC)

How about, Areas dense with obstacles and architecture offer many training opportunities? Make changes/improvements as you see fit. Its a good compromise, I think. Go ahead and make the edits! Glelin (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need citations for such conclusions. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There really are no truly official sources for parkour yet. Julie Angel is an independent film-maker, and the subject of her PhD dissertation is parkour, but it is not yet published. That will be the first educationally acceptable source that I know of. Right now, aside from the founders, the only real sources are the self-proclaimed experts roaming around the internet. Glelin (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Parkour can be practiced anywhere, but areas dense with obstacles (Im dropping architecture.) are generally preferred. mystery (talk) 15:56, July 27^th, 2011 (UTC)

The phrase generally preferred is not very neutral and sounds rather presumptuous. You can ask 50 traceurs why they practice Parkour and get 100 different answers. Not all traceurs prefer places dense with obstacles. Glelin (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh... sorry, I was thinking about having it not be generally preferred, but, uh, I forgot. Sorry. I also forgot what I planned on saying. Ill change it to something along the lines of offer many different training opportunities. Yeah, that sounds good, since training means adapting to their environment. I think thats better than my orignal idea. mystery (talk) 1:27, July 27^th, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think my first one fits into the sentence more. Nevertheless. mystery (talk) 1:32, July 27^th, 2011 (UTC)

My opinion, it's one of those, "who are we to decide what people prefer" kind of things Glelin (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mystery, when are you going to make the changes? They really are good changes. We can discuss any fine tuning later once we see how it all looks. Glelin (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I did, they just didnt appear on your watchlist because an minor edit in the infobox was done the same day. You have to check regardless if you dont see a change on your watchlist. Theyres been other talk on the merge with freerunning talk section, but I checked this section because I expected someone to give their 2c. It was done on the 26^th-27^th. mystery (talk) 00:52, July 31^st, 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. We've made good progress here! I went ahead and slightly reworded the last sentence about parkour / freerunning. I think it's important that we distinguish them, but they *are* very similar, so it's not a mistake to say one as the other. Labels aren't so important in the parkour / freerunning world. I've also closed some items on the chat page and did some general cleanup. (2 hours later, -.-;)

The total of my change was changing the phrase, "mistaken for" to "mixed up with". I think this is a little softer and emphasizes that it's not a bad thing to mix them up (since many practitioners actually do both).

Anyway, I think we're finally reaching a pretty good opening paragraph. Of course, we should always strive to improve it. Dhechols (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad first sentence!

"Parkour (sometimes abbreviated to PK) is a utilitarian discipline based upon the successful, swift and energy-efficient traversing of one's surrounding environment via the practical application of techniques, based around the concept of self-preservation and the ability to help others.[1]"

Seriously? Is that the most concise description of _what_ _parkour_ _is_??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.219 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Especially the part about "helping others". That just doesn't make any sense. I mean when you are flipping in the air or landing, how exactly do you help others? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. It's so vague as to be ridiculous and is unecessarily prolix. You could be talking about cycling. --MotleyPhule 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotleyPhule (talk • contribs)

I agree three. "Based on [...] based around"? Vague, vague. What is it? Suggestion: Parkour is the informal sport of traversing urban landscapes by running, climbing and jumping. —Wegesrand (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not too happy with the first sentence : Parkour (sometimes abbreviated PK) is a discipline that deals with ways to get from one place to another. I especially feel that the phrase "to get from one place to another" is somewhat overused and doesn't give justice to the spirit of Parkour. I have a few suggestions. Tell me what you all think:

• Parkour is a discipline that entails the adaptation to one's environment using natural movements.
• Parkour is a way of adapting movement to the surrounding environment with speed and efficiency.
• Parkour is a discipline that involves learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency.
• Parkour is a way of developing the body and the mind by learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency.
• Parkour is a way of conditioning the body and the mind by learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency.

Glelin (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole first parapragh needs some changing. ^{See last change here.} My own revisions are as follows:

Parkour (sometimes abbreviated PK) is a way of conditioning the body and the mind by learning how to overcome obstacles with speed and efficiency. Originating in France, the non-competitive sport's main purpose (or: Originating in France, the main purpose of the non-competitive sport or, Parkour is non competitive. Originating in France, its main purpose) is to teach participants how to adapt their movements to their environment by vaulting, rolling, running, jumping and climbing. Using their surroundings to their advantage, traceurs (parkour practitioners) train to be able to identify and utilize alternate and more efficient paths. Parkour can be practiced anywhere, but areas dense with obstacles generally are preferred. mystery (talk) 03:07, July 24^th, 2011 (UTC)

We should create a Parkour/sandbox page to make changes from now on, and carry on this conversation on the Talk:Parkour/sandbox page. However, I still think this is the best revision of the page. Maybe we could switch up "...how to adapt their movements to their environment..." and "...way of conditioning the body and mind by learning how to overcome...", but, we need to remember, Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors. Also, I think this is good at defining differences between parkour and free running: "Parkour's emphasis on efficiency distinguishes it from the similar practice of free running, which places more emphasis on freedom of movement and creativity." mystery (talk) 01:21, August 26^th, 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem sandboxing, but it isn't allowed in the mainspace (Talk:Parkour/Draft would work, with talk about the draft itself either here or there).

Do we need to make a page for it? If so it should be Talk:Parkour/dumping ground, and wed put <nowiki> tags around the categories. You wanna create it? mysterytrey (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As for that previous version, it painted an awfully romantic view of it. It's a "way". What is a way? "Conditioning". Really? "Body and mind"? There may be a spiritual part to it, but this is no different from any other sport. I have other concerns of course, but that lead sentence... just blgh.

What do you mean by romantic? How about "...method of conditioning the body and mind." instead of "...way of conditioning the body and mind."? Whats wrong with conditioning, and body and mind, and where does it say spiritually? 01:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, as it stands, the lead as a whole is now too short. It should summarize the article. I left a note to this effect on Glelin's talk page after he left a note at my talk page. --Izno (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Image edit war

Does anyone know what this [11] [12] [13] is all about? Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we should start the merge now. I'm sure there is a title that can be used for both, then it's just consolidating the similarities and explaining the differences.Iamiyouareyou (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding equipment

Iamiyouareyou added "helmet, gloves" to the equipment section. Although it is safe to wear a helmet, many do not. For gloves, they make things slipper, which makes harder to grab. I will remove gloves now, but I am waiting for others opinions before any movement on the helmet. mystery (talk) 17:18, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

I guess Im happy with keeping "helmet, grip gloves" for the time being. mystery (talk) 1:45, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

It would be ignorant of me to dismiss the use of helmets while training. However, I don't particularly agree with the use of gloves during training. My reason is, simply, we don't need them. Calluses formed through training are natural gloves, and they are almost as tough. I sometimes use gloves, but usually when I have a cut on one of my hands that I don't want to become infected. The use of gloves also depends on why we train. If our purpose is to prepare for that emergency situation that may or may not ever happen, then training with gloves can be somewhat counter-intuitive. All in all, the use of gloves is a personal preference. RECOMMENDATION: Include "(recommended)" next to helmets, and "(optional)" next to gloves. Glelin (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Shoes (optional)" really? At least put recommended if youre gonna have parenthesis at all. mystery (talk) 03:22, July 24^th, 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of minimalist running? The idea is that shoes give us synthetic padding that lull us into a false sense of security. Most runners land heel-to-toe, but the human body is designed to run toe-to-heel. The former can cause varying long-term knee problems. Running barefoot really helps a runner appreciate the impact that they are putting on their body, and will help them identify how high is too high. My source is <http://www.eatmoveimprove.com/2009/11/shoes-sitting-and-lower-body-dysfunctions/> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glelin (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the equipment section is required at all. Parkour requires no special equipment, that's the point. Maybe we can explicitly mention it requires no special equipment? Dhechols (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the equipment section, but isnt mentioning in the article a bit to much? mystery (talk) 19:42, August 16^th, 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of parkour

"Languages have capitalization rules to determine whether majuscules or minuscules are to be used in a given context. In English, capital letters are used as the first letter of a sentence, a proper noun, or a proper adjective, and for initials or abbreviations. The first-person pronoun "I" and the interjection "Oh" are also capitalized." (not a proper noun/adjective, abbreviation)

-taken from Letter case.

"Capital letters are used:

(1) at the beginning of a sentence. This in printing is known as sentence case, where the first letter of the sentence is capitalized, all others are lower case with the exception of proper nouns. In printing normal sentence case may be substituted by UPPER CASE (all letters are capitalized), and Title Case (where the first letter of each word is capitalized). Capitals are usually not used after a colon. (not beginning of sentence)

(2) with some nouns and adjectives, usually if a noun to indicate a proper noun. (not a proper noun, religion, denomination, local group)

• personal and place names: "John," "Mr. Smith," "Amsterdam," "Europe," "Mount Everest," "the Ganges." (not a name)
• points of the compass: "North" ' (not a point of a compass)
• national and regional adjectives: "an American" (noun), "an American man" (adjective). (not a region or nation)
• religions: "a Catholic church" (adjective). (not a religion)

Words which change their meaning between capitalised and uncapitalised usage, such as "catholic" and "Catholic," are called capitonyms: "A man of catholic tastes." (not actually a reason for capitalization)

• deities and personifications: "God," "Fame." (not a deity [supernatural creature], personification)
• days, months: "Monday," "January." (not a day or month)
• brand names: "Hoover," "Biro," "Coca-Cola," " (not a brand name)

-taken from Capitalization in English.

I dont think it should be capitalized, as all of the reasons do not apply. No other sport/discipline is capitalized. It is not a Wikipedia-specific purpose, as other articles do not have the subject capitalized. mystery (talk) 15:35, August 23^rd, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Please keep parkour lower case. Dhechols (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Parkour, Free Running, and the Art of Movement (L'arte du Déplacement [ADD])

Before the terms 'parkour' and 'free running' were even coined, the founders of the disciplines that we know today called their craft "The Art of Movement", with the French translation l'Arte du Déplacement (ADD).

Here's the honest truth from the mouths of the founders themselves. Free Running did not come from parkour, nor vice versa. In fact, parkour and free running are the exact same thing. I'll explain...

ADD is what the Yamakasi founders call their art, even today. Before ADD was even presented to the media, people like David, Chau, Yann, and Sebastian have already been training for years. Each of them have their own philosophy for why they train, exactly like we all do now. For Yann, ADD was all about discipline; For Sebastian, ADD meant freedom of movement; And for David, he trained for the utilitarian aspect. The terms 'parkour' and 'free running' still don't exist at this point. Even today though their philosophies are different, as far as each is concerned, they are all doing the same thing as one another.

Here is where the term's 'parkour' comes into play. David Belle aspired to become an actor and a stunt man, so he left the Yamakasi training group go on his own path. This is when he created the short film "Speed Air Man", using the root word 'parcours'. Eventually, David changed the word to 'parkour' and injected the term into the media mainstream. This was how David came to be known as the founder of parkour.

And now, 'free running'. Eventually, Sebastian Foucan started edging towards the media as well. The BBC decided to jump on this new fad and created a documentary called "Jump London". Sebastian held a starring role in this. The BBC executives decided that neither 'parkour' nor 'ADD' would catch the eye of English speakers. So they engineered the new term 'free running'. Sebastian described the art as freedom of movement. This was his own personal philosophy, but this is how Sebastian came to be known as the founder of free running.

These are two names sprung from the same art. The bare-bones philosophy that encompasses all philosophies of ADD is self-improvement. If flips is your idea of self-improvement, then flips are indeed a part of parkour; a speed vault is indeed an element of free running. We all practice the same art; we just use different languages to express it.

Now, the ultimate question..... What do we do with this information? Glelin (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all original research without citation to reliable sources. And I bet that's not the only story about how it happened. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the only true story. There will be a reliable source in the near future. A lovely lady named Julie Angel is doing her doctoral dissertation about Parkour. She has been a friend of some of the Yamakasi founders for many years, and has interviewed most of them. I'll link to it once she releases it. Glelin (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's as may be, but Wikipedia is not based on truth but on verifiability. And we work with the sources we have in the present, not ones we'll have in the future. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's alright. Just don't delete this. I spent quite a while typing this out. Once the source is released, I'll revive the topic. Glelin (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's on the talk page. I wouldn't think to delete it save for archival. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Glelin. I've trained with the founders myself, (PK Gen, Yamakasi), I've met Sabastian and Julie Angel. I agree with your assessment that the parkour community and the freerunning community should be the same thing.

The reality is, unfortunately, that some people in these two communities currently view each other as separate entities, though we are very close to each other. Wikipedia should simply state the facts in the most neutral way possible.

I think this discussion is very valuable and should be captured in the article. I also think it will be very difficult to understand and very difficult to write this as a neutral part of the article. If anything, it should be under a section about how the community views itself -- not a section stating what parkour is or freerunning is, etc.

Important to note is that the founders are not the sole authority on parkour. There are now many organizations and people involved in it from all over the world, and to meet Wikipedia's goal of neutrality, we need to represent the entire community.

Thanks and keep up all the good editing! :) Dhechols (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of Parkour in popular culture

I'd like to get the article merged into this one. Preferably, the way we do this is to strip the above article of what are essentially non-notable examples of parkour, and then merge the others in with lists of prose. I'm stripping first, then I'll see about merging. For example, Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia might feature here, while one episode of one TV series probably would not. I hope there aren't any problems with this. --Izno (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So I've stripped down the article to verifiable portions and to items which are centered around parkour. Some of the documentaries would probably be good for verification of this article. Next step is to merge, which won't be happening tonight. Then a redirect of the pop culture article. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And done. I think I've managed to clean out the stuff that needed cleaning. The documentaries and documentary episodes (60 Minutes) about parkour should be used as sources, rather than mentioned directly. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle

Shouldn't Ryan Doyle be mentioned in this article? There isn't even a stub article on him on Wikipedia. I feel like I should put it on my to-do list but I'm still confused on some of the basics of Wikipedia. I.e. I'd like to understand why this doesn't exist yet, I feel like there's something I need to be informed of. He's based more in the UK, does this mean there's probably a non-English article about him and one just hasn't been written in English or it hasn't been translated? I'm not even sure about how the different languages work or how websites are translated between them. It says he's more affected the youth culture in the US. Would that explain the hole? E.g. that fewer younger people write Wikipedia articles?

I'm not even sure about the crossover between the different wikis. There's an article here: http://www.streetstunts.net/wiki/Ryan_Doyle

So it doesn't seem to make sense to write a new article if one already exists out there in wiki format, but then, wouldn't that go for a zillion other articles? I.e. if nobody writes Wikipedia articles if they already exist elsewhere, it would nullify a third of the encyclopedia. Maybe someone could clarify this discrepancy for me, then I could better prioritize how important it is in the big grant picture of life that this page be edited to include him, etc. Squish7 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it can't exist here, or vice versa. On the flip side, the articles on Wikipedia are subject to certain guidelines, and in particular, notability, as well as reliable sources to be verifiable. These guidelines typically tend to influence what articles might appear elsewhere.

If you want to start an article that fits those guidelines about Ryan Doyle, have at it. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Hi. I'm not familiar with Doyle or the topic in general, but perhaps I can give you a sense of whether there should/shouldn't be an article on Doyle. With biographies of living people, there are two hurdles on this Wiki, and they largely overlap--verifiability and notability. In both cases, usually the question boils down to this: are there enough reliable, secondary sources that tell us about the subject that we can read them all, and from those sources alone write a reasonably neutral and factual article? In general such sources are going to be things like newspaper articles, magazine articles and books from reliable publishers, anything with a real editorial staff. No press releases, no use of the fellow's own web site, Facebook page, videos, etc. For athletes like this it's also possible to fill in additional information from reliable databases of results, but notability really requires articles that discuss the subject in some level of detail. Take a look at [{WP:GNG]], and see if that helps you decide. [14] looks to be at least one such source, [15] is a reliable reference but only mentions Doyle in passing. Of the 5 sources listed on streetstunts, 4 are don't meet these requirements, and the fifth might or might not--I can't tell since the page is dead. Looks from what I can tell "borderline" with respect to our policies, but since you know the subject in more detail than I do (or at least I assume so) you probably know of specific resources I'm unaware of that might help flesh out the article. I hope this helps, at least a bit. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The creation article you linked to explains it. The article was deleted 5 times for various reasons in 2006 & 2007. Could someone explain that set of reasons for me? What is an "attack page"?.. Also, I'm still a bit confused about the various languages. If I write a Wikipedia article in English, is it automatically translated into other language? Or is there a whole different set of articles for each language... Lastly where do I learn more about reliable sources? I don't even know what "WP:GNG" means. It seems to me any site of a reputable product like Red Bull energy drinks should be a reliable source...no? Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, at least in part. An "attack page" is what it sounds like, it's an article that says something like "Joe Decker is an idiot", which is, roughly speaking, what the previous Ryan Doyle article kinda said over two paragraphs. It sounds like it didn't refer to the parkour-related Patrick Doyle, but another person of the same name. One particular quote is "It has been said that there is no such thing as an ugly baby- Ryan proved them all wrong", and is probably some kid writing about some other kid. None of that should keep you from attempting to write an article about this fellow. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. For reference, the precise answer I was looking for was at the top of the page... that the page is a problem area in 3 ways. It's part of 2 categories (sports, France) that need improvement on Wikipedia (mid/high importance respectively), and was de-listed from being an "everyday good article". The omission seemed really bizarre and that combination seems to explain it. Squish7 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

They are substantives derived from the French verb "tracer", which normally means "trace",[9] or "trail" (as in "he escaped without a trace").[10]

The "trail" bit, along with its explanation, doesn't seem to make much sense to me. The verb "tracer" is commonly used in French slang to denote fast movement. In the lexicon used in footnote 9, the most accurate definition would be II A 3: "Marcher vite", ("walking fast")and "filer" ("to go fast"). This is consistent with most of the synonyms of "tracer" that denote movement, such as "aller très vite" or "courir".

It ties in with the fact that parkour is described as "moving around obstacles with speed and efficiency".

And finally, it also corresponds to the article about "traceur" on the French site: "tracer au sens familier de se déplacer à vive allure"

84.92.178.237 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Consequences of changing titles/etc

Could someone please tell me of any negative consequences of changing the title of a page, i.e. if this should be carefully done (given pages reference other pages, etc.) I've changed instances of "free running" to "freerunning" in the main article "Free Running" and have left the title/etc alone), as well as the stuff at the very bottom of the page. I figured I'd make the same changes on the stub article on this page, but I'm getting worried about inconsistencies if I don't change the title of the main article. (Is there a help page on what the stuff at the very bottom of the article means? The handling of the different terms/misspellings, etc?..)

To be clear, I know that the decision to make these changes should not be made lightly--the change itself is an obvious one now as the founder of the discipline now uses "freerunning", plus it's a natural shift when a term becomes more standard--so what I'm asking is clarification on how to go about changing these things. THANKS. Squish7 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also could someone explain to me how pages exist in different languages? Are totally different articles written, or what? E.g. regarding this change, should the change made language-wide? Squish7 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya, page moving of that nature, ie going from "Parkour" to "Free running" is a situation where you want to tread lightly. It should be done at WP:RM so the community can provide input (see also Wikipedia:Moving a page). Name change for spelling errors or capitalization, etc are uncontroversial, and should be done by using the "move" drop down at the top of the page. As for different languages, they are complete different pages started by that language project. They can all be found on the bar to the left on the article page under "languages". CTJF83 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe he means change the freerunning mention on the article, not parkour to freerunning. If you want to be correct you should probably go on see what other articles link to freerunning. mysterytrey talk 19:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Belle family section

The first paragraph of this section describes Raymond Belle's influence on parkour.

The second paragraph starts with a reference to David Belle with no mention of his relationship to Raymond Belle. Only in the second sentence is there an (oblique) reference that Raymond is his father. I found this awkward.

IMHO clarity and continuity would be better served by inserting "Raymond's son, David, participated in activities such as martial arts...". The reader knows immediately who we are speaking about, rather than having to infer it from the first sentence of the second paragraph which contains no clue that David is Raymond's son.

Your thoughts?

Skyhunk (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)