Talk:Parkour/Archive 2

Does the 'Freestyle Parkour' section really belong?
Really necessary on a parkour page? I certainly think not. Post thoughts. IanMcGreene 23:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Throw it out please, it's not Parkour, but a stupid name and extra definition noone needs, invented by people who try to make money out of Parkour 84.161.207.241 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove it from this page, you really should give it a page on its own and links back and forth. In fact, that should probably happen anyway. I'm thinking in terms of the effectiveness of the encyclopedia, but to translate it into more bigoted terms: How will the newbies ever realize it's wrong if they never hear about it? I myself operated for months under the delusion that Urban Freeflow advocated a viable sport, and that (horror of horrors) it was named Parkour. We should work to save people from that grisly fate, not sweep it under the rug. Black Carrot 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

'Freestyle Parkour'? No. It doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.198.38 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 June 2005 (UTC).

Hi all
I am a Tracer and I wanted to greet the writer of this article, really good job. One thing I may regreat is the fuss about UF because, well, they're not Tracers ^^ Someone asked to "true pk forums" : http://www.davidbelle.com and http://www.parkour.net are references among the French PK community. And don't forget : parkour's not about talkin, it's about acting, so get yourself a pair of trainers and go jumping around :D pkp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.196.21.12 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

Urban Freeflow abandons FRPK?
Added a Template:Citation needed to the Freestyle Parkour section which claims “Urban Freeflow have abandoned the practice of Freestyle Parkour”. Where does this come from? User:SaintedLegion


 * Well, if you take a look at the top of http://www.urbanfreeflow.com, I think it makes itself pretty clear. Black Carrot 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A lack of objectivity
Parkour is a fantastic discipline, no doubt. This Wikipedia entry, however, does not do it justice. It is not an impartial reference for those seeking a definition or understanding of parkour (as an encyclopaedic entry should be). Instead, it is inspired by the authors' own opinions, insights and theories. Furthermore, and more damagingly, this article appears to represent an attempt on the part of the author(s) to undermine certain factions and ideologies within the parkour community, whilst promoting others.

I can see that a lot of effort has been put into this very thorough article and that attempts have consistently been made to discuss all the different approaches and attitudes to the sport. This is highly commendable. Unfortunately, the level of disdain attached to the discussion of ‘alternative’ ideas and philosophies completely undermines any attempts made by the authors of making a balanced and neutral article. One only needs to look at the discussion pages (presumably maintained by the authors) of this article to see the pernicious diatribes about Urban Freeflow and its founder, Paul Corkery.

I do not, however, mean to compare the authors with the vandals who occasionally interfere with the article, either making it incoherent, ridiculous or inflammatory. And I do thank the author(s) for maintaining the site in light of these infractions.

Wikipedia is a fantastic resource because it is open-source and available for all to use, to edit and to create at no cost. It serves as a barrier to ignorance as it allows all to share in knowledge and information. Please remember that Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. It is not for articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if they are supported by your friends or the parkour website of your choice.

There are precedents in Wikipedia’s history, such as the former MTV VJ and podcaster Adam Curry admitting to anonymously editing the podcasting entry to remove credit from other people and make his own role in the early days seem more significant.

So, please stop re-writing history, stop evading reason with innovative jumps, vaults and leaps and go out and enjoy some real parkour. Parkour is outside, not in the forums and internet.

Oliver Seeley (USA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliverseeley (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC).

This is not an opinion page
Please keep your opinions to discussion boards. This is meant to be a neutral article so please keep it that way, specifically on topics such as Freestyle Parkour which have seen some vandalism. 82.41.155.113 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

M2- Removed this obviously spam text from the main article on 6/2/06 "Kyle and Adam are excellent examples, representing parkouring at Wright State University.

Andrew and Brent are awesome Traceurs from Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada." (not signed in) M2

Ripley's Believe It or Not
I just pulled this off the top of Tricks & Acrobatics in the debates section:
 * There is a Riply's Believe it or not episode that includes a segment on the Yamakasi. In this segment one of the members states that these move are entirely their own creation... this is not true. Many martial arts have taught these tricks and moves for many thousands of years. They may have reinvented them, but they did not invent most of them.
 * (Added by 69.169.228.17 on 24 February)

This doesn't fit where it was put, but it might be worth including. Any ideas where, and in what form? Black Carrot 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Too much flow
Jerome Ben Aoues: "The most important element is the harmony between you and the obstacle; the movement has to be elegant ….If you manage to pass over the fence elegantly - that's beautiful, rather than saying ‘I jumped the lot.’ What's the point in that?"

Do we really need a quote of some guy who played in a movie which is related to parkour? Sorry, but also if he may be a good Traceur, i don't like the quote at all. The point is, that you've overcome the obstacle and will be able to do it again just as fast/efficient, when you want/need to. But whats the point in geting over the fence elegantly and looking beautiful?

If someone knows of a useful quote of David Belle or the like, to replace this one, i'd say fell welcome. 84.161.207.241 11:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I could have sworn there used to be a different quote there. Black Carrot 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I checked in the history and you're right, it is has been changed by Duder1 on 9 Oct '05 from the below to the above :

"The most important thing really is the harmony between you and the obstacle; the movement has to be elegant, that's what will make it prettier. Length and distance only add to the beauty of the move, if you manage to pass over the fence elegantly that's beautiful, rather than saying ‘I jumped the lot.’ What's the point in that?" I think that quote showed, that he hasn't really put too much thought into it what made it somewhat bearable, while the current makes it sound important. Vain. 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think some people may be lost on the philosophy of "elegance"...consider: When we see a cheetah sprinting to catch its prey, we call its motion "elegant", "beautiful", "graceful", etc. But the cheetah does not seek to be beautiful; it merely does its utmost to do what it simply must do.  Thus, beauty is inherent in nature and is only visible at its fullest when not masked by other motives.  The beauty in parkour is to see the traceur do his/her utmost to move through an obstacle, as if this is what he/she were MADE to do. 72.1.198.159 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Gabriel Lindor (super_genevangel@hotmail.com)

Wikipedia Policy on External Links
I think a lot of editors to this article need to read External links and maybe WP:NOT. My opinion is that all external links should be removed with the possible exception of Parkour.NET. It doesn't matter if links to forums, groups or videos may be useful to some readers, what matters is whether the links are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. (And very few links are!) -- David Scarlett (Talk) 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Videos
Why were the videos removed? Parkour is a very visual thing, one that is not easily comprehended through words, or even still pictures. I feel the videos were a very powerful tool to help people understand what Parkour is.

I don't know proper protocol for this particular site, so I'll give it a week. If nobody says why the videos are down, I will put some back up, particularly David Belle's interview with English Translation and the Dispersion video by VA-Parkour.

I'm open to other suggestions, there is an older video by the Dash with a bunch of people dressed in Black that I think makes a good representation of Parkour.

M2. 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read What Wikipedia is not and External links. Thank you for pointing out the dead links, I fixed them now. &#126;MDD4696 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Fix" seems to be dead as well, I get nothing from the PAWA link on the internet archive.

What I will do is have a group create a vdieo specifically for Wikipedia, as I feel strongly that video is necessary to get across what Pakrour is. Much of the history of this discussion talks about the argumernts and wordyness of what is and isn't parkour, where a 30 second video can make a big difference.

Pease look at "Timeless" from VA-Parkour" and tell me if you feel a link to it would be "media mirroriing" or in fact a good display that helps the article convey what Parkour is about. http://www.americanparkour.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=163

Thanks. M2. 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do create such a video, see if you can upload it to the Commons. Also, the internet archive links are perfectly fine. The archive usually doesn't keep images, that's all... so really, the links aren't very useful. I just had them there for historical reasons; they could be removed if there was consensus. &#126;MDD4696 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree to remove them, since they really point to nothing. I'll suggest changes for the article a swell, I feel it's really dated and has a horrible focus, commericalism is over half the article, shouldn't "Parkour" be the main focus? -Let's see if someone else will sign in and say that they should be removed. M2. 02:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove them, yes. Instead get Parkour.net and the video from David back in there as parkour.net is THE community site and has some nice articles and the video really added to this article i think. Vain. 10:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User: spk_ben 03:41, 11 March 2006 (GMT) I think the External Links section was at its best so far when it had been spilt up into regions. When I first saw the page it had a huge list of sites, which was useless, but then it got edited to show each set of links in groups relating to where each site was based. That was the best approach. As someone stated earlier, the only way to find Parkour is on the internet; I know I wouldn't have found it if I hadn't come across a local site. I think a list of links split up into regions (even more so - ie. more specific than continents!) What do you think?


 * I'm also starting to think that sorted List was best. At least it would be better than what we have now - half of the linked sites are into merchandising ... If we can't do it here, would it be possible to create an extra article with all the links? I know the Open Directory Project is there for such stuff, but noone seems to edit it and it's really ugly :p Vain. 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Space Chase Video
I am a fan of the Space Chase video, the people in it, and the producers.

However, I do not feel that if there is a single video referenced in this article, that it should be Space Chase.

I'd appreciate if someone else would review and add some opinion. M2. 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Have to agree. All you can do on the linked site is geting Information about the film, not the film itself. The only things about Parkour i can find in there are actually taken from this article, so it's kind of weird to link to it. Vain. 14:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hhmm, maybe but surely the soloutin is to get more videos referenced! I am keen to see anything that uses Parkour in the media as it highetens it's profile.  What else can we add?  Bond?  B&E?Thurlow. 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the link is completely inappropriate. You can't even download the film, so it gives no insight whatsoever into what Parkour is. I think it should definately be removed. Anyone else? -- David Scarlett (Talk) 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Tottaly Agree - see the motions at the bottom of the page for a complete overhaul of the article Thebutton 23:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Urban Freeflow Link Removed
Unless someone registered steps up in the next day or two with a valid reason, I'll consider this "spam wars"and I'll put the link back. M2. 12:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As i've written in the edit summary, i removed it, because it is allready linked above, in another section. Vain. 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't see any explanation in the edit summary, how do I see that?
 * Also, I'm not sure why a link above would mean it should be removed from the link section? Is there some part of wiki protocol I'm missing here? For example, there are several links to Parkour.net as references, and it's used as a reference in plain text at the end of the "Move names" section ... so should it be removed from the bottom? Sorry if these are bad questions, I am pretty new to Wiki protocol. M2. 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert either, but i'm pretty sure, external links are supposed to be in the external links section only. So the link in the other section should have been removed, however i did it the other way 'round, because i think it's fiting better in this case. Parkour.net at least isn't linked directly, but only given credits (UF is also mentioned a few times in the text).
 * The edit summary is on the history page in brackets behind the edit, which u can examine by comparing. Vain. 10:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-write of the article & un-nessecary information
Call me stupid if you like, but this is a terrible article. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain something to people who don't know what it is and want to find out. This article is unintelligible to anyone who is not already well-versed in parkeur culture. I'm not, and this article excludes me from knowledge, because I cannot understand what it says. It doesn't appear to be written in English; it reads like it was translated from French. And while the controversies between different groups of practitioners of this art or sport or whatever it is, or ones like it, may mean something if you already know, but I don't. For one example, what the heck is FRPK? It redirects to here, but it's not defined anywhere. The whole thing reads like something someone on a parkeur forum slapped together, not an encyclopedia articl. Start with the basics: WHAT IS IT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnarf999 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC).


 * Totally agree, some sections would most notabely by more appropriate on a parkour forum. My particular suggestions would the complete and utter removal of the 'common debates within parkour' section as it is based upon opinion. That there are debates is undeniable, but in most cases the cause for these debates is the matter of opinion, not fact, hence it fails to fall within the scope of an encyclopediatic article
 * Secondly, I propose the removal of all references to 'freerunning' in this article and the creation of a new article on the subject, the same with regards to other submovements of 'lart du deplacement'.
 * Thirdly, I propose the re-organisation of the links to be alphabetical and the removal of the link to space chase - it's a site, which doesn't contain much information on parkour other than a brief description, concerned with a film. That the films subject is parkour doesn't make it a relevant link. It would be much more appropriate to mention it in the 'Parkour in the Media' section.
 * Fourthly, that the article is initially reduced to 'what parkour is' and the history of its development, and content is gradually re-introduced from there
 * Fifthly, that the terminology section is changed to reflect the history of the terminology (i.e. parkour from parcours du combatant, traceur from a french collocoquial verb) instead of a comprehensive list of terminology freely available on sites which have already been linked.


 * Basically, wipe the slate clean, admit that there are mistakes in this article (which is the un-intentioned result of the poor availability of information in the past), use only information which is completely factual, and make this page useful to people who don't know about parkour. Otherwise all the issues people are trying to solve by putting information about them in this article just become compounded further. Go back to the start, and begin afresh, gather as much information as possible, and make it as simple as possible to understand. This shouldn't be seen as an all in one parkour website, but rather a place for people to get a basic understanding of the facts and history before going on elsewhere. What do you guys reckon? Thebutton 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)