Talk:Parkour

• Archive 001
• Archive 002

---

George Hébert

Has anybody checked out the validity of what's written in the George Hébert article? There aren't any references posted, and I can't find any other info on the web.

Cloneboy 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Cloneboy

To all the anons

Would you all consider creating accounts on Wikipedia? It's free, requires no personal information, and makes it easier for others to contact you. It also makes your edits more credible, because people can examine your past edits. It only takes a minute! ~MDD4696 23:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? 84.112.57.160 20:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Because "it makes it easier for others to contact you" and "makes your edits more credible." Plus, the only reason to not create an account on Wikipedia is because of laziness. While that is a valid reason, some people find it hard to take someone seriously if they are too lazy to even create a Wikipedia account. :P Whatever. MrHen

Problems with the article

Ok let me give some background, I'm a traceur of nearly two and a half years now, I started way back when the scene was just begining in UK. Before all the FRPK debate soured the scene, before the politics.

Now let me point out something, what is all this nonsense about flips being parkour or not. THEY AREN'T. Parkour is efficient movement. Flips are never the most efficient way of passing an obstacle, their sole purpose is aesthetic. Diving sumersaults are about the most functional flip in terms of passing obstacles yet a dive roll is always a more efficient method in that situation. David Belle and PAWA have issued a statement declaring that whilst tricks such as flips may be part of "Free Running", they are not and never will be part of Parkour. There can be no questioning this, the debate should be removed from the article as it is pure opinion. Perhaps a link should be added to the entry for tricking which is what flips etc. are classed as, NOT parkour. In fact, I agree that the entire common debates in parkour section should go, there is no room for debate because that is already defined. The issue of parkour parks is not significant enough to warrant a section.

Secondly, I agree that quite possibly all the external links apart from Parkour.net should be removed. No doubt the other links are useful to some users but they are of limited scope. If all links of that calibre were to be accepted, there would be hundreds of links. Parkour.net is the official page of parkour and backed and run by PAWA officials. It is a truley international page with four different languages available. Space chase definatley needs to go as it is of little relevance. World Wide Jam offers nothing to add to Parkour.net and Urban Freeflow is a UK team, despite their claims of an international community they only offer one language and are really of little global relevance.

Thirdly, the terminoligy is very inconsistent, free running and parkour are defined as seperate things which is good but the two are then confused by inconsistent use of the words traceur and free runner. I have begun to attempt to clarify this but it is a long task.

Fourthly, Sebastian Foucan by his own admission did not cofound parkour. I have corrected this. He was one of the earliest practicioners and was a member of the origional Yamakasi however he did not cofound the art.

There are many other issues as well, in particular duplication of content, many issues are covered several times.

I would like to recommend the entire article be rewritten, I am quite willing to lend a hand. I'd appreciate it if people didn't revert over my edits without at least offering some explanation and preferably adding to this discussion asking for debate BEFORE editing them, I don't think for a minute I'm completely right but I think what I am trying to achieve is more accurate than the origional article. That I think, we must strive for.

Aj* 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here here, I wrote the comments above this point. perhaps we could use the talk page to re-write the article and get a consensous before replacing the current (bad) article Thebutton 15:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with you Thebutton, I've read your points and I think that's certainly a good plan of action Aj* 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be rewritten, but I don't think drafting it in the talk page is necessary. Maybe agree on the article layout (sections) in the talk page, and then people can create them, replacing parts of the old article as new sections are written. Or a single person could just redo the entire thing if they wanted. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 'common' debates within parkour' section for reasons discussed above, and also any reference to freerunning. When I've found the PAWA notice to say that it isn't parkour, I'll reference it into the article, and I've also created a freerunning stub for other users to expand. Thebutton 08:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

About the freerunning issue, I know this is a sensitive issue, but I'd rather see it placed under a separate section in the parkour article, than to be in an article of its own. It contains most elements of parkour, and is usually considered an off-spring to parkour, so I think it's suitable to explain about the term in the parkour article (but in its own section). This will also avoid duplication of information which having two separate articles might lead to.

Also, the common debates section did need a lot of work, but I think there's a better solution than just removing it, as it'll surely be needed later. Having a section that tries to explain both sides of heated debates is very common in Wikipedia articles (take a look at abortion, for example, which even has a sub-article for abortion debate).

I think it's important that we find a balance between explaining the "official correct parkour", and how parkour has evolved and is being practiced today, and explain the controversies without taking sides, letting the reader form an opinion of their own. This is what the Wikipedia guideline called neutral point of view is all about.

Wintran 09:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the issues regarding freerunning and that it is a direct development of parkour, and so perhaps would be better placed within this article as you say. However, I feel that the 'common debates' as it stood was not appropriate due to it's discussion of opinion without reference to facts. It may be better to write a short paragraph detailing that debates within parkour exist, often related to commercialisation, rather than extensively elaborating upon what those debates consist of. Over the next few weeks I plan to work through the article form top to bottom - hwoever any help would be much appreciated, especially in keeping it NPOV. Thankyou Thebutton 10:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! The debates section isn't the most important part, so let's put that on hold for now. I'll paste the old debate section on the talk page below so it isn't completely lost, if we wish to re-use parts of it later. Though my knowledge of parkour is limited I'll try to assist with general improvements and ideas to help make this article better. Keep up the good work! Wintran 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There's actually no need to keep old parts of the article in the talk page, so I've removed them. You can access the last version that contained those section via the History tab, or directly by using this link. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 14:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou wintran - it would actually be very helpful to have someone who knows little about parkour involved in the re-write of the article, as it will help us ensure that everything is easy to read, based on facts and of use to people who know nothing about discipline already. 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a mis-statement in the article, some one has posted the emial I received from Joss of PAWA and stated that it is a David Belle quote, it is not, it is an email from Joss to me. It was not issued as an official statement, I asked if I could publicize Joss's response and he said yes. Please update however you see fit. Thanks. ~~M2 (not signed in)

Hi M2,

Which quote are you refering to? The one about the differences between parkour and free running? Thanks. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 22:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that one, it is from an email from Joss to me, as is the part about freerunning from Sebastien. I feel that calling it "their official stance" without providing the surrounding information, such as Seb's quote that it refers to (and now Seb's new quote) is misleading, less than 1/2 the story. ~~M2

flips are part of parkour its freeflow wat ever gets past the obsticles goes u cant be rated evry 1 has ther own style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.40.193.225 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC).

No, they aren't. Just like how your style clearly isn't part of the English language. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 00:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

I agree with those that have said that the article should be largely rewritten, and to get the ball rolling, I've created a page where the new article may be drafted and have placed a suggested article layout in it.

The link is: Talk:Parkour/New Article Drafting May 2006

Feel free to edit this page! I've only a bit under 2 months experience with parkour, so I'd strongly encourage more experienced traceurs to step in and add content. Please keep article content in that page, and discussion in this one. Thanks! -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the first thing I would suggest is a re-organisation of the way the article is formatted? i.e. introduction of what it is, contents, a more detailed description on the principle, then the history, then perhaps a mention on tehcniques (in which to fit in a) it is only the most effective and useful things which are parkour and b) the movements are a means to adapt yourself, rather than things to perform on an obstacle). I would then add something along the lines of 'recent developments' and then after that something on the media. I dont think that techniques should form a big list in the article, simply keep it to running, jumping, vaulting, climbing, balancing & breakfalls - it's an encylopedia rather than a tutorial. Thebutton 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The new article looks promising, I can see the point of view of not listing specific moves however. The thing is, parkour is all about creating the best way to suit your abilities of passing obsticles. This is different for everyone and a set of moves gives the wrong impression, that parkour is all about learning moves. To me I learnt the fundamentals (and in some respects still am learning them) and now I adapt them to the situation I find myself in. The moves for me are simply a toolkit to draw upon, when I need to pass an object I select the most appropriate tool but I may still end up adapting or varying it to suit the particular obsticle. Having said that, explaining the fundamental moves to readers would also help give them more of an understanding of the kind of movements parkour involves, running and jumping give little idea of what's involved.

Also about the article, I agree, all FRPK references should be dropped, that simply creates confusion and frankly, FRPK should never exist. Link reduction is also a good idea, I agree. American Parkour and Urban Freeflow should be removed, neither have a broad enough scope or enough significantly useful extra content to add to the article. Also, UF are not really doing parkour anyway, more they are doing whatever will get them the most revenue (aka FRPK/Free Running). Worldwide Jam does have considerable content and I think is worth keeping. Parkour.net should definatley stay for obvious reasons, it has the best content and the broadest scope of any of the sites. More history on the early years of the Yamakasi and the infancy of the art in France would be good for the history section. Aj* 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not signed in, thisis M2. I disagree. American Parkour has the most complete set of Parkour tutorials availabel on the internet, clearly this is helpful to people looking to find information about Parkour. We get visitros from 85 countries (documented) so we have global reach. We also have interviews with David Belle, and fitness information from certified professionals that is not available anywhere else. I feel this makes the site a useful and relevant link. If you feel otherwise please explain in detail. - M2

This entire article needs to be re-written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about; i.e. a non-UK traceur. ALL links to Urban Freeflow (and similar sites) shouldn't be tolerated. They are not Parkour. When the people from Parkour.net added the movements section, that was a good improvement. However UF-type people have really fucked them up lately. This entire article in general is full of falsified info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.155.56.234 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

i agree, the article is not correct and doesn't really explain what Parkour is. The 'moves' names are good, i've only ever known them as 'cat leap' etc, so it was good to learn their real names. i don't agree with getting rid of UF though, true some of it is a bit mucked up, but many british tracuers got into PK because of this site, so getting rid of it is a bit harsh, but i can see where a lot of you are coming from!! KrAz−E —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.116.130 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Repeated modification of the article in order to add opinionated content in favour of Urban Freeflow

It has recently come to my attention that a certain IP is repeatedly modifying this article in order to promote Urban Freeflow. This is an encylopedic site, not an opinion site. As such, this should not be tolerated. The offender is 86.16.165.216. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.16.165.216 shows clearley that all of his edits have been in order to promote Urban Freeflow. They are not an international community, they are English language only. Parkour.net is in four languages, in my opinion this qualifies it to be called international. UF as english language only does not fall into this catergory. Furthermore, this users edits have also included defaming links to American Parkour and Worldwide Jam, attempting to play down their significance. Furthermore, subject to the discussion point, the Urban Freeflow link is to be removed anyway during the rewrite of the article. In the face of vandalism from someone clearley assosciated with Urban Freeflow I say that the link be removed now. If you object or if you are that user, please do go ahead and post as to why the link should stay in this discussion. However, there is no place for opinion in an encylopedia entry and for now at least, I am removing the link and will continue to remove it until these actions are explained or someone offers me a valid point as to why Urban Freeflow should be retained on the links.

For reference, are example edits:

+ *Urban Freeflow - Largest Parkour community worldwide. UFF are regarded as the most media savvy of all Parkour organisations with a very impressive media profile.

Clearley opinion.

+ *Urban Freeflow - Global Parkour website/community

Factually inaccurate.

- *Worldwide Jam Magazine - A magazine website.

Vandalism - removal of link to Worldwide Jam as Urban Freeflow see them as a competitor site.

This needs to stop.

Aj* 17:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a warning to that IP's user talk page. If they do it again, revert it, and a final warning (eg. Template:Spam3 or Template:Test4) may be added, and if they do it again after that, they may be reported (for banning) at WP:AIAV. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 05:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is getting very childish and tiresome! Thurlow, 10 May 2006

Definition of Parkour

The article is missing the definition of parkour!

"Parkour is an art that helps you pass any obstacle to go from point A to point B using only the abilities of the human body." - David Belle, Creator of Parkour.

"Understand that this art has been created by few soldiers in Vietnam to escape or reach: and this is the spirit I'd like parkour to keep. You have to make the difference between what is useful and what is not in emergency situations. Then You'll know what is parkour and what is not. So if you do acrobatics things on the street with no other goal than showing off, please don't say it's parkour. Acrobatics existed long time ago before parkour." - David Belle, Creator of Parkour.

I think it is essential that the creator's definition and opinnion are included in the main article...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noxteryn (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC).

It's important to include the creator's definition, but just because David Belle came up with the word "parkour," that doesn't mean he gets to forever dictate its meaning. The meanings of words do change over time with changes in common usage, contrary to what some linguistic conservatives may believe. Keep in mind that common usage changes over time. Your treatment of the topic should reflect that and not make moral judgements about the correctness of people who use the word differently than the original user of the word. Twelvethirteen 21:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and before i read this article i didnt know the difference between Free Running and Parkour, the terms are interchangeable user:angryafghan

Controversies?

I seem to run across a lot of videos on the web of people getting hurt doing these roof top stunts. I was wondering if anyone would have an insight into a Controversy section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TristramIN (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

Injuries do not imply controversy... So just how many of these videos have you seen, and in how many of them were the injured participants actually practising Parkour? -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 04:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

oh! so there is a controversy? weren't they actually practicing Pk? Lapaz 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?? Just because people get injured practacing a sport there's controversy? There's people who get injured skateboarding, playing hockey, soccer, football, baseball. There's no controvercy regarding the sport of parkour as the sole dangerous sport. Yes it is dangerous if it's not practiced safely and smart, just like any other sport.

Arthur5005 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not saying that injury is the same as controversy. He's just noting that usually activities where people get hurt get media attention, along with the ire of worried moms, which is what people mean when they talk about controversy. But of course, without appropriate references to document the controversy, there's nothing to write about. Find a news article about moms against parkour, and then you can include it. Twelvethirteen 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I really liked the way this entry was before all the changes, when it cited the origins and particularly the controversy about the media and commercialization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.99.182 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

More parkour in the media

i just want to point out that there´s a really brief parkour like scene in a recent madonna video (hung up) and that the video game "marc ecko: contents under pressure" features a lot of parkour like movement as well, it would be nice if someone would include these facts in the article. i would´ve edited it myself but i´m somewhat lazy and haven´t got that much confidence in my english. (84.44.130.79 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Also, Casino Royale's opening chase scene is quite obviously parkour/free running influenced. Perhaps a mention of this is in order?

As it is unaesthetically minded, it is parkour. Incidentally, it was Sebastien Foucon as the guy Bond is chasing. 80.47.161.115 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

UF the largest parkour community in the world?

I've removed the claim, "[After Jump Britain, Urban Freeflow] has since become the largest parkour community in the world", from the Parkour in the media section, as it seems dubious. Does anyone have any evidence to back this up? If not, it should probably be left out. (And otherwise, it should be cited.) -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 02:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well be ... certainly it is by registered members, and probably by continuous traffic. Although they've been accused of spamming this page, I think it's iresponsible NOT to include the role they have played in bringin Parkour to the English speaking community and really to the rest of the world outside of France. I don't know if that place in the media is the proper place to poiint that out, but I also do'nt feel it's innnacurate. Of course there is the debate over if what they do is "actually parkour" ... but that is a different story. If they are qualified as a parkour site then I believe they are the largest. ~~M2

Actually, parkour.net has in recent months gained more traffic than urbanfreeflow (source: http://parkour.net/parkour/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6137&forum=48)

Although i know of only the Aussie scene. I know a majority of people within the Australian scene are dissatisfied with the way urban freeflow represents Parkour --Reece {202.67.73.249 13:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)}

Parkour and Free running

Free running was meant to start out an anglosized term for Parkour. It was first suggested to Sebastien Foucan during the fliming of Jump London. Free Running has grown to be descriptive of a sort of "cousin" activity to Parkour - Free Running is more expressive and creative in nature, with moves such as acrobatics, flips, and spins added for flair, creativity, or just because someone wants to. The main difference then between Parkour and Free Running is that Parkour is defined by purpose "get somewhere quickly and efficiently using the human body", and Free Running is defined by the activity or art of moving through your environment however you want, moving your way, following your own path.

Parkour is the art of moving through your environment using only your body and the surroundings to propel yourself. It can include running, jumping, climbing, even crawling, if that is the most suitable movement for the situation. Parkour could be grasped by imagining a race through an obstacle course, the goal is to overcome obstacles quickly and efficiently, without using extraneous movement. Apply this line of thought to an urban environment, or even a run through the woods, and you're on the right path. Because individual movements could vary so greatly by the situation, it is better to consider Parkour as defined by the intention instead of the movements themselves. If the intention is to get somewhere using the most effective movements with the least loss of momentum, then it could probably be considered Parkour.

(Taken from AmericanParkour.com)

Urban Freeflow

Although I agree that Urban Freeflow is not the most important parkour community on the internet, it still IS a community. So technically there is no harm in directing people to the website at all. Look at the Kendo page, there are pointers to multiple federations based on the internet. As long as the link is not promoting Urban Freeflow in any way, what's the harm of directing people to it? Please let me know if I have misread some sort of information or if I have offended anyone. Thanks
- Bug —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buggytoast (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi Bug. Don't worry, no harm or offence caused. However there are a few reason why the UF link isn't appropriate for this article. Firstly, we can't have a link for every Parkour community in the world, as the list would be massive and dwarf the article. Doing so would also go against suggested Wikipedia guidelines. Have a read of the pages Wikipedia:External links and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for more information on this. I would say that the number of link in the Kendo article is far too great, but I guess the editors of that article don't mind it. Secondly, linking to UF specifically is frowned upon because they are a commercial website, and many believe that they falsely represent Parkour (by inclusion of tricks). But the main issue is that the number of external links should be kept to an absolute minimum, and should only include sites that expand on the article's content. i.e. Sites that further explain what Parkour is, not just community sites. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks that clears it up. Yeah I thought that the kendo page had too many external links, but then again as a kendo practicioner, I know that the community tries to connect as much as possible. So thanks again for clearing that up! -Bug

English moves

I removed the "English Moves" sections because it isn't needed and is incorrect info. There are official names for the movements and they are already listed, in a horrible way though. This entire article is shit and needs to be rewritten.

OOOO language! Drizzt Jamo 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

American Parkour Link

I keep putting the link to APK up and David Scarlett Keeps taking it down. His arguement is that APK is a local ocmmunity, whereas Parkour.net is a "Parkour Resource". My point is that APK is in no way a local ocmmunity, it is visited by people in over 100 countries every month, and it has information on Parkour, on how to do parkour, things like interviews with David Belle, pictures from events, more fitness information (from certified trainers) than any other site out there. Therefore I believe it should stay. Could other people please state their opinion, please try to be objective, this is not an arguement that "APK is better or worse than" ... but rather that it contains information that this page does not and is therefore a useful reference for people looking for information on Parkour. Thanks. M2@americanpakrour.com (need to make a new account, lost password goes to an email address I don't have any more)

Ok, here's my stance (which is based largely on Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).

• First of all, regardless of how appropriate the APK link is, it is forbidden to add a link to any website you own or maintain (WP:EL). The reasons for this policy should be obvious.
• External links should be kept to an absolute minimum. (Implied by WP:EL.)
• WP:EL describes what should be linked to. The only type really relevant to this article is: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
• WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and any instructive material (such as parkour or fitness tutorials) is inappropriate. By inference from this and the previous point, such material would be inappropriate for external links as well.
• When the APK link has been added, it has been described as "Complete Parkour Tutorials, Fitness Information, Large photo gallery". Of these three elements (tutorials, fitness, photos), only the photos are appropriate, and even then it would be better to submit a few photos demonstrative of parkour to Wikipedia (provided you own and are willing to release the copyright on those photos).
• According to the APK website (IIRC, as it is completely down at the moment), each weekend the site shuts down into a "weekend mode" where only the training instruction is available. This partial inaccesibility makes it inappropriate for inclusion into the article.
• There are enough links at present. If APK is to be added, one of the other similar ones (Parkour.NET or Worldwide Jam Magazine) should probably be removed. If APK is to replace one of these, it should first be discussed here, why APK is more appropriate. Then, if it is clear that the majority of people want the link included, someone else (not affiliated with APK) should add it.

Also, there are some other of my thoughts on the matter on my talk page.

-- David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting myself in response to the issues raised on David's talk page: "Not to be picky M2 but APK's production of a $25 tutorials DVD has created massive anti-APK feeling in the parkour community. Therefore I think you have become a business since you are involved in the retail of products. In addition, whilst your tutorials may be helpful, similar content can be obtained from the parkour.net forums or on the World Wide Jam website. In addition, your terminology does not match that of the article, hence will create confusion for readers, WWJ on the other hand employs the standard French terminology which is better from the standpoint of continuity. Also, as David says, you are breaking Wiki's rules by adding a link to a site which you own. For these reasons, I will be supporting David in removing the APK link. WWJ is entirely English language and parkour.net is fairly evenly balanced between English and French. Therefore your point about language is irrelevant. Also, in terms of practicing traceurs, it is still very likely that the United Kingdom far exceeds the numbers of traceurs in America." Aj* 23:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in accordance with the rules, I haven't put a link back up, but I think your arguments are obviously skewed. Doesn't WWJ sell skoodies? Isn't their whole aim to sell magazines? Also, to say they have the same content is grossly misstated, they do not have tutorials that tell you how to do a move, they only have pictures / videos with the name of the move, nothing instructional / helpful. It is clear to see your bias against APK and that's fine, but to exclude it based on the points you argue is not fair or right. As for the names of the moves, APK's dictionary (around before .net's wiki BTW) shows and links both names, do you REALLY think it's confusing to people? how many people in the UK don't know and use both terms? Did YOU know that the English terms were used first in the UK, 2 years before the French terms? So which is confusing? I'm sorry, but this whole page is a biased bunch of bull. 68.50.111.10 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) M2

I find this argument rather stupid but I'll add in what I think. First, neither WWJ nor APK are totally business orientated, they both have developed forums and a few good articles. APK seems to have more useful articles than WWJ, good training resources and tutorials, whereas WWJ has sponsored articles reviewing products and promoting tours and events, plus WWJ is only trying to gain more viewers and subscribers to it's magazine and TV channel projects... The reason I think APK should be included is simply because it is a good resource for people in the states, it acts as an open directory to local parkour scenes, it has a well developed forum, and the information presented in the articles and tutorials is well done and accurate. I also have a problem with people who try to exclude possibly informative and useful content because they are worried it will "confuse people." As far as the instruction manual argument, I agree for the article to keep that out but as far as external links, open textbooks are considered a good reference so why not tutorials? Plus all three major parkour sites have some form of tutorials on them, I say just keep the description to something simple and not highly promotional, or leave them off like they are now. --Undaunted 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Being "a good resource for people in the states" does not make it appropriate, nor does being an open directory of local communities. The purpose of this article is to explain what Parkour is, not to assist peoplein practising it. The open textbook is not an external link, but is a link to the same subject in another wiki-project, and so is appropriate. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 01:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither the apk or wwj links belong on this page at all. Apk is as far from the source of what parkour is and wwj is the biggest parkour fraud on the planet. Both are run by people who do not train in the art but rather have been sticking around for a while in order to make a living off the others that do. Neither site has any at of the original spirit parkour was instilled with many years ago and both aim only to modify parkour to their favour in order to make money. Apk's tutorial dvd is dangerous and is disapproved from the people who practice and have created parkour in Lisses and therefore should not be promoted through a site that wishes to remain unbias. What Apk promotes is a sort of tricking culture mixed in with very useful functional body strength and ideals; but neither are parkour. Think of this when you edit in the future. -P3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.227.236.106 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

To P3's comment about the owner of APK "not train[ing] in the art": I have seen M2 in action and I can say first hand that he is an active and accomplished traceur. Mattcelt 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P3, you seem to know a lot about my training habits, or is it nothing at all? In either case, you and David obviously have skewed and biased views. It is sad that this wikipedia article will be run by people with agendas that ARE NOT getting the best information out to people. There is nothing on American Parkour that anywhere states what Parkour is other than what it is (tricking, etc). I find it funny that some people here feel they own this article (even though I made the original contribution 5 years ago) and that they feel it is apropriate to actually threaten to ban people's IP's for putting a link to the American Parkour site. Are you really doing what is best for people trying to learn what parkour is? 68.50.111.10 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC) M2

I'm happy for both to be removed... The fewer links the better. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to weigh in here. The APK link is useful to those just starting out in Parkour who are looking for information; my first visit to this Wiki page happened to be when the APK link was up, and I found both it and the parkour.net site immensely helpful. This, IMHO, satisfies the fundamental 'encyclopedic reference' requirement of the External Links section of Wiki - while the Wiki page has some good basic information on Parkour, it is not by any means an exhaustive resource, and there is certainly not enough information for those who wish to become traceurs. I submit that this circumstance actually requires external links for people wanting to find out more and become involved in the Parkour community, as that is currently the only way to learn Parkour. According to the Wiki editing rules, 'what links should be considered', APK certainly fits into the category of #4, Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

I am in no way affiliated with the APK site other than having visited it (however in the interests of full disclosure I will say that since first visiting this page and the APK link I have met and worked with M2, though that is more a fluke of geographic proximity than anything else, and in no way affects my thoughts on this matter). I hope I have made a reasonable argument for adding the APK link back to the page. Mattcelt 16:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt, thanks for a rational, though-out response. Those seem to be a bit lacking here. ;-)

However, I still don't agree that the link is appropriate - and please note here that I say "appropriate" rather than "useful" because that's what I believe should matter most and I believe agrees with Wikipedia policy. Although the reason why I've removed the link in the past is mostly because it was added either by people affiliated with the site (which is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy) or by anonymous accounts whose only edits have been to advertise that site.

While I'm sure the APK site certainly is useful, especially to those in the US, this doesn't necessarily make it appropriate. For starters, the WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided list includes social networking sites. Also, the purpose of the articles in Wikipedia is to explain their subject, and so this article should explain what parkour is, not how to do it. (WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information states that how to guides are inappropriate.) I believe that external links, if used at all, should extend this explanation without going into areas like instruction. So I would consider appropriate external links in this case to be things like articles on the history of parkour, on David Belle, etc. In fact, I'll see if I can modify the Parkour.net link to link only to the English articles, not to the whole site. As for what's useful for people wanting to start parkour, I'm sure people can find that out on their own simply by doing an internet search for communities in their area after they've read the article and become familiar with what parkour is about.

Thanks for your input. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

David, very interesting that your own argument about "social networking sites" in your opinion applies to American Parkour and not to Parkour.net. American parkour has updated news, content, training information and information relevant to Parkour, where the last update on Parkour.net outside of the forums is from Christmas (as of today, March 7th 2007). I believe that you have a skewed opinion, and that your "there can be only one link on this page" opinion, although it may fit with the letter of Wikipedia law, doesn't accurately reflect common practice on Wikipedia. I also don't understand how you find yourself to be chief editor of this article? I made original contributions to the article more than 2 years before you even found Parkour, but now you are the subject matter expert on relevant content? I'm sorry, but that's self-appointing, what is Wikipedia's policy on that? Really, I hate to make this about you, but that's what you seem to be doing. What this SHOULD be about is getting people the most relevant (and yes useful) information pertaining to Parkour. If you believe that Parkour is a definiton, a stagnant, non-evolving thing, then no links need to be provided at all, only a history and a definition. However, if Parkour is an activity that people regularly take part in, then in fact community (and news, and current events) is a part of Parkour. 71.255.229.248 19:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC) M2

Speedrunning - video game discipline

I added links to "See Also" for Parkour and Speedrunning, referring them to one another. Both disciplines share a similar philosophy — to get from point A to point B as fast as possible — and a similar visual impact.

There are acknowledged differences: Parkour is real-life, speedrunning is in video games; Parkour uses only the abilities of the human body, speedrunning uses weapons and other items provided to the player. However, the similarities are significant enough to warrant a single link on each page. BlueNight 04:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. They are quite simply, irrelevant to one another. Parkour is an entirely physical discipline, all other links to "See also" articles concern either people related to the development of parkour or disciplines/sports that contain similar physical aspects/movements to parkour. The ultimate fact is that parkour is a physical discipline and speedrunning is entirely virtual. Sorry but I think linking it with Speedrunning is not relevant and so I have removed it. The parkour article already arguably has too many "See Also" links and so, to keep them managable, links with a very dubious connection to parkour must be pruned. By your argument that they employ a similar philosophy of getting from point A to point B you open the floodgates for links. Competative athletics, fell running, rally racing all involve this concept to name but a few. And those are still arguably more relevant as physical disciplines (less so rally racing). Also, most computer games employ very unrealistic portrayals of the physical abilities of players which means that they have nothing like a similar visual impact. If you disagree, please argue your case here rather than simply re-linking the articles. Aj* 00:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think speedrunning is relevant. First, the virtual/physical debate. The lines are already being blurred. There are video games with elements of parkour or free running, and games in development that will try to be a full simulation. Even though those games are virtual, because they deal directly with the topic they will likely be linked in this very article. Tomb Raider is already linked, because of Lara Croft's simulated physical abilities.

Speedrunning has its origin in first-person (and third-person follow-behind) shooters, which involve simulations of running and jumping. Often, the character takes an amount of damage from a fall higher than a one-story drop. Though the characters' abilities are unrealistic (not even a hardened Marine could rocket-jump in real life without severely injuring himself), the laws of physics under which the character operates are generally realistic. Though the use of glitches in the physics engines are generally accepted, the best-looking speedruns (like this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7224981768038331187&q=speedrun Super Mario Brothers speedrun) do not use them, only the "natural" abilities of the character.

Second, the similarity. The "See Also" links are to disciplines that "contain similar physical aspects/movements to parkour." In Parkour, the traceur overcomes obstacles that most people would walk around. In speedrunning, this is also the case. In Parkour, the traceur sometimes leaps gaps that could lead to his death. In speedrunning, this often is the case. In fact, the Equilibre, the Franchissement, the Passe Muraille, and the Saut de Fond are easily recognizable techniques used quite frequently in speedruns.

Third, the similar visual impact. I am a fan of the Quake done Quick speedrun series, and have been for ten years. I use a few speedrunning methods myself while playing first person shooters. When I first saw a video of Parkour, my first thought was its visual similarity to the wire-fu in The Matrix, and my second was its visual similarity to speedrunning. The alternate uses of everyday structures, for efficiency's sake, appealed to the speedrunner in me on a visceral level. I am now a fan of parkour.

I do note that on the talk page for Speedrunning, the first comment ends with "I guess that one could say speedrunning is the electronic form of parkour." The traditional gap between geeks and athletes is closing. Gamers are a mixed group, and a portion of the current generation grew up doing skateboard tricks. The traceurs and speedrunners have a lot in common, in their respective realms of expertise. I think the link should be reinstated. BlueNight 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Heh, a "hardened Marine" or whatever other soldier wouldn't exactly use an AT-4 or LAW to propel themselves to a higher ground. Abomens and lower extremities tend to come up missing that way :)

Free Running / Parkour - Total seperation needed.

The article has improved immensly of late. There is however one remaining issue. Whilst it is true that we do now have a much needed seperate article on free running, that article is very incomprehensive. The problem is that there is still too much content relating to free running in this [the parkour] article. The quotes from Sebastian Foucan were made at the time when the term free running was coined as an English language alternative for parkour. Unfortunatley, since then the two have come to have different meanings. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, all references to free running except those citing it as a similar but seperate art need to be removed. That means that nearley the entire of the opening of the "What is parkour?" section must be scrapped. Furthermore, so must the opening paragraph of the History section. I am reluctant to make these changes until I have replacement content prepared as they will, if merely erased rather than replaced, leave considerable gaps in the article.

Also, I'm sick of the link spam this article recieves. I urge people to stop adding links to local sites etc., Wikipedia is not the place for this. Only resources that offer content that expands upon and adds to the content of this article belongs here and in accordance to wiki guidelines, these should be kept to a minimum. It is my belief that Parkour.net is the only site that truely belongs in this catergory. However, I can see cases for keeping World Wide Jam definatley and also to a lesser extent, American Parkour. The directory is of course, useful and should remain. I will tidy the links up once again but I think there is a reasonable argument for that section of the article to be given vandal protection. Oh and also, I cleared up some vandalism where someone replaced David Belle's name with another in the "What is parkour section".

I disagree on "all references to free running except those citing it as a similar but seperate art need to be removed," because the two disciplines are historically linked. Free running, if I have understood it correctly, started as the addition of tricking to parkour, and grew from there. If the physical differences are the result of philosophical differences (parkour is efficient, while free running looks cool), a section on the differences between the two may be needed, duplicated in both articles, or even in its own Debates article, like the articles on the differences between Catholic and Protestant, between Sunni and Shia, and between evolution and creation. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. (And this parkour vs. free running is starting to sound a bit like a religious screaming match.) However, I do agree that link spam is a problem, and all outside links should go in a separate section from intra-Wikipedia See Also links. BlueNight 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, did you read what I actually wrote. I want all content relevant to Free Running moved to the Free Running article not removed. This is disambiguation, what you propose is possibly "reambiguation". I do agree that a brief reference to Free Running and a link to the article should be made and vice-versa but beyond that, there is no reason to duplicate content. The "Common Debates In Parkour" section of the article was removed long ago because it merely created confusion and disagreement rather than anything else. This is intended as an encylopedic reference, to go into such matters would remove any objectivity from the article. Aj* 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hell, I read your article (heh) and still can't see why you're so adament about a separation of the two. The way I see it, you have Parkour acting as the overal art and "freerunning" as a form of it. You get down to it, they're fundementally the same thing, the only thing is FR emphasizes asthetics over simply getting around something. Shadowrun 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the Foucan quote to make it less confusing. Also Parkour - Free Running can be compared to Speed Skating - Figure Skating, You wouldnt say speed and Figure Skating are the same, Even though Skating is based on the same principle of skating on ice as Parkour and Free Running are based on the clearing of obstacles. Early on in skating there would have been people like you saying "Speed skating and Figure Skating are the same" but now its accepted there different. This will be the same as Parkour and Free Running, although its the sorting out period now in a few years all peoiple will accept they're different.

References

Can someone with more experience clean up the references section? I can't figure out why there are doubled entries and non-cited entries. Any way to add descriptions to references? Random google and youtube videos aren't what I'd normally call good references... --Undaunted

I'm not sure what you mean there... I can't see any doubled entries (assuming that means repeated entries). And what do you mean by "non-cited"? Is that refering to the Top Gear reference, which doesn't have a link? If so, it doesn't need a link to be a reference. Descriptions can be added after the link within the <ref tags in the article. (The tags are located throughout the article, not in the references section.) --David Scarlett^(Talk) 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now, what I had meant was that there was a couple references that when you clicked on the ^ it went nowhere, and some were listed twice. --Undaunted 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Having freerunning in a parkour article is like having aggressive inline in a skateboarding article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.173.197 (talk • contribs).

Parkour as a Martial Art?

There has been a lot of research lately which has been labeling Parkour as a martial art. While it's true and this article states that it has been influenced by martial arts and it's true that it could be applied TO a martial art (although that would be silly) Parkour itself is not a martial art. Martial art means that it has military or fighting implications in its design. This is a sport along the lines of extreme gymnastics. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be beneficial to include some comment about this? 65.27.67.131

While Parkour is not strictly a martial art, it is no more a "sport along the lines of extreme gymnastics." If a martial art trains you for combat, isn't being able to run away efficiently an important concern? Parkour has massive self defense possibilities, and besides the art is based in military obstacle courses Raymond Belle ran in the time of the Vietnam war. A sport also implies competition which is something Parkour is definitely not about. Undaunted

A Martial Art usually has practical uses , Parkour is close to useless , and even dangerous , when applied in unfamiliar enviroment. Same goes for martial Arts uses for self-defense . You can't protect your girl or family by being a traceur . And the list goes on . I'd like to know what research labeled parkour as martial art . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.202.156 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Have any of you heard the Fight or Flight Response. These are usually both needed for self-protection. 1st situation: If you learn a martial art may help you defeat 1/2 enemies but if theres 10 guyd you probably need some sort of Flight response and if you cant get away your gone for 2nd Situation: If you learn Parkour it will help you to easily get away from a confrontation (flight response) but there might be a situation where 1/2 guys are blocking your escape route and because you cant fight your gone for as well.

 Therefore they're both practical for Self-Protection.  

Note: Although in some extreme circumstances if one trains one side of this response so extensively that they can get out of 99% situations then they may not need to train the other side of he response

In my view i see Parkour as an Art, Disclipine and a Way of life. It depends of how much you invest in it as to what it means to you

---

Reece, Australia, 27th Jan

Legality & Conflicts

Shouldn't there be something in the article about how Parkour is not considered legal by the authorities in many urab places, and that it has sometimes caused conflicts, accusations of disorderly conduct or tresspassing? I personally love Parkour and think that's unfortunate, but it does seem to be a noteworthy aspect of this still fledgling sport. It would be useful to a reader of the article to know (1) just how serious an offense it's considered to be in most areas, (2) how strong enforcement against it is, (3) what sort of punishments tracers may have faced, (4) and have there been any city ordinances or actions taken anywhere against them? Thanks.--Daniel 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Trespass is obviously illegal (in most places at least), is absolutely not a necessary part of parkour, and enforcement and punishment are going to vary massively between countries. I don't think such a section would be practical or particularly relevant. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

But given how frequent it is within those who practice parkour in public, it would seem reasonable and expected to mention something about it.--Daniel 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No. If somebody is trespassing or doing something that the police consider illegal then they are not a traceur. Parkour is only considered "illegal" because of the idiots who do tresspass and give a bad name for it. -- Mitsuko 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - but, right or wrong, they *do* give it a bad name, and that is a fact of reality in and of itself. To NOT include any mention of it in the article, as if it doesn't even exist, smacks of censorship on the part of Parkour enthusiasts based on a desire not to have anything in the article that is unbecoming. There would be nothing wrong with mentioning that many people have had encounters with the law who were practicing on private property, and then mention that this is not part of real parkour.--Daniel 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually , not only this is part of parkour , but even in the classic initial videos about parkour, DB and Sebastian are seen trespassing into closed property...

Maybe there should be a section, but it definately needs impressing on people that trespass is no more a part of parkour than it is a part of any other sport like skateboarding. The last thing traceurs want is for the stigma that other extreme sports have got. As it is, in some places we're only a few years away from 'No Parkour' signs. It's not like buildering which almost always requires trespass. You can do parkour anywhere. Whether Sebastian and DB did it is irrevelant. 80.47.161.115 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter Parker? (Spiderman)

So is it just a coincidence that Spiderman jumps around Manhattan like this, and is called Peter Parker in real life? Whophd 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.196.46 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Yes, Parkour artists generally seem to lack the sticky substance Spiderman uses to make his webs. Sfacets 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it? Drizzt Jamo 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If I saw Spiderman doing anything that was a parkour or freerunning 'move' then I might think there could be a link. But he's just swinging around. Besides, Spiderman comics far predate organised parkour. 80.47.161.115 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Weblink update

I was just wondering why there are only two pretty basic weblinks listed. We should add at least one video site (e.g. www.parkourarts.com), because that was what I've searched in that article. Instead I had to google to find a good video site.

Good idea, I'll add in parkour-videos.com 82.32.240.133 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like parkour-videos.com, the usability of parkourarts.com is much better imo 217.227.188.90 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Freestyle parkour

"Freestyle Parkour (FSPK) is a misnomer sometimes used to describe free running. Use of the term is deprecated among parkour communities, as it implies that the practice is a type of parkour, which is not the case due to the fundamental differences in intention between the two activities."
Is there any reason that this has been mentioned? Surely now, considering the whole idea has been abolished it would be best to remove it from the article. It will just confuse people who read the article otherwise. I've removed it for the time being, if anyone thinks it should be put back on please say. Mitsuko 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth having in the article, as long as it is clear that the term is no longer used. (i.e. Is deprecated.) Perhaps it could be changed to "... a misnomer previously/formerly used to describe free running". What do others think? --David Scarlett^(Talk) 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! Drizzt Jamo 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Movement Lists

I edited this up in the Movement section to avoid people adding in long "trick lists" that have nothing to do with parkour:

"There are fewer predefined movements in parkour than gymnastics and other extreme sports, in that parkour is not made up of a list of appropiate "moves." Each obstacle a traceur faces presents a unique challenge on how they can overcome it effectively that depends on their body type, speed and angle of approach, the physical make-up of the obstacle, etc... Parkour is about training the body and mind to be able to react to those obstacles appropiately with a technique that works, many times that technique cannot and need not be classified and given a name."

But anyways some anon decided to add a bunch of "other movements, advanced movements, and aesthetic movements." This article will get huge and ugly if everyone starts adding in their own "tricks" they've named or have heard, that's not what parkour is about, I say we stick to the short french list, it at least has some good info in it.

I've removed the edit and also the request for additional movement edits, I think what is on there is good and adding to it's size is just going to make this seem more like some sort of skating thing. If anyone disagrees please say so here. --Undaunted 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job, those lists you removed had no place in the article. Most weren't parkour techniques and none even had descriptions. I'd go even one step further though and remove the UF terms ("kong", "monkey" etc) also, or at least make it clear that they're not the proper names. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is now, people know it's a French discipline then there are several different terms shown. --Undaunted 07:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why parkour-videos and not parkour.tv ?

Its obvious that one of the sites HAS to be in the links section , simply due to the fact that videos is what most people want from parkour . While there are few that practice it , many like watching . I know parkour-videos.com is associated with DB and offical and stuff , but it'd be better to have a nicer site there . Its frequently updated , and isn't associated with anyone . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.55.36 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

No, neither of them HAS to be in the article. The purpose of the article is to explain what parkour is to someone with no knowledge of it, not to give people what they want. I haven't looked at either of them, but I think one video site link may be acceptable as long as it doesn't require any sign-up (or similar) to view videos and doesn't contain any free-running or tricking videos (or at least clearly differentiates those videos from parkour). --David Scarlett^(Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont wanna edit the article , I'd appriciate it if you would just visit the sites and decide accordingly . The talk page here is full of linking wars , I'd rather have a responsible editor make the call .Personally I think changing the link will benefit the readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.153.86.57 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Btw- it currently says that parkour is of Russian origin in the article . Is this correct ?

Going by Wikipedia standards for external links, neither of them adds significant content beyond the scope of the article. Sure, perhaps many people do wish to see sites like that. But they are not classed as relevant external links. Also, parkour.tv consists largely of freerunning videos, therefore is wholely inappropriate as an external link for this article. Therefore, I will be removing the link to parkour.tv. If people have any reasonable objections to this, please lodge them here instead of creating yet another endless edit war. Aj* 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Explaining what parkour is without showing it, is like explaining about painting without showing a picture . It's too bad that the naming convention separates Parkour and Freerunning (it's exactly like Scating and Figure scating) , and not being able to show parkour at all to wikipedia readers because Parkour and Freerunning go together in videos (pretty much everywhere) , is just wrong . And there was no edit war actually . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.244.118 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

There are images in the article that show parkour. As for videos, it's better to have nothing than something that contradicts the text of the article (as a freerunning video would do). Also, not all parkour videos contain tricks, and it doesn't matter if a linked site contains freerunning videos, as long as they are labelled as freerunning and not parkour. As for "scating", I don't what that is, but it sounds kinky. ;-) If you meant speed skating vs figure skating, then they are two completely different things and showing a speed skating video to demonstrate what figure skating is would be stupid. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Both these sites label videos correctly by category of parkour/freerun . Parkour-videos.com has a nice separate tricks&other section (look at the top navigation bar) , and parkour.tv even offers browsing by category of videos (parkour, freerun, mixed , etc... ) via the left navigation bar . You can't honestly think that having this link will not benefit and reader of the article . There is not a single traceur that started training without watching videos first . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.202.156 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

In popular culture

There seems to be a lot of overlap between this Parkour#In popular culture and Free running#In popular culture. Does anyone else think that the entries in these should be divided (mostly) into free running and pure parkour, and should only appear in their respective articles? e.g. B13 and Assasin's Creed have no freerunning, and so I would suggest be removed from the free running article. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No one has any opinion? I'll probably remove most of the entries (moving them to free running where approriate) tonight or tomorrow... --David Scarlett^(Talk) 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are doing pretty much what you want here anyway , I haven't seen a single discussion that you decided in someone else's favor, and made sure that your decision sticks by changing the page accordingly . If someone sees fit , they will just move the popular culture references back to the article later on , since discussion rarely leads anywhere around here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.116.199.234 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

I just saw some of your edits - like removing the mention of kongs. Why would you remove an alternative and popular naming for a parkour move ? It really hurts me to come here from time to time and see how awful this article is. I'm not affiliated with americanparkour or UFF, Worldwidejam or any other organization , but it really saddens me that readers of this article might think that parkour is owned and managed by a single group, and is not a free form of art , but is closely affiliated and protected by some central organization that owns parkour . 192.116.199.234 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "I haven't seen a single discussion that you decided in someone else's favor", have you actually seen a single discussion where I "decided" in my own favour? Have you seen a single discussion where I "decided" anything at all? If so, please provide examples, because I've got no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, names like "kong" and "cat leap" have been removed because they are incorrect and confusing. The list of techniques is a list of the French terms and their translations. If the UF terms are to be included, they should be in a separate column of that table or a separate section, because it is ridiculous to have "cat leap" or "cat jump" meaning two different things without explaining it. I have no idea who you're refering to by the single group that some readers might think owns or manages parkour. As for this "free form of art" claim, if you refering to tricks, etc, then you're wrong, these are absolutely not part of parkour. If not, please explain what you mean. --David Scarlett^(Talk) 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course tricks are not parkour , this is not what this discussion is about . Parkour is precise , minimum efficient movement, and I think that the article emphases that very well.

I honestly think that the article should contain alternative movement naming and a video resource . These additions would benefit the reader . Thing is , you have stated that you don't want these here , and considering the fact that you -removed- alternative naming and the video resource , I am pretty sure that there is not much point in trying to re-edit the article just to have it undone later .

Don't even get me started on the idiotic Television/music sections links , but not including such large resources like UFF and APK in the article . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.116.199.234 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that the article probably should contain an alternate naming list and a video resource, so please don't tell me what my opinion is when you evidentally haven't read anything I've written here. What I don't want is confusion between the traditional and UF names, because listing "cat leap" and "cat jump" as two completely different techniques without explaining the names is idiotic. The different naming conventions need to be explained! As for me removing the video resource link, I have never removed either the parkour-videos or parkour.tv links, and I though you realised that when you accused me of deleting them and then reverted the accusation.

As for including APK and UF, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links and the ideal number of external links in an article in zero. (See WP:NOT and WP:EL.) APK adds nothing relevant to the article (as discussion and technique are not relevant to an encyclopedia) and reasons for not including UF should be obvious. Parkour.net has some articles on Belle and the history of parkour, which make it's includion somewhat relevant, but I wouldn't miss it if it were removed. It's far better to add content rather than links to the article. (Note, references are important and do not count as external links.) --David Scarlett^(Talk) 07:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David, if those terms must be included they should be included in a seperate column with the title being "Non-Traditional" or "Popular-Use" or "Free Running-Associated" or "Free Running" or something that is similiar to this. These terms are much more popular in the USA Scene and the Free Running community. Must everything be dumbed down, its like Football you had to change the name to soccer even though every other country in the world calls it football but the USA thinks their game of "American Football" is better, dont do it again!! --Reece, Australia, 27th Jan

Removing Sebastien Foucan Quotes

I think we need to remove most of the Sebastien Foucan's comments and replace them with quotes from either David Belle or other Parkour practitioners.

It confuses people as they read this article as he is introduced as a Free Runner yet all the comments and quotes on PARKOUR philosphy and other are being made by him. --Reece {202.67.73.249 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)}

Seconded, I've mentioned this in the past but nothing was done about it. Aj* 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree.Noxteryn 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sebastien Foucan

Has nothing to do with parkour... infact has been recently sued by David Belle, the founder, himself and has been wrongly portraying and abusing the name parkour for a long time.

His "free running" discipline is a laughable rip off of the yamakasi discipline David started 3 years before parkour. Free Running is FAKE it is not real. Foucan only "created" it because he was always living in Davids shaddow... he needed something he could call his own to launch his media career.

Can the mods please stop users from featuring Sebsastien Foucan, Freerunning, etc. in a parkour article.... unless they want to be responsible for David Belle sueing Wikipedia.

Yours sincerily,

A concerned traceur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.119.148 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Don't be so obsessed with lawsuits . Suing Wikipedia , suing Sebastian ... Bleh . Don't Americanize the issue .

Freerunning is a superset of Parkour , you can't say "it is not real" , since it is real because it is different from Parkour , being an extension of it. Parkour is minimum and efficient movement , Freerunning is aesthetic movement that goes beyond the necessary minimum.

On a side note , I'd like to issue an apology to David S - my accusations were out of place and I don't know wtf came over me . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.116.199.234 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Free running is NOT a superset of Parkour. They are completely different disciplines. I believe Sebastien Foucan should appear as little as possible in this article.Noxteryn 02:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will second that. I think maybe a reference to Free Running only is acceptable. Drizzt Jamo 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They are totally different disciplines, but they are still related. Let's not get territorial about this. Maybe it's just the group I mix with, but I've never found anyone who only does parkour, or freerunning, or tricking. Mix them up a bit and do what feels good. It's not in the spirit of PK to enforce labels like this. 80.47.161.115 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to French only Blog

While parkour.net is an international community that is accessible (and very helpful) to everyone , David Belle's blog is only in french , and this is after all en.wikipedia.org . Linking to it does not extend the article in any way , and certainly does not help English readers . I suggest that link for removal , and quite frankly , I support the addition of a video resource in the external links section . Awaiting comments before editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Shohat (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Look articles like Germany, France, Italy, etc. You will see a lot of external links in his languages. Does not help English only readers, but is useful as reference and official source.

What video resource? www.parkour-videos.com ? Carlosguitar 12:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that it's better to keep the amount of linking to a minimum , and specially since David Belle's blog is in French AND Parkour.net is already closely associated with David . Parkour.net extends the article, a blog just doesnt . I am not sure regarding the video resource . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Shohat (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Who is a Traceur?

I believe Lara Croft, Prince of Persia, Jackie Chan, etc, should NOT be called "traceurs", because simply they are not. Parkour is a method that teaches how to be as efficient as possible. A traceur works on his movements constantly to become better. In the same way that a punch is not Karate, a jump is not Parkour. Therefore, a person who simply runs, jumps, and climbs is not a traceur. They are just a person who runs, jumps, and climbs. So, I believe that all the points where it says "A is a traceur, B could be considered a traceur, etc" should be completely removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxteryn (talk • contribs)

I disagree about Lara Croft, she is a traceuse to me, but I not sure if Prince of Persia or Jackie Chan are or are not traceurs.

If you feel better, please move references to the Free running article, but does not erase them. Carlosguitar 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured?

Hello everyone! I myself joined wikipedia a long time before I started Parkour. But when I heard of Parkour I looked to wikipedia for an explanation. This page is what I got. And i have to say it was an excellent start to the great interest I have in this sport. So I would like to propose someone puts this article up for featured! How about it? Drizzt Jamo 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parkour on TV

Hi there,

I've produced a few features with the very talented 'Team Adrenaline' from Paris over the past couple of years & here's the links to the videos, I hope you enjoy them.

MTV Mono - Paris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-P-U1kyy4

Laureus Sports Awards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1zk6LP70ug

Thanks

Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.166.20 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).