Jump to content

Talk:Push-up

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backvoods (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 12 February 2010 (→‎Survey - in support of the move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New Idea

First of all i have never heard of the term press-up (i live in Australia). But I do have a idea to make everybody happy. Leave this page like it is, and make a completely new page devoted to "push ups". that way if a person searches for "push up" they will go to a "push up" article (and they wont get confused), and if a person searches for "press up" they will go to the "press up" article (and they dont get confused). There is logic in this. A person will only search for the term they are familiar with, therefore they will go to the page that is made for them. So if a british person types in "press up" they will go to their page. And the rest of the english speaking world types in "pushup" they will go to their page.

Anybody with me? 124.184.147.41 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. There's no real benefit in (or precedent on Wikipedia for) for maintaining two articles with different variant spellings. And if we did it here, by the same argument why not do it for every article where different regional terms are used? It's not practical, or even particularly necessary. The solution really is for people to just live with the a term being used that they're not familiar with. Heck, UK readers have to put up with unfamiliar terms for thousands of articles on Wikipedia; why is it so hard for others to do so when the situation's the other way round? — Matt Crypto 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that I thought of exactly the same thing. It’s not that practical to do it. But besides everybody just getting over it. It’s the only way. I did however change the opening sentence. Because its not only a American English term, the whole of the English speaking (besides UK) uses it. I think one of the major reasons why people want to change it, is because its not the spelling that is different it’s the whole word. I'm sure a person won't care if it was the word "Recognized" over "Recognised", because its very close. Most people wouldn't even notice. But since its a completely different word that’s why people want to change it. I would rather it changed, since a lot more people use "push up" more, and since wikipedia is a global site, it should go with the majority. 124.187.145.48 (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really any reason why that would be good to do. If a non-British person goes on Wikipedia and types in "Push-up," they will be directed to the "Press-up" article, and then read that "Press-up" is the British version of "Push-up." Yes, they might be confused for a second, but it can't be such a terrible confusion that it would cause an uproar. And as a side note, there is absolutely no reason at all to call the article "press-up." But that's another discussion. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term push up was first recorded in 1905-1911. Press up wasn't recorded until 1945-50. Clearly push up is the correct term for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.121.171 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was This pretty much defines no consensus. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  • Support - Despite being a native speaker of British English, I believe the term 'push up' is more mutually understandable across the English speaking nations. I would therefore suggest the move in the name of clarity and accessibility. --Breadandcheese 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Push up is the more widely understood term - American speakers, myself included, have mostly never heard the term "press up" before reading it here. Aside from that, even the article notes that the term "push up" is noted to predate "press up."M412k 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pretty much everyone in the world recognizes the term "push up". There is a very large population outside of the UK that has never heard the term "Press up". The Google search 5:1 ratio cited above is relevant. This is NOT the same as "colour" vs "color" - both words have the same pronunciation, and have a meaning which can be easily understood by people from either camp. Also, the Guinness World Records, which is English, uses the term "push up" PWND!!!1!198.166.22.233 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Push up should be the correct title of this page. I, like most people, have never heard of a press up.

Survey - in opposition to the move

  • Oppose. "Press up" vs "push up" is a regional variant name for the same exercise. When different national varieties of English use different terms, Wikipedia convention is to just go with the version used by the first author. Since this article has been at "press up" since I created it 3 years ago, I see little reason to move it (even if you haven't heard of it over in the US). — Matt Crypto 19:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose From the Manual of Style- If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.. Moving this article would violate the MoS. Lurker (said · done) 09:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if it was created under a BrE title, it should stay that way (if it had been created under a NAmE title, I'd have supported sticking with that) - first come, first served! Man vyi 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These types of move and the discussions they provoke are trivial time-wasters. Moving this article without any better reason than the "Google test" would encourage similar time-wasting debate on other spelling-related article moves. WP:ENGVAR exists for a good reason. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't spelling related like armor vs armour, these are two different phrases. I'd guarantee you that if you started asking people on the street in America or Canada if they heard the term press up, most would say no. However, it seems that the British at least are familiar with the term push up, so is it a big deal for them to evolve a little? I mean come on, you guys still have a frickin' queen.--TyGuy92 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose now go and do something useful rather than arguing over the title of a page which has a redirect from the proposed title, and which is perfectly reachable under any title by our favourite search engines. Martinp23 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We brits were doing press ups before america was invented so they're called press ups, not push ups.Oh and whoever removed this comment when i made it earlier is trying to corrupt the vote.I caught you out. 82.21.204.72 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have moved the page to push up and added a redirect at press up--TyGuy92 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Press up → Push up[reply]

  • Looking at the votes, I had every right to move it. The democratic process was used, and decided that the move should take place. I beleive that more people would use the term "push up" when searching, thus making it easier and less confusing to those who haven't heard the term "press up". Also, although this may be "your article" as you created it, you obviously haven't been taking very good care of it as some of the pictures contained inaccurate information and the grammar needs a good revision. I took the liberty of removing an amimation of the push up yesterday as it was full of inaccuracies. I will be making the move, and if you would like to discuss it further, email me at tldavis92@gmail.com or post on my talk page.--TyGuy92 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Additionally, the comments about the variety of English used by the first author may well apply here (see WP:MOS#National varieties of English. Further moves could be viewed by some as being potentially disruptive because they would seem to be part of an edit-war if you persist in re-establishing the page-moves before allowing more information to be gathered to reach a consensus. The correct way forward is not to announce that you will be making the move again, and that you are advising people to discuss it with you via email, but to encourage anyone to discuss it on here in public in order that as many viewpoints can be expressed and to allow any consensus for a move to thereby emerge (a consensus may not emerge, in which case, the original version stays.) WP:CANVAS may also prove informative during this process. I wrote this message to help you avoid pitfalls that would help no one in these circumstances.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the entry on Requested moves contains false information, saying The move has been voted upon and approved on the press up discussion when the discussion is till active. I have removed the offending sentence, so as not to prejudice any decision. Lurker (said · done) 09:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been mentioned that I am wasting my time arguing over something this trivial. I would agree with that. My only defence is that when I made the change, the discussion had been in effect for several weeks at the least, and the voting was 7-2 in favor of moving the article, so I did so. User:Matt Crypto decided to oppose it, citing that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is not a democracy, yet when a consencus is agreed upon, Matt Crypto should have let the change be made. It was a relatively minor change, and doesn't seem worth arguing about. So I will move on and suggest to User:Matt Crypto to find better things to pick fights about.--TyGuy92 22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • I note that this notice [1] was posted to a UK Wikipedians notice board at 05:38, 5 September 2007, informing the readers of the ongoing poll and the move to "Push up" from "Press up.". Before the note was posted, the poll was 8 in favor of the change or move to "Push up" and 2 opposed, in a poll which had been running from February 5 through September 5. In the hours after the notice posting, the poll shifted to 11 in favor of the move and 12 opposed. Are "UK Wikipedians " considered a nonpartisan or partisan audience with respect to changing terminology away from UK terms? "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote." Does posting on such a noticeboard constitute votestacking? Apparently not, technically, as long as the message is neutral, per Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. A great many "Oppose " votes appeared after the notice, undoing the consensus for a move which appeared to exist before the notice. This process certainly does not make a case for forbidding any introduction of the North American term in the two photo captions related to a U.S. Marine and a Canadian push up champion. Edison 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I was the one who noticed that a consensus had been made and never acted upon so moved it. Within several hours Matt Crypto moved it back and the votes came rolling in like it had never stopped. I believe that the arguement that the original writer of the article gets to decide terminology is stupid. The vast majority of people use the term "push up", yet many refuse to see sense.--TyGuy92 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree it should be moved.
I checked Google "press-up" "exercise" vs. "push-up" "exercise" and the ratio is 5%:95%. That is a truly overwhelming majority in favor of "push-up". 19 out of 20 users are going to be unfamiliar with the term "press-up". "Press-up" is definitely a "regionalism", to argue that this is not a regionalism is incorrect.
WP:MOS#National varieties of English (referenced above [opposing]) says "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." For instance, in the example given in the MOS, "colour" vs. "color", the ratio is 25%:75%. This is a huge difference over the "press-up" vs "push-up" ratio. Clearly "press-up" is not "common to all varieties of English." Although it does say "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used" this is not the only consideration.
Nick Beeson 11:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this discussion is pretty much over but in the US the term "press up" is also synonymous with the term overhead press which mechanically has nothing do with the push up. When I entered the term "press up" I expected to be redirected to the overhead press article or even military press article. When the term "press up" is mentioned to weightlifters, they almost always equate it with the overhead press or military press; never the with the pushup. So in a way, I find the naming convention a little misleading. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 05:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I simply can't believe that this is even being argued. The simple fact that the term 'push up' is older than 'press up' should suffice as reason enough to change it. That, and the fact that the number of people who use the term 'push up' as opposed to 'press up' is easily greater, as referenced in the article itself, (British English vs. the rest of the world). 9ign (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The survey is closed, so I've moved this. Also, please read WP:ENGVAR. The variety of English used in an article is not determined by its popularity. — Matt Crypto 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushup Picture

The picture of the Marines doing/attempting pushups seems to be causing problems. Since he's not doing the pushup correctly, then he is merely attempting it. Perhaps, we could simply find another uncopyrighted image of someone doing a pushup to avoid the confusion. Zepheus 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we currently say that he's doing a press-up with what's typically considered to be poor form. Pending a better picture, what's wrong with that? I don't really buy this definition that doing an exercise with poor form means you aren't actually doing the exercise; it's a little like saying that someone singing out of tune isn't really singing, but only attempting to sing. — Matt Crypto 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
That's an excellent idea! I should have thought of the 'poor form' thing a long time ago, would have saved me a lot of edit wars over the silly thing. Tyciol 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice. On a page about singing. Here is a picture of Lindsay Lohan attempting to sing. I don't buy it either. I guess we should just find a better picture to use. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepheus (talk • contribs)
The pictures were last debated over a year ago. I have deleted them. Matt, even if they are doing the exercise, you can do serious damage if you attempt to do them wrong. Long term damage could be done. It is irresponsible to post inaccuracies on an encyclopedia that is supposedly aiming at Britannica-esqe quality.--TyGuy92 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible harm of poor form

Could someone with appropriate qualifications (sports medicine?) please add information about the possible harm of doing pushups wrongly (eg back not straight, swinging back)?

Pushup vs Pressup

Shouldn't this be under Pushup? Anecodtally, I live in the US and I've never heard them called this. Moreover, Google has more hits for pushups by a factor of 5, and a lot of the pressup hits are on .co.uk sites. If common useage is the measuring stick, this article should be under pushups. -Unknown

Yes, in the UK they're known predominantly as "press ups", in the US as "push ups", so "common usage" varies depending on where you live. Wikipedia policy is generally not to choose sides on Brit vs American English, and to use whatever the first editor used for an article. — Matt Crypto 12:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's my policy to choose sides out of pure grammatical logic. I think it's better to call a bench press a pushup than a pressup. Think of it. 'Up'. The object you're fucking against is the ground. Are you fucking the ground? No, you can't, the ground is stationary. Instead, you are pressing against the ground, and lifting yourself up through the effort. Actually, I've sort of lost track, but I tend to go with seniority, press also fits with bench press. You've never really heard of a bench push, right? Tyciol 08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not generally prone to outburts of profanity, but that is the dumbest fucking excuse for logic I have ever heard. I don't actually care about the name of the article either way, but the meaning of pushup should be obvious especially considering press and push are synonyms. I mean for christs sake, you are -- and I feel the need to spell this out explicitly -- pushing... 'yourself'... up... what a concept.

Regarding the picture. Marines do not do press ups they do push ups.

I would argue, tongue-in-cheek, that the US version "Push-up" should have dominance because I'm not convinced that many British people actually do exercise. We might be fat, but we're strong fat people here in the States. --Bobak 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite sources. :) --Haddock420 14:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be called Push Ups. I think we should make a name decision. -- WiiVolve 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We did, back in June 2004. — Matt Crypto 15:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can still vote on this, as several other articles on Wikipedia have been changed, contrary to respecting the original editor's work, which I think should be the gold standard, but instead it is used as a last resort "if all else fails" thing. 67.185.99.246 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a week of no response, I added a survey to the top of this page. 67.185.99.246 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be taken into account that (as stated in the article) the term "push up" predates "press-up" by several decades? Further, US speakers of English outnumber all other nationalities. I know the Wikipedia policy on US-Commonwealth English, but be sensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.249.50 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Include the girl pushup?

should someone mention the girl pushup?

I presume you mean the wimpy "knees on the ground" variant? Don't see why not — go for it. It would be good if we could find a slightly less informal name for it as well, if one exists. ;o) Why are girls so weedy? (Disclaimer: my fiancee can do more pressups than me. My only excuse is that she weighs less. I think I'll be quiet now.) — Matt Crypto 20:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've been told by a kickboxing instructor that the girl's press-up isn't due to weediness, but is recommended because women's bodies are different and regular press ups can cause damage to the hip/abductor muscles in women. anyone know any more about this?
This is an excellent idea, methods of shifting less of one's bodyweight to the arms should be noted. As well, methods such as elevating the feet, the placement of weights on one's body, resistance bands and so forth Tyciol 08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are called Cheat Pushups and actually work -- WiiVolve 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only heard them called girl pushups by people insulting those doing them Everyone else I have heard calls them modified including PhysEd Teachers dance teachers other fitness people --71.131.40.134 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Modified is more politically correct, I have never heard them called modified before, and it should be included that they are called Girl Push ups as well. I believe they were used, and in some cases used as an equivalent to normal push ups for girls. similar to how Girls do a hanging bar thing instead of pull ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't call it a "girl push up". You might offend someone. (obvious sarcasm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.50.155 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The girl push-up with knees on the ground works out different muscles than the regular ones. I actually find them harder to do because of the angle. 63.225.247.82 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, there is a rumour that normal press-ups are actually bad for girls because of their bodies or something? Is there actually any truth in this, or is it just a myth perpetuated by girls who don't want to have to work as hard? 188.74.101.228 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckle pushup & Two-finger pushup

The article DIDn't mention pushups using the knuckles, which hurt more, NOR the two-finger pushup as Bruce Lee do.

  • Now it does. However, the Wikipedian is strongly urged to contribute any additional information to the article, not hide it in the talk pages which nearly no reader uses, those are for cases when one needs to consult with previous contributors, as asking clarifications, challenging accuracy... Rest assured, your contribution is likely to be watched (accounts generate automatical watchlists) and edited if deemed in need of work. Fastifex 10:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this needs a more extensive variety of pushups listed. I plan on adding different sections for the varying hand placements (already mentioned) and also the varying hand alignments such as knuckles, fingertips, wrists, paralletes, etc. If no one objects. I just had to redirect fingertip pushup here and found it wanting. Tyciol 08:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which muscles are exercised by pressups?

which muscles are exercised by press ups? it mentions triceps in alternate version, but not which ones are normally exercised. -Unknown

Triceps are always used, no matter what, they are the prime movers. The pectorals, as in the bench press, are highly involved (moreso in wider grips) and unlike the bench, the abdomen to stabilize the torso Tyciol 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It varies widely depending on the position of the hands relative to eachother and the orientation of the fingers (tilting them inwards emphasizes tricep and pectoral, pointing them directly outwards emphasizes more of the upper back - between your shoulder blades - and elbows). Also the muscles/tendons that connect the pectorals to the shoulders get a LOT of work from just about any type of push up. 195.145.150.173 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pushup picture

Like in the old exercise article, the picture of the marines has again been altered without explanation. I have repetetively explained the criticism, in that the central figure is not holding a proper pushup. Because of this, I have reverted the change. I agree that a proper pushup should be displayed, and be affirmative. If so, please find a different picture, as this picture is not a good display of it. Tyciol 13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be too contrary, but who defines a "proper" press-up? I think it is accurate to say he is performing press-ups. He may have poor form, but the word "attempting" is awkward -- it could even be read as slightly mocking (not that I think you meant it that way). Perhaps we could use something like "Marines performing push-ups. (Note: it is generally considered to be poor form to round the back while performing the exercise)" (if the latter is true, of course). — Matt Crypto 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proper form is proper form, I wouldn't put a picture of a guy with his heels in the air under a squat picture. I don't mean for it to be derisive, the guy on the left is doing it perfectly, it's just the central guy who screws it up. I wish I knew which pics were authorized for use on Wikipedia, might be able to find a better one. Tyciol 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The central marine is not a recruit (he's a private first class according to the caption) and is said to be calling out the pushups. Perhaps he is doing this on behalf of everyone else? If this is the case, then it's disingenuous to claim he's holding an improper form. A less confusing picture might be in order. Simoes 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one of the pictures on this site?

Comment: The US AirForce defines a push-up as elbow lock-out[straight] to 90 degree bend and straight again. I believe this correctly describes the essence of a push-up. Whether your back is bowed slightly one way or another is irrelevant. After all the excellent video-clip of the Hindu push-up shows extreme and deliberate motion in this regard. A perfectly straight back may look more aesthetically pleasing to some but there is no physiologic basis to recommend it as 'proper' form. In fact, it is normal [and better biomechanics] to have some lumbar lordosis whether standing or doing push-ups. Ask any spine surgeon who fuses backs -- a straight lumbar spine leads to a very bad result. I believe one 'bad form' point that should be avoided: do not let your body drop such that your upper arms rise behind your chest. Letting your upper arms angle backwards can place undue strain on the shoulder leading to impingement and joint pain.

I agree that the picture is rather confusing if someone really doesn't know what pushups are supposed to look like. At the same time, however, I think the caption is inaccurate in describing his 'poor form'. Although all the military branches vary in their PT guidelines, what he is doing looks rather like one of the accepted "resting" positions allowed by the Army, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was similarly the case in the Marines. So I don't think what he's doing is necessarily 'wrong' in the midst of pushups, per se... yet it's obviously not a good example for the sake of this article. Amazinrick 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tests

Just added some basic test values for push-ups :) --Judas Iscariot 09:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get these figures? — Matt Crypto 09:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it here for now, pending a source (see WP:V). — Matt Crypto 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press-ups are to be done with a straight back and to be lowered until one's head falls within six inches of the ground. These values are how many repetitions are done in a minute. These gradings are for men of the primary age(15-30):

< 20 - Weak
21-30 - Acceptable
31-40 - Good
41-50 - Very good
>51 Excellent

I am going to remove the new "civilian" charts. They are only based on the University of Buffalo's Physical Fitness Test. I hardly think that one University's physical fitness test should apply to all people. In addition, the grading levels are way to easy to achieve and are subpar. A better chart would be one of the US Government's Physical Fitness Test for High Schools. REscano 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps a separate page would be more appropriate for military standards. The basic standards for the British Army are here : http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/RegularArmy/Requirements/GetFitForTheArmy/Officer/sandhurst.htm

Back stress

I've been a chubby guy all my life until a few months ago when I said enough is enough and started exercising a lot and controlled exactly what I eat. Things are going pretty well (I seem to have the ability to gain muscle very fast) and now I'm finally able to do correct pushups for the first time. But here's the thing: at about 5-10 pushups my spine really starts to hurt in the abdomen area and I'm forced to stop. My upper body muscles could take a lot more but it feels like my spine will snap. I didn't find any information about what kind of stress pushups put on the back and spine in the article so I'm wondering if such info should be included.

Yes, should definitely be there. Tip: Try practicing by going to the lower position with a fist of air left between yourself and the floor and keep that position for 30 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec until you can do 300 sec. This strengthens your lower back musculature. Great you started, keep it up.

Some Complaints

Name: Noone actually calls push ups press ups, its ridiculous to have them under this title simply because it was the original one chosen.

Are you trolling, or just ignorant? — Matt Crypto 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, what are you getting upset about? Ok, "noone" was an exaggeration, but "push up" is a far more common term in the UK than "press up" is in the US. And what about other english speaking countries, do they get a say? Canada and Australia dont use "press up" either. -Superfrog
Yeah, it was the "noone" and "ridiculous". Sorry to have been grumpy, but there's a certain type of person, typically from the US, who presumes that if they haven't heard of it in their country, then it either doesn't exist or isn't important. — Matt Crypto 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I add that they are called Push Ups in the US, and not "Press Ups"? I have no clue who added this name to it. -- WiiVolve 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture: Why is the main picture of someone doing a push up incorrectly? I understand that the text underneath tells people that its wrong, but it seems backwards to have the salient picture on the page showing NOT what to do.

If you have a better free picture, by all means replace it. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if the picture possessed some characteristic/s I couldnt percieve which warranted its selection. I may follow your advice though, as there seems to be no such justification. -Superfrog
That would be very helpful. Several people seem to have commented that the exercise isn't being performed "correctly". — Matt Crypto 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tables: These numbers in these tables are far too low. To say that a male aged 20-29 being able to do >35 is excellent is quite ridiculous. I got down and tried just then and could do 37 and I havent been training, playing sport or doing anything that could contibute. To call someone of my standard excellent is ridiculous. The numbers in the test section of the talk seem far more suitable.

We need reliable sources for this sort of data, not personal experience. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, we need a reliable table, not one that declares so many people to be excellent. Now that I think about it though, the main problem I have is with the term excellent. Average and above average are probably correct labels but, but as my apparently disdained "personal experience" shows (as well as many others would im sure), the term excellent is far too congratulatory for such a standard. Perhaps we should change it to "good", any ideas? -Superfrog
The website the tables are taken from quote Pollock & Wilmore's "Exercise in Health and Disease" as a source; I presume they thought up the labels? I agree that we should probably avoid judgments of "excellence", but maybeeven "good" for the same reason. I can't think of a good alternative, though. I also wonder what population Pollock & Wilmore's averages are taken from. — Matt Crypto 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of push-ups chart

I think perhaps we need to reexamine the chart that rates people based on how many pushups you can do. Its figures are a little low. While I would like to believe that if I can do 38 push-ups, I am in excellent health, that's simply not true. However, some of the charts out there have somewhat high figures as well. One fitness book targeted at teens that I own rates those who can do 46 or more push-ups in a minute as excellent. I believe that this figure is probably more accurate than other analyses. We should find a good chart with at least plausible figures. As sort of a benchmark, I am 16 years old, have been working out for ~2 years, can bench my own weight, and consider myself at least reasonably strong. I can do 49 push-ups in a minute. While I would rate someone who can do 38+ push-ups in a minute as being in good health, I probably would not call them strong (unless they weighed a ton). We also need to change the article title to push-up. We're not all Brits, you know. -Peteweez 01:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just took what I said right above this and restated it in a much more long winded way!:D.--Superfrog 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"We also need to change the article title to push-up. We're not all Brits, you know." — we're not all North Americans, either! Normally, outside of national topics, no variety of English gets precedence on Wikipedia: it's normally "first come, first served", I'm afraid. I'm sorry if that means that you have to put up with the UK variant, but we put up with a lot of US-centric spellings elsewhere. Regarding charts of press-ups: I'm dubious about the value of these, as "excellent" and such classifications are inevitably subjective, and are dependent, to an extent on body weight and how quickly one performs the exercise. At least the one we have is sourced; if you have another chart from a reliable source, maybe we could use that. — Matt Crypto 23:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK yeah sorry...I was just basically agreeing with you, and I can be long-winded sometimes. You're right about the first-come first-serve rule; sorry about that too, I have nothing against Brits. Probably the line that says "North American English: push up" is sufficient". You're also right about the inherent flaw in subjective classifications. However, you can compare the number of pushups one does to what a test group of people can do, with percentiles. Perhaps we could include the chart at http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/home-pushup.htm with a brief disclaimer (i.e. your bodyweight will affect your test results and tests such as these are inherently subjective). The numbers on that chart seemed a little high, though. I managed to do 60 push-ups (or press-ups, if that's what you want to call it) last night with two breaks in the rhythm (not rest, just breaks in the rhythm), and it was really hard. Though I'm not the world's strongest man, I am pretty fit as I mentioned above. However, I think that even some really strong people would have a really hard time attaining the 56+ push-ups to fall into the "excellent" (yes, I know, it's fundamentally flawed) category in the chart. What do you guys think? I think the 46+ standard might be more accurate than the 56+ standard. By the way, I'm sorry if I offended anybody with my previous post. I will try to be more respectful to people speaking other variants of English in the future. —Peteweez 03:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a generalized chart is mediocre because it does not account for weight differences. It's easier for a lighter individual to do a given number of push ups than it is for heavier people. Shawnc 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existing charts on the page from the Army etc are very unclear. Nothing explains actually what the figures are. I assume they're number of push-ups but this isn't actually stated anywhere. EAi 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified. A little boldness never (usually) hurts! ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 01:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--"I managed to do 60 push-ups (or press-ups, if that's what you want to call it) last night with two breaks in the rhythm (not rest, just breaks in the rhythm), and it was really hard. Though I'm not the world's strongest man, I am pretty fit as I mentioned above. However, I think that even some really strong people would have a really hard time attaining the 56+ push-ups to fall into the "excellent" (yes, I know, it's fundamentally flawed) category in the chart. What do you guys think?"--
Is this 60 in one minute or 60 in total(without any stops)? as I can do 75+ (varies but almost always can get a 75 minimum) total and I am quite simply put not fit. Dont know how many I can do in a minute though as I have no stopwatch lol.
But as noone has done any indepth tests, there is really no way of knowing if 46 is a better number than 56 for a label of excellent so use whichever you prefer.
--"Such a generalized chart is mediocre because it does not account for weight differences. It's easier for a lighter individual to do a given number of push ups than it is for heavier people"--
No its not, heavier people have to do more work but they have more muscle mass with which to do that work so thusly more stamina.
Plus how do you actually do a hindu pressup as I did it as the article describes and it was so danmned easy that im faily sure its pointless.
Plus why is the circus pressup not listed? It is a variation I saw on a exercise forum, you rest your forearms on the ground with elbows pointing down the body and then straighten your arms, I used to find it quite easy (dont now lol) and I think its worth mention
And is the chart stating the standards for the US army accurate as I wouldn't call 71-75 the 99th percentile. (I know theres a source that I should use to check the validity but for some reason it wont load up on my comp...)- Craig Humphreys, your local excessive eater.

New plyometric exercise

Do a one arm push up. On the way up, clap hands with the free hand in mid air, then return to the one arm position without letting the free hand touch the ground. For increased difficulty, use less than five digits. I call it the one arm clap push up. (Original research) Shawnc 08:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption under the picture is snarky. And HILARIOUS. 24.175.10.61 04:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Please provide sources for this sort of thing:

Other notable cases of "marathon" pushups include Vick Larymes of USA (8,943)and Ying Tong Shoji of China (9,996) and Chris Elliott of Australia (10,004). The accepted "exceptional" level of pushups in men is >100

Otherwise it's too easy for someone to add themselves. — Matt Crypto 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


EDIT: I corrected the amount of pushups needed to pass the US Army Physical Fitness Test. It takes a score of 60% in each event, so it would require 42 push-ups for 17-21, et cetera... -AussieYank

Front delts , one arm pushups , planche pushups

First of all , in the real propper pushup (unlike the ones shown in any of the images)

the arms are tucked in 45 degrees from the torso , this is done to reduce the wear and tear on the shoulder joint and rotator cuff muscles , and be able to use the triceps and front deltroids evently with the chest , people who train at home soley with bodyweight should select excersises that train as many muscles as possible because they otherwise won't be able to train the front deltroids untill they can do harder variation of presses like dips. and you can't do more repetitions with this technique , sicne due to the reduced levrage you life more weight each rep , so it gets down to using your chest and triceps for the same intensity as normal pushups , but getting more training for your time.

actually that's the same technique athletes (not body builders however) bench press as well.


also I want to reccomend adding a section about one armed pushups , and planche pushups thath ave been gettnig a lot of attention in many bodyweight training forums on the internet lately , they are pretty impressive and make the article much better by making it more interesting to read. many wikipedia articles are so plain that I literally fall asleep or get extreamly drowsy when I have to read them as a source of information.


by the way: sorry for my bad english , that's why I'm asking someone else to write it , however I might write any imformation you need about it here if anyone would like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.41.110 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

don't martial artists do push-ups on their knuckles for various reasons? is this addressed in the article?

I thought martial artists did pushups on their first 2 knuckles of each hand to 1) deaden the nerves there 2)strengthen the muscles in the same line as the punch/strike 3) get used to having pressure / a way to simulate hitting something on those 2 knuckles and aligning your wrists properly. That was only what I imagined though - I don't have any experience. Tkjazzer 21:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed, though I'm not sure if those are the correct reasons or not. 75.83.141.204 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, but almost all reasons are wrong - on knuckles only leads to injuries unless you totally destroy the nerve cells. This is accomplished after you have destroyed the tendons runnig over your knuckles base - e.g. you cant even pick up a cup of coffee anymore as these tendons control your finger movement. Martial artists train a lot of bad stuff, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.232.209.152 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits

There should be a section explaining all the benefits of doing push ups. Son of Kong

Fitness Levels

While I agree that this is interesting (to a point), why just showcase the U.S. military's fitness levels? Why not the U.K.'s or Mexico's or even Canada's military fitness levels? It seems somewhat crass to automatically utilize one nations definition, especially considering that Wikipedia is a global initiative. Matthew Cadrin 05:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to assess if that would really be interesting (it might, and I'ld like to find out) we should have similar data from one or more other countries, supposing those exist (probably some), and see if they are significantly different. My guess (nothing more) is NATO- and other Western countries are likely to have fairly similar standards, but third world and/or (ex-)communist nations, especially non-former colonies, such as China or Thailand, may well surprise us. Arcarius 12:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and I've tagged it. Actually, the raw data somewhat dominates the article as it stands. I would suggest splitting the information out into an article such as Requirements for push-ups in the United States military, or something. — Matt Crypto 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animation of Press-Up

The animation of a press-up should be removed. The animation is very distracting while trying to read the text to the left of it, there is no pause button, and as stated in the caption, he is using poor form anyway. I will remove this picture. Please respond here as well as copying your responce on my personal talk page. --TyGuy92 01:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having images is better than leaving the article unillustrated. We do assert that the exercise being performed with what's considered imperfect form, but the images are perfectly adequate to show someone what the exercise is all about, even if it's not adequate to show someone how to perform it themself. Wikipedia is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive. (I have not copied this response to your page. The burden is on you to monitor the talk pages that you're interested in). — Matt Crypto 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for posting poor pictures is that it is better than nothing. I could not disagree with that more. If Wikipedia is truly aiming for quality, it would not have poor examples with captions saying "Ignore this, ignore that." Or "Even though he's doing it wrong, this is sorta what is looks like." It's like your gym teacher demonstrating it, screwing it up, and saying "Even though I can't do it, you get the idea." I would really appreciate it if you would leave the pictures off. If it means so much to you to have a picture on there, take a picture of yourself doing a proper pushup, waive any copyright claims, and post it.

Also, has there ever been a serious debate over animations playing alongside the article? I for one find it extremely distracting. Perhaps pausing the amimation with a link leading to a playing version of it? Several times (not on the Wikipedia) I've gone to a site that annoying ads that keep catching your eye when your trying to read and decided just to use a different site. I don't beleive even an informative animation is much better.

--TyGuy92 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If it means so much to you to have a picture on there, take a picture of yourself doing a proper pushup, waive any copyright claims, and post it." — or I could say to you, if it means so much to you to have a photograph with proper form, create one yourself. Wikipedia is indeed aiming for the highest level of quality, but we don't have to insist on perfection or nothing. Regarding animations, I don't know if we have any style guide recommendations (I wouldn't be surprised if we did), but there are quite a few articles which include animations, not least a number of Featured Pictures, and they are rendered inline. — Matt Crypto 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matt. I think the article is better with the images than without them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To stop the animation just hit stop in your browser. Animation problem solved. The rest of this discussion can continue. MrVibrating (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that just isn't right. You should not have inaccurate information. We're not talking about perfection, we're talking about correct or incorrect. The picture is misleading, not to mention the fact that it just isn't professional to have a picture like that on there. And your little comment about "I could say the same about you" is just childish. Come on. I'm not saying I want a picture on there, I'm just saying it shouldn't be an inaccurate one. For an administrator, you're awfully petty and not very motivated for change, it could even be said that you are afraid of it. Going back to our terminology debate, you don't care about the vast majority of people who use push up instead of press up, you just want to keep using your Queen's English that nobody else in the world uses. Both Canada and the U.S. use push up. Nobody in these two nations uses the phrase press up. The U.S. and Canada combined have 350 million people. The U.K. has around 60 mil. I can tell that you are just a selfish bastard who doesn't care about the vast majority or people in the world, just your little island. Think about it.--TyGuy92 22:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not inaccurate: because one should never have an image without an appropriate caption, they must be considered together. And the reservations about a poor execution of a press up is clearly stated in both captions. So, taken together, the information is not inaccurate. It is true that the images could be improved so that any reservations need not be put in the captions, but that has already been conceded by people: as they said, if you can find images that can be licensed appropriately and which are better, you should place them in the article in place of the ones there. Additionally, I'm sad to see you seem to have violated WP:CIVIL in the last sentences, and this is especially notable given that you made a complaint about Matt on WP:AN/I alleging improper behaviour, and incivility seems to go against the spirit of wikipedia. This is the second such example of incivility on your part today which some could view as indicating some kind of anti-UK feeling (I removed the first case earlier), and I would like to gently advise you to take more care in your writing.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record stretch, none of this would have been started if Matt didn't like blocking minor changes to satisfy his need for power. Also, I noticed that you didn't remove the comment I was responding to that was insulting the U.S. by acting arrogant and snobbish and your final sentence sounds a little like a threat, doesn't it?--TyGuy92 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like a threat to me. It sounds like (good) advice, which you're of course free to take or leave, as you see fit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but the voting to move the article to a different name was initiated by someone seperate from me months ago and had been at a stand still, with several times more votes in favor of moving the page than against it, when I took it upon myself to move it as a clear consensus had been arrived upon. It wasn't until I moved it that Matt stepped in and started blocking my actions, as I've stated, most likely because he wanted his British dialect to reign superior over the masses. Kind of elitist, isn't it? Anyway, since I moved the article and questioned why, I've been getting dismissive responses from Matt, and apparantly this topic hads gained some sort of notoriety as more votes started rolling in recently. Look at the dates on the votes. I had every right to move the article.--TyGuy92 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any discussion over the proper name for the article should be split off from discussion about the images, as the two issues are not equivalent. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-3rr edit war

Since the survey was closed, in which a decision for no change occurred, this page has had 3 incidents in which all but one occurrences of "press up" changed to "push up". I reverted the latest one and have posted a message to WP:AN/I#Press up to ask for advice on how to proceed to prevent this from happening, since I think this is becoming a slow, disruptive edit war. In the message, I have mentioned User:Tyguy92 and User:Matt Crypto.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have received a response to my enquiry at WP:AN/I#Press up, and include the relevant part here:

Since the article remains at press up that term should be used throughout the article and changing it is inappropriate. Tyguy92 should be warned of this and reminded that he is violating the 3RR in spirit and could still be blocked for disruption, but hopefully it won't come to that.

Another user has completed the task of having the term "press up" used consistently throughout the article. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with leaving it at this title, and with using it throughout for consistency, but could we maybe clarify in the lead a little more that "press up" is the British usage and "push up" the US usage? Hopefully that would stop the arguing, and it would also make it clearer for US readers what we're talking about, since they probably haven't heard the term press up. Pinball22 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it probably would be helpful. Thanks for the suggestion. I've added a little clarification, but perhaps that could still be improved upon?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's good... I linkified British English and American English. Pinball22 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it better! Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated at WP:AN/I#Press up, it is a mistake to jump from seeing a lack of consensus to change the article to "Push up," to then determining that all uses of the term must be removed from the article. It is not a spelling or grammar question, such as is addressed by WP:ENGVAR. If the photo of the U.S. Marine recruit is included in the article, for instance, the caption should refer to him doing a "push up" as the term is used in the U.S. Marines, and as it is stated on the caption, the summary, and name of said image. As is, it creates the false impression that the usage would be recognized in the U.S. Our purpose should be to inform, not to have winners and losers. See the article Elevator, where the devices in a photo from the U.K. are referred to as "lifts," and where accidents involving them in the U.K. are called "lift accidents." I suggest restoring "push up" in the caption of the photo of the Marine. Edison 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301#Press up. Edison (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would now support such a move, having heard its justification. It would be more clear and sensitive to local language use. Would any problem be likely to occur if this article were ever put up for GA or FA status by this? If so, I think the reasons you provide would probably suffice.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone can find/create drawings of proper and improper form, since I am wondering if singling out a particular non-notable soldier as "the guy who uses bad form" may violate WP:BLP. The notation about improper form did not come with the photo originally, and was original research added 22:15, 14 December 2005 by a Wikipedia editor. The original caption just said he "counts out push-ups before completing the strength and endurance course here May 18." "Counting out" would seem to involve raising the head and shouting, giving a perhaps false impression of poor form. If we keep it, perhaps the original caption should be used, without the criticism. I suggest "U.S. Marine recruits count out push-ups during training." Edison 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is important in an article and we tend to use the title term throughout even in sections dedicated to a country that uses a different spelling. See cheque, for example. It is jarring to readers to have to switch from one form to another in different parts of an article. violet/riga (t) 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument does not address my previous observation that in the article Elevator the British term "lift" is appropriate used in the photo caption showing lifts in a British tube station. The virtue of consistent spelling does not extend to the less sensible consistency of changing the photo caption to say a U.S. Marine is doing "press ups" when that term would never be used and would probably not be recognized by U.S. native speakers of English. The photo caption is what is truly jarring. Remember what Emerson said about consistency. Edison 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not clear that elevator should mix in the British term "lift". Using one term within the scope of a single article is a pretty sensible compromise between the extremes of, on the one hand, having the entire encyclopedia standardised on one fixed variant of English, and, on the other, alternating different language variants so freely that the text is harder to understand. Perhaps seeing a US Marine labelled as doing a "press up" is jarring to you merely because you are from the US? What does it matter if a US native speaker would never describe it as such? Really, there is no reason to believe it gives a "false impression that the usage would be recognized in the US", and we are under no obligation to caption photographs in the preferred language style of the people being photographed. — Matt Crypto 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"?  DDStretch  (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting aside, the Doug Pruden photo shows him holding two certificates from Guinness World Records; one uses "push ups" while the other uses "push-ups". violet/riga (t) 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, interesting, I'd noticed that too. — Matt Crypto 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of spelling or grammar, which is what the Manual of Style addresses. Please cite the policy or guideline which says editors may only use one region's or country's term for something throughout the article about it, based on which country's editors created the first stub article about the subject, which would require talking about "elevators in the underground stations of London." Allowing regionally appropriate terms to be used makes an article easier to understand, not harder. Edison 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We won't agree. Both sides can cite other articles that use the convention they support but there is no policy or guideline that states which way we should go. All we can do is try and gain a consensus for each article individually, but given that this is quite a low traffic talk page I'm not sure that we will have a significant number of people discussing it. violet/riga (t) 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a discussion of this belongs at the Manual of Style talk page. AN/I, where I encountered the discussion, is certainly not the right venue, and see merit in a uniform practice for all such articles as Elevator and Press up. "Two nations, divided by a common language" as Shaw said. (edited)Edison 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR advises consistency of a national variety of English within a single article. — Matt Crypto 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see that as requiring grammar and spelling consistency within an article, but it does not address "press up/push up" or "lift/elevator" variation within an article.Edison 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does address that. The guideline is about national varieties of English. (Airplane vs aeroplane is mentioned specifically in the guideline). The principles are entirely applicable. — Matt Crypto 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, if one reads WP:ENGVAR carefully, it directs one to refer to American and British English differences for guidance, which contains a section (American and British English differences#Lexis (Vocabulary)) dealing with differences in vocabulary, which is what this is. Consequently, the issue is not as clearly separate from WP:ENGVAR issues as you may think, Edison. I agree. It probably needs to be clarified by discussion on an appropriate Manual of Style Discussion page.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I will beWP:BOLD and change the Marine photo caption to one which is free of WP:OR. Edison 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with OR. Further, it's not good to "be bold" when you already know there's disagreement with your change on the talk page. WP:ENGVAR advises consistency within an article. — Matt Crypto 07:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely original research to say "(Note: it is generally considered poor form to round the back while performing the exercise)." This is the statement of a Wikipedia editor, and does not come from a reliable and independent source. I will revert this caption to one consistent with the text which accompanied the photo when it was uploaded to Wikipedia. You are free to find another illustration of bad form. The Manual of Style absolutely does not authorize you to insist that only one country's term be used exclusively in an article, It in fact suggests that a neutral term, such as "fixed wing aircraft" be found in preferance to either "airplane" or "aeroplane." Again I refer you to the precedent of the term "lift" being used for British elevators. Edison 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again I refer you to the precedent of cheque. Edit warring like this is highly inappropriate when we are in mid-conversation about the issue. violet/riga (t) 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎#"Press up" and "Push up". Edison 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Manual of Style talk page I do not see support for the view expressed here by Violetriga and Matt Crypto that the "Push up" term is not allowed in the article (other than in the introduction). I propose that the photo of the Marine and the photo of the Canadian push-up champion be changed from "press up" to "push up" and that all other uses in the article (except for the mention of the other term in the intro paragraph and perhaps the short section on the history of the term) be left at "press up." This seems consistent with several other articles I listed in the MOS talk page, where there is some sharing. I see no good reason to change the article title or the rest of the usages in it. I noted above that the poll on name change was running strongly in favor of an overall change to "Push up" until a notice was added to the UK Wikipedians' page informing them of the pending change, which resulted in an influx of "press up" supporters. I even checked the Spanish Wikipedia to see how they handle a language shared across the Atlantic, in the article on potatoes, where one tradition calls them "papa" and the other calls them "patata." After an acrimonious debate they decided sharing was better, so the article has one title but the other is by no means excluded. Again, I make a distinction between spelling and grammar, which is addressed by WP:ENGVAR and allowing some appropriate use of the other term, as in photo captions. Edison 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of this at the "manual of style" page is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 92#"Press up" and "Push up:" Are articles limited to one country's term?. No finding that an article is limited strictly to one national variant term, as is the case for spelling or grammar. Edison 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "cheque" and "aeroplane" precedents cited above are cases of variant SPELLING, not variant vocabulary. In numerous articles where either the U.S. or the British term for something dominates the article, the other country's term makes several appearances. In the article Rooster the British term "cock" is applied to a photo of a U.S. bird, whose image is actually tagged "Image:Rooster relaxing in sunlight.jpg". In the article Eggplant (U.S. term) the British term "aubergine" is used repeatedly. In the article "Elevator" the British term "lift" is used. In the article Windshield ((U.S. term), the British term "windscreen" appears numerous times. In the article Wrench (U.S. term) the British term "spanner" appears numerous times. When the editors who here revert to solely British terminology from a sense that vocabulary variation is forbidden, go to the articles I've cited and remove the British variants, then I will be more willing to believe the reversions are done for the sake of compliance with some strict interpretation of WP:ENGVAR. Please cite other Wikipedia articles where any attempt to use other than one country's term is strictly forbidden despite atempts by editors to apply it to instances of its occurrence in the other country. Why not compromise and allow "push up" for the photo captions of the Marine and the championship, and for description of these images, where "pushup" is the term originally used by the creator of the image? I would argue against any wider switch to "push up" than related to the the two images. Edison 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has displayed a case of WP:OWNERSHIP in that there has been an unwillingness on the part of those preferring "press-up" to do more than blindly revert any introduction of the non-British term when it is introduced in appropriate places in the article. Please engage here in dialogue to reach a consensus rather than showing a determination to use only the term preferred in Britain by blindly reverting and incorrectly citing WP:ENGVAR. Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, one could argue that you've shown an unwillingness to do anything other than sneakily try and change the article to "push up" every other week, hoping that noone will notice. Consensus has already been reached at WP:ENGVAR globally for the project, and it's a reasonable compromise. That's what will be applied here. It's regrettable that it's difficult for you to accept a different regional term than the one you're used to, but you'll just have to live with it. End of story. — Matt Crypto 07:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article history absolutely does not support your incivil accusation that I "sneakily try and change the article to 'push up' every other week,hoping that noone will notice." I have openly (never "sneakily") advocated that this article, like the other ones I have listed, allow an alternate term where it is helpful and appropriate, as in the two photos which show a push-up champion Pruden and a U.S. Marine doing "push ups" according to the original captions. In the discussion in September, DDstretch (September 21) agreed with me that the two photo captions could appropriately use the "pushup" term. Other editors have several times this year introduced the "push up" term where it has seemed to them appropriate, and you have reverted immediately to your preferred version: [2] ,[3] , [4] , [5] , [6]. I agree with your re-insertion of "pressup" [7] where someone removed the term altogether. On two occasions, I reverted once to the other user's version, but you immediately reverted back to your preferred version, without any discussion here. I thank you for rejoining the discussion at this time. Your words apply equally to you: "It's regrettable that it's difficult for you to accept a different regional term than the one you're used to." The discussion about the use of regional variant terms at the Manual of Style did not support your rigid interpretation, which apparently only applies to this one article, since you have not to my knowledge made any move to remove the British terms from the other articles listed with a title from other English speaking countries where the British term appears several times. Edison (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion is pointless, the topic is, as far as I'm concerned, resolved: WP:ENGVAR. — Matt Crypto 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you see further discussion as pointless, and you refuse to allow this article like the others I have cited to use even two occurrences of a different regional term than the one you are accustomed to, then this should go to one of the forms of conflict resolution available to Wikipedians who disagree about policies, guidelines, or content for an article. Your continuation to immediately revert anyone else's editorial changes introducing such a term while citing an inapplicable Manual of Style provision constitutes intransigent edit warring. Edison (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others....Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar....If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. (WP:ENGVAR). Note particularly the word "consistently". — Matt Crypto 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are in total agreement: I would not want an article to alternate between different spellings (check/cheque) or grammar. But "push" is not a different spelling of "press" nor is it a difference of grammar, so the passage you cited in no way prevents using "push up" in the caption of a photo of a U.S. Marine doing push-ups, anymore than it prevents talking about "lifts"(British term) dozens of times in the Elevator(North American term) article or "cock" (British term) dozens of times in the Rooster (U.S, Australia) article or "aubergines"(British term) numerous times in the Eggplant(North American, Australian, New Zealand term) article. Just looking for a little willingness to share, in the same way that is done in the other articles cited in these discussions. Edison (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the guideline, WP:ENGVAR as a whole is clearly not just talking about spelling, but different varieties of English. I've now clarified this on the guideline. A single article should use a single variety of English throughout with regards to terms, just as for spelling and grammar, and for the same reason. — Matt Crypto 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I have started a discussion related to your change to the Manual of Style at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New prohibition against regionally variant terms in articles to see if there is a consensus for the change you wish to make, and to see if other editors agree that your change is just a clarification of what WP:ENGVAR actually meant as opposed to a drastic alteration of its meaning. Pending the emergence of a consensus, I have reverted your change to WP:ENGVAR back to the old version, which said only that spelling and grammar should be consistent throughout an article. Discussion related to the Manual of Style should take place on that discussion page. As you said above, ".. it's not good to "be bold" when you already know there's disagreement with your change on the talk page." Edison (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR does indeed apply to all the differences between the common languages which divide us. But the strength of ENGVAR is its benefit to the encyclopedia, and no more: it is disconcerting to the reader to flip back and forth between British and American without a good reason. It is also disconcerting to see the USMC doing press-ups, which they do not do; especialy if the reader has been to Parrish Island. I hope my tweak, introducing "push ups" in quotation marks, because the subjects of the picture call them that, will permit all concerned to turn to things of more use to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Matt Crypto has not bothered to discuss my proposal of "push ups" in quotes; he also seems to be the only voice, here or on WT:MOS, endorsing his extreme interpretation of WP:ENGVAR (If, as seems indicated, the British is in fact press-up, this is doubly bizarre.) He nevertheless claims absence of consensus. Let's find out.

Approval poll

This is a survey, not a vote, to see where we stand. The question is the caption under the picture of the U.S. Marine, which now reads U.S. Marines count out press-ups.

Please indicate all you can accept of the following (or add another):

push up
"push up"
press up
Article title
press-up

Discussion

I do not believe, as I have said above, that press-up is mandated by WP:ENGVAR. Its only merit is to avoid disconcerting and arbitrary changes of dialect, and it provides for other explicit exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many articles have a British-English title due to who first edited the article, and get a redirect from the term used in other English speaking countries. Or they have North American English title. In the several articles cited above, other regional variant terms (not spellings for the same term) are allowed to appear. Why should this article be different? It would be a case of the tail wagging the dog for one editor's preference in this article to justify changing the manual of style for Wikipedia. which would authorize (or mandate) making each and every article mono-regional. Edison (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is pointless because we already have a consensus guideline for this -- WP:ENGVAR. I think it's pretty poor form to come to an article and try and inject your term at the expense of another. Please spend your time on something worthwhile. — Matt Crypto 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus consists mostly of you, yourself. Others disagree. Edison (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some discussion of this at WT:MOS, with a complete lack of consensus for your interpretation. The general feeling so far is that there's always room for exceptions, especially in captions, sections, specific contexts, etc, that clearly apply to a different regional variation. SamBC(talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i can certainly agree with the notion of having the title-term as the preferred term in an article, and then having other regional terms used when the article specifically deals with the topic as it occurs in that country, like using petrol when referring to Gasoline use in Australia. Even more so, when this article refers to a champion such as Doug Pruden winning a pushup championship, as attested by the certificate he held, it should use pushup in the caption, not press up. Reference to Pruden has been removed altogether for some reason, although there was considerable disagreement about what the caption should say. We still have the photo of the U.S. MArine doing pushups (per the caption which came with the photo when it was imported to Wikipedia, and Matt has mutiple times reverted the caption to say he is doing press ups, a term he or North Americans in general would not recognize. I hope there is no move to quash the issue by removing the photo. Edison (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The emerging consensus at WP:ENGVAR calls for the U.S. Marine photo to have push up rather than press up. Is this acceptable? Edison (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but laugh a little. First, no God-fearing U.S. Marine would ever call a "push up" a "press up". Ask a Marine that in person and they'll give you a "What the hell are you talking about" look. Second, it is beyond obvious that the term "push up" is an earlier term and used in a much much more frequent basis. So we're basically ignoring the consensus of society in general in terms of some Wikipedia policy? ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I spoke above in favour of "push up" in the specific context of the photo caption, "press up" is the term used in Britain and some people in Britain might not understand "push up". Wikipedia convention and consensus is that spelling (and terminology?) should be kept in the "dialect" first used by the article, at least for non-national articles.[8] Thincat (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse the need for consistency of spelling (color/colour) with the variation seen in many articles as seen by the freqeunt cases where the alternate term, such as "cock" is used in the Rooster article, or where the alternate term "aubergine" is seen in the Eggplant article, or where the alternate term "lift" makes frequent appearances in the Elevator article. This should not be the only article in Wikipedia where someone's strong preferance for their own regional term uses a mistaken interpretation of WP:ENGVAR which is not born out by the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#New prohibition against regionally variant terms in articles to prevent the appropriate use of the other regional term in a photo caption of a U.S. Marine doing a push up. Edison (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And 'First, no God-fearing U.S. Marine would ever call a "push up" a "press up".' makes it sound like calling a press-up a press-up is a heathen thing to do, or something. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Marines count out push-ups - the guys not doing them properly

The guy at the front of the pic has an arched back.Thats not a press up and encourages bad form in those that read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.16.70 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a couple of times before. The marines are clearly doing press-ups / push-ups. They might well be doing them badly, but the question then is who decides what constitutes "good form"? The issue of what is and isn't "bad form" needs to be driven by a reliable sources. I don't have any myself, perhaps others do. — Matt Crypto 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a usable image showing an ideal pressup, a pressup with some typical defect, and a pressup with some other typical defect, the article would be improved. Since there is but one photo of the Marine, we can't tell if the U.S. Marine Corps trains recruiteds to do pushups badly, or if this man did 50 perfect pushups then raised his head to shout "Fifty" (as it says he is "counting out pushups" in the original caption). We know nothing about his form in the course of the performance of the complete exercise, just a frozen view. Pressups are done more often and intensely in militaryt training than in any other pursuit I can think of, except perhaps in pushup competitions, and there the emphasis is probably on how many rather than how well. An illustration of a military recruit doing a perfect pushup would be better than one with arguably bad form. It is original research for someone here to analyze the form based on posture perhaps after completing the exercise. Edison (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks wrong though. It's kind of sad watching someone in the military fail at doing a proper push up klosterdev (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think the angle of the picture exaggerates it, because the head is closer to the foreground and so any arch is magnified by the perspective. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido variation

See http://youtube.com/watch?v=X79LlPDmpOM and http://www.aikidofaq.com/practice/a_section31.html

They're intended to strengthen the wrists for the various wrist locks and throws performed in Aikido. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga variation

Chaturanga Dandasana is an important part of Surya Namaskara, the Sun Salutation sequence of yoga postures. It has some similarities to a push up, but the elbows are held in fairly close. See http://www.yogajournal.com/poses/469. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbsears (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very likely that this or the "Dand" or the Surya Nemaskar were the original exercises on which the pushup was based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsunlin (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

Let's ignore all previous debate. Now someone tell me why the WikiPEDIA article is called "Press up" while wikiMedia has it listed as "Push up"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulumonkey (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I've never heard of press-up being popular anywhere but Britain. klosterdev (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Push-Up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been down this road. There is a guideline called WP:ENGVAR which notes that the British and North American/US versions of English are both "correct." If an article relates to the U.S., (a U.S. President, for instance) it should use U.S. spellings and terminology. If it relates to the U.K. (places, events or people in England, for instance) it should use British spelling and terminology. If it is not specially related to one or the other, then Wikipedia follows the usage first made explicit, as shown by the history of edits to the article. The Brits tagged this article first. The other term gets explained in the intro, and is appropriate for a section particularly about the other country or region. In the Elevator article, we talk about "lifts" in the London underground system. When showing a U.S. Marine doing the exercise. it is appropriate to use "pushup" in this article. Arguments about changing "Color" to "colour" or Maize to "corn" are pointless. While some use of the alternate term is common, the spelling of a given word should be constant throughout an article, such as "check" or "cheque" Exceptions to the constant spelling rule include proper names of institutions. Edison (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planche push ups

The paragraph on planche push ups said "In this variation, the exercise is the equivalent of a person lifting 80% of his or her body weight." This doesn't seem to make sense to me (why wouldn't it be 100%?), is uncited, and I can find no evidence for it on the Google, so I removed it. — Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a good example?

The animation of that old guy doing a push-up is bad. His feet are spread apart and his palms are badly positioned, also his back doesn't seem right. I'd upload one of me doing it in proper form but I don't have the equipment. Now what's all of your excuses for not uploading a good one? You're probably obese nerds. Oh well. 63.225.247.82 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feet spread apart is not an issue. Palm positioning, while it may be an issue, is not that critical since you can either do pushups with palms below the shoulders or where the forearm results in a 90 degree angle. Also, palm positioning can't really be moved anywhere else (since this is an animation of a full press-up.) I see no issue with the back; it seems straight enough. Also, you only need to purchase a simple web-cam to record your own animation; there's more than enough photoediting software available (especially free ones) where you can create an animated .GIF. --Sigma 7 (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name compromise

Why don't we just leave the title as "press up" and then use the term "push up" in the article itself. Seems like a fair compromise? 202.67.76.202 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no compelling reason to. — Matt Crypto 17:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Matt, per WP:ENGVAR, with only exceptions like referring to U.S. Marines doing pushups.. See previous discussions on this talk page. Edison (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being stupid

I can see why we might stick with whichever was used first in a case like defense v. defence, criminalise v. criminalize but the fact is "push up" and "press up" are totally different words. 1) In most cases the British term is used in New Zealand, Australia and most English speaking nations minus the US. In this instance however the entire world uses "push up" except for the UK. 2) Push up is FAR more common. 3) Push up is the original term. 4) A google test reveals that there are 18,000,000 hits for "push up" and 700,000 for "press up". HOWEVER, the majority of references to press up are not in reference to the exercise. Searching: "Push Up" exercise yields 18,000,000 hits, Searching: "press up" exercise yeilds just 57,000! In other words as a term "push up" is more than 200 TIMES more common. To even be debating which term we use here is utterly ridiculous.

Futhermore I looked up the terms "push up" and "press up" on UK google and hit the "pages from the UK" button. Even in the UK the term push up is TEN TIMES more common. So essentially here we have a case of the "Entire English Speaking World plus 90% of the UK" v. "The other 10% of the UK" and somehow we retain the term "press up". COME ON? 211.26.143.225 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Firstly, looking at hits on UK Google is a stupid way to gauge how much a word is used. Secondly, who really cares about how common it is or whether it's original, on a website which uses "sulfur" over "sulphur" et.c. Thirly, "press-up" and "push-up" or pretty similar words which have a fairly obvious meaning and both redirect to this page, and there is an explanatory introduction at the top of the page just as there is at the top of every other page with multiple redirects. Nobody is going to be confused by this (unless they're pretty stupid) so what's the point of changing it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Push up is clearly the more common word used. I never even heard press up before today.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take the time to read previous discussions on the topic, as well as Wikipedia policy: WP:ENGVAR. — Matt Crypto 12:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on moving

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below (I say push-up). Dekimasuよ! 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to look over the Manual of Style, specifically:

Emphasis is added on early, this article is no longer in an early stage. As for the compelling reason to change let's look at what the Manual says on national ties:

So I guess it's been decided that this article really has no national ties. But what is the intent behind this section of the Manual anyways?

Isn't that what is essentially happening now? This term is only used in the UK, with push-up being used in every other English speaking country in the world. This term appears to be in the minority in the UK itself [9] [10] This is definitely resulting in the article being read overwhelming "in another national dialect."

I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should be following longstanding intent not going by the longstanding letter of a guideline. Rules should be broken to improve the encyclopedia. 168.7.247.217 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll be honest and say i've never heard this called a "press-up". I have only seen it referred to as a push-up. From what I have seen this is by far the most common name for it. TJ Spyke 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The criterion is "if an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety". The argument that "I've never heard" another variety of English is not valid, nor is that it is less popular than another variety of English. — Matt Crypto 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the exception to this criteon is based on strong national ties to the subject. This "primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect." Except in this case it's the whole world (except a small minority of the UK) reading it in another dialect. An article should not use a minority local dialect when there is already an internationally accepted one. This would be like me writing an article in physics and using the US customary system and me subsequently following the article for several consecutive years and arguing against it being converted to the metrics. As stated Wikipedia has an:
There does not appear to be any compelling reason not to use an international scope in this article by using an internationally used term.

168.7.249.244 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, "The criterion is "if an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety". — Matt Crypto 20:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the exception to this criterion is based on strong national ties to the subject. 168.7.249.244 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be wrong, sir. My best friend is in the U.S. Marines & makes fun of how they have to call push-ups "press-ups" now.... 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Why bother with all the drama of "My country's version is Best!!!!!!" Per WP:ENGVAR, the Brits tagged this topic first. Use redirects and explain the other term in the intro. We have the precedent in this article to use "push-up" when in a U.S -specific section, like training of U.S. Marines. That is as obvious as having an Elevator article but using "lift" when referring to units attached to the London tube system. Edison (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't US vs UK. The term push-up is used internationally and is the large majority in the UK itself. This is an international term vs a minority regional dialect. There may be precedent to go with the argument "the Brits tagged it first" but it doesn't stand here because:

Not to mention the intent behind the specific guideline is to avoid unnecessary national ties- exactly the opposite of what the policy is being used for in this article. I can't see how "I got here first, so I'm not going to allow anyone to make the article more accessible to international audience" is acceptable in this ridiculous case. Don't be fooled into reading the guideline by the letter, the entire purpose of it is accessibility. 168.7.255.158 (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intent behind WP:ENGVAR is to suppress provincial arguments like this, from all corners of the English-speaking world. There are two forms; learn to live with it; the OED calls press-up "now more common", which should certainly be decisive for the UK. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Knepflerle (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the intent was to suppress arguments over two equally prevalent forms. Not to allow one peculiar form that exists in one country to keep hold on an article that is read the world-over. Most English speakers don't even know what "press-up" means. To me it seems like something a creepy dude does to a girl in a club. –xenotalk 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sir. That would be to favor American English, as most prevalent. Despite being my native tongue, I oppose imposition of it encyclopedia-wide. (We should not permit the lack of international fluency, on any side, determine this issue; there have been equally misguided campaigns against "Americanisms I've never heard of". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not American English. There are other countries in the world than America and England. If anything, I would say it's "common" English. Are there any places other than the UK that say "press-up"? –xenotalk 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, yes. Australia, for example, where they have to define "triceps push-ups" as being "basically the same as a normal press-up except the hands are just less than shoulder width apart." "A call to arms", from the Sun Herald of Sydney, October 22, 2000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They let Australians on the Internet? =) Anywhere else, though? I understand the cease-fire on BrE vs. AmE when the usages are close to equal and equally recognizable. But when the BrE is so obscure that it's unrecognizable to the majority of readers I don't think it's helpful to blindly follow this guideline. –xenotalk 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Britain and Australia aren't enough, what would be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If close to half of the List of countries where English is an official language used "press-up", I could see leaving the article in place. However, if there's only 2, then no. –xenotalk 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this differ from "Always adopt Americanisms unless one can find the usage of the Solomon Islands?" If so, how? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose moving articles because American monoglots don't know any better, just as I strongly oppose moving articles in American because English or (more commonly) Commonwealth monoglots don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the fact that the ONLY country that uses "press-up" is the UK, and even in the UK it is very common to use "push-up". If this was the other way around and the US was the only one using the term, people like you would be bitching and moaning saying we should use the term used by most of the world. Well, most of the world uses push-up, so that is what the article should be called (not some obscure term that is used by only 1 country). Even if you include Australia, so what? Most of the English speasking word (US, Canada, Bahamas, New Zealand, etc.) uses push-up. Why should it remain at some oddball name just because 2 countries use it while the majority of the world does not? TJ Spyke 20:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WP:ENGVAR exists for the sole purpose of pointing out why discussions like this are an utter waste of everybody's time. Every single fluent speaker of any variety of English can search for either name, read the opening words ("A press-up, also known as a push-up..."), and get on with the rest of the article, enjoying the swathes of unsourced text with no impairment to comprehension. The title is a complete non-issue with respect to this article. Knepflerle (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Exactly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accessibility and an international scope should preside over the minor inconvenience of converting the article away from it's minority region-specific dialect. Everyone seems to comment on how much this discussion is a waste of time, in an attempt to dismiss any attempt for improvement. How come no one notices how the same select editor keeps coming back for this discussion each time? If someone monitors an article for 5 consecutive years and is most always the first or second response within mere hours of the discussion creation, clearly this issue is of much importance and should be considered with much care! 168.7.246.87 (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr/MS Anonymous Editor 168.7.246.87, please assume good faith and do not impugn the motives of editors with views differing from yours. It's called having a "watchlist," which anyone with an account can create by clicking a tab at the top of the page. It tells you when any of the hundreds of articles you have edited/are interested in gets a change. Let's not restart the silliness of whether Colour should be Color etc. See WP:ENGVAR and go on with life. 24.13.87.201 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The only assumption of bad faith was in your comment. The prior comment only stated that this issue is clearly more important than others claim if it solicits this type of long-term near-immediate attention. 128.249.96.252 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move - I am neither American nor British, and today is the first time I have heard the term "press-up". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Jafeluv (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In looking at the article history, the first version gives equal billing to the two variations of the spelling in the actual text, however only one was chosen for the article. In reading the article you learn that push-up has been used since 1905–11,[1] and the British English term press-up was first recorded 1945–50.[2] So it is clear that the term push-up predates the term press-up by 40 years. Personally the older, original term that is still widely used should be the one used at the main name space. I think that simply arguing WP:ENGVAR ignores the section on 'Strong national ties to a topic'. Clearly to Americans who apparently created their term, there are national ties to a very specific spelling. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In looking at the article history, the first version gives equal billing to the two variations of the spelling in the actual text". No, actually, I did not. I used "press up" four times, and for the article title, and mentioned "push up" once as an alternative name for the exercise: [11] Furthermore, the idea one term predates another creates "strong national ties to a topic" is just invalid. Remember that the principle is, "primarily intended to avoid the (unlikely) case in which an article that will be overwhelmingly read by one nationality has been written in another national dialect." (WP:ENGVAR) Or are you also advocating that we use "aeroplane" rather than "airplane" everywhere, for the same reason? — Matt Crypto 06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Being outside of both the US and the UK, I've only ever heard of "push-up" in reference to the exercise. I also should add that whichever destination is decided, the wording throughout the entire article should use the namesake term. In the image of US marines performing the exercise, for example. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ENGVAR, even though I've called them Push-ups for as long as I can remember. WP:ENGVAR exists for a good reason, and leaving this article with the apparently obscure terminology may just be a slight annoyance caused by having a policy/guideline that does much more more good than harm. As others have pointed out, the alternate name redirects to this article so nobody is really harmed. BTW: I'm a New Zealander and am surprised to hear that press-up is normal NZ usage; it's possibly acceptable NZ usage, but they were definitely called push-ups when inflicted on us at school (Yes, I know that's WP:OR, so please feel free to ignore the personal anecdote, the Oppose stands regardless.) Kiore (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC

Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been twenty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might prefer it the other way, but i would prefer even more than that not to waste time discussing the issue. If anyone has some extra time, & want's something tedious to do, there's a long list of maintenance backlogs. DGG (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one simple compromise

The other day I made a small edit that could have struck a nice compromise in the nomenclature debate. As I expected, Matt Crypto reverted it back without citing a reason. Frankly, I think she has too much time on her hands. But moving on, currently the opening sentence reads "A press-up, also known as a push-up, is a common strength training exercise...". As these discussions have shown, the term push up is far more common, more established, more widely-recognized, and has decades of precedence over press up. The British term maintains its dominance in this article based on the flimsy pretext that it was originally authored this way, and that its original author continues to monitor edits like a paranoid hawk. If this same exercise were known as a "flibbywibble" in New Zealand, and the article was originally authored by a New Zealander, would changing it to something more widely understood even be up for debate?

Currently, the article makes no mention of the apparently vast difference in usage of the terms, and that opening sentence gives the impression press up is the dominant term. I suggest the first sentence be changed to "A press-up, more commonly known as a push up, is a common...". Press-up remains the dominant term in the body of the article (to satisfy the few hardheads) but the article acknowledges that push up is, in reality, the dominant expression. Perhaps another note could be added to the "History" section that more specifically explains the regionality of the terms, to more clearly show that one term is more widely understood, but I have no interest in doing so myself and likely facing the wrath of people with ill-conceived priorities. And no, I'm not starting an edit war. I'm not going to change it again. My original edit was to test my theory that the article was being monitored.Aoystreck (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got reliable sources, then go for it. — Matt Crypto 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be assured the article is monitored, via a watch list, and that WP:ENGVAR applies to it the same as other articles. Edison (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENGVAR is a set of guidelines, not hard rules, and the fact that there has been so much debate on this should indicate that, at the very least, there is no consensus that this is a debate typical of the kind the guidelines were designed to address. While not explicit in the guidelines, I think its fair to say WP:ENGVAR was designed to address instances in which there are minor spelling or punctuation differences (airplane/aeroplane) and instances in which the English-speaking world is split on the issue, where some countries use one, others use another. This is not such a case. This is not a spelling issue, this is a terminology issue (and I would argue the term "press-up" is an oxymoron, but that's another issue altogether...). This is also a case in which it is only one country that uses the term, versus the entirety of the rest of the English-speaking world that uses the other, if the comments above are accurate. I had a similar disagreement over the word tire/tyre a while back, and I conceded because I had been unaware the 'y' spelling was also used in Australia and NZ. It would not appear "press-up" is used ANYWHERE outside the UK. It may seem like I'm rehashing a settled quarrel here, but as far as I'm concerned, these issues have not been satisfactorily addressed by the pro-press people on here so as to declare the issue settled.Aoystreck (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't make it clear in that paragraph, but in reference to the guidelines been designed to address this and that, I'm referring to the spirit of the rule, not the word of the rule. Should have been clearer about that.Aoystreck (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the word of the 'rule' explicitly reflects what you are saying: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English," and "This recommendation should not be used to claim national ownership of certain articles" (ie the first editor shouldn't be able to take ownership by forcing their minority local dialect upon whole articles). 168.7.241.162 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone had taken the initiative to redo my edit, which was predictably undid by Matt Crypto again citing the need for citations for common knowledge. I would disagree. If you want to enforce that rule, find a citation confirming the exercise is both common and for strength training, and which muscles are developed, and that they are a common punishment. That is only the opening paragraph. Virtually every sentence would need to be footnoted. If anyone honestly believes the exercise isn't "more widely known" as a push up, go ahead and voice your disagreement. But any reasonable person should accept by now that the phrase "more widely known as" is accurate, common knowledge, and a pretty generous compromise.Aoystreck (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the advice given on Wikipedia:Common knowledge, "Certain kinds of claims should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations...Linguistics: Language data beyond the smallest local communities, for example regional or national data on word use. Language variation is rich within a language. The data compiled by lexicographers and linguists quite often shows usage different from any one individual's everyday experience." — Matt Crypto 19:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That this is a matter of common knowledge is not solely based on "any one individual's everyday experience" but rather the litany of supporting evidence that has been demonstrated on this discussion page. As has been demonstated here, this is not a matter of language variation. This is a matter of a global term (push up) versus a regional term (press-up).Aoystreck (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that you need a reliable source for this assertion. — Matt Crypto 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says you, apparentlyAoystreck (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the policy of the encyclopedia: WP:PROVEIT. — Matt Crypto 07:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not for common knowledge. Do you believe that the "more widely known as" is not common knowledge? Do you believe it is inaccurate? If so, say so. But so far you are only repeating your same old inconsistently-applied need for sources, and undoing other people's edits without addressing the many good arguments being made by others for having the article reflect reality.Aoystreck (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". There is no exception in policy for appeal to common knowledge. Indeed, if something is truly "common knowledge", then there is no difficulty in finding a source (e.g. there are seven days in a week). I have no personal knowledge of which variant is more widely used, other my anecdotal experience that more people use "press up". Hardly suprising given that I live in the UK; your experience is no doubt different. Statements that are unsourced are bad. Statements that are added solely to promote one side of an ENGVAR dispute, rather than with any thought to improve the content of the article, are also bad. — Matt Crypto 05:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". For all the times you have removed references to push up being the "more widely known" term, you have yet to challenge this position, nor has anyone else. I am going to go ahead and change it to "widely known as". By dropping the "more", there should be no reason for you to challenge the commonly accepted fact that the exercise is "widely known as a push up," just as it would be unreasonable for someone to challenge the statement, "The H1N1 Flu virus, widely known as swine flu...".Aoystreck (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why add "widely", then? It adds no information. — Matt Crypto 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) It clarifies that that "push up" is not a little-used term, as "also known as" implies. b) it potentially settles this issue, if not the broader issue of changing the name of the article. c) it reflects reality, one that so far no one has challenged, as doing so would discredit him/her. d) "Widely" is an adjective. By dropping the adverb "More," it becomes just like "is a common exercise" and "common punishment", neither of which need to be sourced, as they too reflect widely-accepted reality. If you continue to ignore reason and revert any and all edits you consider to be watering down your local dialect's iron grip on the article, it is YOU that are being petty. The rest of us are having an honest debate on the issue. You are undoing our well-justified work without addressing our justifications, only repeating your own logic, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the meaning of the rule you hide behind.Aoystreck (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Also" implies nothing about the frequency of usage. I suggest you find a better way of using your time than trying to promote your favoured variant of English. — Matt Crypto 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for proving my point about you ignoring other people's arguments and just doing whatever you want. If I was trying to promote my favoured variant of English (and I'm Canadian, so I have no favoured variant, I use a hodge-podge of American and British spellings and terminology), I would be focusing on trying to get the article name changed, not the opening sentence to remove the implication that "also known as" carries. Maybe it carries a different implication on the other side the Atlantic, but over here, you use also known as to refer to lesser known names or slang. Example: "Glasses also called spectacles..." as 'spectacles' is a niche term used only by small pockets of the English-speaking population, and as far as i know, that is not a geographical distinction. It has been well established in these discussions that "push up" is the more common term. The lack of a specific published source confirming this is the only reason the article remains named "Press-up". Short of a linguistics textbook, I don't have a clue where something like this would be officially documented. "Widely" does not, as you suggested, mean the same as "more widely." Madonna is widely known as an actress. That doesn't imply she is MORE widley known as an actress than she is as a singer. There are any number of words that could be used without the implications of "also known as", but I suspect you would reject them all, and, as you have continued to do, not address any of these arguments.Aoystreck (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source added. End of discussion. 168.7.247.212 (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, that source wasn't very convincing. Had that been a British dictionary, that would be another story.Aoystreck (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the argumentation smacks of "The fishknives in my Mother's house are the only proper style of fishknives." Wikipedia functions well with some articles in British and some in U.S. style based on the first disambiguating edit, per WP:ENGVAR. The other style can be dealt with by redirects and by noting the other usage in the introduction, or by using the other term in sections specific to the one country. There are bigger issues to deal with than whether it should be "pushup" or "pressup," or whether there should be a "u" in colour. Edison (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained at length, the issue is not over spelling (as in colour), it is about a whole article using a term whose use is restricted to a small fraction of the English-speaking world, while the otherwise-globally used term is dismissed as an AKA. I compare this to if the article on snowmobiles was dominated by the term "snow machine" only because the original author was from Alaska.Aoystreck (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does stating a term is more common violate ENGVAR? And why is it you insist on bringing up how unimportant this is? Such comments border incivility. To Matt Crypto, this is a very important issue as evidenced by him following this article for 5 years and joining in on every discussion about the article's terminology. To him, the terminology of press-up is more important than the BLP policy. Witness how an unattributed quote gets the citation needed template[12] but questioning the sanctity of the term press-up gets an immediate reversion without explanation[13]. To degrade his invaluable contributions and debase his well-considered opinions here is just rude. Oh, and per your edit summary, there were two references: one of which the term press-up was explicitly defined as push-up, fitting as the term is predated by 40 years. I'm not going to bring up the fact that you've also been following these types of discussions for 2 years nor point out the irony of your position. 168.7.254.19 (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from the personal attacks on Matt Crypto, in the form of announcing what is important to him, as if you are able to read his mind. I or any other editor am perfectly within my rights to have any article in Wikipedia on my watchlist, so please cease the implication that there is something sinister in watching an article for violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wow, you found a dictionary where some term was listed before another term. That fades into insignificance compared to WP:ENGVAR. Edison (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisting an article is not sinister, but systematically undoing other people's edits, edits which are justified and well-supported by solid reasoning in the discussion, and undoing those edits while citing an inconsitently-applied requirement for sources, is sinister. I'm not going to rehash my arguments here yet again, but "certain people" (at most, 2 of them) are repeatedly rejecting common-sense compromises without offering compromises of their own; a "my way or the highway" mentality that absolutely does not belong on Wikipedia. This is akin to a Michael Jackson fan removing unsourced references to the late pop star beign eccentric or controversial. If something is 'common knowledge', sources are not required unless someone legitimately challenges its accuracy. That has not (yet) occurred. To hold every declaration to the need-sources standard, every article would be swarmed with footnotes.Aoystreck (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please refrain from the personal attacks on readers who are interested in these types of discussions, in the form of denouncing what is important to such readers, as if you are able to denote what is and is not petty. I or any other editor am perfectly within my rights to point out selective enforcement of policies and guidelines, so please cease the implication that there is something sinister in pointing out that policies are not enforced in a balanced manner. 168.7.244.107 (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Do things my way or you are rejecting 'common sense compromises????'" See WP:ENGVAR. I have no allegiance whatsoever to British terminology or spelling, but I adhere to established guidelines rather than desiring cultural imperialism. As for the claim that "certain people, only two of them at most" object to a change, note two more in the previous thread. The "certain people" you criticize include one loyal to the U.S. and one presumably loyal to the U,K. Edison (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I adhere to established guidelines rather than desiring cultural imperialism." Please try and remain civil and cool-headed. Resorting to insulting those who don't hold your opinion isn't going to improve anything. Generally, when one starts replying with only ad hominem attacks they are no longer able to participate in rational discussion. 168.7.244.107 (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ad hominem attack. Look up the meaning. It is also interesting when one editor wants to make a change and three single purpose IP accounts jump into the discussion to support his/her position. What leads three IP accounts which have never edited anything until this discussion to leap to the support of the person demanding a change against the guideline WP:ENGVAR? When all 3 show as being from the same geographic area and the same network? Amazing coincidence! Edison (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume that is directed at me, and if so, you're 99% wrong. I did make one edit as an anonymous user, accidentally. My IE was giving me problems, so I opened Safari to make one of the edits and forgot to log in as I'm used to being logged in automatically. The edit as 24.79.79.49 is indeed me, but the others I have nothing to do with.Aoystreck (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yours. 24.79.79.49, is clearly from a different geographic area than the 168- triplets.
Edison, perhaps you should look up the definition of an ad hominem attack again. I don't think you've made a single post here without resorting to such tactics. While you're at it, also check out the policy on assuming good faith. Additionally, none of my replies have attempted to hide the fact that I have a dynamic IP. I would have thought this would have been blatantly obvious since they're all from the same subnet. Even without noticing this, it should be obvious since I'm replying to your replies in a way that would indicate you're addressing me and not someone else. I would like to thank you for the excellent detective work though. If only all admins had such avant-garde detective skills! 168.7.250.106 (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How am I, or the many other people who more or less share my position on this matter, telling people to "do things my way"? Over the past few days I have offered up a number of compromises to try to settle the issue. All of my proposals involved leaving the bulk of the article alone, but recognizing in the introductory paragraph that "push up" is not merely "another term", but rather one under widespread use. With each suggestion, I was met with accusations of breaking WP:ENGVAR and ridiculous claims that virtually any edit requires citing a source. I'm trying to have a dialogue here to come to an acceptable compromise for both sides, but you and Matt Crypo choose not to offer solutions, only lob accusations of linguistic imperialism at those of us who are seeking a fair middle ground. Aoystreck (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The change you demand is neither a compromise nor a fair middle way. Edison (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enlighten us, what would be considered a compromise or a "fair middle way"? Remember compromises involve change. Hint: Reverting entirely to a prior state isn't a compromise. 168.7.250.106 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you're not willing to participate in discussion here without snide comments and sarcasm. Until the time you're willing to be WP:CIVIL, you certainly won't get me to engage with your arguments, and I suggest that you mostly be ignored as a troll. — Matt Crypto 06:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Push-up&oldid=343598116"