Talk:Parkour/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 →

Parkour is not extreme sport

For those that are adding its unsource point of view about extreme sport:

Is parkour dangerous?

Parkour have same potential danger that other sports, David Belle never broken anything.[1] Sebastian Foucan only made his big injury during the Casino Royale chase. Please read this quote to understand why parkour is not very dangerous:

Parkour is not nearly as dangerous as most other sports. Scrapes and bruises are common but major injuries are very rare. However, just like any high impact activity such as basketball or soccer, the occasionally sprained ankle or pulled muscle is inevitable.[2]

Finally, you do not have to do what these guys does —such as jumping in the building— to say that you are practicing parkour. Carlosguitar 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what you define as dangerous. Parkour is the most unhealthy athletic activity a young person could practice. There is not a single more damaging athletic activity (out of the normal ones) in existence. A person that practices parkour should not practice it in order to be healthy, but in spite of the fact that it is damaging. It's not an opinion, it's a fact, and people should be aware of it during their practice of parkour.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.116.199.235 (talk)

Parkour is the most unhealthy athletic activity a young person could practice.

So you will have to block children to play at playgrounds. Because some of them does parkour naturally.

There is not a single more damaging athletic activity

Where is proofs that parkour is the most dangerous athletic activity in the world? People have died because of football. [3] Still this does not proof anything that parkour is really more or less dangerous than other activities.

but in spite of the fact that it is damaging. It's not an opinion, it's a fact

First, no original research in Wikipedia. Second your argument from personal incredulity is unsustainable because it is your WP:POV without fact.

According to your logic, David Belle and Sebastian Foucan would have to be using wheelchair. Carlosguitar 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a traceur for around 3 year, I have to say that Parkour is only as dangerous as you make it.

Parkour is the Art of Moverment. Not the Art of Movement by jumping off buildings. if you only practise to do small jumps then its fine. David Belle has not been injured due to his extensive conditioning.

So please do not say that parkour is the most "damaging athletic activity", becuase FACT its not.

Amishbhadeshia 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A better way to address this question might be to ask what specific hazards parkour poses, both long- and short-term. This may require some sophistication to parse up properly. To use an example with which I'm familiar:

Running is a very safe activity in the short term. There's a negligible risk of acute injuries like cuts, broken bones, and concussions.
Running is moderately dangerous in the long term. There is a moderate risk of overuse injuries like knee pain and plantar fascitis.
Running is very safe in lifespan terms. Runners do not experience more chronic pain problems that non-runners, and may actually be more resistant to degenerative knee problems as they age.

So: What kind of acute risks to traceurs face? What kind of chronic risks do they face? What can be done to ameliorate these risks? What do we know about long-term health issues in people who practice parkour for many years (or who drop out due to physical conditions)? - Inhumandecency 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that parkour is only as dangerous as you make it. Example, skateboarding, dangerous? Most people will automatically say yes it is. Riding a skateboard along a flat surface is perfectly harmless so long as you have the necessary balance. Riding a skateboard off a ramp on the edge of a 40 story building will kill you. Parkour in itself is not dangerous, but some of the things you may be stupid enough to attempt while performing parkour may be. 203.54.3.240 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is parkour difficult?

No, anyone can do it. Of course people have its limits and difficulties, but that will not block them to try parkour.

Please, do not add your WP:POV if you do not have a true source to prove that parkour is really more dangerous than other activities. Carlosguitar 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not adding this to be into the article at this point, and I am not asking for this to be added. Should this be but into the article, nothing short of expert phycisian's reasearch specializing in athletics should be used as source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.116.199.235 (talk)

That is the problem. There is no reliable source to do it. Carlosguitar 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, this video of one armed guy is the most awesome proof that parkour is for anyone. Carlosguitar 13:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Must not be the only link - Put anything out there.

I think it creates a bad illusion of parkour being owned/run/cetralized, while many communities exist, outside pk.net. A frequent editor could change the additional external link every month, in order to not create the bad impression that Parkour has some official body behind it, and isn't a free art. While it's safe to assume that the petty wars between pk.net/uff/apk/pktv or whatever affect the article and links, this shouldn't be a reason for not having at least two links to communities, or even a video resource. Webmasters should stop the penis fencing, and let one of the frequent editors to iterate through the additional link every couple of weeks, even it means pointing to communities some people don't like - It's still better than pointing to only one community. Pointing to a single resource damages the initial impression of a person's view parkour.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.116.199.235 (talk)

Please see /Archive 3 discussion. There is no consensus about this issue, but I support that Parkour.NET and American Parkour should stay. Carlosguitar 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to all the contributions on this page?

Where is all the discussion that went on here before? Why have they been removed? For example, I had...

They have been archived. Please see WP:TALK#When_pages_get_too_long. You can start discussion again. Carlosguitar 04:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Legality & Conflicts

Main discussion /Archive 3

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

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

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

Parkour is not illegal. Traceurs who get in trouble for practicing parkour generally are doing so on private property; therefore they are in trouble for trespassing. There are very few places where parkour is prohibited; I have only seen one sign in my whole life and I didn't even see it with my own eyes - it was a picture online. Parkour is not illegal. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.3.158 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's like when skateboarding is banned on sidewalks, in some places it the same with parkour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

--Daniel 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with recent edits

There is a person that clearly is associated with parkour.net that has already vandalized citations/external links twice. While I am not associated with either , this is ugly behavior, not different from Urbanfreeflow's attempt at rewriting this page.
It is clear that these contributions are made in bad faith. I no longer have the ability to come here as frequently as I'd like, but I fully support the PoV presented here earlier, that we must not create the impression of "parkour ownership" by a certain community, even as helpful and big as parkour.net Presenting additional, alternative sites would benefit both parkour and article readers. Boris Shohat 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as 75.25.19.253 (talk · contribs) did not explain its reason to remove current sources, I reverted him because there is a conflict of interest and ownership of article. Carlosguitar 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem - All the ref links to parkour.net are not availible . It might be a registration issue, so new refs are needed...

Thing is, If I remove all the refs (which now have to be removed because they are no accessible to readers), many parts will now have the "citation needed" thing...

Boris Shohat 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Apparently all the refs got broken, because they have a new system and urls. So new refs are ok (like the non-competition thing), but old ones are not accessible. I am cleaning up a bit.

They are reforming its website. Check this topic. I am just waiting them to update site to update references. Carlosguitar 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh... so either way the old refs are dead. Wherever needed, I left the "citation needed" remark. (Some were actually not needed)

Boris Shohat 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

GJ with the refs.

L'art du deplacement

It's not the same thing as Parkour. In fact it's totally different. Parkour is also NOT an art; it's a discipline.

Having said that, Carlosguitar is an idiot and needs to do some research making any more 'contributions'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.46.253.243 (talk)

First, do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Second, read the source of David Belle official blog. I will quote here: "Le Parkour ou l'art du déplacement » est une méthode d'entraînement et une oeuvre déposée en déclinaison littéraire et audiovisuelle (SACD, SGDL)" This statement is from 17/01/2007. Also l'art du déplacement is the first term to describe parkour before 1998, read the sources! Do you have more reliable source than it?

Finally, all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. Parkour is an art or discipline. Sorry, but you will not impose your WP:POV here. If you want to improve this article go ahead. But the way you are trying is disruptive. Carlosguitar 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Parkour and Free Running, redux

This got deleted during the comments page wipe, so I'm going to re-add my comments here:

I read through the article (and the free running article), and I don't feel either makes a clear explanation of what the difference is between parkour and free running. As it stands, I'm left with the feeling that they are identical, with the only surface difference being that two originators/popularizers of the sport "parted ways" and use the two names to create a false distinction. Clearly, practitioners see a difference between the two sports, but the reader of this article won't yet walk away understanding what those differences are.Dxco 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to remember that parkour and free running are not yet sports. Because there is no competition, rules or international federation.

Unfortunately, as of June 2007 there is no better way to explain the different between parkour and free running, because lack of sources regarding to the free running. If you read both article you will see the subtle different that free running incorporate street stunts and tricking, but not parkour. So there is more "freedom" than parkour. Carlosguitar 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I the joe-average reader am more than willing to put up with some "citations needed" tag to get a clear, concise, and understandle discussion of the difference. Dxco 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me pretty straightforward: Parkour is moving from one point to another as quickly and efficiently as possible, and Free Running is navigating obstacles using a variety of acrobatic stunts. Similar, but definitely distinct. Jogar2 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So why not add that sentence into the article, because a as casual reader I also came away feeling like the difference was not clearly explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.90.180 (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no reliable source to make such statement. Free running being only acrobatics is still a WP:POV. That is the main problem, there is no clear difference between parkour and free running to explain to those who are seeking difference. Carlosguitar 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chan

Would Jackie Chan's movies be considered featuring Parkour? --MoRsE 07:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No. They (a) predate the development of parkour too much, and (b) don't demonstrate enough of the techniques that served as a precursor to parkour. --frankenc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.229.193 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Chan should at least be credited in some way, he´s not mentioned anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.236.250 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Great Challenge?

I was putting in release years for the movie references and when I got to The Great Challenge didn't manage to find anything about it! Who put the link in? Why isn't there a link for it? And Is there even justification in the end for the movie existing? Drizzt Ja mo 02:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review

The reason why it failed the GA review is because the image "Le_Parkour_Brasil_-_Passe_Muraille.jpg" has conflicting copyright statements. Also, "David_Belle.jpg" is risky because of fair use limitations. This article therefore speedy-fails. I will place it on hold. If this has improved I will continue the review. Just msg me when that happens. Daimanta 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not notice that Drizzt Jamo (talk · contribs) requested a GA review. I not sure if we can meets GA criteria.

Should David_Belle.jpg only used to District 13 article? Carlosguitar 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are some points of critique:

"David Belle had participated in activities such as martial arts and gymnastics, and sought to apply his athletic prowess in a manner that would have practical use in life.[citation needed] " Provide citation please

Done Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

~~"After moving to Lisses"~~

~~Can you elaborate more on Lisses, there is no information about it.~~

Added wikilink. Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"In fact, ground-based movement is much more common than anything involving rooftops."

Citation please

Reworded. Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

says Sébastien Foucan in Jump London

There is no earlier reference to mr Foucan in the article, can somebody clear that up?

I did not understand. Are you saying that this statement sounds like Sebastien Foucan co-funded parkour with David Belle? Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Why do I train people? I think it is important to preserve that. I think they will share this practical experience. And represent it is... I believe it is just share something. It should not be lost. It has to stay alive! I do not want to have this experience, and just write it in a book, it would become a dead experience! I want it to be alive! I want people to use it, to live it and to experiment it."

~~Missing quotes~~

Done Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rivalry-free"

That's a bad title, can someone change that to something better?

Changed to without rivalry. There are other options as "Sporting", "Sporting competition", "No competition", "No rivalry". What do you think? Carlosguitar 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's my point of critique. If that is cleared up we can move one with the rest of the review of the article(bear with me). Daimanta 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the edits CarlosGuitar. The thing about the Sebastian Foucan: Who is he? He suddenly pops up in the article and a reader can't be expected to know who he is.

True, History section needs a rewrite, there is a lot of information which can be added. I added the small statement: "a childhood friend of David Belle, who helped to spread parkour". It is ok for you? Carlosguitar 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go on now:

~~"the original"[source]~~

~~The link doesn't work(404)~~

There is no way to add the original source, because the link is dead. See here Jerome statement about reform of his website. Also, {{cite web}} does not work without |url= parameter, which is used to put the original link. Carlosguitar 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

~~"Trésor de la langue française"[source]~~

~~Make a reference that it's in french~~

Done added dictionary.com reference. Carlosguitar 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Parkour is unique and cannot be a competitive sport if it ignores its altruistic core to self development.[17] If parkour becomes a sport, it will be hard to seriously teach and spread parkour as a non-competitive activity.[17] And a new sport will be spread that may be called parkour, but that won't hold its philosophy's essence anymore.[17]"

~~This is an opinion, but stated as a fact. It should be made clear that this is an opinion.~~

Done added blockquote. Carlosguitar 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's it for the critique. If you fix that, I can probably take a last look at it. Daimanta 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, after the edits were made I did a last check and in my opinion the article deserves a GA status. I would like to thank Carlosguitar for the extensive editing he did to confirm to my wishes. I would also like to thank anoybody who has tried to make this article as good as it is. Daimanta 22:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I was not hoping to meets GA criteria in the current form, because History section needs a lot of improvement. Anyway, thanks again. Carlosguitar 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Decidedly Subjective

The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum are debatable as to Parkour, according to the APK forums, the consensus seems to be that it is not. Forum Thread --Huo Ma Ke —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. Carlosguitar 09:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

What is the deal with the External Links section. I have seen multiple links keep being deleted for a unknown reason. Why have an External Links section if you don't want any External Links? The ones that are on there are not referenced anywhere in the articles, but they get to stay on there. Such as Australian Parkour, search the page for anything that has Australia in it, there isnt. This sport struggles enough to become known and recognized. Don't try to regulate the exposure to this sport by deleting things that are not defacing the sport but trying to make it more known. Best Regards, hope this makes since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The number and type of links to be included are described at Wikipedia:External links unfortunately when an article gets spammed with promotional links (trying to sell things or advertised a forum etc.) it seems easier to remove all links rather than pick out the few that are worth keeping I've tired to leave in the less advert like ones, but Wikipedia is not here to promote any sport just to report it exists and describe it. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is better to remove the whole EL section. This edit war will never end because people will always try to add your favorite parkour community to EL section, also the current external links can be easy found via Google. The informative links already are cited in the References. Carlosguitar 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nate, Thanks for the quick response and its nice to see another MMA, BJJ interest out there. Anyways the comment "but Wikipedia is not here to promote any sport just to report it exists and describe it." Wikipedia is here to report something exists or you wouldn't need to have a wikipedia page if noone wanted to learn more about it. Just saying that I dont understand why americantraceurs.com would be removed. do a Control F on the page and American Traceurs comes up quite a bit. Look up Australian Parkour on the page and nothing. I'm not saying remove Australian Parkour, but no need to delete something that is relevant to the article. Also, I'm not promoting American Traceurs to gain a profit. They have nothing for sale, just an informative site for Parkour Traceurs. Hope you understand my view. What EL are exceptable and who is the ones authorized for that decission, it can't just be because you chose to keep ones you like and screw the others. I know thats not how the business is ran, so if you could explain. Best Regards. Nov. 8th 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.16 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not re-add External Links section again, until we get WP:CONSENSUS if EL section should be stay or removed and which websites should be added. All the major parkour communities can be found easy via Google. Wikipedia is not a collection of websites and A lack of external links is NOT a reason to add external links. Please stop spamming this article with americantraceurs.com Carlosguitar 06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carlosguitar, It doesn't look like americantraceurs.com was spamming, it seems like you do not want anyone to add anything to the FREE WIKIPEDIA. I don't know about you but when I go to a wikipedia page I like to go to the sites from the external links section, to learn more from different parkour teams. If you are going to go to the extreme of taking the EL section out you need to take all links from the whole article out, and take all EL's out from every Wikipedia article. Just my opinion, your the admin, you got to do what you got to do. This page is one of my favorites due to links through out the article that I can jump to, to find out what is happening across the world in Parkour. You might not take place in parkour but I just hate seeing a dispute like this take place in the parkour community. Thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.110.111 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not a directory nor a collection of websites. Americantraceurs.com was inaccurate and unhelpful information. Your website is far away to be equal as Parkour.NET, APK or UFF which makes no motive to be cited here. My reasoning to removed EL section is simple, these communities are easily found using Google, and to do justice with other non-notable communities, it is better to remove any parkour community, since people will try to add your favorite community. EL section was already removed by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) another administrator and I agree with his reasoning that these external links does not follow WP:EL policy. You are wrong if you think that can add anything you want to add to Wikipedia because it is "free", please refrain your view or you will be blocked due to persistent spamming. Carlosguitar 07:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Mistranslation

The translation of "être fort pour être utile" as "to be strong, to be useful" is misleading in its English form. It could be better stated as "to be strong for being useful", "being strong for being useful", or "being strong to be useful". The basis for this is the duality that exists in French between the infinitive and habitual forms. (I may be wrong about this.) Either way, the original form makes no sense in its present form unless the comma were to be replaced with a semicolon, or perhaps even a dash. 63.215.29.194 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)YksiKaksiKolme

Washington Post article on Parkour and US

I thought people may want to incorporate the following article [4] into the article. Remember (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing as a individual sport

Hi, could you explain the logic behind your edit here please? I understand the precise nature of parkour is variable depended on who you ask, however WikiProject Sports claims that Parkour is part of their project. There are also plenty of sources that define parkour as a sport. [5][6][7][8][9]. There doesn’t seem to be one firm definition of Parkour at the moment and since it is often defined as a sport (or extreme sport by critics) I believe the category is entirely appropriate and will help people find the page. Best, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Parkour#Overview and Parkour#Non-rivalry. I added parkour to WikiProject Sports because this article is within the scope, but does not mean the parkour is a sport. Adding parkour on this category is same to say that parkour is a sport, no it is not. Sports are competitive, with rules or they have international federation to organize parkour as a sport, but all these things does not exist on parkour. These sources you provided are unreliable and inaccurate. If you want to continue this discuss, please use the talk page of parkour. Cheers. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 03:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is replicated from the Carlosguitar’s talk page at his request that the discussion be continued here.

Okay, the category I believe should be added to this article is Category:Individual sports.

Carlosguitar is incorrect in assorting that a sport is necessarily competitive, or at least that this category implies that. By definition the individual sports category includes only non competitive and non team disciplines. For instance the category includes Freestyle walking, Silambam, and But Marma Atti. Perhaps the category should be renamed, but it is clearly not about anything competitive. In fact Parkour seems to fit the bill perfectly.

For right or wrong (for wrong in my personal POV) the term “extreme sport” is often applied to parkour. Although this is not directly related to the category in question, I believe some mention of the fact should be included in the article. Speaking as a Wikipedian this article sounds like it was written by traceurs for traceurs. It includes very little outside perspective. Perhaps a criticism section would be useful?

As a traceur myself I’m quit aware of the vehement objections to calling parkour a sport. However this category is clearly controversial solely because of the word “sport.” Adding this particular category in no way associates this article with X Games. :-P --S.dedalus (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Edit to add. On reflection I believe my only disagreement with Carlosguitarere is that I don’t think of sports as necessarily including an objective or rules. (Reminded me of Calvinball) :) I do the sport of Aikido for the same reasons I practice parkour, to improve myself. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this discussion here. I am not incorrect or misunderstanding. What you should not do is equalize individual hobbies, individual performing arts, individual disciplines, et cetera, with individual sports. Although similar, these things are never equal, because the only thing which differ normal activities from the sports is competitively. This category should not be renamed, because it is a subcategory of sports, so we are talking about competitively.

Who categorized Freestyle walking into individual sports? Based in which reliable sources? I do not agree and it should be re-categorized into a proper such as Category:Leisure. Also please, avoid self-reference, because a non-competitive activity is categorized into individual sports, does not means it is correct.

Does exist championship and tournament on Silambam and But Marma Atti? If yes they are correctly categorized, if no than these activities should be re-categorized.

Here is 2 reliable sources about parkour: Webster's New Millennium - Dictionary of English define parkour as a recreational pursuit and an article by The New Yorker which does not categorize parkour but explain that it may be an extreme sport, meditative pursuit, discipline, etc.

Undue weight is not motive to include a criticism section. Which reliable source would you use to include such section?

Cavinball is just a pastime like Hide and seek, and I do not think you practice the sport Aikido. Do you participate in championships or tournaments? If you are practicing it to improve yourself, then it is just a discipline to you. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 11:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

No, I’m sorry; you are simply incorrect about that first. According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition a sport is: 1 a : a source of diversion : RECREATION b : sexual play c (1) physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as in athletic game) so engaged in. The definition continues with several other meaning not pertinent to this discussion. Competition is not mentioned in the definition ever.

No, Aikido does not contain competitive elements, and yes it is a sport and a martial art.

As to Freestyle walking feel free to remove it from the category if you believe it is OR. Most articles in that category are either totally non competitive or competitive only in select circumstances. I would also like to point out that like it or not parkour is also practices competitively by some self named traceur. (Urban freeflow I’m looking at YOU.) Although David Belle and most other serious groups obviously don’t support their view, we should at least touch upon the controversy in this article. All art forms/sports/philosophies are interpreted differently as they grow.

Perhaps we can compromise? For instance we could add Category:Individual sports but then also add other also categories which reflect differing interpretations of parkour. Alternatively perhaps a new category could be created to hold difficult to define mind-body activities such as Tai chi chuan and parkour.

Undue weight for a criticism section? Are you kidding? Parkour has got to be the second most criticized activity/sport after skate boarding. BBC: The Parkour way of life|Dangerous gamble, Time, Student Stuntmen, Journal of Orthopaedics: A Potentially Dangerous Recreation From France., Idsnews: Police say Le Parkour is dangerous, frowned upon on campus, U. Illinois student dies after fall from broadcast tower, Cambridge News: Rooftop jumpers risking death. Frankly this article makes parkour sound like a walk in the park. Many children and teens come to this article, and denying the fact that there are obvious and serious risks assisted with parkour would not only be misleading it would be potentially lethal. I intend to write a criticism section, and I trust you will not attempt to have it removed based on WP:UNDUE.

Finally I’d like to congratulate you on your excellent work on this article. Please don’t allow your understandable pride to become possessiveness however. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This unnecessary, you first say that I am incorrect, then I am owning this article due to my pride. You are not helping with these comments and disrespecting other editors whom worked in this article. You are using a definition of dictionary dated in 1998 (tenth edition). Let's go to use factual, accurate and reliable dictionaries definitions: Unabridged (v 1.1 in 2006) define sport as requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature; American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Edition in 2006) define governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively; WordNet® 3.0 (2006) define an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition. I know there is some sources which define sport as non-competitive, but current consensus based on this reliable sources is sports are competitively with rules. If you want to change the consensus please discuss on Talk:Sport. Also Category:Parkour is already categorized as recreation, so it is unnecessary to argument that sports are non-competitive recreation and parkour must be added on this category. If you want, please create a new category for individual recreational activities and team recreational activities. Aikido may does not contain "competitive elements" in its essence, but exist championships, therefore Aikido has rules and competitively. Urban freeflow never practiced or organized a competition on parkour. There was some failed attempt which resulted on creation of parcouring and Red Bull Free running competition, actually there is no single competition with only parkour. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to assume your good faith and gently remind you of WP:OWN, a policy which all of us should keep in mind. A quick look at the history of this page seems to show that you are reverting many good faith edits of other users who are “working on this article.” Also exactly how do you conceder it disrespectful to argue for what I believe is an improvement to this article? You appear to be assuming my bad faith. Talk:Sport has nothing to do with how categories are used on this article. As far as I know Aikido competitions do not exist anywhere. Neither dictionary definition you present is from as reliable a source as Webster's Dictionary. Even that online dictionary you pointed me to defines sport as “diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime.” --S.dedalus (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Since December 2006, I joined to English Wikipedia because I found this article almost abandoned with lots of vandalism and unverifiable claims, such as parkour is also known as free running and Foucan is the founder or co-founder of parkour. Until today I am trying to Feature this article, that is the main motive why I keep reverting edits here. I will be glad to restore any edit if you point that I wrongly reverted, but my reverts are still sustainable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You misunderstood, you are becoming disrespectful because are congratulating only me on this talk page, when many others editors helped this article, that is unnecessary and aggravate in some situations. Talk:Sport has a lot to do with this discussion, if sports are non-competitive then the definition of sport on Wikipedia must be changed. Again, current consensus is sports are engaged in competitively, another reliable source as Britannica state physical contests pursued for the goals and challenges they entail. It is still unnecessary to me to include such category. Non-competitive activities goes to Category:Recreation and competitive goes to Category:Sports, that seems to be a simple solution. I am sill proving that I am not incorrect. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Providing Third Opinion:

Comments for conduct of Carlosguitar (talk):

Deleting a page categorization appears as though you are trying to pick a fight.
Your deleting and reverting of edits is borderline WP:OWN, borderline disruptive and even borderline troll-ish.

Comments for conduct of S.dedalus (talk):

With something so trivial, in the name of being civil, wouldn't is just be easier to let it go eventually?

For both S.dedalus and Carlosguitar: such a lengthy discusion about something so trivial is somewhat argumentative.

In conclusion, the categorization of Parkour as an individual sport should be restored. Sports do not have to be competitive and reverting such an insignificant edit as page categorization is asking for an argument. Billscottbob (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your accusations of owning, disrupting and trolling, I hope to not see again you accusing other editors in such way. There is none trivial discussion, this discussion is extremely useful for this and sport related articles. By the way, deleting is a lot different of removing or reverting. If sports are non-competitive recreational activities therefore children's games are sports. That is untrue. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many ways to define a sport and if you go by the definition at the beginning of this article, parkour could indeed by classed as a sport. However, the definition at the start of the page is incorrect. Both references for that section [10][11] are out of date, are of questionable reliability in the first place, and contradict information to be found in other places used as references in the article. [12] [13]

Parkour is a method of training, a form of exercise, and therefore does not belong in the category sport for the same reasons that weight training is not in that category. I'm a newcomer to contributing to wikipedia articles and WP:Source is not a helpful system for promoting understanding of a subject like parkour with very little in the way of official or online information, but there are already sources being used that support changing the first paragraph and correctly classifing parkour. Even the Terminology section disagrees with the first paragraph.Feraess 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.53.221 (talk)

Exactly, while there is some sources which define sport as a non-competitive activity, parkour is just a method of training like strength training and weight training which does not fit to sport category. However bodybuilding, weightlifting, powerlifting and strongman, are sports which highly incorporate strength training training regimen. And there is already sports that incorporate parkour training regimen, such as parcouring and Red Bull Free Running competition. P.S. I corrected the external links on your comment. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion

If I go on Sport, I can read the following :

Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing)

I am a traceur myself and I have met traceurs communities in France (3), Canada(2), Sweden(1). None of them practice competition. I have never seen/heard of a Parkour competition on TV, Wikipedia, newspaper, youtube, parkour forums. Since I claim there is nothing, it will be easy to my detractors to show I am wrong giving us a few links.

More importantly, there is no set of rules in Parkour. In the same way, since I claim there is nothing, it will be easy to my detractors to show I wrong putting the 'official rules' here in this discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.141.109 (talk)

That is exactly what I have trying to explain. The current consensus on Wikipedia is sport is a set of rules and engaged in competitively. This definition is sustainable by Unabridged (v 1.1 in 2006), American Heritage Dictionary (Fourth Edition in 2006), WordNet 3.0 (2006) and Britannica encyclopedia. As of February 2008, there is no rules or competitively on parkour. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 16:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe the definition of sport can be misleading in this argument since there are various forms of freestyle athletics including those highlighted in the "X-games" and olympic competitive sports such as gymnastics. This is not to say that you aren't right because in principle parkour is not classified as competitive it is however an athletic participation and as such should be neutrally considered as, just that, an action of athleticism where participants engage in freestyle and physical interactions with their surrounding envrionment. Izivkovi (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Safety and response to criticism section

I’ve added a Safety and response to criticism section. (Since most criticism revolves around safety.) --S.dedalus (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You already knew that I oppose to include such section. Parkour considered the second most activity criticized is your point of view using anecdotal evidence, unless you WP:PROVEIT with statistics. I am serious about undue weight. You included a case of child who got injured, but children get injury in almost every activity. What about injuries on sports and violence in soccer should be included on its main articles about the sport? Nope. Parkour was banned in one university, but is allowed or even stimulated in countless schools, if parkour has been banned in a territory, we probable could include it, but just this school is absolutely undue weight. Opinions of journalists, educators, traceurs and fact that David Belle and Sébastien Foucan never got a serious injury during parkour are not reliable sources to write about safety, risk, and health issues. You must understand that Wikipedia is not written for minors and is not a guide. You made clear that want a disclaimers for children, so please go to Guide to Parkour and add them. This article never says that parkour is safety or there is no risk, almost any sport has a risk to die. I removed your section per UNDUE, reliability of sources, and moved few criticism to Movements section, please get consensus if you want such section. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 20:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[14] Excuse me. Please get consensus if you want to revert my well sourced and balanced editions to this article. It is in no way a violation of WP:UNDUE to add a small section on controversy surrounding parkour. WP:PROVEIT does not apply since everything in my section is well sourced. You are totally unjustified in revering well sourced and balanced material. Sources such as a medical journal, the BBC, Time Magazine, and professional newspapers are quit sufficient. I am requesting a third opinion in this discussion.

A disclaimer for children? Oh, come on. That’s a total misrepresentation of what I said. I’m perfectly aware that Wikipedia is not censored for children. We also have a policy here called WP:NPOV. The section that you just reverted was no more than a factual description of a controversy like others that can be found in hundreds of other articles. Thank you so much by the way for modifying my post here to include a separate header. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry S.dedalus, I do not like to revert people and understand how you feel. I do not have anything against you. But I have right to revert and work on consensus. I said to you prove your rationale claiming that parkour is the second most criticized activity, but you do not provided any source. Is parkour more or less controversial than violence and injuries on soccer? Who get more injured a traceur or a soccer player? Does the percentage of death on parkour is more high than on soccer? If you do not have reliable sources with statistics to make a comparative, please do not undue weight, because this article does not talk about the benefices of parkour - which are various - or say that it is safety and there is no risk, so there is no problem with WP:NPOV. A reliable source is a long-term study with multiple traceurs and scientific method where report if the legs, heels and ankle of these traceurs got more strong or damaged during the time of study, with this type of source is possible to write a richest health issues section. Opinions of journalists, educators, traceurs, et cetera, are unreliable source to say about danger of parkour. The study of medial journal is unreliable for a traceur with 1 or more months because it study a isolate case of a child with only 2 days of experience. A adult traceur with 3 years of experience really does not get benefices with this report. The section you added is not factual because it is based on opinions of journalists valuing the supposed high danger of parkour using anecdotal evidence, and does not answer the question that I raised. Due to these problem, I am asking to keep with current version, which I and Undaunted support to resolve the major problems with WP:UNDUE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia no one has a “right” to do anything (WP:RIGHTS). However your repeated accusations of incivility in this discussion (including accusing a neutral third party above) are highly disruptive. No one has personally attacked you. There is nothing wrong with the sources I have provided. On the contrary journalism and peer-reviewed medical journals are completely compatible with WP:SOURCES. My sources will stand up to any neutral party review on Wikipedia.

The kid had only 2 days experience with parkour? Exactly! Parkour often draws criticism for motivating untrained children to attempt unwise drops or vaults. Whether this is a justified assumption does not matter. The view is clearly a notable opinion. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:No personal attacks, from WP:OWN: accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Yeah right may be not a good word, but WP:CCC is a official policy and WP:RIGHTS is just a essay, so in this case we follow the policy. No they are not reliable per same thing that I raised above. Is parkour more or less controversial than violence and injuries on soccer? Who get more injured a traceur or a soccer player? Does the percentage of death on parkour is more high than on soccer? You said: "Parkour often draws criticism for motivating untrained children to attempt unwise drops or vaults." I am sorry but that is pure original research, see: if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research you are also synthesizing material: an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. Journal of Orthopaedics never says that parkour or traceurs motivate untrained children to attempt unwise drops or vaults and still finalize with: "The injury risk factor for Parkour is unknown". Anyway what you did is pure undue weight. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has accused you of WP:OWN. I reminded you of a policy we should all keep in mind. Even if someone did accuse you of ownership however the conclusion would probably be justified by the pattern of your reverts and your continued aggressive comments here. From WP:CCC “There is a distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view.” My section was in no way original research. The sentence you quote had three sources. Undue weight was addressed by User: Billscottbob and found to be an invalid reason. It is very unlikely that this article will ever reach FA status while serious POV issues are present. Finally I’m tired of this pointless argument. I will instead try to find a satisfactory solution with Feraess bellow. Please join us to try to find a constructive solution. You can have the last word here if you must. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Billscottbob accuse me of "reverting of edits is borderline WP:OWN, borderline disruptive and even borderline troll-ish." You enforce his view with "accusations of incivility in this discussion (including accusing a neutral third party above) are highly disruptive." WP:No personal attacks made clear to comment on content, not on the contributor. So why are you still talking about my editing conduct as a disruptive editor? Your rationale claiming that parkour is the second most criticized activity is a original research. You are also synthesizing material of Journal of Orthopaedics claiming that parkour or traceurs motivate untrained children to attempt unwise drops or vaults. User:Billscottbob never said that my reason was invalid, he said that my compromise "is a fitting solution." People disagrees in everything, and that is not always motive to become disruptive. WP:CCC states: disruptively trying to enforce an individual view. How am I trying to enforce an individual view if Undaunted share same views with mine related to reliable source of careful studies? My solution was presented on my diff removing your undue weight and compromise to keep few criticism, which Undaunted, User:Billscottbob, you and me agree to be WP:PRACTICAL. I am sorry, but there still no consensus to restore your section. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 12:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinon

Providing third opinion:

Carlosguitar, I think S.dedalus has good reason to include a criticism section. The section was well referenced (also with good quality references), therefore it meets WP:PROVEIT, reliability of sources and WP:V. I understand your concern with WP:UNDUE, but it could also be considered POV-pushing by failing to include a criticism section. The Time magazine article, which I have read, is proof of considerable criticism. Additionally, regarding your point about criticism of other sports, I have never read an article on criticsm of soccer. As for the point about the disclaimer for children, it is not written like a disclaimer nor does it appear as a warning. It looks encyclopedic.

On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken, Carlosguitar compromised and included the criticism, summarized, elsewhere in the article. That was a very WP:CIVIL move. If the only major issue is WP:UNDUE, then maybe Carlosguitar's solution is a good one.

In conclusion, I think the section should be restored. In my mind, the only true controversy is over WP:UNDUE and, after careful examination of WP:UNDUE, I don't think this section is truly violating WP:UNDUE. Billscottbob (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

S.dedalus did not proved your rationale claiming that parkour is the second most criticized activity. And opinions of journalists are unreliable sources to talk about danger of parkour. Current version resolve the major issues with WP:UNDUE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, if the only major issue is WP:UNDUE, then your compromise is a fitting solution. If WP:CONSENSUS and (to a minor extent) S.dedalus agree then I agree that your compromise is the right solution. When I first completed the thrid opinion, I was under the impression that it was still under dispute (including your compromise). Billscottbob (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Providing fourth opinion: I don't think it deserves a full section to itself yet as they aren't enough studies and resources to pull from. I was in that TIME article and trust me, it was not well researched. I think the current smaller addition to the end of the Movement section works well for now:

"Due to large drops parkour has sometimes received criticism for its questionable safety.[25][26][27] Although David Belle has never been seriously injured while practicing parkour,[28] there is no careful study about the health issues of large drops and traceurs stress gradual progression to avoid any problems." --Undaunted (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Undaunted. You are the same one that posts at Washington Parkour I assume? --S.dedalus (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm Tyson --Undaunted (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comment Undaunted, I thought that was alone. The summarized version on Movements section resolve the major issues with WP:UNDUE. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Undaunted, if you are involved in the dispute, as Carlosguitar mentioned, then technically you cannot give a 'third opinion'. Its misleading because it appears as though you are a neutral party. Billscottbob (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here, I just got involved in this to provide another opinion as carlosguitar asked me too. What makes me not a neutral party? --Undaunted (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar did merge a highly abridged (One sentence of criticism and less than half the sources) portion of my information into another section of the article, this information was placed at the end of the Parkour#Movements section. While I’m happy that he attempted to find a compromise, this seems like a totally inappropriate place to include this information. (This is a section of the article that talks about how traceurs move.) In short I feel strongly that my section should be restored to the article or alternatively perhaps a better place could be found in the article and more of the material could be used. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a criticism section as I feel that there are enough negative views on parkour to warrant a mention. In the interests of providing a balanced viewpoint though, I think responses from the parkour community towards the criticism need to be included as well, to highlight the fact that the parkour community sees these criticisms as being based on misunderstandings. Feraess 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.53.221 (talk)

Thanks for your comment Feraess, but the criticism of Journal of Orthopaedics is not based on misunderstandings. It is a factual case of a child who got a major injury on parkour, but its inclusion only undue weight of this article. We never include these cases on sports article, because children get injured on everything, causing only undue weight. Restoring this section is same to ask to increase its undue weight of this article and do not address the issues that I raised. We should only have such section when there are research about health issues on parkour. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Journal of Orthopaedics did not make any criticism of parkour that I could see, only of the child in question trying things without proper training. Their piece did contain several misunderstandings, however, about the aims of parkour (as this article also does currently) and the likelyhood of injuries, and for the child to try such a jump without training shows serious misunderstanding of the aims of parkour on their part. I agree, their piece is not an accurate reflection of parkour, but the policy on wikipedia seems to be in favour of representation of reliable sources (which I would count the Journal as) rather than waiting until information deemed as accurate is available. If a rebuttal of the criticism is provided then I would not be worried about giving the criticism undue attention if, as I said, the criticism section is re-phrased. I am willing to bow to your judgement on wikipedia guidelines though, being a newcomer. (Apologies for strange signing on previous comments, I didn't realise I wasn't logged in) Feraess (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah may be there is no really criticism, but after rereading The Journal of Orthopaedics opening "Parkour - A Potentially Dangerous Recreation From France" and defining parkour as "finding new and potentially dangerous ways to traverse the city landscape." now I totally agree with you that is inaccurate and misleading. This piece of work really cannot be used to explain parkour. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 12:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My original section did include the response from the community. The section was called “Safety and response to criticism.” [15] (Please scroll down, I created the section in multiple saves.) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the original section but felt that the response attributed to the community didn't address the points mentioned in the criticism. I also feel that some re-phrasing of the criticism section itself is necessary to avoid giving a false impression of the criticism, since criticism of the sort mentioned has been fairly limited. Feraess 86.151.53.221 (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way, the places that the criticism came from were not very good in my opinion, and the response was also not that great from a traceurs perspective. And I do wish there were better ones to use instead, but there just isn't enough published material of that sort yet, which I why I think the section isn't needed. I like the small summary at the end of the movement section instead. --Undaunted (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that’s certainly a valid and constructive criticism. How would you like to see the section changed? (Feel free to be bold and add whatever you feel is necessary.) The reason that the response part of the article did not contain more information was because I could not find accurate sources for the community response. The quote from The New Yorker was meant as a response to the journal article. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said there is no consensus, which sources should be used and what must be included. Undaunted and me agree that there is not studies and resources to include such section and current version works well. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 12:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately you’re not the one who decides whether there is consensus, Carlosguitar. Two editors, one of whom has only commented once, does not make consensus. On the other hand three editors support the section. That looks like consensus in favor. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia is not a democracy, you cannot dismiss opposers using number or claiming: "one of whom has only commented once". We do things using consensus, if there is consensus to restore your section, it will. If there is no consensus we will keep current version per WP:PRACTICAL. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What don't you like about the way it is now with the short summary? --Undaunted (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I talked about this briefly above. My biggest objection is that the information is merged into what I believe is an inappropriate section of the article. I can see why Carlosguitar merged the criticism of large drops into the moves section. However not all criticism of parkour has to do with specific moves (legal concerns, heights, fear of lawsuit, etc.) so anther section of the article should be found or the information will have to be spread out over multiple sections. As it is I can’t find another good section of the article to place this information. If we want this article to reach FA we will almost certainly be asked to address safety concerns in a separate section eventually. A temporary compromise might be to:

Change the name of the “Moves” section of the article to allow more of the information to be merged.
Find or create other places in the article where this criticism and it’s response could go.
Create a subsection and place the criticism in it.
Request mediation for this dispute.

I’m also strongly opposed to the way most information and sources were striped from the criticism when part of it was merged. This article has periodically been dominated by one POV or another almost since its creation so I am particularly sensitive to anything here that could be seen by an outside observer as an attempt to sensor the article. As Wikipedians first and traceurs (some of us) second we owe our readers an unbiased assessment of parkour and the controversy surrounding some aspects of it. Finally by not having a specific section devoted to criticism I believe we are actually doing the art a disservice. With a formal criticism section we can refute each argument (with sources) made by critics of parkour. If the criticism is spread throughout the article however it will be very difficult to present counter arguments in a way readers will easily understand. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I removed your major criticism per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. Claiming that: "to reach FA we will almost certainly be asked to address safety concerns in a separate section eventually", it is only your opinion because soccer was featured without any criticism section talking about injuries, violence in games and outside such as Football hooliganism. Again, Undaunted and me only want to add such criticism or health issues with careful studies. You also did not addressed anything about WP:UNDUE that I raised: Again, is parkour more or less controversial than violence and injuries of soccer? Who get more injured a traceur or a soccer player? Does the percentage of death on parkour is more high than soccer? I do not oppose legal concerns, but heights and fear of lawsuit? Should pole vault get a criticism due to height? Nope. What you are trying is still undue weight of this article. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All those questions are answered quite satisfactorily above. I have put in a request for informal mediation by WP:MEDCAB. I’d like to ask that we declare a truce here until they can review this case. Thank you. -S.dedalus (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives