Talk:Ryan Doyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Running (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Ryan Doyle:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : This New York Times article has lots of material we can use.
  • Update : Any new competition results should be added.

Initial request for review[edit]

Would a kind passerby mind reviewing this article closely for quality and correctness? This is my first article from scratch and I'd like to know if I'm doing anything wrong before continuing or heavily editing similar articles. In particular, has the amount of objectivity in my references created a solid argument for notability? I think, Marvel, and IMDb(?) create a good base. The others are a bit more subjective, but I'm assuming, still usable. E.g. Ryan is a founder of WFPF, but this is much more removed than, say, his personal website or YouTube page, which I've not referenced. (Are fully personal websites completely off the chart, or can they be lightly referenced, for instance, for biography information not covered elsewhere?) And while he's heavily involved with Red Bull, they seem a very reputable and established entity, affecting athletic culture and community rather than merely a product manufacturer. Can I assume this is an appropriate second-party(?) source? Thanks for your help! Squish7 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:RS. Forget IMDb - it's user supplied. Also, forget profiles on related sites - usually user supplied too. I'd also say keep away from Red Bull and any other sponsor or promoter or organiser. They are not reliable in that they won't say anything against the subject. (There may be nothing bad or indifferent to say - but we still don't trust them.) Avoid all blogs, forums and editable things (including us and other wikis). No to MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, AboutUs and LinkedIn (and similar). RS will tell you about independent reliable sources. The ones you cite may all be truthful, but I would not rely on them. Good luck... Peridon (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm just not getting this. I'm not trying to bicker uselessly or waste your time; I'm just plain baffled. I've scanned through relevant help files a hundred times, asked many questions and carefully absorbed the answers, and all I see is vehement disharmony between the spirit of objectivity, and the red tape. Discarding all split-hair whining on my part (like that IMDb seems perfectly objective, albeit user-generated) and tabling petty particulars, I just don't get the BIG stuff. All the reasons for the alllll the particular rules and policies rest on the foundation of presenting accurate, unbiased, balanced information. Disallowing each and every smigen of material nontrivially connected to the subject matter, even under a unanimous consensus of nonprofit editors (writing more about what they're interested in than what they detest), wipes out nearly every source of information on a topic, place, person, thing, or idea, because people connected to a topic are the people have information.
A person knows their childhood history; their company knows their work schedule and project status; their college knows their GPA; their sober friends remember their ski ball score got when too drunk to remember. A truly unbiased newspaper (if it were even possible for one to exist, given reporters are all at least tainted by the motivation to publish interesting information, often further: to promote sales), can't audit diaries and birth certificates and social security files and folders to make a public figure and their organization haven't committed global identity fraud. Most for-profit publications deal with what they like and know about; they're interested in their subject material; they shake hands to say hello at an interview, they smile; they don't torture and interrogate, and they're not androids that speak in monotone completely removed from the human condition. Even objective film critics like the medium of film more than they detest it, showing bias.
Every in-depth storyteller takes a biased point of view. They convey it by who, what, where, when, why, and how they interview. Even Wikipedia can create point of view by including some information, and not other information, e.g. that which people who don't edit things like Wikipedia might contribute. An editor who knows something negative about an individual or topic, but does not include it because they enjoy dealing with their topic, is not objectively presenting information, therby negating the credibility of every editor not mechanically obsessed with transposing all binary and molecular information, everywhere, into a searchable, on-line format. It would take an omnicient entity to know all information everywhere and present it in equal portions. Even then, if God were biased, who would know?
Red Bull (and any e.g. akin), intrinsically, has no motive to lie about whether an athletic invent existed, or what a sponsored athlete's date of birth is. Even supposing they had such a motive, and a history of moderate fraud, why wouldn't an encyclopedia editor--emphatically charged with collecting as much information as possible for the single purpose of objective verifiability--not be able to filter, sift, weigh, and balance. E.g., "Joe has a dog named Fido, and is the nicest person in the history of humanity." The latter phrase is intrinsically prone to bias, but the former--especially if the reporting entity has never lied about whether someone has a dog--is not.
By this logic, no NFL or NBA stat reported by anyone but a clique of nuns can be trusted, because throwing games could generate revenue. Even a nun has a motive to fake her religion, because then she could get away with posting erroneous baseball stats, for who would accuse her? Red Bull could fund the tereforming of a nearby planet, and no news could be reported on WP if they continued to sell an energy drink. This is just paranoid. My stub article is balanced. If there's a conspiracy among Red Bull, MTV, Marvel, WFPF, IMDb, and every online source of information on parkour, to fabricate the existence of Ryan Doyle, the next dozen sources I find could easily be in on the conspiracy, too... Squish7 (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Honestly, it doesn't sound like you've been able to review the link to guidelines pertaining reliable sources yet. Peridon has offered some valuable advice above, while Chzz has offered guidance on your talk page. Nobody can help you "get it" anymore than providing links that present indepth information about what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. At this point, it's really up to you to make the most of every opportunity to learn the policies and guidelines established by the community, by reading the linked information offered. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you all for all your help. If you'd allow me a last inquiry, though. What kind of time frame do I have to ensure the article is up to par? Honestly, my question was not about what reliability is all about. I already know basically everything you've told me. I've talked about it because you brought it all up. I already knew that IMDb, YouTube, Myspace, personal pages, etc., etc., were on the taboo list, and the reasons behind this. For example, my question mark after IMDb was meant to signify "does the reference create any tentative support in combination with others, given it's a generally taboo source". In the context of the paragraph, I honestly think this is the appropriate interpretation, even if I should have closely clarified. I really think attention to detail would have prevented going into what I already basically knew.
The only question I originally asked was whether my particular set of sources have created a good base for the existence for the article. Should I or should I not have created this page given the more reliable sources I've found? I still have very little idea whether the combination of the quality of the 10 sources I've selected warrants a proper short article, or at least an appropriate draft. I'm sorry if you've misunderstood, but I really think my prose was precise. No, I should not have gone into a tangent of my opinion when you changed the subject; I should have further clarified my question, but I'm ADHD and felt the urge to respond to things I disagree with (the level of strictness, which I don't understand, and has nothing to do with all the basics I already knew about after studying the help files and policies closely, hence my refraining from using up your time asking out of respect). I asked for a review of the article, whether I did a good job adhering to the rules. A proper response might have been, "most of your sources are appropriate, except IMDb, which should not be used whatsoever", tweaking what the help articles say, which are not infinitely detailed for every single scenario. I would still very much appreciate your help in this matter.
In short, what do you think of the quality of this stub artictle? For instance, you might say "half your sources seem reliable, it needs work, but it's a good beginning and establishes notoriety", or, "you should not have created this page if this is all you have". Thank you for your help. I apologize for any misuse of time for which I'm to blame. Squish7 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I will say that it's been up for three days, someone's done a copyed, and no-one's tagged it for anything yet. If our team of patrollers haven't objected to it yet, there can't be much wrong with it. They're usually there within five minutes. I would advise getting a bit of outside coverage to be safe - press reports or such. One or two would stop a refimprove tag - which in itself isn't a case for total despair. They can be there for months or years. No need to apologise for anything. You needed to know, we're here to try to help (as well as to delete things...). One thing I will ask is that you don't use 'notoriety' where 'notability' is the word (or 'fame'). Notoriety can mean fame, but only in the cases of people like Al Capone, Pol Pot or (locally) certain sockpuppeteers and persistent vandals. It seems to be a leakage from hiphop or rap, where you apparently have to be seen as notorious even though you come from from a middle class household and have never even been told off by a cop for riding your bike without lights. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Abyss between taboos and spirit of WP:RS[edit]

This is for Peridon or anyone to comment on... I appreciate everyone's help so far with my first article, but there's still a huge abyss between what a lot of people have told me directly, and what I feel the spirit and wording of WP:RS cover. Particularly I've been struggling with the vehemency of this quote, being the epitome of a prevalent attitude:

Forget IMDb - it's user supplied. Also, forget profiles on related sites - usually user supplied too. I'd also say keep away from Red Bull and any other sponsor or promoter or organiser. They are not reliable in that they won't say anything against the subject. (There may be nothing bad or indifferent to say - but we still don't trust them.) Avoid all blogs, forums and editable things (including us and other wikis). No to MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, AboutUs and LinkedIn (and similar).

Firstly, WP:RS directly states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. Does this not declare Ryan's personal webpage and YouTube videos definitively allowable sources for all sorts of information, i.e. biography, childhood, tastes, philosophies, etc.? And, does this not by definition welcome event dates and statistics from Red Bull (i.e. NFL / NBA stats), Ryan's status in Red Bull community, etc?...

Second, WP:RS states that internal document context is 1/3 of the weight of reliability. In combination with that editors are generally dynamic people capable of putting together a complex scenario (including analysis of strictly verifiable third-party sources and their relation to potentially questionable sources), can't the 1/3 in theory torpedo potential unreliability in certain scenarios? Especially if others agree and meet the same conclusion?

The stub I wrote has been up for over a week, from which I induce general tacit approval of my methods. I wrote it intuitively, and it feels like I've been jumping through hoops to technically quantify and justify my methods. I want to continue intuitively but this gap between all your rules and what I feel to be correct (backed by the continued existence of the article) is abysmal. It's not about the past; it's about that I don't want to write an 80-page article and be told that my methods weren't really appropriate to begin with. From what you say, my first 3 sources, used for 8 different references, are taboo. Yet I feel they're very verifiable, and that my judgement in using them as a collective with all the sources is quite kosher, and, that the spirit and wording of the WP:RS backs that initial intuition up. However, this is totally opposite your general statements.

There's an absolute wealth of Ryan Doyle information on YouTube, his sites,, objective parkour sites that link to these things (but only a scant handful, which I feel establishes the rest as credible and not fraud), etc., etc... He uploads a lot of external material, e.g. a Red Bull commerical, which I saw "air" on YouTube as an official advertisement (i.e. the YouTube equivalent of TV commercials). Do I really need to go locate an independent cable television broadcaster of the commercial, or locate a database of official YouTube advertisement videos, to confirm it wasn't fabricated, and be able to take the tone of it being an official Red Bull advertisement, not a personal video that Doyle fabricated and uploaded to his site?

That is the scenario with at least half of all these videos, documentaries, interviews, event footage, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Can I really not say "Ryan Doyle went to Mardin, Turkey", even though he's walking around a video that's apparently Mardin, Turkey, because it was a "personal YouTube video"? These types of things are not lightly, but completely forbidden, by these general taboos multiple admins have listed. I really want to continue with this article, but uber-reliable third-party sources barely cover the material. I appreciate assurance that the article is likely well-written due to its non-removal, but I need something more than an 85% chance someone wont't say, "Well you really shouldn't have been using XYZ to begin with, and your extension solidifies its inappropriateness, warranting removal."

Thanks. Squish7 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's up and running. That's the main hurdle passed. The list of no-go links I gave was for establishing notability. That seems to have passed the eagle eyes of the patrollers. You can add references to those places (but preferably avoid the ones that upset the bots). The commercial? You can link to it (bot permitting...), but a reference showing that it was really used would help too. Cindamuse has been doing things to your refs. She's a well-respected editor. You could ask her why she's done what she's done, and which things she considers total no-go. I'm a bit worn out at the moment - I'll look at what you say again. I will say two things, though. Try to keep talk short, and relax. Easier said than done. Try. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Points absorbed. Conversely, I constructively suggest pursuing elite attention to detail. When you scan a question, try to recognize signs of whether a nonexhaustive response will be helpful or not. If it won't, and you don't have time, don't answer it. A close examination of my very first post would have revealed it to be an exception to whatever patterns of grammar you recognize that usually prompt for a helpful response, "Have a look at WP:RS...".
Examine structure sans content. Listing (known) negatives when I asked if I'd done a good job finding exceptions to them, was destructive. Maybe 97% of the time, the intrinsic grammar of my post would signify someone needs to examine basic help files. In this case, it happened to spark me to feel insulted. Maybe my 8 paragraphs of clarification could have been reduced to 2, but the information was absolutely there in my wording in combination with the article stub and the way I used my references.
It may be a complete catch-22, as perhaps only exhaustive examination will fully reveal whether a briefer response will help or hurt, but I still suggest tweaking your sensors for that 3%. E.g., you might have thought, "This is a user's first discussion post about their first article", signifying special caution may be in order. I'm sorry if this post itself seems lengthy, but you can't imagine the time I already take to condense these sorts of thoughts.
To be fair, I suppose the very first fault was my dichotomy of using "passerby" in the same sentence as "close examination". "Passerby" was first, so perhaps that set a bad precedent. (Assign any humor/serious tone ratio you like to this point.) Squish7 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

miscelaneous discussion[edit]

The following was begun on Cindamuse's talk page; I moved it here because it was more relevant to this page.

Thank you for your help with the Ryan Doyle article. If I could throw out one nitpick question, why did you remove the internal link to parkour? Is it because I already linked "traceur" to the article? They're little-known terms, and anybody who doesn't happen to follow the traceur link won't know what parkour is. Thanks again for your help. Squish7 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey there! No problem just trying to help you out. I removed the link to parkour because it was previously linked above through traceur. That said, if you think it's beneficial to link it again, I'm certainly not opposed. I also think it would be appropriate to change the subject "Challenges" to "Personal background", move the subject before the "Film and television appearances", and add more to the article about his personal life. You could also create a section about his "Professional background", and present information about how he got into the freerunning or parkour field. Just an idea. If you need help or have more questions, feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • He has a noted knack of turning negatives to his advantage, so I thought maybe personalize what he finds challenging. I'll keep both that and your advice as well in mind when editing the article. Honestly, I was just grasping to declare notability; it wasn't thorough or even balanced. I wanted to support everything with multiple sources. My hurdle is that things may get weaker as I milk sources. Big claims can be backed by exceptionally removed parties (Marvel comics, etc.), but the bulk of his biography/etc is on the sources more closely linked to him. (I.e., Red Bull sponsors him, and he's a founder of the WFPF). What I'm worried about is that the biggest source of material on him is his own webpage and personally-uploaded videos. I really think I can be objective and filter out the unreliable, as what he uploads is often external in nature (he has a slightly different trailer for Freerunner on YouTube than the main one), but I'm worried that that type of referencing is more often than not, taboo. Thanks for the barnstar, by the way. Squish7 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • While his ability to overcome challenges is admirable, it's simply not encyclopedic. There's no concern with speedy deletion on this article, due to the claims of importance about his championship winnings. Keep in mind that we can't use IMDb or YT, like you mentioned. I'll look for more sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Sure it is if it's documented. I'm not saying it's my personal commentary; e.g. his Red Bull bio says "[He] found he could turn any apparent weakness to his advantage", and things like that. I'll take your suggestion unless I can seriously justify the section, but just fyi, I was basing the grouping on more than my interpretation. May I ask why you removed the "freerunning" category? I'm still new to how do them, but that seems a pretty obvious one. (?) Squish7 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
          • No, the fact of whether or not content can be sourced has no bearing on appropriateness to be included in an encyclopedia. The freerunning cat was removed because we don't create empty categories. Only add links to existing categories. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
            • If he wrote a book called "Overcoming Challenges", or started a religion called "Challengology", these would be things to note and source. There has to be a spectrum. I said "seriously" justify. If there's enough material, can't that constitute a "Personal Philosophy" section? Because he has a lot of philosophies, and I want to start a section on his philosophies on parkour... Btw, is YouTube absolutely 100% blacklisted, or is it just widespread convention? I don't see any clause for blacklisting in the policies. Not only do they lay out that reliability is a case-to-case basis with intrinsic content being a strong factor, they specifically state questionable sources may be used in certain cases. If it's a strict, definitive ruling, please direct me to the documentation that outlines the rules regarding such rulings. The very idea just doesn't make any sense to me. For instance, I found two videos that beyond a shadow of a doubt relay the information that Ryan won the 2011 Brazil Red Bull Art of Motion. A video on lists him as a participant, features him in the video, almost certainly appearing to be the winner at the end, though it doesn't technically state "Ryan Doyle - first place". However, Ryan labels his extended video of him at the exact same setting "Ryan Doyle - 1st Place at Art of Motion Brazil 2011". This creates an absolutely overwhelming proof of the claim he won the competition, because his status with Red Bull makes it an infinitesimal chance he would just plain lie about his competition status. Backed with the other video, this is the exact type of multi-source proof that WP calls for to reliably back claims. If it's truly a widespread ban, then would you agree the end result creates hypocrisy in the general system? I'm not trying to be hostile, but I think you'll agree a quirk in the system that damages the overall mandate of Wikipedia warrants close examination.(?) Squish7 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Overall, if the subject wrote a book that was published by a mainstream publishing house, i.e., not self-published, we could add a section of "Published works", that would present the title, publisher, and ISBN. If he started a religion, this would require verifiability through reliable, secondary sources to support inclusion. The mere fact that content is verifiable does not make it encyclopedic. If Doyle has "personal philosophies", the place to establish a platform is on a personal website or in a book. Information about what sources are generally inappropriate for use can be found here. Information specific to YouTube can be found here. As far as the scenario regarding the use of Doyle's videos or info from Red Bull, these are not independent sources and cannot be used to establish notability. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would I need to establish notability if notability is already established? I have 12 sources referenced 26 times for a mere 10 sentences, and an article that's been given solid tacit approval by its core remaining all but entirely intact so long. You've even given it direct praise on my talk page. I've been this thorough to establish a solid foundation. How could I possibly be this thorough for every single claim and sentence I add from here on? Ryan's heavily involved in Red Bull's Art of Motion events; why would I have to re-establish the notability of every single individual instance of the series?
The text of the links you're giving me support me. Of note, the WP:RS states that social networking sites may especially be used for information about the self-publishers (users/etc), and particularly so if the person is question is already an established expert backed by third-party sources. If a person is notable, then his/her ideas on the very topics they're established experts in are completely encyclopedic, and so are many other askew notes and pieces of biographical information. Can I not consider where someone was born a notable fact, without establishing the particular encyclopedic relevancy of that precise piece of information?
Anything a pre-established notable person publishes/posts online is already nominated for encyclopedic relevancy by default association. It doesn't require vicious backing. A publisher and ISBN are non sequiturs on a social networking site. They turn metaphorical and in need of creative interpretation. Decades ago, Doyle would likely have had to publish a lot of his ideas on paper if he wanted to get them out, but video can convey exponentially more information, concept, and philosophy than a textual work, and can be published for free, out where a good fraction of 7 billion people have direct access to it. Hits equate readers; if 50,000 people purchase a daily newspaper, making the publication notable, why don't 50,000 views of such-and-such playlist mean the same thing?
Red Bull, YouTube, Doyle, and anyone who has a webpage or owns a domain, are publishers by some key aspect of the technical sense of the word. I think Wikipedia needs to recognize the absurd demand that all the newest information and technology be retroactively documented in increasingly outdated mediums, to be noteworthy online. Squish7 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Administrators / Moving Ahead[edit]

I can't possibly state this crystal enough. 97% of the information administrators have linked me to over the past month I have either read already, or been so intimiately familiar with in spirit that I could have written the policy files near-verbatim myself. You've helped me achieve one thing: the skill to defend unorthodox arguments with red tape. I will state exactly one time and table forever that I am beyond disgusted for the need for such things in life. So many ideas go forth crippled because of the need to spend literally tens of thousands of dollars to protect an idea because we can't have a society where we simply respect each other's property. It's an evil in the world I can't extinguish alone; maybe someday as part of a paladin army, who knows...

All that said, I'll move on. I will be confused forever how it's fathomable you could not recognize my knowledge base, but I won't bicker. I can only say that I believe you're decent people acting in good faith, but vigorously urge you to pursue the goal of elite instinctual recogniztion of situations where your behavior will be insulting, destructive, or wasteful of your and/or others' time. While I have learned how to better communicate on my end, the next person who approaches you in the same manner will not have that experience. Retroactively, you must realize there's something that could improve about your recognition skills if you caused someone to feel so alienated, not-listened-to, etc. My prose in combination with the information available to you (my article, my history, etc..) was definitely enough information to deduce I was aware of all these help files and policies, albeit you didn't have time to take it all into account. Perhaps, then, you can work on how to parse/filter such information on the fly. How to recognize patterns that would have signified my absolutely frustration.

I'll give you one epitome example for the purpose for offering help for improvement in this area. You need not read it, but at the aboslute least, please respect the personal time I'm taking to offering you this constructive criticism. It's not lengthly any more than linking me to dozens of pages of detailed policies and examples is lengthy. I was told, "Have a look at WP:RS" as the first sentence than anyone on Wikipedia offered me in respnose to the writing of my first article, for which I'd asked close examinination to see if I'd properly adhered to the rules. Intrinsically, you must realize that this can easily be taken as absolutely hostile. What this basically says is, "You didn't even bothering examining Wikipedia policy before you wrote your article", or "You haven't edited enough to have any general sense of sourcing policy", etc. There's just no other interpretation with the context of an article than in retrospect was very well-sourced, for which I either had to have closely read the policy files, or was, again, so intimately aware of them that I could have written them.

Everything from there we could bicker over forever, but I humbly offer you that that first sentence is as rude as hell. Q: "Have I done a good job closely adhering to guidlines?" A: "Have a look at the guidelines." Strip everything else, examine that one five-word phrase, evaluate it in context with the all the information available at that time, and I think you will find it a very erroneous and insulting thing to say. With that springboard, I urge you to examine the manner in which you interacted with me, ending in most recently, referral to three more help files on top of everything else as a comment to removing my latest section, that I believe I adhered to every single clause and statement. There has to be a vicious abyss of communication there, so I leave it forever as a tool for you to better your ability to parse information and respond tactfully to others in such situations, because they won't have this experience.

What I'm going to do from here is play lawyer. I will suggest article improvements and give thorough justification from the clauses of all the policies I am now intimiate with in letter as well as spirit. You need not evaluate anything; I have no expectations, and I will post nothing prone to controversy without express consent here first. This doesn't necessarily mean I'm consenting that I agree with your interpretations, however. I feel my latest change adhered to every bit of the three listed guidelines in the removal comment. If you don't, please explain why. It's just plain rude to revert edits without explanation, and from discussions left floating. Squish7 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Teaching section red tape[edit]

I'm going to back some of the changed I'd like to make strictly with the policy files I've been directed to, and with direct statements offered me in the above discussions. This process is not solely for this article, nor solely for me. I've spent a deal of time investigating related articles in the parkour / freerunning / tricking niche (other public figures, other disciplines, etc.), and feel the whole kabob could use intelligent interpretation of the explicit rules that exist, that I don't feel fully cover these scenarios. Please consider your contributions to this discussion productive toward that wider goal.

The "Teaching" section of this revision was removed, quoting 3 policies as justification. I want to address those points in order to explain my revision's logic, which I haven't yet done. I almost posted a draft before going live, but I was told removals weren't very time-sensitive, and thought the draft was good enough to warrant posting, its draftiness implying it wasn't perfect. I'll address those points now.

1 Original research.
A small amount of my blurb was based on general intuition, but I felt what I wrote was fully covered in the five sources I gave in the main paragraph I wrote. How is this original research? Should I have referenced the sources more in detail, or more precisely?

2 Not a manual / guide / textbook
Firstly, the techniques that Doyle covers in the listed works either have Wikipedia articles describing them, or are the exact types of things that would (a mere mention of them here even able to be considered a tiny suggestion for whole articles). Further, I don't actually go into the techniques; I simply list them, as one would list the published works of a reputable expert in any art, science, or discipline. This is the exact opposite of being a manual or guide. As to their encyclopedic value, it would be absolutely contradictory to call for inclusion of experts on certain subjects, deem them notable, and not consider their teaching style or tutorial works worthy of mentioning in an article. The lack of strict official publishing as WP sees and knows it is irrelevant in light of the existence of a publication medium with value and price (free) that dwarfs any particular business or organization. That is, strict scholastic publication used to signify what's official and not. It's becoming no longer necessary.

3 Encylopedic value of self-publication
It's nearly unarguable that videos published or linked to on/from multiple sources involved establishing Doyle's notability (his own pages, Red Bull, other sources listed, etc.) establishes general "self-publication". All the main factors listed why/when self-published materials are not acceptable (when the publisher is not an established expert or is not notable, etc.) do not apply. What's left is the absolute technicality of the degree of expertise and notability of the publisher (Ryan Doyle, and to an extent, Red Bull). Intelligent analysis of all available information--something strictly called for in policies that thoroughly use the words "generally"/etc--should yield these publications latitude in light of that the nature of them defies the point of official publishing as WP defines it. The web is a free and vastly efficient medium for free publication. This fact nullifies much of the point of strict scholastic publication. All the sub-policies are generated and ultimate stem from the general but strict wordings of the purpose of WP

4 Not a promotion / advertisement / blog / etc
It is 100% impossible to reference a work without providing a link to that work so others may examine the reference. It's completely isomorphic to sticking in a link to some videos to promote them without regard for WP guidelines/etc. In light of most YouTube videos vehemently failing WP criteria for encylopedic material, then my entry is clearly suspect to this no-no on surface examination. This is why 1/3 of the entry is a careful disclaimer that the entry has being thoroughly weighed and considered. My insert was 100% suspect by intrinsic wording to most of these no-nos. I therefore spent incredible care making sure the blurb especially did not fit under any of these categories when examined closely, including nothing that when examined closely would be nontrivially sketchy.

I am extremely open to input/opinion. Squish7 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

insertion of nicknames[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Would this be an appropriate edit of the first line, to integrate nicknames: Ryan Doyle (born September 22, 1984), a.k.a. Rad and Ry, is an international freerunner/traceur, stuntman, and actor.

Squish7 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally i should think so. But don't forget to check WP:LEAD if you are still unsure about introducing a good lead section. Cheers, benzband (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Video References (consider carefully)[edit]

What follows is a deep claim of how Doyle stands a reliable source for relevant topics (technique, philosophy of parkour, etc), via the unorthodox nature of utilizing the medium of video networking (e.g. YouTube) as a primary means of professional publication and information release. Making major edits on the structural, intrinsic assumption these references are taboo (i.e. without carefully weighing multiple particular references and precise policy clauses), is directly against the wording and spirit of WP policy. Doyle has studied media and a major university, and his videos are embedded or linked to on many external reliable sources, both well-establishing his publication means as stable and reliable.

Here I will address the major concerns that are intrinsically raised by this use. This section's length and the involved analysis I ask before removing my work is a direct result of the complexity and rarity of that YouTube can constitute strict, verifiable, encyclopedic material. TL;DR does not apply as a defense of not considering these issues. I may file an immediate dispute claim if edits are made with no evaluation of the context and references of the article, or with no explanation other than general references to policy sections that, rhetorically, govern these issues. I am aware of the last-resort nature of such a claim, but I've already run through an exhausting step-by-step process with a reputable editor. It would be very unreasonable to ask me to go through that process with every, single, editor that has the exact same concerns. It would be a full time job; I can't do it, and I hope higher-level WP authorities and administrators respect that massive effort when considering the strange nature of such an instant request, and the exhaustive nature of having my character and integrity attacked. (I'm not identifying any editor(s) here.)

Here I address every policy that has been referred to me that governs or may potentially apply to the video use outlined above:

WP:RS -- 1. The very top of the "Reliable Sources" guideline state that an established expert or authority in a subject matter is a reliable source. This absolutely, directly establishes Doyle to be a reliable source for information about parkour technique and such. 2. His self-publication process, while unorthodox, is solid if examined intrinsically, not by structural patterns sans careful attention to the context of the involved sources. Mainly, he publishes video works that, while short, susinctly wrap up philosophies, techniques, and events. Please note he majored in media, giving him even more backing for utilizing the medium of video and the internet professionally.

WP:YT -- The very first sentence of this section is this: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." The policies are much more lenient about referencing YouTube and such sites (including Doyle's homepage, on which he embeds many of the videos on his official YT channel) than many editors consider YouTube via experience dealing with abuse of them. Removing video references or links in the article with only a reference to general policy sections without taking into account context is completely against policy. If you think a particular video is an innapropriate reference, please quote policies precisely in combination with direct references to the video(s) you think are questionable.

WP:QS -- "Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" (bold emphasis in help file, i.e. not added). Even if a certain video of Doyle's is considered a questionable source via policy and guidelines, it still may be used as a source about Doyle, "especially" in articles regarding him. This logically supports reliable (non-questionable) videos as extra usable for information about Doyle.

WP:SELFPUB -- "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." (Support for above; the bold emphasis is part of the quote, not mine.)

WP:NOTGUIDE -- This long list of taboo things present strong suspicion and potential flags that use of Doyle's videos may be violatory. If you think any of these conditions apply to an edit, please consider all the precedents in WP for appropriate uses. E.g., if a video is listed with a description that you feel falls into such a category, please consider the appropriateness of a more minor entry. That is, in such a case, perhaps the description should be trivialized or eliminated, and the video publication in question listed in the way anyone's publications are listed, but not elaborated on. Simply removing a whole section on a vague, unbacked recognition of the general pattern (e.g. perhaps most people that link to a YouTube video commit one or several of the listed taboos), is extremely unwarranted.

WP:NOTPROMOTION -- It's difficult to quantify what does or does not constitute self-promotion in this arena. All I can say is that I personally will do my best not to commit any of these crimes. Again, what I'm mainly getting at in this blurb is the generals. If you consider all mere mention of notable video work taboo, you're demonstrating absolute inattention to the justifications I've layed out. Again, that's something I may simply file a dispute claim against, because I'm just tired of arguing these insanely overwhelming basics.

WP:OR -- I've done a thorough, exhaustive job considering all the information at hand. While I have done research outside of links directly provided, I've aimed to limit everything in the article to direct references. That said, those particular reference still call for careful analysis to verify or refute summaries and commentaries on them. Please make claims that the article contains O/R with caution, examining the sources listed yourself. If you're not doing this, you're ignoring every third clause of all policy help files that speak of a lack of blanket rules, and that there exceptions to such-and-such.

WP:V, WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RSN -- These are more sources that apply. I have not combed these sources, but I've been pretty familiar with them, and just can't provide an essay for every single clause in the policies that applies to editing an article. The above explanations should cover an extraordinary number of my justifications.

Squish7 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) (most recent revision)

My exhaustive arguments here have still gone untouched, yet I've had to remove a tag objecting to references. I am spent, fatigued, and dead. If anyone attempts to replace the tag without solid, precise, and particular attention to policy and context of the article, I will file an immediate dispute claim. Squish7 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Official homepage references (formatting)[edit]

There don't seem to be any specific URLs on his homepage as you click around... it always says "" in the address bar. What I've been doing is using the same URL, but tagging and titling references in a way that directs where to click to find the relevant reference, trying not to sound too techy. E.g.:

Official homepage: About (Personal Autobiography)
Personal Homepage: Media: Know Ryan Doyle

Unless there's some mechanism for handling this scenario, I think it's a good solution...(?) Squish7 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Tagged since January 2012 :

  1. Primary sources
  2. Linkrot underway
  3. Cleanup
  4. Wikify
  5. Capitalization fixed

Just my view. Thanks. benzband (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated :

  1. 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: A dispute regarding this issue is under resolution process at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ryan Doyle.

Also note Squish7's concerns in the above sections :
Cheers, benzband (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added "Teaching Section" to list; this is a very relevent post Squish7 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm already in agreement that a primary sources tag, when glancing at the article, would be warranted. My question is why it should stay there if nobody will even discuss the particulars of the issue. Policy and guidelines are saturated with that all factors should be significantly weighed. Forming a solid opinion of the tag or the sources can't be made, imo, without studying the references available. Squish7 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Unfortunately, the link rot remains. For further information, see Wikipedia:Link rot. We work to address linkrot by providing the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source. If the link goes bad, this added information can help a future Wikipedian, either editor or reader, locate a new source for the original text, either online or a print copy.
  2. Cleanup is required to comply with the Manual of Style. Please review guidelines for the lead section. For specifics pertaining to biographies, please see WP:MOSBIO. For specifics regarding punctuation, see WP:REFPUNC.
  3. For capitalization issues, please refer to guidelines pertaining to section headings. (see MOS:HEAD)
  4. Note, that I would generally work directly to resolve these issues, have done so specifically with this article, but have been met with hostility and removal of cleanup by the article creator. User:Squish7 has received guidance not only from myself, but from others to contact the WP:RSN with his concerns and issues pertaining to reliable sources, to no avail. All suggestions to assist this editor have been met with arguments. For this reason, I opted to simply place the maintenance templates, which directly provide applicable guidance through the links. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hostility I have explained and apologized for. I've worked very hard to increase the civility of my debate. The above two major arguments are not hostile. At this point, Cindy's statements are incredibly insulting and attacking of my character and integrity. Stating I have not even examined certain files when I've addressed them in precision above all but verbatim calls me a liar. I've had to master civility to stay as clam as I am in light of such attacks. Telling me to master my civility doesn't give you grounds to completely refuse to debate at all, or even investigate the subject matter and context that are vital to the judgement of whether the sources are reliable or not. Squish7 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm… i can assure i didn't even notice the capitalization issues, but i believe they have been resolved. I shall look into the linkrot with ProveIt. Also i just want to add that drive-by tag-bombing can be quite discouraging for any user, especially if new (not used to them). Best regards to you too, benzband (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Benzband. There was no "drive-by tagging" here. I have actually spent quite a bit of time personally cleaning up this article myself and working with this editor to provide guidance, to no avail. The instructions and guidance he has been offered have been extensive and time-consuming. Nothing drive-by about it. I certainly appreciate your assistance with this. (edited to add: Some people have had some problems with Provelt lately. If you run across problems, you may want to consider using Reflinks at If you need help, feel free to contact me.) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It's "drive-by" in the sense you haven't looked at the sources yourself. You just said it, you've spent time editing, and interacting with me. You don't say you've spent time researching, or fact-checking, or cross-referencing, or carefully considering the context. That's what makes it drive-by-esque. Squish7 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there's a misunderstanding of the term "tag bombing". You can find more information here. As a side note, when I spend time editing, this includes a review of all the sources provided, along with researching to find additional ones and working to bring the article into compliance. It all goes hand in hand. It's not for my benefit, but for that of the community, as well as for you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I trust you if you say you've done source-checking, but as you say, actions speak louder than words. You've not supported your objects with any references to any of the sources. You've not even addressed my continuous formulations explaining my point of view in light of your concerns. Squish7 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) My comments are certainly not intended to be insulting in any way. And I have never attacked your character or called you a liar. That said, in light of the edits that are made that do not comply with policies and guidelines, it is clear that you have either not read them, or fail to comprehend them. Additionally, it has been suggested that you contact the reliable sources noticeboard, to which you have failed to do, while stating that you "read that link". The RSN is there to help you. Nobody is against you here. But honestly, in my opinion, offering you assistance here has become draining and disruptive. When I offered you a "barnstar" in recognition of your initial efforts, this was done to encourage you and offer help. This was not an indication that your views are separate, distinct, and unaccountable to community policies and guidelines. It's akin to Sue Gardner's analogy in today's Signpost, "The analogy I often use is the newsroom. Anybody who’s curious and reasonably intelligent can be a good journalist, but you do need some orientation and guidance. Just like a newsroom couldn’t invite in 100 random people off the street and expect them to make an immediate high-quality contribution, neither can Wikipedia expect that." The policies and guidelines are there to help you be successful in your work on Wikipedia. Nothing more; nothing less. I encourage you to spend more time becoming familiar with them. Nobody is perfect, but it's important to learn the expectations of the project and continue to progress. Ask questions on the talk pages of policy and guidelines. (I've said this all before, but thought I'd take another shot.) Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Like I've said, yes, you've said most of that before. My absolute nutshell point stands: You're the one who's making an objection, and you have to provide some kind of particular argument, addressing specific policy clauses and specific sources you disagree with. You could eschew that task with an infinite number of decoys and references to that I must not know what I'm talking about if you disagree with me. I've done hours of work addressing your concerns, you've still not responded with any particulars. Squish7 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The burden of proof or evidence and the need to meet the policies and guidelines of the community is on the editor who adds or restores content to an article. Not the other way around. This is one of the reasons why we work very hard to work with new editors. Again, nobody is perfect. As a side note, you may also want to consider working with a mentor through the Adopt-a-user program. I recommend Worm That Turned. He is an excellent mentor, has worked with several new editors, and is one of our new administrators. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
By your argument, any editor can delete any article they want, and say "the burden of proof of how this article adheres to guidelines is not on me.". The only thing separating that ridiculousness and this, is that there an experience gap between us. That does not make you automatically correct. It does not make you completely immune to even discussing a dispute another editor has, other than "I'm right, you're wrong". It's not Wikipedia policy, it's your interpretation of it. Squish7 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I claim I have a very good intuitive grasp of the spirit of Wikipedia's rules and policies, hence I've had my opinion from the beginning, I'm no newbie. I'm only a newbie to being able to defend my point of view with paperwork. I've completely exhausted studying the paperwork that you say applies. You've given it 0% use yourself, while I've continuously made my case. Squish7 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ehem, sorry i went to bed in the middle of this. I have just spent some time editing this, and even more reading everyone's comments. To Cindamuse: IMHO, and per WP:TAGBOMB, "tag-bombing" is "the addition of multiple tags to an article or adding one tag to multiple articles", and it should be "accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page (or in a "reason" parameter where one exists) to explain why the tags are needed". Now, i'm not saying it wasn't justified. I'm just saying that it can be somewhat discouraging for someone to wake up and see a string of boxes. Note, as an example: i was only able to address certain aspects after you explained them on this talk page. Thanks for reading this, i figure i'd better stop ranting before i clog the page ^^ benzband (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sleep? What is that? ;) Squish7 made it clear through various threats that he did not want me editing the article. In lieu of cleanup, I rather opted for the cleanup tags to officially indicate areas that need improvement. None were redundant or unexpected, with only the most specific and highest priority issues presented. Note, I didn't add "multiple tags", but consolidated issues in accordance with guidelines. All issues were previously discussed. Sometimes when others just refuse to "get it", the end result is to walk away. In the end, I chose to place the tags to officially identify the areas needing improvement. This was met with Squish7 removing the maintenance tags and filing a dispute. I refuse to engage in fruitless arguments with him. If he truly needs help, I'm here. My only goal has been to help him to ensure the article clearly establishes notability, which has been a bit borderline due to lack of significant reliable, secondary sources. As stated before, my support is not for my benefit, but for Squish7's and for the encyclopedia. Oy vey for trying to help. As far as your example, the links provided to Squish7 explain the issues in vast detail. In my opinion, it's redundant to copy and paste or paraphrase the guidelines for some readers that are unable to read them for themselves. But still, I have attempted to converse with him and provide guidance 'til I'm blue in the face. Claims that he read and "committed policies and guidelines to memory" are essentially met with a tilt of the head to the left and a right eyebrow lifted. This is not an insult, but observation, considering all factors. In good faith, at the most, he has been misinterpreting policy and guidelines. In my opinion, Squish7 either read the policies and guidelines and was unable to comprehend them, or chose to ignore them. Simply an honest and direct assessment about an editor's behavior. Nobody is perfect, but to claim to have a sure knowledge of the guidelines is questionable, based on his actions. In all regards, I sincerely appreciate your input. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I didn't "remove the maintenance tags", I removed one, out of four. I removed 25% of the tags. Pluralizing that word erroneously, implying I completely objected when I explicitly told you that I would respect and study the other three, is not in line with an editor capable of paying meticulous attention to detail and objective presentation of facts.
2. Your last post before I started begging for a response was two weeks ago. You wouldn't respond to any of my analysis/questions/etc. It's was an epitome type of discussion post that didn't relay and crystallize all the information you had to present in the fabric of space-time. You can't possibly say my response demonstrated a permanent, stone attitude that I would never get any clarity from you actually saying something other than "keep reading the policy files".
3. The very idea that you think of "pasting and copying" as a teaching method demonstrates no willingness to think dynamically. If I've been "misinterpreting policies and guidelines", then only clarification with context is going to help. Let's say I have a photographic memory and have memorized every word of every policy. That doesn't give me any sense of how you think I did applying the policy. It would be as silly as telling me to memorize a textbook on how to write essays, when you could just correct and grade my essay.
4. You're infinitely avoiding the point that evaluation of content is a major factor of all these specific policies. Perhaps I've spent more time evaluating Ryan Doyle and his videos than you have? Maybe magnitudes more? That means I've applied and executed that commandment much more thoroughly than you. That, I felt, gave me the right to remove that particular tag, since you would not even attempt to justify it with reasoning. Squish7 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Issues: New Sections[edit]

I have a dispute with any editor challenging Doyle's reliability as an author for information about himself and of parkour technique. I've continued to evolve the clarity of my defenses. This is a starting point for explaining my root claim. I've given exhausting details elsewhere.

Ryan Doyle utilizes video networking as a primary means of publishing. He studied media in college, and deals with a discipline primarily youth-based (teens, 20s, etc.). This gives him incredible motive and right to utilize the web as a medium for professionally outputting official works. The problem with sourcing here is that the strong use of video references at a surface glance, reeks of probable violation of policy clauses outlining basic taboos. Worse, anyone truly versed in textual publications instinctively rejects the idea of utilizing video to publish professionally.

I was well aware of these warning flags in spirit as well as mechanism before I created the article, and have spent months collecting information and laying a solid foundation for Doyle's notability, expertise, encyclopedic worth, etc. The core entry has remained intact, but every time I try to minimally expand it utilizing Doyle's videos a major element, my work is removed.

Core arguments for the newest sections:

Philosophy of Parkour -- The guidelines say that questionable sources on social networking sites (e.g. YouTube) may be used especially for information about the author. Doyle's philosophies generally constitute information about himself. Their notability is a direct result of the general notability I've painstakingly established. I specifically referenced multiple sources that feature his videos, not just his YouTube channel.

Safety & Science -- An established expert is the epitome of a reliable source according to policy. Doyle would be a reliable source to quote in any external article about parkour techniques specific to his expertise. Hence, he's exceptionally reliable for his own dealings, teachings, etc., of parkour.

I've reduced what could easily be an 50-page article down to a couple mere paragraphs that near-infinitely adhere to policy. No one has yet to even discuss the particulars I've laid out. Please do so here, or see above for extended details. Squish7 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


The following is an excerpt from the dispute board; this is the only response I've received to date actually attentive to my requests for comments examining content and context. It's the type of thing I was looking for at my first question (please review the article). I consider it a general, semi-default analysis than your average editor would have addressing my question, so please feel free to jump in here and skip everything above. Squish7 (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Before we talk about balance, let me dissect the sources you have used. First the ones you listed as being objective: I see Cayman Compass as being a reliable source that we can use, but I think that it is of limited use in determining notability because it is a local paper. (I've been in my local paper, and I wouldn't say I deserve a Wikipedia article.) Marvel Comics doesn't look like a reliable source, I'm afraid - they are obviously trying to promote their products, i.e. Daredevil, and I can't imagine that they have much independent fact-checking going on. I would maybe say we could use it to cite simple facts, but there are probably better sources for the few simple facts it contains anyway.

I would say that and American Parkour are reliable sources, but beware of using them when drawing comparisons between parkour and other sports, as they will obviously treat parkour in a favourable light. The UWIRE interview is obviously a primary source, as it is Doyle himself providing most of the content - it does, however, show that someone considered him notable enough to interview him. I presume UWIRE is a student newspaper or something like that, though, which means they can only count towards notability so much. The argument for that is similar to the one for the Cayman Compass above. However, we must be careful to check who actually published it - in this case I see that the UWIRE interview was uploaded to YouTube by a user named RyanDoylePKTV, which makes me doubt that it has actually been published by someone independent of Doyle.

The sources you classified as "semi-objective" I would class as primary sources - they are obviously involved with Doyle and we shouldn't expect them to be impartial in their views on him. I think we should treat them the same as we would his personal sites. So at my count of secondary sources, we have three: two specialist parkour sources and one local newspaper. This is not the best evidence of notability, but I think that this, plus the other mentions in Google News, plus the fact that he won at least one major parkour competition would be enough to see the article kept were it nominated for deletion. Still, it doesn't look like enough to write a good-length article to me, so as I see it the article will have to be made shorter. You don't have to take my word for all of this though - that is what we have the reliable sources noticeboard for. Let me know what your thoughts are after reading this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A few questions...
1. If the collection of sources is enough to establish notability, then would they not be enough to support a more involved length? E.g. if they all published the same 2-minute interview, would the content not be as notable as his basic existence? I could support every sentence in the article with 2 or 3 references, but I was trying to follow Cindy's example when she pruned down my references. (I had 26 for 10 sentences.)
2. The difference between 15 minutes of fame in a local newspaper and this scenario, is that Doyle just happened to visit that particular location. In context with all other information, it establishes him to be a budding athlete, in the way someone might join a college basketball team as a freshman, and be immediately noted as a potential professional.
3. Could you please address my point that the requirements for notability of his publications should be lighter than a novelist/etc., given the need for a publisher or broadcaster (Ballantine, NBC..) are nullfied by, A) the free web, his videos/etc being directly delivered to any parkour enthusiast in the world who googles "parkour" leaving no "trace" of that transition, B) that his fan/student base are all younger people who primarily use the web for news/fun/etc., and C) his higher-level study of media? Couldn't all this nominate him for reliability as a general parkour publisher, nontrivially objectifying him and the technical information (technique) he outputs?
4. Couldn't the principle of fact-checking and verification be met by intelligent editor analysis of the sources listed? Suppose 40 hours of analysis is the only thing that will be able to properly weigh in the strict factor of content outlined in policy. Shouldn't this possibility meet less than insult (imo) that I'm not even reading policies and guidelines?
Thank you for your help. Squish7 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
More points after further thought...
Your "I've been in my local newspaper" point seemed quite deadly, so I gave the matter some thought. What I came up with was this: If your newspaper had reported you casting fireballs, it would be evidence you were the best magician on the planet. If the paper had absolutely no motive to lie, then that would be very solid proof you were a wizard. Further, if you were a type of wizard who's generally first seen casting fireballs in a local town, this would be more justification to denote you an article as a real-life wizard of that type.
Many of these sources, the Cayman Compass included, denote absolute proof that Doyle is a parkour guru. That mere fact is something that's encyclopedic. Issues that associated parties tend not to say negative things about someone has no bearing on the factual presentation of his status as a parkour athlete. I'm not trying to claim "Ryan Doyle is a great guy", I'm presenting facts which any bias are not applicable to.
MTV has every motive to find the best parkour athletes reachable to feature on television, as this is entertaining. Red Bull has the most motive to find and contract the best extreme athletes there are. So, the fact that he is a Red Bull athlete and has appeared on MTV's only parkour series confirms he's one of the best ones. They are extremely reliable for fact-checking if doing so is in their favor. That's the single motive of a newspaper: that objectivity is the paper's favor, because that's it's mandate, and why it sells. Squish7 (talk) 08:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

I've pared down the article quite drastically - hopefully it obeys the policies and guidelines somewhat better now. If anyone has any questions about why I did what I did, feel free to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Major kudos. Thank you so much for your work on this article. Exactly what I envisioned. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


The Ultimate Parkour & Freerunning Book says Manchester. ESPN says Liverpool. Maybe he was born in one place but now lives in another? not sure but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like the book got it wrong - his personal site also says Liverpool. (D'oh!) Will go and change that now. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Parkour practitioner or freerunner?[edit]

Recently there has been disagreement at this article about whether Doyle should be called a "parkour practioner", a "freerunner", or both. This has led to this edit being reverted four times, which amounts to edit warring, in my opinion. Faeress has outlined their position at User talk:Feraess. Faeress's argument is that mainstream sources such as this New York Times article are not reliable for calling Doyle a parkour practitioner, because they are misconstruing the nature of parkour. However, I would argue that the relative obscurity of the origins of parkour, coupled with the attention by mainstream sources like the NYT, has changed the definition of parkour itself.

I think that we should base our articles on what mainstream sources like the NYT define parkour as, rather than whatever the original definition might have been. Ignoring the majority of mainstream sources in this way seems to me to constitute original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. I would be open to a compromise solution, though - perhaps we can call Doyle a parkour practitioner, but say that what he does may not fit with the definition of parkour as it was originally intended? Let me know your thoughts on this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just before I get onto the actual issue in question, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. This is not an edit war (as yet) because we are trying to resolve the differences with discussion. You and I were discussing this topic on my talk page where I have been awaiting a response since 9th May. Squish7 isn't currently involved in a discussion on this issue, but then he's only made one edit on this so far and was perhaps unaware of our discussion. All that's happened is that I've undone one revert from each of you, in both cases because your attempt to re-add material was not supported by sources. See WP:Burden Feraess (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In order to include the statement "Ryan is a freerunner and Parkour practitioner" you have to provide evidence that he is a freerunner and you also have to provide evidence that he is a Parkour practitioner. If Parkour and Freerunning are the same thing then we don't need to use both names. One will suffice. However the statement in question treats them as two separate things, so to support it you need reliable sources for each. The fact is, there is lots of evidence to support the freerunner part and no evidence to support the Parkour part.

All of the sources describe Ryan as a freerunner. Even the Red Bull website which lists Ryan as a Parkour Ambassador describes him as a freerunner rather than a Parkour practitioner. There is only one source which contains any kind of statement about whether or not he practises Parkour, and that is the Daily Trojan article in which Ryan states that he is 'a freerunner who practises parkour', directly after the article states that he does not like to distinguish between the two. All other sources contain the same qualification. Even if you consider sources which only imply that Ryan practises Parkour rather than make a statement, the only sources that exist are those which also claim that Parkour and Freerunning are the same thing. There is no source which states that Ryan practises two separate things called Freerunning and Parkour.

Even though the sources are unreliable in their labelling, they are consistent in their descriptions of what he does. In every source, Ryan is described as someone who does acrobatics, flips and tricks, and uses movement as a form of expression. We know what he does, we just need to work out what label to use.

Stating that the definition of Parkour has changed seems to me to be original research. I don't know of any reliable sources which gives this view, and quite honestly I don't see how an article in the New York Times has any bearing on how the discipline is defined. Parkour is clearly defined by its creator and its practitioners, and the definition of Parkour seems to be a subject on which they have the final say, not the New York Times. There's no distinction between 'original Parkour' and 'modern Parkour'. Parkour hasn't changed. The situation is the same as it always has been. There are people who practise Parkour, there are people who do other things, and there are people who can't tell the difference.

Ignoring a large number of sources is not original research when those sources are unreliable. Parkour is a very popular subject with the media, but most importantly it's a new subject and a lot of stuff gets published without much fact-checking. See WP:CEE. It's harder to do a good job on fact-checking when you don't have access to anyone who knows the facts. As I said in our discussion on my talk page, given that most new practitioners based their understanding on poorly-checked media reports, you now have media organisations producing poorly-checked reports on practitoners whose own facts are poorly-checked. Consequently, many media organisations that would normally be considered reliable are unreliable on the subject of Parkour. The amount of nonsense written about Parkour is huge.

If a source gets basic facts about a subject wrong then we cannot consider it as a reliable source on that subject. Specifically, on the subject of whether or not Ryan practises Parkour, if a source gets basic facts about Parkour incorrect then it is not a reliable source. Also, Ryan himself is not a reliable source. He gives inconsistent definitions of what constitutes Parkour, none of which are entirely accurate.

If you think that Parkour absolutely has to be mentioned in this article, then it should say something accurate like, "Ryan is sometimes labeled as a Parkour practitioner by those who don't distinguish between Parkour, Freerunning and acrobatics [1]." It's not notable enough for the first sentence though.

We should leave a discussion of what constitutes Parkour to the Parkour article, where as a result of a lot of recent tidying and correction it's now clearly defined. Incidentally, it should have a capital P since it is the name of a specific discipline rather than just an activity. Feraess (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(BTW, I merged my section on this subject into yours since we posted concurrently) Feraess (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Ryan considers himself to practice Parkour. There is absolutely no doubt about that. He always says "Parkour" when referring to his discipline in his most polished and professional videos (video being his primary--virtually only--medium of publication, 100% quotable by the core spirit of WP guidelines), especially ones discussing the philosophy of what Parkour is about, so much so that his video comments are constantly bombarded with angry notes from purist traceurs saying he's misleading people and spreading misinformation. Even if those people represented the general consensus of the PK/FR community--i.e. if the community that Ryan declares he's a part of didn't accept his classification--then it would still be prudent to mention he was a "self-declared Parkour athlete", especially since he's in a position to help shape and define the terminology (that is, that top-level experts or authorities are sometimes the people who set standards and shift tides).
Now, since it's actually not the consensus (i.e. at least part if not most of the community accept Ryan's declaration), then in combination with him being in an authoritative expert to say what Parkour is/isn't, then this certainly should call for declaring him a traceur. Further, since the consensus in the community seems to be that Freerunning is a subset of Parkour (see the WFPF website)--with which Ryan also has officially stated--he already practices Parkour by default anyway. I suppose in the scenario that Freerunning was strictly and universally considered a subset of Parkour that it would be redundant to list "Freerunner and Parkour practitioner", but since there's so much debate and confusion, it's overwhelmingly prudent to list him as both. I suppose it may be prudent to list Freerunner first given the number of PK practitioners who don't consider him one, but the very sport/discipline he says he practices, and promotes constantly, can't be entirely cut out in any scenario.
Please note this official Red Bull ad that lists him as "Parkour Athlete" at 0:12. (This was my very first exposure to Ryan, PK, or FR; it played as a pre-video ad on YouTube and I ran to look him up here. There was no article, hence I started this one.) Squish7 (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Ryan considers himself a Parkour expert. However the only evidence that he is an expert comes from his own statements to that effect, and statements from companies that rely on his credibility for promoting themselves (such as Red Bull and WFPF). The Parkour community is very clear that Ryan is not a part of it, as illustrated by official statements such as this one from ParkourUK stating categorically that Red Bull talk nonsense when it comes to Parkour.
The fact is that Ryan doesn't have the first clue as to what Parkour is, and both he and his projects are considered jokes by the community. It's unfortunate that there are media organisations willing to give him a platform for self-promotion, but then it seems to be a fact of modern media that substance matters far less than appearance.
If you want to mention that he is a self declared leader of Parkour then I think there's enough evidence to support that as long as we can find a direct quote, but to present a balanced viewpoint we would need to also include the fact that it is a claim that is disputed (by a National Governing Body amongst others). Feraess (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea the orthodox parkour community's rejection of the Red Bull AOM was this thorough, thank you for sharing. For reference here's the passage I'm talking about
Parkkour UK in its role as the National Governing Body for the sport of Parkour / Freerunning would like to issue the following statement regarding the event entitled "Red Bull 'Art of Motion' " which will take place on Sunday 20th March 2011,
Parkour UK is in no way affiliated with Red Bull or the Red Bull 'Art of Motion' event and its opinion as the National Governing Body is that the event does not accurately reflect the core principles and values of Parkour / Freerunning. Parkour UK, believes the ethos, philosophy and spirit of Parkour to be concerned with individual strength and well-being and that the sport should be practised in an environment of co-operation and not competition.
I'm pretty flustered by this as someone who sees Ryan is as half-traceur, half-freerunner, so let me regroup and renew my option with this new information. A few points.
1. Parkour UK is not an international group; Wikipedia is. What Parkour is should be defined by the sum of people globally that state that they practice Parkour. The origin and history are extremely important, but if more people than not who declare they study Parkour would agree that Ryan fits into the community (if we were to take a global census), then I think that by default/definition constitutes the basic statement that Ryan is a Parkour athlete. Hence, the position of the World Freerunning / Parkour Foundation should be given considerable weight--even though, or maybe especially since, Ryan is a founding member; that is, supposing Ryan single-handedly convinced 51% of the community that he's a traceur, this would still be 51% of the population who say Ryan studies Parkour--as should the organizer of the most global/prominent event of something at least generally to do with Parkour/Freerunning movements. In short, the statements of Red Bull and the WFPF should be given incredible weight in this issue, even if other local/national bodies feel the same way as Parkour UK; hence I suppose our task on this issue would be to balance all available sources on both issues. Can you find quotes from other national PK authorities that mimic that of Parkour UK? If not, I think your case falls a bit short.
2. A statement about thing X says nothing in regards to Y. Ryan's actions, art, and dogmas are especially thick and multi-layered, saturated with all the epitome items constituting what Parkour is. This statement says squat about Ryan's net beliefs and accomplishments. His philosophy and missions, etc., in life are so much more important to who he is than how he did in XYZ competition. Even if Ryan was half-competitor and half-philosopher, this would still strictly call for a statement he is both a Freerunner and Parkour practitioner. Put simply, Parkour UK would have to make a statement about the all the major aspects and dimensions of his life and goals for it to denounce Ryan as a traceur in all/most endeavors.
3. Ryan constantly drills in the core importance of individuality. He believes and states that everyone should figure out what Parkour is on their own grounds, telling people not to listen what he says or what anyone else says but to discover it for themselves. (He often wraps up an interview or video with this statement.) He basically directly declares that he is not associated with any particular party's definition of Parkour, and as people who's job it is to carefully balance all possible information out there, I think we should especially respect this dogma. In other words, declaring him only a "self-declared traceur" as if saying the entire community agrees with him rather than just a portion of it--is a bit insulting given the difficult tornado of terminology and particular beliefs.
4. The lede does not have to state that Doyle is a direct and definitive associate with Parkour in order to put him in place with the breed of Parkour he practices. Simple tricks like using "parkour athlete" (which could be read as "one of the body of people who include athletics/competition in their breed of Parkour") may do a lot in a small space. Or, maybe this should warrant a few sentences that concisely sum up the controversy about this point.
5. Parkour UK is intrinsically going over the line of their effective governing to include "freerunning". The Red Bull AOM incorporates the epitome concept of freerunning (even if it's just freerunning). It doesn't matter precisely how they were designated official "Freerunning" body; it's clear that that official designation process didn't have the mechanism to debate these endless split-hair distinctions. If their creeds reflect the general views of orthodox Parkour, that's fine, but they can't say they speak for the general freerunning community, as they're going against the very core of freerunning (showcasing, style, etc., which fits intrinsically into the Red Bull AOM). Therefore, they have weakened credibility for being objective and drawing particular boundaries. If you want to apply this statement to Ryan--arguing that because he's involved in the Red Bull AOM, the statement applies to him in general--then you have to include Freerunning as something Parkour UK states he does not practice by definition, i.e. you'd be arguing that Ryan is neither a traceur nor a freerunner, hence by your argument, WP shouldn't list him as either, and if he's not either, what is he?
If you really examine things, this quote actually declares Ryan to be a Parkour practitioner. If the epitome core of Parkour is to promote "individual strength and well-being in an environment of co-operation and not competition", then all of Ryan's activities, projects, and philosophies that fit this clause (too many to list) prove him by Parkour UK's definition to be a traceur. Squish7 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't agree that Parkour should be defined by the sum of the people who say they practise Parkour. An analogy would be that the theory of quantum mechanics is not determined by how high-school students explain it just because there are more high-school students than physics professors. We have to evaluate the sources and give due weight to the significance of each. This is explicitly stated in WP:DUE. In this case we should give more weight to the views of people who have actually studied Parkour, than to the people who just decided to use a cool name to describe whatever they happened to be doing (or have been persuaded by someone else who did that). Neither Red Bull nor WFPF can be considered reliable sources as per WP:QS as both have questionable oversight and both have a financial conflict of interest. Neither should be given any weight on this issue. See also WP:NEWSORG: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." It makes sense to give more significance to people who are demonstrably experts than to newspaper reports, even about people who are self-professed experts.
I agree that some of Ryan's words fit with ideas present in Parkour, but equally many of his words go against them and he's not always consistent. For instance, in this interview he talks about how individuality is the most important thing and how it can't be classed as a sport, but then he refers to it as a sport the entire length of the interview and says that practitioners need people to set the goals for them. He also says that cars have made Parkour obsolete, that he uses the word 'Parkour' just because it's cool, and he confirms that he's solely responsible for Red Bull's Parkour information. If you compare what he says with the views of actual experts then it seems obvious that he isn't one. In any case, he is an unreliable source on the issue of whether or not he is a Parkour practitioner or expert due to conflict of interest. If we lack any reliable source that says he's a Parkour practitioner, then we can't state that he is in the Wikipedia article.
I think a simple statement that he is a self-declared Parkour practitioner or leader would not really be accurate, and I agree may be insulting. If you have a source for what you said about Ryan not associating with any particular definition then I think it would make more sense to say something like, "Although Ryan does not fit into existing definitions of Parkour, his opinion that definitions are not important means that he often labels himself as a Parkour practitioner." That seems to be fairly neutral and inoffensive, and maybe we can include more detail about his beliefs later in the article.
Freerunning is a discipline created by Sebastien Foucan. The core value of Freerunning is "Express yourself in your environment without limitations". There are no other principles, because the whole point is that you should be free to be yourself. Showcasing and style aren't principles of Freerunning, they are just things that some (not all) Freerunners want. Art of Motion is an event for some Freerunners, but not all. It's only representative of a part of the Freerunning community.
I agree that the ParkourUK statement doesn't necessarily have perfect reliability as a source on what Parkour is. They themselves make it clear that their descriptions of Parkour are only meant to describe the sport side of Parkour, not the discipline as a whole. However that statement is the most significant of the expressed viewpoints on the reliability of Red Bull, and means that even if we can find a reliable source to support Red Bull (which is unlikely) we still can't state Red Bull's statements as fact. As it is, we have to reject Red Bull's views on Parkour entirely, for a variety of reasons. Feraess (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You know your stuff, I'll give you that. Maybe you're right about a lot of points, you've educated me on a lot I didn't know about. Your arguments are too thorough for me to keep up this debate/research over a single lede word. I think saying he's a founding member of the World Freerunning & "Parkour" Federation in the first sentence is enough. (Note I've added "world champion" as it just sounds weak/lame to say he's just a "freerunner" with no other classification granting him sophistication. Note that this is a very common nutshell term--"world champion freerunner"--applied when summing him up in a phrase.) Perhaps I'll pursue this more later, I have some counterpoints or fine notes to your arguments and sources. I do agree there are other ways to phrase things that might present a perfect balance, it's just too tedious to find the absolute precise phrases that will represent and be fair/uninsulting to all parties involved. I'm happy with the lede sentence if we simple include "world champion".
See from the start I wanted this to be a much more thorough and in-depth article. I was and still am still very unhappy to say the least in its minimal nature. Anything extensive I tried to add was torn apart, some with good reason, but some in what I consider violation of the spirit and core of the guidelines, particularly the stone-carved omnipresent ostinato that sourcing in any particular scenario is a delicate balance of all possible factors and principles evaluated and looked at together in a whole picture. E.g., I utilized some of Doyle's videos--his main medium of publication--as self-published sources. They got torn down in part because YouTube/etc is usually a poor source as it's not often used for professional publication, this reason (usually, without any attention to specifics guiding the scenario) being completely against the core of Wikipedia guidelines and its mandate. Completely throwing out an entire medium as a means of publication and documentation with no regard for the careful evaluation of a particular case is offensive to the very nature of objective referencing and documentation. (Note that my extensive documentation of my reasoning for the particular scenarios were not even read at the time nevermind not addressed, basically intrinsically violating the policy that cases be evaluated and discussed when there's disagreement.)
Long story short, this New York Times article (that Mr. Stradivarius put the to-do list as an important new source) is practically a rewrite of the additions I had made here. Now I'm told, "Oh, well now that someone reputable agrees with your sources, we can put it in." Now no, original research isn't deemed retroactively appropriate when someone reputable has confirmed it, but I'm not talking about original research, I'm talking about basic sourcing with the same set of information I had. The NYT article actually quotes two of Doyle's videos in practically an identical manner as I used them. It's almost comical. Perhaps you have an opinion on the matter, though I wouldn't want to burden anyone with sifting through the entire edit war. Squish7 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


On reflection I've removed 'world champion' from the first sentence. The lead already states in the second sentence that he won two Art of Motion competitions, and that's a more accurate statement. 'World champion freerunner' means that he is the best in the world, and that's not true. Although the Art of Motion is a big event, there is no championship that is sufficiently representative of freerunning to accurately label anyone a 'world champion'. I have seen Ryan described as a world champion, but even Ryan acknowledges (here) that freerunning is not competitive and that the events are exhibitions rather than championships.
I agree with you that we can use videos as sources on Ryan's views. We can't use them for statements of fact though. Maybe the best thing to do would be to go through them here on the talk page one by one and work out an appropriate wording for each so that the material can be used. Feraess (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Kudos to your precision. In the context you've presented things I suppose I'm forced to agree in this case, though aside, do note that "world champion" in this context if used would refer to the fact that he's won at least one competition, technically 2, hence he's often referred to as a "2x world champion". I suppose it's arguable that "world champion" is an ambiguous phrase if not modified, but really, how many competitions keep net score on a year-to-year basis? I suppose "all time" might be used for that, but I think "at least one-time" supersedes "all time" as a default if no modifier is present.
In any case, you've left the opening phrase too minimal when reduced to a single word. Can we agree on "international"? If you look at the lede, there's not even enough information in the first paragraph to deduce he's an international athlete. He could be a founder of the WFPF and be a Red Bull sponsor without traveling to other countries, and the "Art of Motion" might signify a national competition without reading the whole article or following the link. Also, he's unarguably one of the most international freerunners of the world if you look at the staggering portfolio of locations he's been to (half of them just recently; see his 2012 world tour videos where he toured "the 7 world wonders", though I left out the "the" when I noted this as his particular list just isn't definitive, and there's also no information about his 7th location as he only has videos of 6 of them; I assume the 7th didn't work out because in the 7th he says he's finished traveling leaving the series off in Santorini.)
You know, on second thought, even that is a bit non-descriptive given his increasingly diverse skillset. Even if you read the full article, this says little to the precise balance of the core basics. I believe it's our job to present the best overall view as concisely and quickly as possible. To relate, consider Jackie Chan's opening line (Ryan's icon and someone he's often compared to):
Jackie Chan is a Hong Kong actor, action choreographer, comedian, director, producer, martial artist, screenwriter, entrepreneur, singer, and stunt performer.
Obviously he's been around for a bit longer, but the point is Doyle is eclectic in a similar way, accumulating the above talents to the point where plenty are notable 2nds to his primary career. (He also aspires to this type of increasing diversity, and while this alone might not affect documentation of what he's achieved thus far, it should just be mentally noted, i.e. that any modifications thrown in will quickly become more accurate as time progresses.) For instance, the film "Shinobi Code" by Airborn Entertainment (not released but in which he's noted as an actor in the cast) is an example of his acting career furthering at the moment). In fact, the article doesn't even mention Airborn Entertainment and Airborn Academy which he founded and runs (and should really both have their own articles!). It should really be expanded to include these (with sufficient sourcing of course).
I don't want to sit here and edit back and forth, especially because you're so apt at these fine details, but I'll just note that all the following are arguable choices to include (obviously we've exhausted debate on the first two):
freerunner, traceur, actor, educator, trainer, stunt performer, action choreographer, martial artist
(Education especially is vacant in the article as he's a well-established trainer, although I suppose more sources may be prudent before stating this.)
I just don't agree that someone should have to read the whole article and click the links to calculate an estimation of the balance of all these things, even if it's possible sans editor-level research. What do you think of including more of these terms or akin and keeping this list up-to-date long term? Squish7 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular objection to the word 'international', but I agree that 'international freerunner' is not a particularly descriptive phrase. What is it about him that makes him international? If you go to virtually any freerunning community website you can see that it is very common for freerunners to visit other practitioners in other countries, so I'm not sure he stands out in that regard.
Airborn Entertainment is his own company and (iirc) consists of just him and his brother, making anything that it produces self-published work and not notable in itself without external references. To my knowledge Airborn hasn't done anything significant and therefore doesn't deserve its own Wikipedia article. Without any other references, and without the film actually having been produced yet, I would assume it to be a kind of extended YouTube video, along the lines of his 'world tour' stuff. I don't think it indicates a 'progressing' film career as yet, but I have no objection to listing actor in the first sentence as he has acted in a film previously. I am also happy with 'coach' and 'martial artist' as there are sources that indicate he coaches kids and took part in martial arts competitions. There's still no reliable source to indicate that he's a traceur, so I can't support that, and I don't know of any source that says he's done anything significant as a stuntman or choreographer. If you can find reliable sources then we can add those too, but for now I'm happy with 'freerunner, martial artist, actor and coach' if you think the sentence needs more.
In my own personal opinion, Ryan is not a particularly notable person and it's borderline whether he deserves an article here. My interest in primarily in Parkour and since Ryan isn't notable in any shape or form to Parkour I don't have great motivation to help support this article in the long term. This article is already on my watchlist so I'm going to keep checking and helping where I can. In my view though Ryan's fame comes simply from being the first freerunner to self-promote to this extent rather than any great ability or achievement, so I don't expect there will be a lot to add here in the future.Feraess (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Given your attention to detail and proper sourcing, I'm baffled at your opinion he's not even notable enough for an article. You feel Freerunning is notable enough to be campaigning for its own article, so how can you say that a 2x winner of the most prominent global Freerunning event is not notable enough for that reason alone, never mind everything else on and on... I'm not sure you understand his status in the Freerunning community off-line. He was already an icon before anybody started writing about him. He's just one of the top people of the Freerunning community, I don't know what more someone could possibly do to be notable here. Do you think Timothy Shieff and Daniel Ilabaca are also unworthy of inclusion? If so, your opinion of notability seems extremely subjective as all 3 articles stand solid, and if not, you'd really be splitting hairs to separate Ryan Doyle from the former 2 in the FR community. I mean who is notable if not these 3?
I feel that "international" is just a typical term when referring to someone like Ryan. I can't wrap my brain around your question "What makes him international"? He's been in most of the international FR competitions, he's toured half the world achieving breathtaking cinemetographic footage, he spreads news of the community globally when he visits other places, he has half of the FR community demanding he visit their country, he's backed by a global organizer, on and on and on. Someone could be a "freerunner, martial artist, actor and coach" in a single isolated town, this says nothing about his notability of being one of the most globally active members of the FR community, and the epitome of a global athlete in general. WP labeling him as "international" does not mean "well, he could have traveled once to a neighboring country". It means that we as editors are presenting the term as an epitome description of his career and characters. You just can't get more global than Doyle without living on an airplane and not even having a physical residence. Does "world class" or "global" fit your taste better? Squish7 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Art of motion might be a nice showcase for some aspects of freerunning, but who wins it is utterly irrelevant as shown by the fact you can win it with a shattered leg.
I think it's a big stretch to say that Ryan has ever been an icon. What is it that makes you say he was an icon before he was written about? To my knowledge, nobody had heard of him within the freerunning community before he injured himself spectacularly in Vienna's Art of Motion, and the complete list of his accomplishments to date only includes three things: winning two competitions in a non-competitive activity, and appearing in a very bad film. None of which has received much coverage in independent sources.
Ryan and Tim, although good at moving, are famous solely for winning some virtually meaningless competitions. They are not icons, but rather than being a criticism of them, it just reflects the non-elitist nature of the freerunning community where everyone treated as being equal. They are notable to some degree within the freerunning community, but not very notable from a wider perspective. Although I may be wrong, I just don't think there's a lot that we can say about them that meets Wikipedia's criteria.
Danny is probably one of only two people that could be said to be an icon in either the Parkour or freerunning communities, the other being David Belle. In both cases it is because they have consistently pushed the boundaries of what is possible within the disciplines. However with regards to Wikipedia both have a lot more sources of information than either Ryan or Tim, which is reflected in their articles. Feraess (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't have time to debate all these points as we disagree too much, but I will say one thing, I think your broken leg comment is tactless and logically absurd. Ryan gave a spectacular performance in Vienna. He tried something difficult at the very end and missed his landing by a few feet, not the 170 feet that would be required by your logic to retroactively nullify his performance up until that point and throw off the entire net score. His broken leg was a haphazard consequence of one failed move. Plenty of sports operate on the accumulation of points that can't be retraced at the end of a game because of an injury (soccer, football..). You have a minor point that this could be likened to a sport where the score is based on an entire performance in one block--i.e. that if an olympic ice skater slipped the wrong way at the end of their performance and happened to break their ankle, it might damage their overall score enough to lose them a gold metal--but even if we let you impose your personal scoring system on the Art of Motion (the only way you even have a point at all), their failure to succumb to your system in this instance still doesn't trivialize the entire event as next to irrelevant in the FR community (especially since you're criticizing the very first instance of the event). It doesn't void the culture and spirit surrounding it. It doesn't void its evolution into a continuously more prominent and popular event. It doesn't speak to its intrinsic ability to showcase FR whether or not this or that academic paper has been written about it.
From this springboard, I think your other points are also flawed in a similar way. That is, this speaks to your general reasoning behind what you feel is notable or not in the FR community. You're entitled to those opinions but the consensus on WP doesn't quite fit your standards. This article was nominated for deletion at one point and it was voted on as notable enough to be here. It's just bizarre to me how you're so passionate about freerunning in general (restoring the freerunning article and hoping to make it more thorough, etc), yet trivialize its major people, events, and organizations. Just weird... Squish7 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New topics or separate articles[edit]

For reference there are some major holes in the article, the fact that Ryan runs a well-established academy and entertainment production company. It should especially be expanded to include his prominence as an educator, which there's support for, but I'm afraid not enough to insert this without argument sans milking all available sources. I think in general that an academy/school of substance is more notable than an individual, perhaps not in this case, but the following should at least be heavily observed for insertion here or new articles. Maybe a sentence or two here would at least suffice. I'm too fatigued haggling all these infinitesimal wordings to spare the time to do this, but they should be on a to-do list for this page in any case:

Airborn Academy, Liverpool (official website)
Airborn Entertainment (website down / under construction, though it's existed from Doyle's pre-YouTube tricking days)
Shinobi Code (new film) (official trailer) -- there's more out there on its development and evolution
I think there is a difference between running a few classes, and being prominent as an educator. Equally, I think there's a difference between making a company with your brother to produce a few straight-to-YouTube videos, and being a notable entertainment production company. I don't object to mentioning them in the article, but only if we can keep some perspective. Feraess (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought there was more to AE than that officially. Again you know your stuff. See I see things in sort of a timeless manner. I look at his achievements and growth and mentally project where things will be in decades, how notable things will be in the course of his lifetime. Obviously that has little or no affect here. I'll let my prediction stand just for reference that AE will a major film studio at some point. Squish7 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that Airborn Academy should have its own article, I just don't know if there are references to support it yet. In 2013 Art of Motion interview, Ryan called it the biggest indoor PK/FR training center in the UK. Squish7 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Transcript of interview at 2013 Art of Motion (only clear copy)[edit]

Ryan didn't compete in the 2013 AOM but was interviewed for several minutes, starting about 42:50. It was a prominent interview but due to some mic glitch it was next to inaudible; the video was also skipping here and there. I amplified it and did my best to transcribe it so there's at least one copy somewhere for permanent reference. While Ryan was recovering from an operation (treatment of his 2007 leg injury), it's not completely clear whether he would have competed if he'd been able to, as the video says it only took the top 6 contenders from last year, while he was 8th, though he does state he was hoping to compete.

Announcer: And we have run into Mr. Ryan Doyle. Ryan, I know you're sitting here watching right now, probably not exactly what you want to be doing, unfortunately. I know you want to be out there competing. But, a few things going on, you're just recovering from an injury. I saw a picture of what happened, tell us what happened.
Ryan: Well it wasn't an injury. I had a screw removed that's been in my leg for 6 years from the very first art of motion. since then they've been taking more and more out. They took this one out and the doctor said no high impacts. I was like oh man, I got a tournament. No high impacts. Doctor's orders. But I'm still here supporting the event. I got some good [..] training with the guys and [..]. I'm just here to support them. I found the island so I figure all this madness, I might kinda be responsible for it. Part of it might be my fault. But look at it now, this is where it's come.
Announcer: Yeah, it's amazing here. Look at all the people. You guys having fun? What else is going on, I know you're working on something big for the sport of freerunning in your home town. Maybe just give us a quick rundown of what's going on.
Ryan: Airborn Academy opening up this year. It's the biggest indoor training center in the UK for parkour and freerunning. Not only parkour and freerunning, but tricking, gymnastics, capoeira, you know, break dancing... It's a place where everyone can come and learn movement itself. Learn how to physically move, how to move correctly. And then, I will be connected to them even more 'cause at the moment, the people in Liverpool, they've got nowhere to train. I want to tie into the international touring team events that are happening everywhere else, too. So hopefully you guys can come visit me in Liverpool, come train at Airborn and learn how to move free and get involved in more art of motion stuff because we want to be doing tournaments, too, and get you down into [..]
Announcer: Freerunning [..] I'm not the most coordinated guy in the world. But that's really cool. I love the way you take your freerunning attitude which is move around obstacles, move through obstacles. I know you guys were having an issue with getting kicked out of the gymnastics gyms and not being able to train where you wanted to, so you thought, "You know what, I'm gonna make my own place!"
Ryan: They've got their facilities for them, OK, it is for gymnastics, so they can have it. We'll build our own. We've got our own [..] and we'll do our own thing. We don't need to share, we're big enough to be our own thing, now.
Announcer: Alright Ryan, well good luck with that. We're really excited to kind of watch that grow and build. I know we've got Team Tempest in the US and we've got Airborn Academy in Liverpool, we've got [..]. We've got all these places.
Ryan: [..] touring team events [..]. Everyone shares the epic moments together.
Announcer: Well [..] You graced me with one of your T-shirts yesterday. It's awesome to be part of that, thank you. [..] It's nice to see you here here at this event, you're not competing [..]
Ryan: I wiouldn't miss it for the world; I wouldn't miss this thing. These guys inspire me. Being here, is like, even now I'm itching to get on the course.
Announcer: I know you are, but doctor's orders. [..] Thank you.

Squish7 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)