Talk:Sport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | ||||||||||||
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
|
 To-do list for Sport: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
| Priority 1 (top) | |
[edit] Uncategorized
I do like to think that the only similarity of all the sports is win/loose/draw else all other activities are different.
Mahmud, Dhaka, Bangladesh
I have tried to do a classification of sports in categories.
- The classification below is neat, but might a more alphabetical list be better? What happens when you want to find a sport, and don't know what category it belongs in? -- Simon J Kissane
- You hit CTRL-F in your browser ? - clasqm
- yeah, we need a "sports listed by name" as well as by category. The only trouble is when you've got sports with multiple events such as athletics - what's a sport, and what's an event? Robert Merkel
About What is a sport: I think relevant to this question is the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's discussion of the word "game". He asked, what is it that all games have in common? He argues that there is no single thing that all games have in common, but rather something is called a game because of its similarities with other things already called a game; the particular similarities may be completely different for two different games. I would guess the same applies to sport -- there is no one thing all sports have in common, rather something is called a sport because it has some things in common with other things called a sport. -- SJK
- Have you got a reference on this topic? That might well be relevant. I disagree, but it sounds like a take on things that deserves mention.
- Well, the reference I was thinking of was probably Philosophical Investigations, s. 3, but now I go back and read it and it doesn't quite seem to be saying what I remembered it as saying... -- SJK
Guess this a more general question about lists. I added various categories of motor sports only for them to be removed. We're already listing various categories of bicycle sports, jumping etc. I believe a comprehensive list is better than catgories, especially where there is huge variation within the category. Given that defining sport is difficult, perhaps listing them all isn't? User:Rjstott
- It was me that removed the categories. Maybe I could have provided a more constructive solution. Point is that the difference between a sport and a event is very small, sometimes disputable. So maybe a good solution is to do it like this:
- Autosport
- Rally
- Rallycross
- etc.
Uh, you're telling me that the religion page isnt "protected" but sports is? whatever fat obstinate american sports media worshipper did this...better undo it.
- done. Jeronimo
I had this question working in my mind for long time (about the meaning of the word "sport"). I've end up in some conclusion. Then i read the article of this webpage and the arguments between people on talk page. So now i have this question for you... Is golf a sport? You have to compete other people but it doesn't need any physical condition (i mean it's normal for a casual person to be able to walk some distanses and hold a stick to hit a small ball). So say after some fixed period of time someone knows how to play golf (knows the technic and the swing etc). Does this makes him an athlete?
Thank you (to anyone that will respond)
YS
Moved from subpage:
This content should be moved back to the main page when it becomes an article rather than an argument and commentary
The term "sport" has evolved over the years, as far as I can tell. It seems to have originally been used for the "kill sports" of the English aristocracy, as distinct from "games" which were played by all social classes and didn't involve killing animals. Then it seems to have been broadened to include those activities. However, in the modern world, the term seems to be applied to more and more activities, including some which are traditionally regarded as art, entertainment, work, or boardgame, such as chess, sheepdog trials, cheerleading and ballroom dance. Then there are the largely non-competitive leisure activities like surfing, or bushwalking. So - are these activities really sports? What makes them a sport? Do "battle of the bands" competitions make rock and roll a sport? Is trying to divide things into "sport" and "non-sport" even possible, and is it useful for the purposes of this encyclopedia?
Where might we find a working definition of a "sport", beyond those brief comments in the dictionary? Does the IOC, or maybe the Court of Arbitration for Sport, have anything useful to say on the matter? Are there useful definitions in legislation in any jurisdictions? Are there any philosophers who have spoken directly to the definition of sport, perhaps? I'm aware that everyone from Descartes to Satre's take on things has been applied to sports, but did anybody take a direct bite at the issue, so to speak?
What I think we need here is some kind of discussion of all these issues, and possibly a consensus working definition of a sport. This will be difficult, because I suspect any criteria will either exclude some self-proclaimed "sports" or be so broad as to encompass virtually every area of human endeavour. With that in mind, here are some points that go to the properties of a sport IMHO:
- A sport involves a competitive aspect. Kube is incredidbly wrong.. bowling is not a sport...he is smelly and dumb. If there is no competition (either directly against opponents or through a scoring system) it's not a sport.
- There are organised competitions in the sport rather than just ad-hoc games.
- The point of performing in the sport is to win, rather than as part of another profession or other activity (so a sales incentive scheme, or the ballet, isn't a sport)
- Physical skill determines the winner of the competition(includes judging competitions as judges rate the physical performance)
- A sport involves some physical aspects rather than a test of pure cognition (this excludes chess. tough)
- A sport is defined as a physical and/or mental activity, played individually or in a team, with or without an opponent to win (e.g.football) or to achieve a target (e.g. mountaineering) or just for recreation and well being
(e.g. swimming).
- A sport has codified rules known to all participants (though you wonder whether some elite sportspeople have bothered to read the rulebook sometimes). These rules may vary somewhat from event to event (for instance, many racing events are run on differently-shaped courses with local rules).
Opinions?
Be bold in updating pages! Just put some kind of definition on the main page, and lets have it out in the /Talk page :-) --Anders Törlind
I've been bold today. Anybody want to comment?? The following seem to me now unecessary early guides to how the article should go, I put them here for future reference.
-
- Australian Aboriginal
- Roman
- Chinese
- Japanese
- Any others?
- Medieval sports - the aristocracy and the plebs
- The great rule codification of the 19th century and the rise of spectator sports
- 20th century and the electronic media and the growth of professional sport
- The recent rise in "extreme"/adventure sports, growth of divergent participant and spectator sports.
The development of sport is studied in a science: sport and sociology Feel free to fill these in, or add more dot points, or reorganise totally.
- -)
TonyClarke 00:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
When the article mentions Ireland in the last century, does it mean the 20th or the 19th? - SimonP 21:28, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
20th Simon, if its clearer we can put that in.
TonyClarke 16:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi Cunctator
Thank you for your positive comments about my work. I disagree with your re-writing of the article.
I feel that the reworking of the article requires justification, and more basically perhaps deserved some explanation or discussion at the time. The absence of either of these led me to think that the reworking was an act of vandalism, whose reversion needed no explanation. Howere, it obviously does need some discussion now, and I willrevertit again unless I am convinced by you or some other that it should not be reverted.
The article has lost something in being broken up, even though I accept your assurance that all of the original material has been preserved. There is a certain synergy in keeping all of the elements of the article together, e.g. the cumulative evidence in the original article that sport evolved from everyday activities or skills is now lost, as the art and history sections are not now read together by the casual reader. I also think that the History of sportand art and sport are now less likely to be read, as they are more specialist subjects whish are less likely to be looked up, even though they may be areas of of question for some readers. There is also the fact that each section wasnot originally written to be self-conatained, but the article was written to be a whole. There are many other reasons against the splitting up, not least perhaps that IMHO Wikipedia etiquette was not observed. I see that user:WhisperToMe has similar issues with something you did recently.
All in all, thank you for the work you did, but unless there is some over-riding Wikipedian policy or principle involved, I would prefer the original article to be re-instated.
Tony: it's important and necessary to summartize and extract information from articles periodically. If we did not do so, their length would grow without bound.
I understand that you may have had a particular vision for how the article should be expressed when you wrote it, but the question of whether "each section was not originally written to be self-contained" has no bearing on whether the sections can be self-contained. The judgment should be on whether the new subjects are successful as self-contained entries.
Clearly, history of sport deserves its own entry, distinct from sport. It's certainly true that for the best understanding of our present conception of sport one should be a scholar of its history. But it is not our job to force readers to do so by putting everything in one linear narrative. It is our job to be clear and concise, and to establish a network of knowledge which gives the readership some degree of choice.
We also must have on eye on the basic functionality of the Wikipedia process. The process of Wikipedia interlinks works best when there is a one-to-one correspondence between ideas and entries. Sportsmanship, the history of sport, professional sports, asthetic appeal of sport, nationalism and sport, and regulation of sport are all distinct concepts. By lumping all of the details of these concepts into one entry we may create a more comprehensive linear narrative for "sport". But when someone is interested not in "sport" in general but, say, "sportsmanship" specifically--see the link from Ultimate frisbee for example--lumping all of the details of these concepts into one entry decreases the quality of that link.
So, with these two opposing principles, what do we do? The only answer is that we have to apply editorial judgment, which is a subjective process, and will thus always cause some level of disagreement. But we can find common ground if we agree to allow for the reasonable summarization of subtopics into their most important elements within an entry.
Let's look at a specific case: when discussing the history of sport within the context of our entry on sport, we want the discussion to involve the most important lessons from that history. Some specific examples might be helpful, but every specific example certainly would not.
The lesson that I considered most important was the one you mention: "that sport evolved from everyday activities or skills"--and thus
- Sports often (perhaps always) evolve from activities with a non-recreational purpose. A few examples from the history of sport: gladiators in Rome fought and killed for the delectation of the audience, rather than to protect the Empire or to procure food; yachting is the travel across water for enjoyment or competition rather than e.g. for transport or commerce; running is done on a course for a fixed length of time or distance, rather than to catch prey or evade predators or enemies. Fantasy sports are an interesting development in which sports fans compete with each other in simulated sports games based on the statistics of actual players--it is evolution of the activity of sports fandom into a sport itself.
It's possible that most readers would benefit from having more than four examples of such an evolution, but it's unlikely. Now--are their other crucial lessons from the history of sport which are not reflected in the present entry on sport? There may be, and if you believe so, you should include that information.
I think one important principle to remember is that we are not the best judges of what every other reader can best understand and appreciate. What I did was read the sport article and think, "I'm not sure if I understand and appreciate what the point of this article is. So I'm going to edit it into a state in which I can understand and appreciate it." And then another, and another reader can go through that process until hopefully every reader can understand and appreciate it.
If, on the other hand, we have as a general rule one person "in charge" of the entry, who has made a decision about what the entry should be, then only that person is guaranteed to understand and appreciate it.
So--the basic concept is that of compromise. If you feel that too much information was redacted, then include it back in--but try to consider your goal now being to make both yourself and myself equivalently satisfied. If you do that, and don't do wholesale reverts of changes I made, I will likely be satisfied.
And if both of us are satisfied (at least equivalently), then it's likely we'll have significantly increased the quality of the entry.
Finally, the best way to work together is to work on the entries themselves first, and only try to hash things out in theory on the discussion pages if necessary. It's better to work in practicalities than in hypotheticals. --The Cunctator 21:21, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for replying to my note so promptly.
I still feel that the article should not be broken up. This is partly for the reasons I gave you earlier, and also the history of this page shows that the work I did was not initiated only by myself, I was following suggestions of people who had posted before me, and none of them have been in touch to comment on what I had done.
I think it is right that overly long articles should be broken up, but nobody has suggested this about this entry. Also, some of the bits have vanished without trace, no link has been left at the original site. Since the sections may have referred to failrly esoteric subjects (e.g. Art and Sport), I think it is firstly important that they are read, as they broaden the understanding of the subject, and secondly that they should remain with the original article, as people are unlikely to look them up independently.
There are many other article I have looked at and worked on, which are constituted by semi-independent sections, but there is no move to dis-agglomerate these. I am regrettably still in the dark as to why you did this, and so I insist on re-instatement.
The point and purpose of the original article (which you are unclear about) was to deliver a concise but broad understanding of the subject of ?Sport?, and I think this had been achieved after some initial floundering about by all of us who worked on it.
Thanks again for your contribution. I haven't yet had the time to go through ti to allow me to use it to amend the original article, I am sure that this will be possible. : )
TonyClarke 16:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My edits should be taken as a suggestion that the entry was overly long :) . I'd love for you to read User:The Cunctator/Agglomeration and the comments in the related talk page and make your own contribution to the discussion. --The Cunctator 16:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Tony -- I left comments at User:The Cunctator/Agglomeration, so I won't repeat them all here, but the short version is:
- Some of the articles seem too specific (Asthetic appeal of sport), others (Sportsmanship) could lead to more detailed articles, and still others (History of sport) are excellent.
- But I feel very strongly that the resulting article at Sport is too short and too dependent on the linked articles. There need to be sections on history, sportsmanship, professionalism, etc., as there were in the article before, if perhaps shorter and less detailed.
- Wikipedia is not paper, but despite that fact, many visitors will look not follow links to more specific articles.
- This should be a broader discussion -- perhaps at meta, and that people should be invited to weigh in
Thanks, BCorr ? Брайен 16:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
____
Thanks for your comments, User:Bcorr The consensus so far, unless anyone else would like to comment, is that the original article needed work, to make some of the sections less detailed and shorter, and the overall purpose of the page needs to be stated clearly. Also, some sections or topics could lead to stubs for further work. I will rework the original article with that in mind, unless someone has further objections. TonyClarke 01:05, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Why has User:Maximus Rex reverted the external link added by 66.239.235.36 ? Jay 19:32, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I removed this from the main artcle, it needs some work to fit in with what's there, and it has POV issues. Nevertheless, it touches on important issues for the subject.
Sport or Hobby or Game? There are people that immediately consider everything athletic a sport. Here are some guidelines to help you decipher the difference
Sports= these are activities that not only involve athletic ability but skill. *There must also be a scoring system not based on someone's opinion(for example:cheerleading, ice skating, gymnastics, etc.) these are all hobbies because no one in the stands can figure out what has happened until someone in a suit tells them.
- Also sports have a system of length, meaning that you know how long the event will be. Basketball has four quarters, Baseball has 9 innings, hockey has three periods, golf has eighteen holes,etc. Gymnastics (a hobbie) could last all day if they wanted it to.
- Rivalry is another important part of sports that is often overlooked. Squad A against Squad B, who cares? We want history, pageantry, excitement, all neccessary parts of sports. This means that bodybuilding isn't a sport, it's a hobby. Diving is also not a sport. Soccer... a sport, but I'll never admit that in public.
TonyClarke 11:56, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Just a question. Does anyone else think it odd that sports are listed under "culture and fine arts" on the main page? (talk)--BozMo 12:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Strange definition, this: " Sport consists of an everyday activity carried out with a purpose and in an environment different from everyday." Sport need not be "everyday". Mandel 13:34, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
What is a sport? - lots of interesting comments.
Someone should really look at the captions on the images. Most are grammatically incorrect or are not useful. Ed McMan 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Common Sense on what a Sport Is
Sports are physical and competitive. Hiking is physical and mountaineering is generally strenuously so, and thus both are athletic, but they are not sports. Mind sports can be competitive and require development of skill, but (even if "mind sport" is an accepted term, which i doubt) those skills don't involve physical exertion, and "mind sports" are no more sports than "mind games" (people playing with your head) are games. "Mind sports" are games, but not sports.
If we wanted to extend the concept of "sport" into gray areas we could, but would only ruin the usefulness of a word by doing so. Conversely, the gray areas are fine places to stop applying the word.
--Jerzy(t) 04:57, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
In particular,
- other [i.e. non-physical] sports use more cerebral skills (see mind sport), such as strategic thinking in chess. This article, however, will concentrate on physical aspects of sport.
may cast light on "mind sports", and on articles discussing the classification of human capabilities or activities, but just muddy the waters in this article.
--Jerzy(t) 05:06, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
[edit] Running's a sport?
If so, where is there neccessarily contact between two human bodies? Personally I would change the fifth rule to "affected by other players' actions", but that doesn't help running much either. "Sport" is such a hard word word to define :( --Headcase 07:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you think contact is required for something to be a sport. By that definition, golf would not be a sport. A sport is any endeavor requiring physical skill at which people compete against one another. No, "sport" is not a hard word to defined. Don't be elitist about what is a sport. If you like contact sports, that's fine, but some people prefer finesse sports, endurance sports, balance sports, dexterity sports, shooting sports, and so forth. The people who are trying to push an incredibly narrow definition on this page are being very arrogant about their particular sporting tastes. Incidentally, not that it matters in light of my foregoing comments, but to the extent you're saying that running isn't dependent on the actions of others, you are incorrect. Although runners often try to simply get the best time they can, there's also the option of simply trying to win an individual race, and you may adjust and pace yourself based on the current speed and position of the other runners. CoramVobis 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy with how sports VS. games are identified. In the "Game" article, sports are identified as the most popular type of game. Athletics are then defined as sports, however track and field is obviously not a game. Zachsfanclub
[edit] Physical contact?
I'll echo the previous response about running with regards to the first definition of sport. The fifth component of sport, physical contact (except for netted sports?), excludes a whole swath of legitmate sports from the definition. Running, swimming, bicycling, well-established Olympic sports such as javelin, archery, in fact any sport that decides its winner based upon accuracy or timing. I contend that the author of this definition is showing bias. The rest of the definition is unclear anyway. Consumption of energy? What does that mean? Where would you draw the line? How many calories have to be burned to fit the definition?
I don't believe removing this biased and unclear section of the page can be considered "vandalism"
- I whole-heartedly agree. I took a look at the list of Olympic sports (which, if not representative of all sports, at least makes up one of the more reasonable definitions of important sports). Physical contact between participants or their equipments is important to only nine of the thirty-five sports (Boxing, Fencing, Football, Handball, Judo, Modern Pentathlon, Taekwondo, Wrestling, and Ice hockey). In a few sports, brief physical contact between teammates is needed for relays, but I won't count that. In some sports gaining an advantage by means of physical contact is strictly forbidden by the rules (Baseball, Basketball, Field hockey, Softball), while in most other sports it's not even an issue. So physical contact seems to be the exception rather than the rule. -- Jao 10:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Someone removed the 'definition'
I noticed that someone removed the whole section: Definition of sport. Normally I'd say that was vandalism, but if you look at the article NOW it actually makes sense. The definition was a constant source of debate, a list of stuff with lots of exceptions and a bit of silliness (running evolved from trying to catch a bus???)... My suggestion: maybe try it like this or come of with something better, i.e. less debatable and better-flowing -- Wit 23:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Weird comment I removed from the press source box above
This comment was in the press source box at the top of this page. I removed it because frankly, it didn't make any sense there. — Adam Conover † 22:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi
At Wikipedia we don't do commercial links, just like any other encyclopedia which wouldn't do references to commercial stuff in their articles. If you read the main page and links from there hopefully you will get some more ideas about Wikipedia and how it could help you. Any more questions, pop them in here and someone will be glad to help
TonyClarke 11:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] academic andgovernment definitions
I have a gut feel that we could probably find a decent 'government' or 'academic' definition of sport. so when can we get some of these to sign up to wiki? anyone seen what UNESCO calls sport? they cover the world so maybe their definition is broad but technical too ;o) Grroin 17:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Probably so, although it is so ambiguous a term to begin with. IP Law Girl 13:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] question
Why are humans so interested in watching and following sports? You could say competition, but if that is the case, wouldn't they be just as happy playing people in sports that are at their relative skill level.
Also, one could argue that playing a sport is time consuming-- but it seems like people spend just as much time obsessing over it.
Thanks for the answers, in advance.--Urthogie 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that in the history of sport end of 2nd paragraph that the sentence "Sport teachers suck..." had nothing to do with the article so I removed it ---A regular wikipedia viewer 12:09 Central time 2/23/2006
- it's a passive time, like reading books, or excersing - thats time consuming.. you could be doing something else.. but thats the case with everything.. --
[edit] BE CAREFUL
Please be careful when you revert edits; not all edits are spam. My edit was reverted (probably inadvertantly). Please LOOK AT WHAT YOU're reverting before you revert. Which leads me to my question; if it was intentional, why revert my edit (I added a link to the main article for Sportsmanship).
[edit] Does "Sport" require competitiveness as the article states?
Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Sport: Activity engaged in for relaxation and amusement - Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition
sports, athletic games or tests of skill undertaken primarily for the diversion of those who take part or those who observe them. The range is great; usually, however, the term is restricted to any play, pastime, exercise, game, or contest performed under given rules, indoors or outdoors, on an individual or a team basis, with or without competition, but requiring skill and some form of physical exertion. - The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 71.131.218.76
- Some sports such as tennis or judo have to have opponents but in other sports such as sailing the participants are not always competing but can if they wish. This makes fell running a sport but mountaineering not. I would prefer the definition not to require physical exertion, but physical skill instead. eg Rifle shooting is an Olympic sport but it requires physical skill more than physical exertion. JMcC 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't jump to conclusions. Mountaineering can be arranged competitively. My brother wins cash prizes in mountaineering competitions. I do think that "competitiveness" has to be a factor for something to be a sport, but almost any physical challenge can be set up in such a way as to be competitive. CoramVobis 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Patch up
Some great chunks of the article (including its categories) had gone missing. I have put some of it back, but please check for bits I've missed or bits I shouldn't have re-introduced. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16 13 November 2006 (GMT).
[edit] Sports are bad
how many people have to feel that way before it gets added to the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Learning sports in best order
source needed or just a structure for an article?
order of learning movements
body only
static standing
bottom
two knees + to hands
on two feet + two hands
on two feet
fall
on one foot
on hand+head
two hand (when arms long enough)
motion
forward
backward
sideways
running
on hands
jump
far
high
rotation
on axis
vertical axis
floor
skates
horizontal axis
floor
dive
trampoline
cartwheel
floor
off axis
JUDO
fall
splash dive
Fosbury flop
with device
water
dive
far
deep
swim
fast
long
tow
ball
hand
one hand
both
bounce
rack
foot
vehicle
tricycle
bobby-car
bicycle
fall
skates
fall
with complicated devices
sailing
rudder
surfing
motor sport
horse riding
flying
shooting
arc
gun
Frisbee
bowling
paper plane
javelin
golf
body + opponent
non coop ball sport
soccer
tennis
basket ball
volley ball
martial arts
Teakwondo
Judo
Karate
Capoiera
for seniors
table soccer
golf
mind sport
chess
computer games
math Olympics
coding contest
hip hop battle
Arnero 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) sports are a great way to get excersize. The most common sport in canada is the Hockey
[edit] Typo, rewording
Since I'm not registered, I can't fix it, but under the golf photo, the caption says "Golf, a kind fo sports where the moving has much lesser part than dexterity has.", and should probably say "Golf, a kind of sport...", and also be re-worded, since it is awkward as it currently stands.
[edit] I deleted a poorly constructed sentence.
I decided to delete the following sentence: "Is that really true or winning is now everything because of the huge monetary rewards that come with being a successful athlete."
First of all, it starts out as a question "Is that really true or ..." but then ends up as a regular sentence. It could be corrected by simply swapping the words "winning" and "is" and adding the question mark to form:
"Is that really true or is winning now everything because of the huge monetary rewards that come with being a successful athlete?"
However, I don't think that such a sentence belongs in an encyclopedia. If someone could quote a prominent person who thinks that winning is now everything in sports because of the money involved, then perhaps THAT should be included. Elzoog 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] terminology
This section needs info on whether the US form "sports" is treated as singular or plural. Both seem to be in use both in common and educated usage. The many dictionaries and style guides i consulted provide no help. These Google results for edu sites are a first step towards a temporary solution until someone finds a reputable source:
377 for site:edu "sports have become.
702 for site:edu "sports has become. (some "false positives" i.e. usage such as "expressing ones identity through sports has become")
48 for site:edu "sports are the most.
8 for site:edu "sports is the most.
I'll try Google Scholar next. --Espoo 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Add ball sports
Please add "Ball Sports" to the bottom of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Sports
AdelleC AdelleC (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
if etymology is the origin of words, "sport" comes from old French "desport" which in its turn originated from Latin "deportare" = to carry away (escape from daily cares) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.21.9.106 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
kwjghq jkghaek aklhe aejkg;wru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.72 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
