Talk:Parkour/Archive 6

State of the article

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Olympic Category

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

Sport / no sport?

"It is often mis-categorized as a sport"

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

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

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

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

-taken from sport.

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

Injuries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for working with me on this SummerPhD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parkour in popular culture

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

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

AfD for Parkour in popular culture

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

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

Removed content from the Videogame section

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

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

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

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

Video Game Vandalism

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

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

Mobile Apps under Popular Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supergran

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

Opening

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad first sentence!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image edit war

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

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

Adding equipment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization of parkour

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

-taken from Letter case.

"Capital letters are used:

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

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

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

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

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

-taken from Capitalization in English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup of Parkour in popular culture

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

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

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

Why Literature, Television and music video have beem removed? What criteria did you used to assert that they are not notable? Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is a Wikipedia article directly on that subject, and a reliable source which supports the use of parkour in that subject. Fairly minimal criteria, but otherwise we see the bloat of the previous article. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You did not removed based on WP:N. Madonna’s Confessions Tour is cited on New York Times as well her Jump music is on The Sunday Times, Tog Gear episode is on The Guardian, Live Free or Die Hard film is also on USA Today. I could go on and cite many other that you have removed. Notability is NOT temporary and if there is a citation on third party source that is enough to make a large paragraph about it. When section get large we split off, that is the main reason why I have created Parkour in popular culture. This article was also sent to WP:AFD three times and closed with one no consensus and TWO keeps.

The only way to not get this article bloated is not allowing ANY popular culture entry. Does not belong to us decided what should be kept of removed. I did not like it is never a reason to remove them. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I removed them based on whether they had an article or not, not whether they were simply citable as you have attempted to do here. I just realized my last criterion: Where parkour was not important to the creation of the work, I removed; in other words, if the sourcing did not explain, in detail, how parkour was important to the creation of the work. I can guarantee, parkour is not important to Top Gear or to Madonna. The article you link to about Life Free and Die Hard only notes that it was in Die Hard... and not that it was important to Die Hard's creation. Nor does it detail how Die Hard make use of it; it's a one-off "oh, it was in this film". That's not useful for deciding what goes into a popular culture section and what does not.

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

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

The guarantee offer is totally subject and personal. It does not change that you removed or kept thing because you like (important) or dislike (unimportant). You said: "I removed them based on whether they had an article or not" parkour is mentioned on Jump_(Madonna_song)#Music_video yet nothing is mentioned here and needing an article or a sentence in other article to add it, is not a criteria based on any policy or guideline, as far as I know. The music video has many others third-party sources. [14] [15] [16] How parkour was not important to Madonna or Top Gear if they make money on it? What is not important to you does not means that is same to others, that is the problem why these sections turn large and I and other editor decided to split off. Parkour may not well represented on Madonna music video, but that never makes non-notable. The closure rationale was "General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages." General accept to keep the article and discuss if article should be merged or kept. Where was the discussing and consensus to merge Parkour in popular culture and Free running here? I do not think you did. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) : Hi. I'm not familiar with Doyle or the topic in general, but perhaps I can give you a sense of whether there should/shouldn't be an article on Doyle. With biographies of living people, there are two hurdles on this Wiki, and they largely overlap--verifiability and notability. In both cases, usually the question boils down to this: are there enough reliable, secondary sources that tell us about the subject that we can read them all, and from those sources alone write a reasonably neutral and factual article? In general such sources are going to be things like newspaper articles, magazine articles and books from reliable publishers, anything with a real editorial staff. No press releases, no use of the fellow's own web site, Facebook page, videos, etc. For athletes like this it's also possible to fill in additional information from reliable databases of results, but notability really requires articles that discuss the subject in some level of detail. Take a look at [{WP:GNG]], and see if that helps you decide. [17] looks to be at least one such source, [18] is a reliable reference but only mentions Doyle in passing. Of the 5 sources listed on streetstunts, 4 are don't meet these requirements, and the fifth might or might not--I can't tell since the page is dead. Looks from what I can tell "borderline" with respect to our policies, but since you know the subject in more detail than I do (or at least I assume so) you probably know of specific resources I'm unaware of that might help flesh out the article. I hope this helps, at least a bit. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ryan Doyle is notable to parkour, but not only him. Daniel Ilabaca, Chase Armitage, Oleg Vorslav and maybe few that are in the page http://www.streetstunts.net/wiki/Category:People are also too. To mention these guys we need third part source and historical background and it will somewhat difficult to do. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of changing titles/etc

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

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

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

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

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

Belle family section

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

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

Content removal, March 2012

I've gone through the article and removed the content that was not verified, not appropriate, not pertaining to the topic, not encyclopedic in nature. The subject is notable, that seems without a doubt, but if the fans here wish to have a decent article they should start by adding references to reliable sources to the article, rather than details that are probably insignificant in their own right and will just turn this (again) into a bloated bag of unencyclopedic chit-chat. BTW, I've done the same to Freerunning, which is now barely a stub--it's probably worthwhile considering merging it into this article. Bottom line: for both articles, reliable sources are a must. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just worked to expand the lead a little as well as various other WP:MOS type changes. There's still more to be done, and I suspect I'll probably merge freerunning in since it is so short now. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that lots of sources became dead link, but 2008's History section is NOT appropriate or pertaining to the topic. The current section is poorly written and minuscule. It must be expanded not trimmed. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That requires reliable sources. If you can provide reliable sources which cite the content appropriately, then no one is going to stop you. The links were removed for that reason. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So what makes UrbanFreeFlow unreliable? There was also citation to Musee de la Marine, a magazine of the Parisian pompiers and an old Sébastien Foucan site. The links were removed because they are dead. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's easy: it's a commercial site selling t-shirts and bandanas. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily a disqualification. Especially since Parkour as a subject is relatively new and it has not developed sufficient standing in academic publications. In the absence of scholarly sources the next step down for sources would be the experts and then the experts with commercial interests. As long as the article doesn't try to sell products offered in those websites, a general reference about the historical origins of the principles and structure of Parkour should not automatically be rejected just because it is hosted on a commercial website. In that sense "UrbanFreeFlow" may be used. Ideally the addition should be made by editors with no apparent COI regarding any affiliation with the website. As far as I know I think the RS policy also supports this, or at least it does not specifically exclude it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From the top of the article: "UF STREETWEAR......THE ORIGINAL & AUTHENTIC CLOTHING BRAND OF PARKOUR & FREERUNNING......RUNNING THE STREETS SINCE 2003". As for the essay, there is no author given, no list of references, and the site itself does not seem to have an editorial board. In other words, there is no reason to assume that even the basic information is correct--it might well be rehashed and compiled from all kinds of other unverified stuff on the interwebz. What I don't understand--and I'll never understand this--is why the fans satisfy themselves with clicking around on the internet instead of looking for some real sources. Exercise the body but not the mind? That's just another form of laziness. A quick search in Google Books reveals plenty of hits, plenty of reliable sources. And Dr. K, if something hasn't been discussed in reliable sources, academic or otherwise, then, well, guess what, it's not notable by our standards. But it is, of course, it's just that none of the editors can be bothered to actually read this book or this book or this article or this book or this article from The New Yorker. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Drmies. I was just making a case about what to consider given the assumption of lack of any better sources. I was fully aware that the website was commercial and that the historical piece was unattributed and so on and so forth. What I wanted to say was, that in the absence of any other sources this source may be acceptable as a first step. In addition I hope you did not surmise that I ought to do a Google search prior to offering my opinion. I am not that interested in the subject and I am not motivated to try to find sources for it. I just offered my opinion simply as advice on what to do in the worst case scenario where no other reliable sources could be found. Since you obliged by finding some books this point becomes moot. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I hope some editors who are more interested in the subject matter than you and me will pick up on some of the above links: there is a really, really interesting article lurking underneath about the origin, meaning, and function of parkour, but it won't happen as long as editors keep focusing on celebrating the founder and describing the moves. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing

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

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

Supergran

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

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

New and under-used sources

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup of Parkour in popular culture

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

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

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

Why Literature, Television and music video have beem removed? What criteria did you used to assert that they are not notable? Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is a Wikipedia article directly on that subject, and a reliable source which supports the use of parkour in that subject. Fairly minimal criteria, but otherwise we see the bloat of the previous article. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You did not removed based on WP:N. Madonna’s Confessions Tour is cited on New York Times as well her Jump music is on The Sunday Times, Tog Gear episode is on The Guardian, Live Free or Die Hard film is also on USA Today. I could go on and cite many other that you have removed. Notability is NOT temporary and if there is a citation on third party source that is enough to make a large paragraph about it. When section get large we split off, that is the main reason why I have created Parkour in popular culture. This article was also sent to WP:AFD three times and closed with one no consensus and TWO keeps.

The only way to not get this article bloated is not allowing ANY popular culture entry. Does not belong to us decided what should be kept of removed. I did not like it is never a reason to remove them. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 07:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I removed them based on whether they had an article or not, not whether they were simply citable as you have attempted to do here. I just realized my last criterion: Where parkour was not important to the creation of the work, I removed; in other words, if the sourcing did not explain, in detail, how parkour was important to the creation of the work. I can guarantee, parkour is not important to Top Gear or to Madonna. The article you link to about Life Free and Die Hard only notes that it was in Die Hard... and not that it was important to Die Hard's creation. Nor does it detail how Die Hard make use of it; it's a one-off "oh, it was in this film". That's not useful for deciding what goes into a popular culture section and what does not.

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

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

The guarantee offer is totally subject and personal. It does not change that you removed or kept thing because you like (important) or dislike (unimportant). You said: "I removed them based on whether they had an article or not" parkour is mentioned on Jump_(Madonna_song)#Music_video yet nothing is mentioned here and needing an article or a sentence in other article to add it, is not a criteria based on any policy or guideline, as far as I know. The music video has many others third-party sources. [19] [20] [21] How parkour was not important to Madonna or Top Gear if they make money on it? What is not important to you does not means that is same to others, that is the problem why these sections turn large and I and other editor decided to split off. Parkour may not well represented on Madonna music video, but that never makes non-notable. The closure rationale was "General support for keeping this article, but editors can discuss a merge to Parkour on the talk pages." General accept to keep the article and discuss if article should be merged or kept. Where was the discussing and consensus to merge Parkour in popular culture and Free running here? I do not think you did. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think those are good criteria for including references to pop culture in this section, and the list is certianly improving. My point is that as we start to include citations from better sources, this article is distancing itself from the idea that every time someone jumps between buildings it's an instance of parkour. The article now presents parkour more clearly as a training method rather than just a list of movements. As an example, Casino Royale has clearly been influenced by parkour, even to the point of including a parkour practitioner in the film itself, but the film just as clearly does not portray any training method. If we assume the sources we have here are reliable (and I think we're now starting to use sources that are) then we have to say that parkour influenced Casino Royale, but does not feature in it. Those sources that do mention or show a training discipline, such as the Yamakasi films and the Jump documentaries, are actual times when parkour is featured in pop culture.

Getting back to sources, I agree that we should try and include more citations from the documentaries, and also the published books (in particular Julie Angel's 'Cine Parkour', David Belle's 'Parkour', Sebastien Foucan's 'Freerunning' and maybe Dan Edwardes' 'Parkour and Freerunning Handbook'). Having re-written the history section using these references, I think almost the whole rest of the article needs to be updated to reflect these sources. Ironically, the parts of the article that best reflect these sources are the parts that currently contain no citations at all. I don't know if transcripts of the documentaries exist in the public domain, but the whole 'Jump London' documentary exists on Google video if you want to look through it. I have access to all these sources so maybe if I or another editor (always hoping) can pick out the more important parts, we can go through and try and create a good article.Feraess (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

There's disagreement in the sources as to whether what is shown in films like Casino Royale, Banlieue 13, Breaking and Entering etc. constitutes parkour. WP:YESPOV means we can't present a contested viewpoint as fact, so even if we're going to give New Yorker and Reuters journalists equal weight as Julie Angel and David Belle in determining what parkour is, we still have to say something like "Various films have been described by journalists as containing parkour sequences... ...even though parkour is described by it's creators and other experts as a training discipline rather than a performance." The current wording presents it as fact rather than opinion, so I think some changes are definitely necessary.

For me, common sense says that on this matter we can give the opinions of the creators and experts more weight than the opinions of journalists, however reliable the journalists are normally. Otherwise, every section of the article needs to be changed to reflect the disagreement in sources. The article itself should at least be internally consistent in how it treats the sources.

Sure, we can separate out the military training part from the pop culture section. I didn't have any special reason for putting it here, it just didn't belong in the history section in it's current state. I'll give it it's own section and leave a 'needs expansion' note.

I'll start a new talk section for looking into new sources. Feraess (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methode naturelle, freerunning and philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content you may have attempted to add was probably not called unreliable, but that it has no reliable sourcing. Be careful of that distinction. Watchers of this page are aware that there are texts that talk about these things, but without direct citations to the content, it is easier in the meantime to reject the change until a book or paper and page number can be provided. Watchers of this page are also aware that there need to be expansions throughout the text of the article. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be good if we could re-work the Georges Hébert section. I've been concentrating on the more modern history but maybe I can take a look at the Hébert section too. I don't have a copy of his book, but I know there are at least a couple of parkour practitioners in the US who do own a copy as they did a partial translation on a message board several years back (which I have a copy of somewhere). I imagine Erwan is too busy with his own projects to spend much time on the wikipedia parkour article, but I think we should use his article on Hébert to improve this section at the very least. If you want to suggest some improvements here either myself or another editor can work on finding citations to support them.

Ciné Parkour is a good resource for historical elements, and so can be used as reference for some more backstory to freerunning. However it is not a good source on definitions and so I don't want to rely on it too heavily. Since most sources (and my own experience with the subject) say that freerunning is not a separate discipline, just a very slightly different approach to the same discipline, I don't think it warrants a greatly expanded section. I agree it could do with a little expansion, but I think that other areas of the article (such as the philosophy) are more of a priority for me at the moment. Suggest some changes here and we'll see what works. If we can agree here and find citations the changes are unlikely to be automatically reverted.

The philosophy section is one of the two major problems in the article at the moment (the other being the non-existent section containing references on what the training method is). The article has had a philosophy section for several years, but has never to my knowledge actually included any information as to what the philosophy consists of. It definitely needs work, and I think it's a priority now that the history section has laid the foundations. There are a number of interviews we can reference, although since there's no clear consensus we're going to have to be careful to make it clear that all philosophical interpretations are opinion rather than fact. We might be able to use the Parkour and Freerunning Handbook to support some statements, but I'd rather not use it as a main source as it's section on philosophy is very limited and seems almost an afterthought in the book. Anyway, there are plenty of interviews with practitioners we can reference. Feraess (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

I found something wrong with this overview:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) And (2) is false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Parkour the same as Freerunning?

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

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

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

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

Wrong information

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

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

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

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

So fix it! I would agree either way that the "the original term... accepted as having a 'u.'" either a) needs a citation or b) needs to be deleted. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've fixed up some bits of the etymology section. I think it's looking much leaner, more understandable, and more correct than it was. If you have any further thoughts, I could probably tweak it more. However, note that I haven't touched the first paragraph, I only played with the "traceur" section. --MarkTraceur (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Art of Movement and a template

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

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

Again, Black dragon, you have inserted unsourced commentary on the page. Please provide sources in the article that support this - before somebody with a mop notices that you're at 4RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Dragon, if you wish to talk about Parkour - please do so here and not on editors talk pages. That way others can be involved as well. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• https://www.facebook.com/pages/Art-Of-Motion-ParkourFreerunning-class/154047511368505
• http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Art-of-Motion/001242981743204
• http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/urban-sports/parkour.htm
• http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/red-bull-art-of-motion-brings-parkour-stateside-101882433.html
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nerrZgFvo40
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by7uU_yUvxA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZAeuchfRP0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PNn4rc_II
• http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Event/Red-Bull-Art-of-Motion-Santorini-021243224470771

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

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

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

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

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

Your translation is not quite correct "L'art du déplacement (the art of displacement)." - Déplacement means both "displacement" and "movement". French is a funny language, and some words can have multiple meanings - déplacement being one of them. The context of the use is also important. In this context it is accepted the the meaning is "movement", whereas in another context - such as "une moto de grosse déplacement" would mean a bike with a big engine, not big movement. Although that's not a great example, as you'd say "cylindree" instead of déplacement, or even just "grosse moto", but you get the idea.

^{PS: Are you really a Most Perfect Tutnum editor? As far as I can tell you've got less than 5,000 edits and not been here 3 years yet?} Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BlackDragon, do you have a particularly reliable source for your statement "But Parkour is the Art of Motion designed to get from A to B as fast and efficient as possible. That is the exact definition..."? As far as I'm aware, Parkour is defined (by its creator) as being a training discipline where you try and move past obstacles. If there's a source that is more reliable than the creator then of course we can include it as part of the article, however I'm not aware of any such source at the moment. At the moment there is no reliable evidence to connect 'art of motion' to Parkour, nor to support the addition of any other nickname. Feraess (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Your definition of parkour is incorrect.

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

Jackie Chan

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

Can you point to evidence that Jackie Chan had any influence on the formation of the art or the community, or even that he's been involved in it? --MarkTraceur (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you disprove Chan had any influence ? Many traceurs cite him as an influence. This article (namely its history section) is very European centric and should consider events and people that had influence on the art and community from around the world. Unless you opt to define the word Parkour by taking a very Bell-centric point of view, you cannot exclude the rest of the world or history (for an analogy, see the history of the various martial arts). Assigning a label, proposing a training regimen, systematizing movements and building a community-philosophy, although very important, does not nullify the rest of history that has a link to the art. In its current form, this text is heavily biased.

I don't see anything wrong with assigning a label to someone who practices or practiced, functionally, by nature a discipline that was not named at the time they most practiced it, or who doesn't officially associate with a particular community. For instance, a psychologist might analyze a long-gone writer as being schizophrenic, etc. You could do it if you found solid references stating that Jackie Chan seems to practice Parkour by nature. Ryan Doyle who is strongly likened to Jackie Chan calls him the "godfather of freerunning", hence if others said this it might be stated that Jackie Chan practices Freerunning. You'd have to find similar references that he practices Parkour to mention him I suppose. You might have better luck mentioning him in the now-restored freerunning article. Squish7 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The sort of analysis you're likening this to (a psychologist characterizing a dead writer as schizophrenic) might have place in an academic paper, but not so much in an encyclopedia. If an academic paper ever does link Jackie Chan to Parkour, ideally in a more direct fashion than "Jackie Chan is like $person" and "$person is like the grandfather of freerunning", then I'd say go nuts, but right now, there's not even any speculation about it that you've shown. I look forward to your research, however. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up 404's and adding new external links

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

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

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

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

I've been meaning to clean up some of the links for a while, so thanks for that.

The sites you mention don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for external links so we can't include links to them on the page. WFPF and 3run both fail on account of existing primarily for commercial purposes, and ParkourTrain is a blog by someone who is not a recognised authority (...you?).

We might be able to find information on ParkourTrain that we can use as a source to support additions to the article, but I've not seen either WFPF or 3run produce anything useful and in any case they generally aren't reliable. Feraess (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree about 3RUN and WFPF after reviewing their websites deeper. As for ParkourTrain, there are a number of useful articles about techniques, strength and philosophy that, I believe, build on the subject. The information focuses on Parkour and offers insight on the matter. Traceur.dan (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)