Talk:Parkour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Parkour was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
August 29, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
January 30, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

State of the article[edit]

I have added a couple words to indicate that freerunning is typically done in urban spaces in the intro, as it is not clear at all in the current version 209.195.65.39 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Need to carefully consider items included in Parkour in popular culture, make sure items are relevant and good examples. We are merging the parkour in popular culture article with the parkour article.
  • Need to craft better standards for grammar and terminology. The article is still somewhat inconsistent.
  • "Parkour" or "Freerunning" should be uppercase. Both are names.
  • Parkour gyms are starting to appear across the world, such as APEX in Colorado, Tempest Freerunning's gym, Parkour Vision's gym, etc. This seems ripe for mentioning as it develops. Worth exploring.
  • Some parts of the article need to be organized a little better.
  • Still some controversy about parkour / freerunning wording of different parts of the article should be considered. It seems the consensus is that "Parkour and freerunning are similar, but separate disciplines." We have decided to not merge the articles.
  • Review and edit the Wiktionary terms for parkour and freerunning.
  • The reference list could use updating.

The part about Parkour and Free running being seperate is incorrect as Parkour translated into english is Free running. aslo i agree that the thing about parkour gyms should be looked into as there are now organised parkour lessons in Fed Square in Melbourne. Thatparkourkid (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed] MarkTraceur (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
'Parkour' translated into English is 'course'. Although the name 'Freerunning' was initially intended to just be an English name for Parkour, the name was only ever used by Sebastien Foucan and he subsequently used it to refer to his own, slightly different, discipline. It would be good to include more about Freerunning, but the problem we have here is that good references on Freerunning are in even shorter supply than good references on Parkour. Feraess (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the standard above and I've changed the article to reflect it. Feraess (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This entire article feels like a promotional statement. I mean, "When injuries do occur, many members in the parkour community encourage pursuing the most scientifically sound method to recovery and future prevention.", what? 85.226.157.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

I understand that on the surface it appears as though the word 'Parkour' should be treated like sports and other activities and not capitalised, however at this point in history 'Parkour' is the name of a single, unique discipline and as such is a proper noun. There is some disagreement within the Parkour community on this, possibly based on politics, but shouldn't the name 'Parkour' be capitalised in this article? Feraess (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think based on the etymology, you could argue it's an improper noun denoting some set of movements. "Le parcours" is certainly an improper noun, and removing the s and modernizing the spelling doesn't seem like it would be enough to negate that fact. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but if that were true could you not also then argue that any names once derived from a common noun should also not be capitalised, for example Burger King? Ultimately, the etymology of a word is not the governing factor in determining how to classify a word, but rather the current usage of the word itself. In the case of this article, 'Parkour' is not an improper noun denoting a set of movements but the name of a unique entity. I think we may have to accept that there are other uses of the word 'Parkour' in which it's treated as another type of word, but I think we're moving into the realms of 'Parkour (disambiguation)' there, and away from the subject of this article. Feraess (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I mistakenly saw some changes to uncapitalise, but I'll change it back now - I've at least changed "L'art..." to "l'art" in a bunch of places, that seems correct-ish to me. Also, the freerunning/l'art du deplacement section is looking a tad better now. --MarkTraceur (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, nice work, it looks a lot better now. I've added a reference to support the bit about David Belle's brother Jean Francois. I have no idea where the information about his brothers in David's article comes from, but David himself seems pretty clear that his living brother is called Jean-François. I've fixed that part of David's article. Feraess (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Parkour in popular culture[edit]

would certain running chase scenes in parts of the matrix count as and example of parkour or free running? what about run lola run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.96.130 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, for the same reason given below. "Not all climbing on walls and buildings is Parkour, only that which is connected to a discipline of training through trying to move past obstacles." Feraess (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Along those lines, the film noir The Naked City (1948) includes a sequence in which the fleeing villain demonstrates some notably parkour-like moves... kencf0618 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Supergran[edit]

I am pretty sure I saw some parkour action in this 1985 series, made by Supergran character! Is it the oldest reference? Total (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is unlikely since the discipline of Parkour didn't exist in 1985. Not all climbing on walls and buildings is Parkour, only that which is connected to a discipline of training through trying to move past obstacles. Feraess (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's all original research without citation to reliable sources. And I bet that's not the only story about how it happened. --Izno (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's the only true story. There will be a reliable source in the near future. A lovely lady named Julie Angel is doing her doctoral dissertation about Parkour. She has been a friend of some of the Yamakasi founders for many years, and has interviewed most of them. I'll link to it once she releases it. Glelin (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's as may be, but Wikipedia is not based on truth but on verifiability. And we work with the sources we have in the present, not ones we'll have in the future. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's alright. Just don't delete this. I spent quite a while typing this out. Once the source is released, I'll revive the topic. Glelin (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It's on the talk page. I wouldn't think to delete it save for archival. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I've expanded the history section with references to Julie Angel's Cine Parkour research and David Belle's book. I've also moved the section on recent military training to the bottom of the popular culture section, since it's more a reflection of pop culture than a part of parkour history. I'm now going to tidy up the other parts of the article that have been left behind with the recent improvements. Feraess (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
While I too look forward to the appearance of the reference alluded to above—does anyone know if it is yet available—an argument can be made, practically and linguistically that there is a distinction between the original aims of the founders of parkour, where efficiency of traverse was the aim, and more modern forms, where embellishment and flourish appear to be gaining in esteem. I will keep an eye, but it seems to me what may have once been identical, now reflect diverging connotations (because language is not, as we all know, as static as the strongly held ideas of individuals). For now, all opinion, look forward to sources and observations appearing. I may myself write and publish this "divergence" story, if no one else does. Bonsoir. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of Parkour in popular culture[edit]

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

So I've stripped down the article to verifiable portions and to items which are centered around parkour. Some of the documentaries would probably be good for verification of this article. Next step is to merge, which won't be happening tonight. Then a redirect of the pop culture article. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
And done. I think I've managed to clean out the stuff that needed cleaning. The documentaries and documentary episodes (60 Minutes) about parkour should be used as sources, rather than mentioned directly. --Izno (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Why Literature, Television and music video have beem removed? What criteria did you used to assert that they are not notable? Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is a Wikipedia article directly on that subject, and a reliable source which supports the use of parkour in that subject. Fairly minimal criteria, but otherwise we see the bloat of the previous article. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You did not removed based on WP:N. Madonna’s Confessions Tour is cited on New York Times as well her Jump music is on The Sunday Times, Tog Gear episode is on The Guardian, Live Free or Die Hard film is also on USA Today. I could go on and cite many other that you have removed. Notability is NOT temporary and if there is a citation on third party source that is enough to make a large paragraph about it. When section get large we split off, that is the main reason why I have created Parkour in popular culture. This article was also sent to WP:AFD three times and closed with one no consensus and TWO keeps.
The only way to not get this article bloated is not allowing ANY popular culture entry. Does not belong to us decided what should be kept of removed. I did not like it is never a reason to remove them. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I removed them based on whether they had an article or not, not whether they were simply citable as you have attempted to do here. I just realized my last criterion: Where parkour was not important to the creation of the work, I removed; in other words, if the sourcing did not explain, in detail, how parkour was important to the creation of the work. I can guarantee, parkour is not important to Top Gear or to Madonna. The article you link to about Life Free and Die Hard only notes that it was in Die Hard... and not that it was important to Die Hard's creation. Nor does it detail how Die Hard make use of it; it's a one-off "oh, it was in this film". That's not useful for deciding what goes into a popular culture section and what does not.

As for previous consensus on the article, none of those closes forbids a properly performed merge, which is an editorial decision.

In closing, writing a good article and having clutter are exclusive options. And I would rather we have a good article. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The guarantee offer is totally subject and personal. It does not change that you removed or kept thing because you like (important) or dislike (unimportant). You said: "I removed them based on whether they had an article or not" parkour is mentioned on Jump_(Madonna_song)#Music_video yet nothing is mentioned here and needing an article or a sentence in other article to add it, is not a criteria based on any policy or guideline, as far as I know. The music video has many others third-party sources. [1] [2] [3] How parkour was not important to Madonna or Top Gear if they make money on it? What is not important to you does not means that is same to others, that is the problem why these sections turn large and I and other editor decided to split off. Parkour may not well represented on Madonna music video, but that never makes non-notable. The closure rationale was "General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages." General accept to keep the article and discuss if article should be merged or kept. Where was the discussing and consensus to merge Parkour in popular culture and Free running here? I do not think you did. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this section of the article can be cleared up if we separate pop culture influences from pop culture mentions. Parkour has had a big influence on pop culture, leading to many instances of characters in films, tv shows, music videos and video games climbing up and jumping between buildings. However, very few of the productions that have been influenced by parkour actually mention the idea of a training discipline based on such actions, i.e. parkour itself. Why not include the direct representations of parkour such as the Jump documentaries and the Yamakasi films in a 'Parkour in pop culture' section, and then create a 'Parkour influence on pop culture' section for all the other things? There we can list the areas of pop culture parkour has influenced, but we would need to mention only the most notable examples of each type as illustration. Feraess (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the distinction between the two. As I said above, the documentaries would be fantastic citations for the article proper. A lot of the other stuff, as I said before, I tried to keep to references to those with both a Wikipedia article already, and a reference discussing parkour. See e.g. Casino Royale. I think these are necessary and sufficient criteria to land something in this section.

I wonder if we can get access to a transcript of the documentaries. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think those are good criteria for including references to pop culture in this section, and the list is certianly improving. My point is that as we start to include citations from better sources, this article is distancing itself from the idea that every time someone jumps between buildings it's an instance of parkour. The article now presents parkour more clearly as a training method rather than just a list of movements. As an example, Casino Royale has clearly been influenced by parkour, even to the point of including a parkour practitioner in the film itself, but the film just as clearly does not portray any training method. If we assume the sources we have here are reliable (and I think we're now starting to use sources that are) then we have to say that parkour influenced Casino Royale, but does not feature in it. Those sources that do mention or show a training discipline, such as the Yamakasi films and the Jump documentaries, are actual times when parkour is featured in pop culture.
Getting back to sources, I agree that we should try and include more citations from the documentaries, and also the published books (in particular Julie Angel's 'Cine Parkour', David Belle's 'Parkour', Sebastien Foucan's 'Freerunning' and maybe Dan Edwardes' 'Parkour and Freerunning Handbook'). Having re-written the history section using these references, I think almost the whole rest of the article needs to be updated to reflect these sources. Ironically, the parts of the article that best reflect these sources are the parts that currently contain no citations at all. I don't know if transcripts of the documentaries exist in the public domain, but the whole 'Jump London' documentary exists on Google video if you want to look through it. I have access to all these sources so maybe if I or another editor (always hoping) can pick out the more important parts, we can go through and try and create a good article.Feraess (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with "but does not feature in it." We should say what the WP:RS says; if one reviewer (or what not) says that he noticed the aspects of parkour, or even goes so far as to note that there was a parkour specialist hired or featured in the film, that's what we should note. That said, I would take care on the WP:SELFPUB side; we don't need to, or want to, limit ourselves to what the RS says, but also what the individuals say (a la the comic reference).

Agreed, but not only those sources; while they may be seminal topics within the parkour world, this is an encyclopedia for generalists. Which only means we have more work finding more sources. :) You might consider listing the tables of contents below so we can get an idea of how the books are structured; we might think to echo that structure loosely as well and go from there.

On an aside, I don't think the "military training" subsection belongs in the popular culture section. --Izno (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There's disagreement in the sources as to whether what is shown in films like Casino Royale, Banlieue 13, Breaking and Entering etc. constitutes parkour. WP:YESPOV means we can't present a contested viewpoint as fact, so even if we're going to give New Yorker and Reuters journalists equal weight as Julie Angel and David Belle in determining what parkour is, we still have to say something like "Various films have been described by journalists as containing parkour sequences... ...even though parkour is described by it's creators and other experts as a training discipline rather than a performance." The current wording presents it as fact rather than opinion, so I think some changes are definitely necessary.
For me, common sense says that on this matter we can give the opinions of the creators and experts more weight than the opinions of journalists, however reliable the journalists are normally. Otherwise, every section of the article needs to be changed to reflect the disagreement in sources. The article itself should at least be internally consistent in how it treats the sources.
Sure, we can separate out the military training part from the pop culture section. I didn't have any special reason for putting it here, it just didn't belong in the history section in it's current state. I'll give it it's own section and leave a 'needs expansion' note.
I'll start a new talk section for looking into new sources. Feraess (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Granted. The proper way is not to say "various sources" but to say "X and Y and Z people say A; W says B".

We should definitely document the disagreement in the sources. I would take care to assign more weight to the experts; this is one place where there is primarily belief that parkour is "this thing" rather than any solid definition or anything of the sort as you might see defined in the Laws of the Game (association football).

I think it fits better in the history section than anywhere else. It might not be far history, but it is part of what will inevitably be parkour's history as militaries increasingly begin to use it as a training method (if it is in fact so effective as its proponents claim). I see it at the least being moved up in the article, but I'm unsure where. --Izno (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the first two paragraphs and adjusted the introduction lines to read better. I think documentaries are more directly applicable to parkour than the films. I've also changed the wording throughout the section to remove disputable opinions and also references to parkour techniques or parkour moves, which are inaccurate phrases. I'm relatively happy with the section for now.

I think there are enough reliable sources from experts that we can support a clear definition of parkour in the article. There are at least 3 books we can reference, as well as various newspaper articles and tv reports. I agree there are sources that talk about parkour as something without definition, but that view generally seems to come from people who have just not thought about it enough. Or from people who are trying to change the view of parkour for their own purposes.

To some extent everything in the article could be said to be a part of parkour history. I think generally though the history section should stick to detailing the path taken to arrive at the current form of parkour, i.e. the past. However important the fact that marines have started using modern parkour methods becomes in the future, at the moment there is no evidence of it having any impact on the discipline. Maybe the section on military training could be part of a larger section detailing the influence on areas other than pop culture. Feraess (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

I would like to edit this page on the grounds of valuable knowledge to help young traceurs on their journey. Please may I be granted access to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavyCalcro2449 (talkcontribs) 10:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, NavyCalcro2449. To be able to edit this page, you have to be here for a few days and have 10 edits, or request to 'bypass' that at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. However, I looked at the page you created, Pesanteur Defiant Traceur, and it didn't have any references. So before you edit this page, I would recommend you look at Wikipedia's editing policies. Most importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medium for teaching others. Also, articles must have a neutral point-of-view, be verifiable, have no original research. Mysterytrey talk 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

New and under-used sources[edit]

Here's a quick summary of relativly recent books published on parkour, with contents list as requested.

'Ciné Parkour' by Julie Angel. This is her phd thesis on parkour. 1. A historical overview of parkour. 2. Documenting movement (overview of data collection methods). 3. Theorising the practise of parkour. 4. The parkour paradox, co-option for spectacle and institutionalisation. Glossary. Terminology timeline. Parcours timeline.

'Parkour' by David Belle. In French. Done in the q&a format of an interview. Preface by Luc Besson. 1. My father the hero. 2. Departure point. 3. Learnings. 4. First time. 5. Acceleration. 6. Risk of falling. 7. Witness passage. 8. Banlieue 13. 9. End of parcours?

'Freerunning' by Sébastien Foucan. Mostly short quotes but with useful introduction. Feraess (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just been through the current references to find dead ones. References # 2,3,6,17,20,21,36,37,38,43,44,51,57, were dead. Reference 22 has a working link, but to entirely the wrong page. Reference 28 was the same as #23. I fixed references 6,17,28,36,37,43,and 44. I've left the rest for now in case someone else is better at resurrecting links than I am. Feraess (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Methode naturelle, freerunning and philosophy[edit]

I'd like to make an important note here regarding historical accuracy and misunderstandings.

First off, the history of Georges Hébert and he's teachings requires an expansion. The proper name for Hébert's teachings is L’Education Physique, Virile et Morale par la Methode e.i Physical, Virile and Moral Education by the Natural Method. As the name suggest this was not barely a method for physical training but also moral and ethics. Another important side not is that Héberts teachings were a re-worked version of Francisco Amoros teaching. I do unfortunately not own Hérberts book, so I cannot give a direct, reliable source to all this. The only one I am aware of that own this book is Erwan Le Corre (I emailed him about this) and he have made an overview regarding methode naturelle and Hébert.

http://movnat.com/the-roots-of-methode-naturelle/

The text about freerunning also requires an expansion and further information. A lot of in-depth and very valuable information about the term can be found in Julie Ange's 6-years PhD research about parkour, titled Ciné Parkour. Contains the whole, and the true story of its history.

Third and last, the philosophy sections requires an expansion. Dan Edwardes parkour & freerunning handbook, which is reliable because it was developed in conuction with many of the founders, including Chau Belle Dinh and David Belle's former students Stephane Vigroux and Kazuma have a brief overview of the most important aspects regarding the philosophy and 'the way'. There is also various interviews with the founders, and their students, which can be used (for instance - an interview with Stepane Vigroux uploaded on youtube)

I have tried to add some of this personally, but its often been rejected, maybe because I don't put it forward very well, or because its been considered not 'reliable' which is kinda ignorant since the base and the core of parkour is found in history. I once tried to expand the freerunning section but this was rejected because it was to 'complex'. It is at least food for thoughts, and I suggest we need more reliable information and further expansions. More over, the article have improved a lot in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.148.202 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The content you may have attempted to add was probably not called unreliable, but that it has no reliable sourcing. Be careful of that distinction. Watchers of this page are aware that there are texts that talk about these things, but without direct citations to the content, it is easier in the meantime to reject the change until a book or paper and page number can be provided. Watchers of this page are also aware that there need to be expansions throughout the text of the article. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree it would be good if we could re-work the Georges Hébert section. I've been concentrating on the more modern history but maybe I can take a look at the Hébert section too. I don't have a copy of his book, but I know there are at least a couple of parkour practitioners in the US who do own a copy as they did a partial translation on a message board several years back (which I have a copy of somewhere). I imagine Erwan is too busy with his own projects to spend much time on the wikipedia parkour article, but I think we should use his article on Hébert to improve this section at the very least. If you want to suggest some improvements here either myself or another editor can work on finding citations to support them.
Ciné Parkour is a good resource for historical elements, and so can be used as reference for some more backstory to freerunning. However it is not a good source on definitions and so I don't want to rely on it too heavily. Since most sources (and my own experience with the subject) say that freerunning is not a separate discipline, just a very slightly different approach to the same discipline, I don't think it warrants a greatly expanded section. I agree it could do with a little expansion, but I think that other areas of the article (such as the philosophy) are more of a priority for me at the moment. Suggest some changes here and we'll see what works. If we can agree here and find citations the changes are unlikely to be automatically reverted.
The philosophy section is one of the two major problems in the article at the moment (the other being the non-existent section containing references on what the training method is). The article has had a philosophy section for several years, but has never to my knowledge actually included any information as to what the philosophy consists of. It definitely needs work, and I think it's a priority now that the history section has laid the foundations. There are a number of interviews we can reference, although since there's no clear consensus we're going to have to be careful to make it clear that all philosophical interpretations are opinion rather than fact. We might be able to use the Parkour and Freerunning Handbook to support some statements, but I'd rather not use it as a main source as it's section on philosophy is very limited and seems almost an afterthought in the book. Anyway, there are plenty of interviews with practitioners we can reference. Feraess (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have the translated text of Héberts work but unfortunately it was not complete but only a part of his work. It is most likely very hard to get our hands on Hébert’s book and I am not sure if there even is a English translation of it. So the question is whenever what’s on Erwans page can be considered as reliable? Because that could be used to improve the whole article about Hébert’s teachings.

Ciné Parkour is indeed very good because it’s a neutral, scientific approach written by an outsider. I am writing about freerunning right now in order to explain it shortly. I also gather sources. And as you say it is not a separate discipline. The name was used by Sébastien Foucan first as a translation of parkour and then as a variation of it because he didn’t want to associate what he was doing to closely with David’s parkour out of respect for David. Sébastien wanted to make it more accessible and free, and as said in Ciné Parkour, it was very hard for people to gain access to the discipline in the beginning. Now freerunning is (incorrectly) labeled as ‘parkour with flips’, or tricking, which is irrelevant to the question. So yes, freerunning does not require a whole section.

It do seems like the tricking section was removed which I don’t understand. Right now tricking community have been on an uprising since parkour got into the mainstream.

Regarding philosophy, it is as you say a touchy subject. Because every practitioners get’s his or her own philosophy and view, so its subjective. There are however things are central to parkour, such as respecting the environment, helping others etc. and there are many of sources for this. But this may be more like principles and values rather than philosophy?

There is many goodies in the ‘The parkour & freerunning hanbook’ By Dan Edwardes, both in terms of training principles, and ethical values. It is a reliable source in my opinion, because he (Dan) wrote the book in conjunction with Stephane Vigroux, and other people from the Yamakasi, and they’re all colleagues and close friends. There is also a lot of other reliable sources; documentaries (Generation Yamakasi for instance and many interviews with Belle), video reviews, written interviews, quotes, books etc.

So, I will keep on working on the freerunning section an write a short explanation on that and also to look for the sources to this information. Then I may aswell start working on the philosophy section.

(ParkourHistory (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Overview[edit]

I found something wrong with this overview:

Parkour (French pronunciation: [paʁˈkuʁ]) (abbreviated PK) is freerunning that developed out of military obstacle course training. Practitioners aim to move quickly and efficiently from one place to another, negotiating the obstacles in between. Popularised in France by David Belle and others in the 1990s and 2000s, parkour uses no equipment and is non-competitive.

I will try to explain why I changed this overview, and why it should be changed. I also added sources – which it at first didn’t have.

1. Freerunning stems from parkour - not the obstacle course. Freerunning was used as a direct translation of parkour in the documentary Jump London. Sébastien Foucan then kept using the term, and eventually made it his own, because he didn’t want to associate it to closely with David’s parkour which was a very particular training method that isn’t for everyone. In terms of concepts, it’s exactly the same thing.

Claiming that parkour was ‘popularized’ by David Belle is a very ambiguous statement. It can potentially be understood in two ways:


(1) David Belle is alone responsible for making parkour popular outside of France/Lisses

(2) Parkour have always existed and David Belle made it popular.


(1) And (2) is false.


(1) Cannot be true because David wasn’t alone in his training. He trained for over ten years with 8 other guys, where seven of them later would create the group called Yamakasi, and the other (Sébastien Foucan) would eventually do the documentary Jump London. While David Belle’s showreel for Spiderman, Speedairman, gained a lot of attention, It is impossible that he, alone, was responsible for bringing parkour outside of France. And how would it be possible to measure who made it popularized?

(2) While parkour is inspired by myriads of different sources it is impossible or at least extremely unlikely that parkour was trained/practiced by other’s before or even under the development of it. Some defines parkour as simply the act of ‘moving from A to B’. While this is true, it is not a definition of parkour, and its rarely a description of the essence. Parkour is in short a certain method of training and thinking, and this method was not known by anyone else until parkour became known in media and spread worldwide. It (parkour) was developed, not ‘popularized’.

If anyone else have any other suggestions and ideas, please respond.


The mention of 'freerunning' in the intro was an edit by 'I ERTN HD' and almost certainly a piece of vandalism. I wouldn't worry too much about getting rid of it.

I don't agree that the statement 'popularised by David Belle and others' could be interepreted as meaning David Belle alone is responsible for popularising it. It seems obvious to me that 'and others' means there are other people involved. David Belle is simply the most notable of the group. I agree that the statement doesn't explicitly rule out the possibility that Parkour had always existed, but I don't think it can be interpreted as supporting it either. What it does do is recognise that it wasn't David who created Parkour.

The history section goes into detail about the history of Parkour. I don't think we need to include quite so much of it in the intro, and it doesn't read very well. I've tried to fix these problems in an updated version. Feraess (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information[edit]

The article as of the date of this writing has "A practitioner of parkour is called a "traceur", with the feminine form being "traceuse". The original term was simply "tracer" without the 'u' but the word has evolved and now is accepted as having a 'u.'"

Anyone who speaks French knows that this is wrong. I do, because I'm a French national. "traceur" is the noun that we use to refer to a male person with regard to the action that derives from the verb (tracer). We do the same with danser (to dance): a dancer is un danceur, manger (to eat) yields un mangeur, casser leads to un casseur. And (off the top of my head!!!) any verb that ends with 'er' will yield a male-gender noun that ends with 'eur' even if the resulting noun means absolutely nothing in the language, which would for instance be the case for brancher (to plug in, or, to hit on) and brancheur (by the way, traceur means nothing outside of parkour: you tell someone in the street "je suis un traceur/une traceuse", they won't know what you're talking about… I, whose native language is French, didn't even know traceur before reading this article in English!)

So no, even if traceur (in French) has the ending sound of 'tracer' pronounced the English way, there is absolutely no way "the original term has evolved" can be true: the pronunciation in French of 'tracer' is not the same as the one of 'traceur'. One term is unequivocally a verb and the other is just as unambiguously a noun. It actually denotes ignorance of French (if not also of grammar in any language) to write the second sentence ("The original term […] having a 'u.'"). It probably gained acceptance in English-speaking countries… or amongst parkour practitioners who wanted to sound English for the hip aspect of it but I'm damn sure it never had an ounce of acceptance in francophone cultures because it violates the noun derivation rule [from a first-group verb] in French grammar.

I won't change the article because I'm an English to French translator and I don't write a good English and also because I was watching X-Men: First Class, I wanted to know due to her accent what part of the US Jennifer Lawrence came from, and I landed on this page via her page where parkour was mentioned. As is, the two sentences I've cited at the beginning of this section are misleading at best. Amenel (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So fix it! I would agree either way that the "the original term... accepted as having a 'u.'" either a) needs a citation or b) needs to be deleted. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth I've fixed up some bits of the etymology section. I think it's looking much leaner, more understandable, and more correct than it was. If you have any further thoughts, I could probably tweak it more. However, note that I haven't touched the first paragraph, I only played with the "traceur" section. --MarkTraceur (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Parkour the same as Freerunning?[edit]

I reverted an edit by another editor in which they expressed the opinion that Parkour and Freeruninng are sufficiently distinct that this page should not discuss both. (If I am reading their edit summary correctly.)

I would argue that, while the emphasis is different, the terms are often used interchangably.

Opinions? --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Odd interpretation of the edit summary. It is simply the case that they are different and so the IPs summary was incorrect. The page does discuss freerunning (see Parkour#Freerunning), but not as the topic of the page itself, making it inappropriate for the lead. --Izno (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Movements[edit]

Why was the list of movements removed? Sure, there may be no official list of movements, but the common moves list was very helpful and informative, and I see no reason why it was removed. Is it possible to have it reinstated? 63.199.33.70 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you, this policy doesn't (neither does this policy). As it happens, I don't agree with you. They add little to the understanding of what parkour is. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Even if parkour is not itself a bunch of movements, there needs to be some description of what parkour actually looks like. It's not just "getting from A to B, negotiating the obstacles in between" - in that case a swimmer could be a traceur, or a climber, or a hurdler. But swimming is rarely considered parkour, and simply climbing or hurdling by themselves are not parkour. Rather a traceur needs to use many different kinds of movements, and there are particular ones that all traceurs practise, thus we should describe them.
Thus I've re-added some movements into the article. This is not guidebook material, there is no how-to content, it is merely descriptive. Nor is it original research, I've included research sources.
Please don't start an edit war, discuss it here first. ··gracefool 02:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I am in favour of including information about what Parkour looks like, but I think we need to do so in a way that doesn't force the article to contradict itself. In particular, we need to avoid even the appearance of creating a list of named movements. Therefore, I'm removing the names from the list and rewording the section a little. Feraess (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
While going through it I also removed a lot of incorrect and mostly unreferenced material from the section. This section clearly needs a lot of work if it's going to be worth including in the article. Feraess (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
FeraessI think including the usual movement names in the movement section doesn't violate WP:NOTJARGON. We're introducing the readers to these terms, not using them to describe other abstractions or actions or movements. As such, I believe it is encyclopedia material. As for WP:OR, can we use official websites like this or this as reliable reference sources? Ki Chjang (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The main issue here is that creating a list of named movements does not help the reader understand Parkour. Parkour does not treat movement as a list of discrete options, and contains no emphasis on naming movement either. Therefore, this article should not attempt to present either of those things in an authoritative tone. Feraess (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Feraess I beg to differ though. A little information of how we name our movements paints a picture of what we actually do and how these movements express ourselves. Parkour CAN be broken down into discrete movements, and we use them when the situation calls for it. I agree that the focus should be put on the mindset of what Parkour is, however these movements are the actual "implementation" of what Parkour actually does.
You don't find the article itself is a bit too abstract for people to understand? Ki Chjang (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that Parkour is made up of separate, discrete movements. That, to me, is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the discipline. Parkour is not about performing movements, Parkour practitioners do not get a list of movements and try and perform them. Practitioners just try and pass obstacles, and at no point in that process do they need to use names for specific movements. Practitioners sometimes use names for types of movement as a kind of rough, quick label when they're talking to each other, but if they think of movement as consisting of separate pieces while practising it ends up hindering them. The key idea in getting past obstacles efficiently is adaptation to the obstacle. You have to let yourself be guided by the obstacle, not your notions about movement. The key idea with safety is small, gradual changes. If you jump from one broad category to the next you're forced to make big changes all at once and this dramatically increases the risk of injury.
I think the article does still need improvement before it can be considered of good encyclopedic value. It needs a complete section on the methodology of Parkour, and the philosophy section needs a complete re-write. I'm still working on the Philosophy section, but unfortunately there are no good sources on the methodology at the moment. Feraess (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should include aspects of Parkour conditioning and (maybe) a bit about the Methode Naturelle, because as it stands right now, I think the article is too abstract for the common reader to understand. A little concrete example of how it is trained would benefit in understanding it. Ki Chjang (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
There is already information on Methode Naturelle in the history section of the article, so I think that aspect is covered for now. The phrase 'Parkour conditioning' is a bit of a tautology, but if you can find any reliable sources that detail Parkour training methods then I agree they would add very useful information to the article. Feraess (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Feraess, have a look at the discussion thread here. This explains exactly what I feel about the current state of the article right now. If we use playing piano as an analogy to parkour, then yes, it would make no sense for pianists to say that "music is all about pressing individual keys on the piano". However, it doesn't really do beginners any good if we start by telling them to play whatever they like on their first day sitting in front of a piano. Ki Chjang (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general crowd, not the specialists (even those wishing to learn). This is per WP:NOTHOWTO, a Wikipedia policy. For that sort of content, Wikibooks is a plausible place to add such information. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For info, letting people do whatever they want isn't the only alternative to focusing on a 'list of moves'. The method that Parkour uses instead is focusing on the obstacles. The practice of Parkour is determined by following a path of progression from easier obstacles to more difficult obstacles. Which obstacle you face then determines the method you use to get past it, i.e. the movement. The problem comes before the solution. Feraess (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Izno, your concern is that it would violate what Wikipedia is not. However, my concern is that as the article stands right now, it is too abstract, and as such, giving names to Parkour's movements would help readers identify and understand easily about the types of different movements that practitioners use. As such, I don't think we are providing a manual of instruction detailing how to perform such moves - we're simply adding terminology that Parkour practitioners use to describe their movements.
Feraess, after your explanation, I fully understand the philosophy of Parkour as being a way to see the world around you, and creating efficient, quick paths to maneuver through obstacles. I believe you are trying as much as possible to introduce the philosophy itself to the audience, which undoubtedly is both your and my goal, and my suggestion is that I think it would be useful to include movement names into the article (perhaps also an inclusion of the function of a specific movement? E.g. the Kong vault is used mainly for distance) to help readers easily identify what we do and why we perform such movements. I think it helps in concretely explaining what Parkour aims to do. Ki Chjang (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I'm not opposed to including more description about what practitioners do, but we have to be very careful in our wording when we try and explain it. Practitioners move, but they don't perform movements. Trying to perform a specific, named movement is never an aim of Parkour. Fundamentally there are no such things as "Parkour's movements", and it's a bad idea for a practitioner to think of movement as being comprised of separate set-pieces. Parkour aims to enable people to be themselves and follow their own path, by teaching them how to get past the obstacles they face. You can only do that effectively by adapting yourself to the obstacles. If you put any kind of emphasis on trying to perform a specific movement then you lessen a person's ability to adapt and harm their development. Yes, some people think in terms of separate movements, but it's bad practice and shouldn't be encouraged here. Feraess (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Art of Movement and a template[edit]

I would invite Black Dragon to discuss his reasoning behind his additions here. While he has used edit summaries, they're not comprehensive, and this is what talk pages are for. Remember - the onus is on the contributing editor to provide justification for inclusion.

I'll also use the opportunity to remind Black Dragon that he's now at 3RR and further inclusion - without reliable sources - could be interpreted as edit warring with blocks and/or other restrictions maybe following. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, Black dragon, you have inserted unsourced commentary on the page. Please provide sources in the article that support this - before somebody with a mop notices that you're at 4RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Black Dragon, if you wish to talk about Parkour - please do so here and not on editors talk pages. That way others can be involved as well. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect to 'Art of motion' being a nickname for Parkour, I don't think that idea is supported by any sources, reliable or otherwise. BlackDragon posted a list of links on my talk page:

...none of which show 'Art of motion' being used as a nickname for Parkour. Seven of the sources show 'Art of motion' being used as the name of a Red Bull event, one is a facebook page for someone running, and I quote, "Art of motion class (Similar to Parkour/Freerunning)", the 'howstuffworks.com' article doesn't even mention the phrase 'art of motion', instead saying "Parkour is an international discipline, sport and hobby that is best described as the art of forward motion in spite of obstacles, or to put it simply: the art of movement." All of them that actually mention the phrase 'art of motion' say that it is something different. I therefore see no evidence to support 'art of motion' being a nickname for Parkour. Feraess (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They all group Parkour with the name that's what I was showing. By yes the Art of Movement is the Art of Motion, either can go it doesnt bother me which, but it is a nickname. The Red Bull simply uses the name of Parkour to more freely incorporate Freerunning as "Red Bull Parkour" would make no since with its Freerunning aspects. The Art of Motion name can also be Freerunning as it was a branch off of Parkour. This is why they use that name, they did not make it up. I heard that Parkour=Art of Motion before I had knowledge of the contest, even before it existed actually. But The article is over both too though so it can technically be both, but mainly Parkour's. Ill talk more later BlackDragon 22:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

'Art of movement' is not the same thing as 'art of motion', but neither of them are Parkour. 'Art of movement' is the English translation of 'art du deplacement', which is a separate discipline inspired by Parkour. Although there is evidence that some people think that 'art du deplacement' and Parkour are the same thing, we also have evidence from (amongst others) the creators of each of the disciplines saying that they are different. Feraess (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Different tense. If Im in motion then I have movement. Its the same thing, just like doing & did. But Parkour is the Art of Motion designed to get from A to B as fast and efficient as possible. That is the exact definition, though it can be broader as there are no limits. But Parkour is the Art of Movement/Motion. Freerunning too because it is an art form. Making an art form out of movement. So both are and it is a nickname. And by the way PK is exactly a nickname, just an initial but either way both should go. BlackDragon 00:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In 1997, David Belles brother Jean Francois asked the group if they wanted to perform for the public in a firefighter show in Paris. The group decided to name themselves 'Yamakasi' (meaning 'Strong man, strong spirit') for the performance. Sébastien Foucan came up with a name for what they were doing: L'art du déplacement (the art of displacement). Not art of movement, different thing BlackDragon 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your translation is not quite correct "L'art du déplacement (the art of displacement)." - Déplacement means both "displacement" and "movement". French is a funny language, and some words can have multiple meanings - déplacement being one of them. The context of the use is also important. In this context it is accepted the the meaning is "movement", whereas in another context - such as "une moto de grosse déplacement" would mean a bike with a big engine, not big movement. Although that's not a great example, as you'd say "cylindree" instead of déplacement, or even just "grosse moto", but you get the idea.
PS: Are you really a Most Perfect Tutnum editor? As far as I can tell you've got less than 5,000 edits and not been here 3 years yet? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
BlackDragon, do you have a particularly reliable source for your statement "But Parkour is the Art of Motion designed to get from A to B as fast and efficient as possible. That is the exact definition..."? As far as I'm aware, Parkour is defined (by its creator) as being a training discipline where you try and move past obstacles. If there's a source that is more reliable than the creator then of course we can include it as part of the article, however I'm not aware of any such source at the moment. At the moment there is no reliable evidence to connect 'art of motion' to Parkour, nor to support the addition of any other nickname. Feraess (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

People’s personal opinions on facebook, ‘’How stuff works’’, answers.com, or various Youtube videos, or Red Bull, are not reliable sources.

Just because a company or a private person use a brand’s name and then claim that it is associated with this or that, does not make it true, and it is indeed completely irrelevant. It’s like if people would make their own interpretations of Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kun Do and claim that it is associated with it and therefore it should be a central part of it.

Your definition of parkour is incorrect.

Parkour is not by definition ‘’Moving from point A to point B as fast and efficient as possible’’. It’s by definition a training method, or as David put it, ‘’A training method for warriors’’. It is a training method that has certain principles and values and this is not up to debate because it is a fact and can be verified by history. ParkourHistory (talk)

Needs serious revision to include term freerunning[edit]

This absolutely absurd. "Freerunning" had an entire article. Supposing the two should be merged and tabling the vicious debate of their distinction or lack thereof, you can't just throw everything under one term and all but delete the other one. The article is extremely confusing to someone who hasn't even heard the term parkour. Freerunning is a vast community and artform, you can't just throw the term out. If you're going to merge one article with another, they have to be carefully fused. At the absolute least, the differences have to made incredibly clear in the lede. Freerunning should be in the first few words or sentences, preferably scattered evenly throughout the article... Squish7 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion regarding the merger, but I suspect it largely comes down to two issues. The first is whether or not Freerunning is sufficiently distinct from Parkour to warrant its own article, the second is whether or not there is a sufficient amount of reliable information about Freerunning to create and sustain a separate article.
Personally, I think Freerunning is separate enough from Parkour, so for clarity I would prefer Freerunning to have its own article. What I don't know, because I've not looked, is how much reliable information there is about Freerunning. The majority of newspaper reports seem to erroneously treat the two disciplines at the same thing, which makes things hard. The Parkour article has been rescued recently by David Belle's book and Jule Angel's research, but to my knowledge the only book on Freerunning is Sebastien Foucan's, which contains far less information and (perhaps because of the philosophical differences between the disciplines) presents it in a less-structured way. Sebastien has also done a recent radio interview which contains good information, but aside from that I don't know of any other source we could use.
I think the level of information on Freerunning that is present in this article at the moment is appropriate for an article on Parkour. I also think it would be more confusing to scatter mentions of Freerunning throughout this article. They are so similar it's confusing to talk about them together, so I don't think it's a good idea to try and create a joint Parkour and Freerunning article. They are best off being treated as separate.
I think the best way forward is to try and increase the amount of information about Freerunning within it's own section of this article. If we can find enough information on Freerunning as a standalone discipline then we can see about separating the two subjects again. Feraess (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that happening. I think that the simple consensus of the community is that Freerunning is a subset of Parkour. On the WFPF website the selection menu for "About Us" includes "What is Parkour" and "History of Parkour" (in which Freerunning is mentioned). Also note that the summary on the back of the cover for the only major movie on Freerunning (Freerunner (2011)) begins with "FREERUNNER captures all the unstoppable force of urban acrobatic freerunning (also known as parkour) in this relentless..." However reliable or not the quote is as official source, the point is that the net opinion of the people who brought Freerunning to film, of how to nutshell the relationship between PK/FR in a short space, is simply to call them synonyms. I don't have time myself to rummage through individual sources, but I think this quote is a tell of the overall average of reliable sources out there if they were all to be found and balanced.
Still, whether or not a separate Freerunning article is started again, the term at least belongs solidly in here for now. It may not be easy to merge the two terms in a coherent whole which does justice to the precise term balance in the community, but it's a task that should be done. The article is ridiculous as it is now. Freerunning isn't even mentioned in any Contents category, and is only put mid-sentence toward the very end of the lede. I think we have to achieve a balance like the Freerunner quote. The distinction should be made clear in the first several words of the article. I think it should say "Parkour (a superset of Freerunning)..." and have a clearly labeled section called "Freerunning". As it is right now, someone looking for information on Freerunning who doesn't want to comb every sentence of the article looking for it--if they even know it's going to mentioned in the article at all--has to run a search in their browser to find the word throughout the page. I just can't comprehend the basic logic that a topic that at least arguably deserves its own article shouldn't even get a subsection in the only article that it's mentioned, or even be mentioned clearly in the lede... Squish7 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a consensus on Freerunning in the community. There are only three reliable sources that I know of that contain information on Freerunning, Sebastien Foucan's book, a relatively obscure radio interview with Sebastien, and a few paragraphs in Julie Angel's research thesis. All of them are fairly recent, none of those have received widespread publicity, and large parts of the respective communities of Parkour and Freerunning are still unaware of the information contained within.
I don't think we can consider the WFPF a reliable source on anything related to this article, since it's an organisation that exists solely for self-promotion. Same goes for the film 'Freerunner', which shares virtually nothing but a name with the discipline of Freerunning. Within the community, both the WFPF and the Freerunner film are usually seen as bad jokes with little credibility. Neither are representative of anything other than the desire that some people have to use Parkour and Freerunning for self-promotion.
You've made a good argument for Freerunning's inclusion on Wikipedia, but that's not the same thing as mixing Freerunning information into the Parkour article. The only reason it would be necessary to mix information about Freerunning into this article would be if many aspects of Freerunning were important to understanding Parkour. That is simply not the case. The only connection is that Freerunning developed out of Parkour, and so that is precisely what this article should say. Freerunning is simply not notable enough to Parkour to warrant consistent references to it here. Feraess (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
After digesting some of your points in the Ryan Doyle page discussion that were new to me (such as Parkour UK publicly rejecting the Red Bull Art of Motion), I think you're right that Freerunning should have its own article. The problem is that the consensus is currently against it. I suggest studying the history of the old page and figuring what was wrong with it that constituted deletion. If it was by a close vote, then maybe the debate can be ressurected, as you and I would be 2 more votes for it, and our arguments could also give weight (e.g. the point that FR is especially unwelcome here in the view of Parkour UK, and sources demonstrating offense at Ryan Doyle's use of "Parkour" in FR contexts).
It seems so unwelcome that I think even a stub article for Freerunning with minimal sources would be very appropriate calling for expansion from editors, especially since FR is a growing sport, and to boot, that the general demographic (youth athletics) is far removed from encyclopedia editing, and yet its a curious group who may easily be looking for information for it. Squish7 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI I'm baffled why you list so few sources. You're already intimate with Ryan Doyle and the sea of information surrounding him. The WFPF page of founders alone is a fruitful source of experts. Timothy Shieff and Daniel Ilabaca are two more experts already recognized by WP. Your argument that WFPF is a self-interested group doesn't nullify the objectivity of everyone who's ever had anything to do with it, even if you're right. A lot of those people phase in and out of the WFPF, it's not their primary thing.
If you want a really reputable source then examine this National Geographic episode of Fight Science Squish7 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that the old FR article was extremely thorough at one point, then over time got reduced to a couple sentences. It's probably best to start from there and ask what went wrong, adding new sources to give it more weight, than start a new article. You can review the history here. (To bring this up from scratch, search for "freerunning" then when it redirects, then click the small link that says "redirected from freerunning", then click "view history".)
I dream of horses says the process of resurrecting a deleted page is to nominate the article for articles for deletion, although I'm not sure if there was actually a debate on the matter. It may have just been user Izno's judgement, who redirected the page on Mar 15 2012 after it was paired down to a stub. I wrote him a message on his talk page. Squish7 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is verifiable information which can be cited from reliable sources, and if those sources also cover the topic in depth, then a separate article is warranted. (Reliable sources also ensure an article has a neutral point of view.) Even then, we must ask ourself whether there are enough sources to establish a separate article. Otherwise, it does more for those who wish to understand free running to read about free running within the greater context of its parent, parkour. Remember, we are not writing for parkour practitioners, nor free running fans, nor even sports aficionados. We are writing an encyclopedia for everyone, from the lay person who knows nothing of anything remotely similar to physical activity to the the Belles themselves, people I would suggest as experts on this particular topic.

A brief review of my decision is that the deletion of much of that information and subsequent redirection of the article was, and is still, warranted. To answer implied questions, no, I consulted with no-one but Drmies, who took part in the work that was done with the article. We simply applied editorial judgement in accordance with what Wikipedia believes make good and featured articles, the vast majority of which do not rely on primary sourcing to any great extent (and all of which have sourcing!, something the free running article did not if ever have). That is the problem with the sources you present, Squish. Until you can show that the information located on parkour regarding free running meets the necessary threshold for a split of this article, I have little faith that a notable article can be drafted. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Squish7, I think it's clear that Parkour and Freerunning are separate subjects, since that's what the reliable sources say. The issue, as Izno has pointed out again, is simply finding a reasonable number of reliable sources on Freerunning. So far I know of only Sebastien's book, Sebastien's radio interview and Julie Angel's 'Cine parkour' thesis, however there may be some we can salvage from the old Freerunning page. I think the best thing we can do for now is to find more sources on Freerunning.
There is a lot of media related to Tim Shieff and Daniel Ilabaca so I think we should be able to find sources on their views relatively easily, however I don't consider them to be experts. There is a difference between someone who is good at moving and someone who has a good understanding the discipline as a whole, and they are the former rather than the latter. This difference isn't often appreciated by the media that is focused on spectacle, but we need to be careful when we use their views in an article here. We can use them for sources on the views of freerunners, but we need to word things carefully to avoid confusing facts with opinions. There may be some things we can use from that Fight Science episode, but there is also a lot of nonsense so we need to be careful there too.
The guidelines are pretty clear that until we can find more sources we can't justify a separate article. So that's the place to concentrate at the moment. I'll search for some when I have time.Feraess (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You two have me on the line whether they should be separate articles, at least at the moment, and I definitely don't have time for the research that would be involved in the matter (also I'm up to my limit with edit wars). My point is that at the moment at least, the topic should have incredibly more than just about absolutely no presence in the article in now resides in, whether or not it can be furthered to a separate topic. The term "freerunning" should be a full section as it used to be, with a thorough run-through utilizing the infinite slew of sources out there, or at least the ones you two both agree on. It's just plain absurd for something so world-prominent as freerunning to be thrown under a section starting labeling it an issue of terminology. (Freerunning wasn't even mentioned in the lede until I added it.) It's just a silly non-prestence. The debate alone on the matter warrants documentation (i.e. at least a section "Freerunning vs Parkour". Big kudos to your search for reliable sources, but why not work out from a thorough sub-section here instead of putting it on your to-do list to go all out? I can't sit and bicker with all these particular sources, but anything once having an immersive article backed by 2 dozen sources of at least tolerable weight doesn't deserve to be so diminished as to be thrown in as a footnote in WP. A quick search on the net would bring up hundreds off semi-questionable sources that in conjunction form massive weight. I don't understand why you two are listing 2 or 3 absolutely uber-reliable sources when there are hundreds of tolerable substance, as shown in this revision of the article. Just the constant and omni-present pairing of "Parkour & Freeruning" warrants the latter in the first few words of the article... Squish7 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
For that matter, why not just call the article Parkour & Freerunning? They're paired practically more often than not. Even listing "Freerunning" in the first few words doesn't come near reflecting its prominence. If reliable sources for a separate article can't be found, then there's still no doubt that the term alone is extremely widespread. Just search YouTube for "Parkour"; up come lots of top results titled "Parkour & Freeruning". (Another good example is the World Parkour & Freerunning Federation.) There are in fact enough sources rejecting Freerunning as a part of Parkour, that many core traceurs will take offense to it being labeled as a subset. This would be solved by saying this article features Parkour and Freerunning. Squish7 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(in response to Feraess's removal of my including the phase "a superset of freerunning" in the first sentence): Feraess, even if you're right about Freerunning being "not relevant enough to be listed in the first sentence" ideally, you have to consider the current situation in which Freerunning redirects to this page. If you create a separate article, that's great, but given the fact that the subject is redirected, the article can't trivialize the term, let alone the subject, both of which it currently does. Whatever the relation between the two disciplines based on available reliable information, you can't argue that the terms/subjects aren't constantly paired. In fact, the fact that they're paired may support your proposition that FR isn't a part of Parkour, e.g. akin to saying "apples and oranges" when an orange is not an apple. However, if the page "oranges" redirects to "apples", the latter can't refrain from saying what an orange is or even mentioning it's a notable fruit. If you think FR should not be discussed on the same page as Parkour, then challenge Izno's complete removal of the page, and start with what you have as a stub. The consensus right now is that both subjects be covered on this page, so even if FR isn't notable enough to warrant a title change of the page to "PK & FR", the page stands strictly functionally serving as place where FR should be represented. If you think the terms are non sequitur, yet can't override the consensus that they should be listed on this page for now, then you have to suggest a method of properly representing FR here while at the same time explaining to the reader that FR does not quite fit under PK. Squish7 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
My primary concern here is the quality of the information available on Parkour. This article is fine as it is. There is no need to have more information about freerunning in an article on Parkour. Freerunning is a separate subject. Wikipedia should have more information about freerunning, I agree, but not here in this article. But don't worry, there'll be a separate freerunning article again shortly. I've found that there are a bunch of references so I'm working on it now, so it'll be done by tomorrow at the latest.
There's no need to challenge Izno's merger. Not only is there no consensus that the information on freerunning should be in this article, I checked the talk histories and the merger has been rejected several times in discussions. It shouldn't have been merged in the first place. The article wasn't in good condition, but that means it should have been improved rather than merged. That'll be fixed shortly.
In the meantime, please stop adding freerunning to the lead of the Parkour article. It is simply not helpful to the understanding of Parkour to refer to freerunning in the first sentence. Be patient for a couple of hours! Feraess (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're really that close to a replacement, then fine, that's all fine, there's no point in bickering in a change for a day or two, especially because as you say there's been no solid consensus. Nonetheless, it still strictly stands that agreeing to allow WP to be less accurate and less following guidelines of the material is still a courtesy to you from an editor putting up the correct information tentatively no matter what your personal promise is that the issue will be resolved in any particular time frame. Your relentless riff that there is an issue that needs to be resolved a certain way gives you zero right to revert edits that are appropriate before you take your action. Engaging in even a minor edit war is just a headache for everyone. If you're so close to handling this a proper way, why sit and bicker back and forth to achieve a change that will be up a day or two? You're instantaneous reversions establish your concern that an article be correct even on the scale of minutes. Therefore you can't turn around and tell me that I should be patient just because you promise a short time frame before you apply your future edits.
I think very few people if any will agree that WP should be made less accurate--i.e. that guidelines should be less followed--as the prelude to the personal resolution of an editor that the most accurate edits are coming soon. You've made no argument of what the page should be like in the current scenario that Freerunning is directed to this page. You're sole and only argument stated over and over is that things should ideally be another way entirely. I don't have the information you have about precisely how close you are to applying your master solution--at least I didn't throughout all these back-and-forth edits--so without that I have an obligation as someone assigning himself the task of making certain pages as accurate as possible, to make edits appropriate indefinitely, whether this is a minute or an hour or a year. Your actions are just plain inappropriate conduct. Please correct it in the future. Squish7 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I'm sorry but I don't understand how removing unsourced material on freerunning from the lead paragraph on Parkour, or removing confusing material on freerunning from the first sentence of the article, could be considered 'making Wikipedia less accurate'. Despite the fact that 'Freerunning' currently redirects to this article, the subject of this article is 'Parkour' not 'Parkour and Freerunning'.
The lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the information contained within the rest of the article. If there's a lot of information on freerunning in the Parkour article then it should be split off into a separate article. If there is only a small amount of information on freerunning in the article, as is the case at the moment, then the lead needs to reflect that. It's not a case of indulging individual editors, we all have to stick to the guidelines in WP:Lead.
The only scenario in which is would be appropriate to include the word 'freerunning' in the first sentence would be if it was just an alternate name for Parkour. That, however, is an idea that we have all rejected.
I'm pleading for patience on your part not to indulge me, but so that this article remains within Wikipedia guidelines. A perceived lack of information about freerunning is not sufficient reason to ignore them, even temporarily. If you're not clear on this, maybe we should get someone else in who can explain it better than I can.Feraess (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You may have convinced me on the precise technicality of every individual point you've argued, but in sum/spirit it just plains stands silly how underrepresented FR is on WP as a term and subject. Every third article or video on the internet feature and list by title FR & PK together, either paired as related but separate subjects (your view), or used synonymously by people who don't know/care about the differences. The major world organization for PK/FR, self-interested or not, calls itself the World Freerunning and Parkour Federation, and prominent athletes with elements of both disciplines sometimes don't even bother with the precise distinctions themselves. FR had its own extremely thorough article here backed by 2-dozen tolerably weighted sources. It got vaporized down to nothingness by an infinite string of these technicalities of yours that do not hold when considered in sum in a whole picture. Maybe 5 sources of the article were only semi-reliable for this reason, and another 5 were only semi-reliable for that reason, but this endless string of red tape has led to not a mild, but a notable vacuum representation of a sport/artform that if looked at in the entire picture, belongs in WP by all means. Where red tape of any kind has bypassed the heart, spirit, soul, and core of the guidelines, policies, or laws they utilized, they've become in violation of such laws/policies, malicious intent or plausible denial.
If the only way to represent that core/spirit is to go back and unravel that entire mile of accumulation of hundreds of points and spend the days of labor with every single one that you've been fighting me on to add it all back up--arguing that these or that 10 sources when put together add weight when they were all discarded because each was only 10% reliable--then our ways of executing WP policy should be revised.
Consider that at least 3 top Freerunning athletes have sturdy, solidly-backed articles that have stood the test of time. That makes it functionally unsound that the general discpline/artform that the individuals study is not represented at all. You couldn't recognize 3 top experts in a scientific field and say the scientific field itself does not warrant attention or even noting. Your argument is perfectly fine on the absolute scale, and more so if you're really on top of things as you say, but what you're ignoring is the fact that life is not perfect; this is the point of tagging endless pages and phrases with "needs changes" or "needs citations", etc. It just shouldn't have gotten to this point if each editor had taken the entire picture into account rather than hacking apart the article with fine details. If it was impossible or very difficult, then the editing of WP should be modified to avoid such scenarios in the future.
I wish I could spend the type of time you've convinced me would be necessary to establish a solid FR presence here, and kudos to you for taking that road, but the basic absurdity should be observed that this endless string of hoops and edit wars shouldn't be needed to establish a subject that's notable by the heart and core of the policies. Squish7 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is the way of Wikipedia to include controversial information only after discussion and then consensus. If you can spare even a little bit of time, it would be good if you could look over the re-vamped Freerunning article and see if you can improve it.
One suggestion I would make is to not put too much faith in the opinions of people who joined the Parkour or freerunning community after they learned how to move via other disciplines like gymnastics or acrobatics. Parkour and freerunning are training disciplines, and if you join near the top then you've missed out on experiencing most of what those disciplines involve. For example, both Tim Shieff and Ryan Doyle had reached a high level of movement ability through other disciplines before they started using the name freerunning, and the same goes for most of the people who have achieved fame through freerunning so far. They are good at moving, but have never gone through the process of learning the basics of the discipline and so consequently don't understand them.
Anyway, there's a separate Freerunning article again now so we should probably move freerunning discussion back there. Feraess (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


Whenever freerunning has it's own page or not does not really matter.

There is one important point i'd like to make:

1) Keep the freerunning page straight-forward and reject nonsense tied to it.

As said before, there isn't a consensus on Freerunning in the community. But that does not really matter at all. You don't need a consensus of what Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do is. Because it is already defined by him - the founder - in the same way as parkour or freerunning. It is not up to debate. There is no war between parkour and freerunning as some people in the community portrays it, particulary in still un-going internet wars and that sort of rubbish. Red Bull or Ryan Doyle is not reliable sources. They were never trained by any of the founders and therefore they are most likely not aware of its origins or its values and philosophy. They were never involved in the development of it. The article should represent facts. These facts are found in history. By those who were there developing the discipline. Reliable sources that we have right now is Julie Angels PhD Ciné Parkour, David's book', Foucans book, and partly Dan Edwardes book which is endorsed by for instance Chau Belle Dinh and David's and Sébastiens former student Stephane Vigroux.

It's vital to understand that parkour or freerunning never have been defined as simply moving but as a specific training method. ParkourHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jackie Chan[edit]

Guys, perhaps some credits for Jackie Chan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.176.134 (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to evidence that Jackie Chan had any influence on the formation of the art or the community, or even that he's been involved in it? --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you disprove Chan had any influence ? Many traceurs cite him as an influence. This article (namely its history section) is very European centric and should consider events and people that had influence on the art and community from around the world. Unless you opt to define the word Parkour by taking a very Bell-centric point of view, you cannot exclude the rest of the world or history (for an analogy, see the history of the various martial arts). Assigning a label, proposing a training regimen, systematizing movements and building a community-philosophy, although very important, does not nullify the rest of history that has a link to the art. In its current form, this text is heavily biased.
I don't see anything wrong with assigning a label to someone who practices or practiced, functionally, by nature a discipline that was not named at the time they most practiced it, or who doesn't officially associate with a particular community. For instance, a psychologist might analyze a long-gone writer as being schizophrenic, etc. You could do it if you found solid references stating that Jackie Chan seems to practice Parkour by nature. Ryan Doyle who is strongly likened to Jackie Chan calls him the "godfather of freerunning", hence if others said this it might be stated that Jackie Chan practices Freerunning. You'd have to find similar references that he practices Parkour to mention him I suppose. You might have better luck mentioning him in the now-restored freerunning article. Squish7 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The sort of analysis you're likening this to (a psychologist characterizing a dead writer as schizophrenic) might have place in an academic paper, but not so much in an encyclopedia. If an academic paper ever does link Jackie Chan to Parkour, ideally in a more direct fashion than "Jackie Chan is like $person" and "$person is like the grandfather of freerunning", then I'd say go nuts, but right now, there's not even any speculation about it that you've shown. I look forward to your research, however. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Parkour in Minecraft[edit]

Could something be added to the Popular Culture section to mention the popularity of Parkour courses in Minecraft? There are servers maintained solely for the purpose of Parkour. A Google search for "Minecraft Parkour" will turn up quite a few of them. 98.95.65.245 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources must verify that fact. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why Google is not a reliable source for reporting what information exists. People are always saying "A search for PK/FR will bring up..." and the response is always that something reliable must verify the search. What about is Google not credible, notable, objective, or verifiable? It fits every test WP has for a good source. None of the personal/layman YouTube videos have to be credible to report that a lot of them exist, which is 100% proven by a proper Google search. WP may not have a method or habit for quoting a Google search as a source, but that's not any reason not to start doing such. Squish7 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You missed a very important criterion (or perhaps "credibility" to you is not the same as me): The information needs to be published by a source which a) fact checks its work, b) is known for consistently fact checking its work, and is c) known for consistently reporting the information correctly. You and I fit some of that. Google does none of that.

From a practical point of view, however, saying that there are "many" or that it is "popular" fails another of our guidelines, which is WP:Weasel words (the passive voice helps identify it as such as well). The claim is innately unverifiable because of the way it is phrased. From a second practical point of view, how many does "popular" make? 5? 20? 100? 1000? X% of the total? How many is the total? A certain number of links returned in a Google search? How can we know that all of those aren't simply black hat SEO links which all point to one server? I hope you see my point….

Specifically though, in the case of popular culture, I say that it should be the case because I don't want the section to become the bloated pile of crap that parkour in popular culture was. Everything in that section needs to have a notable topic associated with it, everything needs an RS to go with it as a statement (out of interest of verifiability), and that RS needs to connect parkour to that particular notable topic. (Mind you, as it is, there are a handful of sentences which don't currently meet those criteria. I've let my own discretion leave them….) --Izno (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your responsiveness. I'm not sure whether I disagree or don't understand, so allow me to debate a bit. The article on The sun uses the word "many" 13 times. The IMAX article uses it 4 times. What is kosher about these instances that do not fit under weasel words? Clearly there is a time to use "many", "popular", etc., so how do you/WP quantify the line between usable and not? You can't say the fact that a spectrum exists nullifies the use of the words. Your point boils down to the difficulty of using them properly; it doesn't eliminate the words from the English language. The Popular culture section utilizes the phrases "a few", "a number of", "heavy use", and "a large amount of". All of these are on a scale and have to come from somewhere. All that aside, you can still fulfill your requirement by quoting more exact numbers. Maybe a precise hit count isn't reliable by your logic, but if hundreds of results come up for XYZ, you can definitely say at least "dozens of...".
Put aside the fact-checking policy you quote for a moment. What about the purpose behind the rule is not fulfilled in this case? Google technically does not double-check its work, and is technically not a published source, etc., but this is red tape. The spirit of fact-checking and reliability/history of fact-checking is fulfilled plentifully by a machine that always behaves the same. How can you ask a perfect machine to double-check its results? Your publication requirement would be fulfilled if there was a "Google Magazine" in which the G staff reported the results of millions of searches, because G staff are professional and reliable.
I don't see your false SEO link point at all. We're talking about a search we can run on YouTube and see the videos come right up. It's a light job to click the first 2-dozen videos and confirm they exist. Technically we could say all editor research is original because the editor reporting "the source exists" does not have another source that also says the source exists, etc. The spirit of verifiability and fact-checking is fulfilled by a G or Y/T search combined with the task of making sure the information that comes up is correct just in case of a blue-moon error like Y/T listing 20 videos from the same channel first, etc... Squish7 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's because the collective authors of Sun are attempting to write a both dense and technical topic for the generalist masses within the constraints of both space and neutral point of view. But either way, the sentences in which they are contained are cited to reliable sources, so I would expect that were we to actually verify the truth-statement of the sentences ourselves (by referring ourselves to those citations), we'd find the articles not incorrect.

"Your point boils down to the difficulty of using them properly; it doesn't eliminate the words from the English language. [...] All that aside, you can still fulfill your requirement by quoting more exact numbers." No, this is not the case; my point boils down to the same that WP:GOOGLE's does: A search engine is not measuring what you think it's measuring. On an aside, the number of results you'll end up will be different than the ones I will receive. This machine you call a search engine is not so consistent as you seem to think.

"The Popular culture section utilizes the phrases "a few", "a number of", "heavy use", and "a large amount of". All of these are on a scale and have to come from somewhere." And they can likely be improved, too! I've always been bad at topic sentences. Maybe we shouldn't have any! (I've always wondered how exactly the notion of a topic sentence squares with writing for Wikipedia….)

"Put aside the fact-checking policy..." You are in the wrong place if an axiom in your argument is one which denies the existence of one of the five pillars, so I don't feel a need to argue on that paragraph. If you have a problem with the need for third party reliable secondary sourcing (leading to verifiability and neutral point of view, all guidelines or policies), then you're writing for the wrong encyclopedia.

But let me argue it anyway: "Your publication requirement would be fulfilled if there was a "Google Magazine" in which the G staff reported the results of millions of searches, because G staff are professional and reliable." That they are professional is undoubtedly true (but irrelevant?). That they are reliable about their own content is not necessarily the case. But they still fail another part of the test, which is that they must be seen as reliable on the topic on which we are writing. Does Google (or Google's hypothetical staff) care about parkour? Unlikely, even in this scenario. But either which way, it's all a hypothetical. Google (YouTube) is plainly unreliable. The "spirit" of verifiability and fact checking is not fulfilled by a machine, of any sort. --Izno (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write peripheral stuff about parkour in popular culture, add it to the free running wiki. I've added it as a link in the external links section so hopefully people add stuff there instead of here. ··gracefool 03:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up 404's and adding new external links[edit]

I'd like to repair a couple of refrences on this page and adding new external links of a Parkour information websites that add information to the disscusion of what the discipline is and new information on the current scene. Two of the references are dead

Refrence 27 Dead: Two Theories on Parkour Philosophy can be replaced with web archive link Two Theories on Parkour Philosophy and Refrence 56 Dead: Parkour All in a day's training can be replaced with original Parkour: All in a day's training

There are new websites that provide information not listed, like these: Parkour Training Blog, 3RUN and WFPF.

Traceur.dan (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to clean up some of the links for a while, so thanks for that.
The sites you mention don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for external links so we can't include links to them on the page. WFPF and 3run both fail on account of existing primarily for commercial purposes, and ParkourTrain is a blog by someone who is not a recognised authority (...you?).
We might be able to find information on ParkourTrain that we can use as a source to support additions to the article, but I've not seen either WFPF or 3run produce anything useful and in any case they generally aren't reliable. Feraess (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree about 3RUN and WFPF after reviewing their websites deeper. As for ParkourTrain, there are a number of useful articles about techniques, strength and philosophy that, I believe, build on the subject. The information focuses on Parkour and offers insight on the matter. Traceur.dan (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

COI ?[edit]

Is there a reason for the recently placed COI tag? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I also have this question. I removed the tag because no one's explained it here despite your question being up for over 3 weeks. You can't have a tag that says "Please discuss these issues" and then refuse to give any explanation when people want to know.
Personally, I'm disgusted with the incessant violation of policy via editing without discussing, especially when directly prompted to give reasoning on the talk page, and especially when experienced editors do it. Please point to the section in the policy files that says that the more experience one has, the less they're required to discuss or explain their edits. Squish7 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Squish7, I apologize for having missed these posts. I'm sorry you are disgusted, but I don't believe I flouted any policy here. To answer GenQuest's original question, after noticing edits by ParkourHistory, and their apparent single purpose,[4] I placed the tag here and at the user's talk page. Again I missed this post but would not have been distressed had I been pinged through the notification process, or had a note placed on my talk page. In any regard, if the editors who edit here regularly are satisfied that the article is neutral, it is fine removing the tag. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to direct my complaining to you; it was a bit of an aside. Squish7 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Izno film re-revert[edit]

According to policy, unless the claim is nonsense or both doubtful and harmful, you should add a citation, not delete the content, or tag it with {{unreferenced}}.

WP:RS doesn't mean that every single sentence has to have a direct reference.

Re Crimson Rivers II: Angels of the Apocalypse: You can see David Belle listed as a stuntman at imdb, and the movie itself is the citation the freerunning. Citations of everything that happens in a film are not required - go look at any film article - since the film itself is the reliable source.

Re The Sons of the Wind, again there are plenty of sources showing this to be the sequel to Yamakasi (eg. imdb). Just because the article hasn't yet been created in the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it can't be mentioned!

··gracefool 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is useful to ignore such a policy (it is in fact a guideline; there is a distinction) when you have a popular culture section, which can become bloated piles of crap like parkour in popular culture when all that you require is "oh, I think this relation exists".
Our policy on verifiability does require an inline or direct citation if that material is challenged. Consider my reverts a challenge. The onus is not on me to verify that a claim is true but on the adder of the material (see boldface at the bottom of the section).
On Apocalypse:
  • IMDB is not reliable when used as a source.
  • The film is not a reliable secondary source but a primary source, and it does not pass the test of WP:SPS as this is not an article on the film.
  • Lastly, even if it is true that he plays a freerunning character, I would expect to see a WP:RS that connects parkour or freerunning to the film in a substantive fashion, or vice versa. See first paragraph. See also WP:TRIVIA.
On Sons:
  • IMDB is not reliable when used as a source.
  • My point on WP:N-only articles listed in this section is that it is a convenient requirement for keeping cruft out of the article. See my first paragraph. See also WP:TRIVIA. See Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE, linked prominently at WP:IINFO.
--Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm good to know, that burden of evidence stuff wasn't there last time I read that policy.
It's not just that they're movies featuring parkour, but that they're some of the first depictions of parkour in movies. But fine, Apocalypse doesn't feature parkour, so I'll leave it out. Re Sons, I found it does have an article: Les fils du vent, so I've re-added it.
··gracefool 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that line may have been borne out of AFD….

I can probably live with Sons, as the former film is also in this article without citation. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience :) ··gracefool 06:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other references to sport[edit]

There seems to be a continuing effort to call parkour simply "PK". Most references I have seen simply call it parkour, or even free running, but not PK. Is threr a body of additional RS sources out there in which this is referred to as PK? GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Even wikipedia itself refers to it as PK. The entire talk page has people referring to it as PK. I added links of the Tapp Brothers using it and they are MANY more. Oh, and you forgot your name. BlackDragon 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. The Tapp Brothers article satisfies me for reliable sourcing. There's a lot of stuff enthusiasts add to this article that is unsourced. PK has been one of them, but someone finally actually added a source for their content. For that, I thank you.
Oh, for your information, Wikipedia (especially the talk pages) is NOT considered a reliable source. Cheers. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Its just kinda common knowledge. Thats probably why. And I know its not reliable, I was just pointing out that when you said to look at the talk page the only mention of PK was other people using it. BlackDragon 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance removing vandalism under History[edit]

At the end of the third paragraph in the History section, there's this:

Through conversations with his father, he realized that what he really wanted was a means to develop skills that would be useful to him in life, rather than just training to kick a ball or perform moves in a padded, indoor environment.[4][26] Banana is good

I went into the edit console but can't figure it out. There's no reference to bananas in the code. Can someone help? 209.118.51.106 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone vandalised a template. It's fixed now. ··gracefool 12:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Movement" section needs particulars[edit]

I can understand if there's no consensus on the terms for the movements listed, but the section should at least list some major ones used like "wall run" or "wall climb" for the first movement listed. The list looks silly without any suggestion of what to call these things. Perhaps names could be pulled from other sports/disciplines with more documentation to support them (e.g. experts/stars that called them something.) Squish7 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has gone back and forth on this issue a number of times. I agree with you that we may as well name them, but some people want to avoid this in fear of presenting Parkour as a list of moves. ··gracefool 13:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is biased. Also, please do not remove the incident of the death of a 13years old boy in Greece while trying to do parkour[edit]

This article is biased and actually it is an advertisement of the hobby (that some call a sport, but I disagree) called parkour. I find it unacceptable that a few days ago someone (I guess the person you wrote the article) deleted the addition about the 13 years old child in Greece who died on 30 October 2014 after trying to do parkour in Salonica; as he was jumping between roofs of a 7 storey building! Also, many injuries have occured (including fractures) from people (including kids) trying to do parkour. These are facts, regardless if they occured from non professionals. Wiki is an encyclopedia where we should tell the truth, and not to hide things such as the death of a child from parkour. An administrator should intervene in case the incidence with the death of the boy is deleted again. This article is not a personal page. 688dim (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How many sports or adventure articles mention deaths incurred while performing them? It's only appropriate for those with a very high death rate like BASE jumping. In the context of the rest of the encyclopaedia, talking about fatalities gives a misleading idea of the danger of parkour. There are way more deaths from popular sports like rugby or even soccer; if those don't have them, why should this?
It's not about hiding or advertising, but about context and appropriateness.
The facts on deaths and injuries show parkour isn't more dangerous than other sports and physical activities; the article should reflect that.
Also, what is parkour? Is every idiot jumping off a building or backflipping from a roof doing parkour? Is everyone "trying to do parkour" actually doing parkour? You need to show why this is about parkour, as opposed to a general lack of sense. There are many deaths that can be attributed to parkour, like Pavel Kashin's backflip on the edge of a 16-storey building, but that doesn't mean they should be. As it says in the preceding paragraph, "leading parkour experts tend to view physical injury as a deviation from true parkour." That's even more true of death.
So adding the line about the 13 year old's death is not only misleading, but inconsistent with the rest of the article. Convince us why it should stay, in context with the article itself and Wikipedia articles on similar subjects. ··gracefool💬 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if you have written the article, however everything you said is your personal opinion and thus, biased. Of course I think that the death of a 13 years old child that fell from a 7 storey building trying to do parkour should be included here, as this is an encyclopedia and not a personal page of someone who refers to parkour with an ideal way, by hiding some incidents such as the death of a child. Parkour is a new sport (however to my mind is not a sport, but a hobby) so fatalities should be mentioned. In other sports the deaths are well known, so are not mentioned. The death should be included in the article to support the idea that parkour is not 100% safe (that we may assume if the death and injuries were not mentioned here), especially if performed by non - professionals (but still, most do this hobby for fun). Also, your questions what is parkour and what is real parkour are irrelevant with the death of the kid. 688dim (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

lol everything anyone says is a personal opinion, the point is whether or not it's true... I'm not sure why a new sport should be made to look more dangerous than other sports just because it's new. Parkour is already seen as being much more dangerous than it is. Those questions are totally relevant...
Anyway whatever, I'm leaving it, we'll see if it sticks. BTW no one person writes any article on Wikipedia, least of all a popular one like this. Go to the article and click the "View history" link to see all the contributors.
I've improved the sentence and the references. ··gracefool💬 08:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not disagree that everything everyone says is subjective, however this is an encyclopedia where we are supposed to write objective things and facts, with related reference from objective and reliable sources. The incident about the death of the kid is true and there are references related to it. I did not say that this sport is more dangerous than the rest. By the way I doubt that it is even a sport. I think it is a hobby (this is indeed a personal opinion!). About the contributors I don't doubt that they created the article, however one of them removed the incident of the death of the boy, something that as I scientist and a wiki contibutor I find unacceptable. Namely I find it not appropriate to hide things that someone may think that may ruin the good and ideal picture that wants to give for the article that he/she wrote.

I also noticed that this article is so biased that even now you or perhaps another contributer changed the words of the incident with the death of the kid and removed the phrase the kid died trying to do parkour, but left it that he died jumping from the roof, as if he incidentally went to the roof and slipped! Don't you realize that its not your personal web page to add and remove whatever you wish in order to remove any flaws that parkour has? Why do you feel that you need to make an article with an ideal way of presenting parkour? Don't you see that all the reference related to the death of the boy mention clearly that the kid tried to do parkour and fell from the roof of the 7 floor building? I think that if you want to make a subjective description of parkour the best way is to write an article on your personal web page or facebook rather than here. I guess that you realize that this is an encyclopedia where we should not hide things. 688dim (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was me, learn to use the history... You're not responding to my points, but whatever. Chill out and assume good faith! I'm happy with you re-adding that. ··gracefool💬 08:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The death is relevant, and should stay. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Continuing need for clarification of parkour-freerunning issue[edit]

There is a continuing need for clarification of parkour-freerunning issue. Whatever the original founders' perspectives on this—and these should be stated and honoured, to the extent that they were the historical participants in this endeavours' founding—there are separate issues that have to with lexicography and linguistics.

An argument can be made, practically and formally, that there is an evolving distinction between these terms, and between the original aims of the founders of parkour and its current widespread participants. In its origins, efficiency of traverse was the aim; in more modern forms, embellishment and flourish appear to be gaining in esteem. This departure, if accurate in its perception, suggests codifiable distinctives between the two practices, across the board—in philosophy, moves, adherents, etc.

I will keep an eye, but it seems to me that activities that may have once been identical have subsequently diverged, and that the English language usage of the terms may be capturing this reality via diverging connotations—because neither sporting practice nor language are, as we all know, as static as the strongly held ideas of individuals. For now, all this is opinion, but I look forward to sources being offered on this, and others' observations and discussion appearing. I may myself write and publish this "divergence" story, if no one else does. Bonsoir. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, the freerunning article makes the case that freerunning is distinct and derivative. The two articles clearly need to be fully reconciled, and made consistent. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Middle Eastern Influences" section[edit]

I've read this section several times, and I'm not even seeing the relevance of it to the article at large, nor does it seem to be what the section is about. It starts out stating that cheap tech and social media have allowed parkour to be seen from places it hadn't been before, but by then end, it's talking about "parkour activists" in Gaza (with no definition of what a "parkour activist" is). So there seem to be several unrelated ideas in this section, none of which actually are connected to the tile of the section. Is there even a need to keep this? MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the references looked liked it was a reliable source. The section needs to be trimmed, renamed, and broaded in scope to international influences per WP:WEIGHT. The editor who made the changes may potentially have a WP:COI or be a WP:SPA given the topic matter, but I'm not sure all of the content is WP:TRIVIAL. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Having a direction to go in with the section is helpful; COI/SPA aside, I couldn't tell what the section focus was. If it's going to be broadened, that shouldn't be too baf, but what's the perspective of "international" here? Is it with respect to the origins of the sport, so that anything parkour outside France would be international? MSJapan (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)