Talk:Push-up/Archive 2

Include the girl pushup?
should someone mention the girl pushup?
 * I presume you mean the wimpy "knees on the ground" variant? Don't see why not &mdash; go for it. It would be good if we could find a slightly less informal name for it as well, if one exists. ;o) Why are girls so weedy? (Disclaimer: my fiancee can do more pressups than me. My only excuse is that she weighs less. I think I'll be quiet now.) &mdash; Matt Crypto 20:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been told by a kickboxing instructor that the girl's press-up isn't due to weediness, but is recommended because women's bodies are different and regular press ups can cause damage to the hip/abductor muscles in women. anyone know any more about this?


 * This is an excellent idea, methods of shifting less of one's bodyweight to the arms should be noted. As well, methods such as elevating the feet, the placement of weights on one's body, resistance bands and so forth Tyciol 08:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They are called Cheat Pushups and actually work -- WiiVolve 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have only heard them called girl pushups by people insulting those doing them Everyone else I have heard calls them modified including PhysEd Teachers dance teachers other fitness people --71.131.40.134 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Modified is more politically correct, I have never heard them called modified before, and it should be included that they are called Girl Push ups as well. I believe they were used, and in some cases used as an equivalent to normal push ups for girls. similar to how Girls do a hanging bar thing instead of pull ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.208.3 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't call it a "girl push up". You might offend someone. (obvious sarcasm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.50.155 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The girl push-up with knees on the ground works out different muscles than the regular ones. I actually find them harder to do because of the angle. 63.225.247.82 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, there is a rumour that normal press-ups are actually bad for girls because of their bodies or something? Is there actually any truth in this, or is it just a myth perpetuated by girls who don't want to have to work as hard? 188.74.101.228 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sub-3rr edit war
Since the survey was closed, in which a decision for no change occurred, this page has had 3 incidents in which all but one occurrences of "press up" changed to "push up". I reverted the latest one and have posted a message to WP:AN/I to ask for advice on how to proceed to prevent this from happening, since I think this is becoming a slow, disruptive edit war. In the message, I have mentioned User:Tyguy92 and User:Matt Crypto. DDStretch   (talk)  08:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have received a response to my enquiry at WP:AN/I, and include the relevant part here: Another user has completed the task of having the term "press up" used consistently throughout the article. Thank you. DDStretch   (talk)  10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with leaving it at this title, and with using it throughout for consistency, but could we maybe clarify in the lead a little more that "press up" is the British usage and "push up" the US usage? Hopefully that would stop the arguing, and it would also make it clearer for US readers what we're talking about, since they probably haven't heard the term press up. Pinball22 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it probably would be helpful. Thanks for the suggestion. I've added a little clarification, but perhaps that could still be improved upon?  DDStretch    (talk)  14:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's good... I linkified British English and American English. Pinball22 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes it better! Thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated at WP:AN/I, it is a mistake to jump from seeing a lack of consensus to change the article to "Push up," to then determining that all uses of the term must be removed from the article. It is not a spelling or grammar question, such as is addressed by WP:ENGVAR. If the photo of the U.S. Marine recruit is included in the article, for instance, the caption should refer to him doing a "push up" as the term is used in the U.S. Marines, and as it is stated on the caption, the summary, and name of said image. As is, it creates the false impression that the usage would be recognized in the U.S. Our purpose should be to inform, not to have winners and losers. See the article Elevator, where the devices in a photo from the U.K. are referred to as "lifts,"  and where accidents involving them in the U.K. are called "lift accidents."  I suggest restoring "push up" in the caption of the photo of the Marine. Edison 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The ANI discussion is now archived at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive301. Edison (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would now support such a move, having heard its justification. It would be more clear and sensitive to local language use. Would any problem be likely to occur if this article were ever put up for GA or FA status by this? If so, I think the reasons you provide would probably suffice.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone can find/create drawings of proper and improper form, since I am wondering if singling out a particular non-notable soldier as "the guy who uses bad form" may violate WP:BLP. The notation about improper form did not come with the photo originally, and was original research added 22:15, 14 December 2005 by a Wikipedia editor. The original caption just said he "counts out push-ups before completing the strength and endurance course here May 18." "Counting out" would seem to involve raising the head and shouting, giving a perhaps false impression of poor form. If we keep it, perhaps the original caption should be used, without the criticism. I suggest "U.S. Marine recruits count out push-ups during training." Edison 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistency is important in an article and we tend to use the title term throughout even in sections dedicated to a country that uses a different spelling. See cheque, for example.  It is jarring to readers to have to switch from one form to another in different parts of an article.  violet/riga (t) 20:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your argument does not address my previous observation that in the article Elevator the British term "lift" is appropriate used in the photo caption showing lifts in a British tube station. The virtue of consistent spelling does not extend to the less sensible consistency of changing the photo caption to say a U.S. Marine is doing "press ups" when that term would never be used and would probably not be recognized by U.S. native speakers of English. The photo caption is what is truly jarring. Remember what Emerson said about consistency. Edison 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not clear that elevator should mix in the British term "lift". Using one term within the scope of a single article is a pretty sensible compromise between the extremes of, on the one hand, having the entire encyclopedia standardised on one fixed variant of English, and, on the other, alternating different language variants so freely that the text is harder to understand. Perhaps seeing a US Marine labelled as doing a "press up" is jarring to you merely because you are from the US? What does it matter if a US native speaker would never describe it as such? Really, there is no reason to believe it gives a "false impression that the usage would be recognized in the US", and we are under no obligation to caption photographs in the preferred language style of the people being photographed. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"? DDStretch   (talk)  21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, the Doug Pruden photo shows him holding two certificates from Guinness World Records; one uses "push ups" while the other uses "push-ups". violet/riga (t) 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, interesting, I'd noticed that too. &mdash; Matt Crypto 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of spelling or grammar, which is what the Manual of Style addresses. Please cite the policy or guideline which says editors may only use one region's or country's term for something throughout the article about it, based on which country's editors created the first stub article about the subject, which would require talking about "elevators in the underground stations of London." Allowing regionally appropriate terms to be used makes an article easier to understand, not harder. Edison 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We won't agree. Both sides can cite other articles that use the convention they support but there is no policy or guideline that states which way we should go.  All we can do is try and gain a consensus for each article individually, but given that this is quite a low traffic talk page I'm not sure that we will have a significant number of people discussing it.  violet/riga (t) 22:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a discussion of this belongs at the Manual of Style talk page. AN/I, where I encountered the discussion,  is certainly not the right venue, and see merit in a uniform practice for all such articles as Elevator and Press up. "Two nations, divided by a common language" as Shaw said. (edited)Edison 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR advises consistency of a national variety of English within a single article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I see that as requiring grammar and spelling consistency within an article, but it does not address "press up/push up" or "lift/elevator" variation within an article.Edison 22:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does address that. The guideline is about national varieties of English. (Airplane vs aeroplane is mentioned specifically in the guideline). The principles are entirely applicable. &mdash; Matt Crypto  22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Actually, if one reads WP:ENGVAR carefully, it directs one to refer to American and British English differences for guidance, which contains a section (American and British English differences) dealing with differences in vocabulary, which is what this is. Consequently, the issue is not as clearly separate from WP:ENGVAR issues as you may think, Edison. I agree. It probably needs to be clarified by discussion on an appropriate Manual of Style Discussion page.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I will beWP:BOLD and change the Marine photo caption to one which is free of WP:OR. Edison 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with OR. Further, it's not good to "be bold" when you already know there's disagreement with your change on the talk page. WP:ENGVAR advises consistency within an article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 07:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely original research to say "(Note: it is generally considered poor form to round the back while performing the exercise)." This is the statement of a Wikipedia editor, and does not come from a reliable and independent source. I will revert this caption to one consistent with the text which accompanied the photo when it was uploaded to Wikipedia. You are free to find another illustration of bad form. The Manual of Style absolutely does not authorize you to insist that only one country's term be used exclusively in an article, It in fact suggests that a neutral term, such as "fixed wing aircraft" be found in preferance to either "airplane" or "aeroplane." Again I refer you to the precedent of the term "lift" being used for British elevators. Edison 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And again I refer you to the precedent of cheque. Edit warring like this is highly inappropriate when we are in mid-conversation about the issue.  violet/riga (t) 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎. Edison 23:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Manual of Style talk page I do not see support for the view expressed here by Violetriga and Matt Crypto that the "Push up" term is not allowed in the article (other than in the introduction). I propose that the photo of the Marine and the photo of the Canadian push-up champion be changed from "press up" to "push up" and that all other uses in the article (except for the mention of the other term in the intro paragraph and perhaps the short section on the history of the term) be left at "press up." This seems consistent with several other articles I listed in the MOS talk page, where there is some sharing. I see no good reason to change the article title or the rest of the usages in it. I noted above that the poll on name change was running strongly in favor of an overall change to "Push up" until a notice was added to the UK Wikipedians' page informing them of the pending change, which resulted in an influx of "press up" supporters. I even checked the Spanish Wikipedia to see how they handle a language shared across the Atlantic, in the article on potatoes, where one tradition calls them "papa" and the other calls them "patata." After an acrimonious debate they decided sharing was better, so the article has one title but the other is by no means excluded. Again, I make a distinction between spelling and grammar, which is addressed by WP:ENGVAR and allowing some appropriate use of the other term, as in photo captions. Edison 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion of this at the "manual of style" page is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 92. No finding that an article is limited strictly to one national variant term, as is the case for spelling or grammar. Edison 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "cheque" and "aeroplane" precedents cited above are cases of variant SPELLING, not variant vocabulary. In numerous articles where either the U.S. or the British term for something dominates the article, the other country's term makes several appearances. In the article Rooster the British term "cock" is applied to a photo of a U.S. bird, whose image is actually tagged "Image:Rooster relaxing in sunlight.jpg". In the article Eggplant (U.S. term) the British term "aubergine" is used repeatedly. In the article "Elevator" the British term "lift" is used. In the article Windshield ((U.S. term), the British term "windscreen" appears numerous times. In the article Wrench (U.S. term) the British term "spanner" appears numerous times. When the editors who here revert to solely British terminology from a sense that vocabulary variation is forbidden, go to the articles I've cited and remove the British variants, then I will be more willing to believe the reversions are done for the sake of compliance with some strict interpretation of WP:ENGVAR. Please cite other Wikipedia articles where any attempt to use other than one country's term is strictly forbidden despite atempts by editors to apply it to instances of its occurrence in the other country. Why not compromise and allow "push up" for the photo captions of the Marine and the championship, and for description of these images, where "pushup" is the term originally used by the creator of the image? I would argue against any wider switch to "push up" than related to the the two images. Edison 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has displayed a case of WP:OWNERSHIP in that there has been an unwillingness on the part of those preferring "press-up" to do more than blindly revert any introduction of the non-British term when it is introduced in appropriate places in the article. Please engage here in dialogue to reach a consensus rather than showing a determination to use only the term preferred in Britain by blindly reverting and incorrectly citing WP:ENGVAR.  Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, one could argue that you've shown an unwillingness to do anything other than sneakily try and change the article to "push up" every other week, hoping that noone will notice. Consensus has already been reached at WP:ENGVAR globally for the project, and it's a reasonable compromise. That's what will be applied here. It's regrettable that it's difficult for you to accept a different regional term than the one you're used to, but you'll just have to live with it. End of story. &mdash; Matt Crypto 07:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article history absolutely does not support your incivil accusation that I "sneakily try and change the article to 'push up' every other week,hoping that noone will notice." I have openly (never "sneakily") advocated that this article, like the other ones I have listed, allow an alternate term where it is helpful and appropriate, as in the two photos which show a push-up champion Pruden  and a U.S. Marine doing "push ups" according to the original captions. In the discussion in September, DDstretch (September 21) agreed with me that the two photo captions could appropriately use the "pushup" term. Other editors have several times this year introduced the "push up" term where it has seemed to them appropriate, and you have reverted immediately to your preferred version: , ,  ,  , .  I agree with your re-insertion of "pressup"  where someone removed the term altogether.  On two occasions, I reverted once to the other user's version, but you immediately reverted back to your preferred version, without any discussion here. I thank you for rejoining the discussion at this time.  Your words apply equally to you: "It's regrettable that it's difficult for you to accept a different regional term than the one you're used to." The discussion about the use of regional variant terms at the Manual of Style did not support your rigid interpretation, which apparently only applies to this one article, since you have not to my knowledge made any move to remove the British terms from the other articles listed with a title from other English speaking countries where the British term appears several times.  Edison (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Further discussion is pointless, the topic is, as far as I'm concerned, resolved: WP:ENGVAR. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you see further discussion as pointless, and you refuse to allow this article like the others I have cited to use even two occurrences of a different regional term than the one you are accustomed to, then this should go to one of the forms of conflict resolution available to Wikipedians who disagree about policies, guidelines, or content for an article. Your continuation to immediately revert anyone else's editorial changes introducing such a term while citing an inapplicable Manual of Style provision constitutes intransigent edit warring. Edison (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

''The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others....Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar....If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.'' (WP:ENGVAR). Note particularly the word "consistently". &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here we are in total agreement: I would not want an article to alternate between different spellings (check/cheque) or grammar. But "push" is not a different spelling of "press" nor is it a difference of grammar, so the passage you cited in no way prevents using "push up" in the caption of a photo of a U.S. Marine doing push-ups, anymore than it prevents talking about "lifts"(British term) dozens of times in the Elevator(North American term) article or "cock" (British term) dozens of times in the Rooster (U.S, Australia) article or "aubergines"(British term) numerous times in the Eggplant(North American, Australian, New Zealand term) article. Just looking for a little willingness to share, in the same way that is done in the other articles cited in these discussions. Edison (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the guideline, WP:ENGVAR as a whole is clearly not just talking about spelling, but different varieties of English. I've now clarified this on the guideline. A single article should use a single variety of English throughout with regards to terms, just as for spelling and grammar, and for the same reason. &mdash; Matt Crypto  21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, I have started a discussion related to your change to the Manual of Style at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to see if there is a consensus for the change you wish to make, and to see if other editors agree that your change is just a clarification of what WP:ENGVAR actually meant as opposed to a drastic alteration of its meaning. Pending the emergence of a consensus, I have reverted your change to WP:ENGVAR back to the old version, which said only that spelling and grammar should be consistent throughout an article. Discussion related to the Manual of Style should take place on that discussion page. As you said above, ".. it's not good to "be bold" when you already know there's disagreement with your change on the talk page." Edison (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR does indeed apply to all the differences between the common languages which divide us. But the strength of ENGVAR is its benefit to the encyclopedia, and no more: it is disconcerting to the reader to flip back and forth between British and American without a good reason. It is also disconcerting to see the USMC doing press-ups, which they do not do; especialy if the reader has been to Parrish Island. I hope my tweak, introducing "push ups" in quotation marks, because the subjects of the picture call them that, will permit all concerned to turn to things of more use to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
Matt Crypto has not bothered to discuss my proposal of "push ups" in quotes; he also seems to be the only voice, here or on WT:MOS, endorsing his extreme interpretation of WP:ENGVAR (If, as seems indicated, the British is in fact press-up, this is doubly bizarre.) He nevertheless claims absence of consensus. Let's find out.

Approval poll

 * This is a survey, not a vote, to see where we stand. The question is the caption under the picture of the U.S. Marine, which now reads U.S. Marines count out press-ups.

Please indicate all you can accept of the following (or add another):
 * push up
 * Second choice Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Preferred Edison (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Preferred SamBC(talk) 15:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (n.b. – I'm British, and I have no problem with this more American term being used when, especially talking about what an American is doing)
 * Preferred I agree with Sam (even about which country we were born in!) Thincat (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "push up"
 * First choice as an indication of local dialect.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This implies that "press up" is the more widely used term, which has not been established, and which is doubtful from previous discussion. It is merely the term used by the creator of this article, and as such gets dibs for the article title and perhaps for the main term in the article. Using quotation marks around the non-title term would result in the Rooster article in "The 'cock' is non-monogamous..." which would have people rolling on the floor laughing. Edison (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Preferred Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * press up
 * Article title


 * press-up

Discussion
I do not believe, as I have said above, that press-up is mandated by WP:ENGVAR. Its only merit is to avoid disconcerting and arbitrary changes of dialect, and it provides for other explicit exceptions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many articles have a British-English title due to who first edited the article, and get a redirect from the term used in other English speaking countries. Or they have North American English title. In the several articles cited above, other regional variant terms (not spellings for the same term) are allowed to appear. Why should this article be different? It would be a case of the tail wagging the dog for one editor's preference in this article to justify changing the manual of style for Wikipedia. which would authorize (or mandate) making each and every article mono-regional. Edison (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This poll is pointless because we already have a consensus guideline for this -- WP:ENGVAR. I think it's pretty poor form to come to an article and try and inject your term at the expense of another. Please spend your time on something worthwhile. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That consensus consists mostly of you, yourself. Others disagree. Edison (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion of this at WT:MOS, with a complete lack of consensus for your interpretation. The general feeling so far is that there's always room for exceptions, especially in captions, sections, specific contexts, etc, that clearly apply to a different regional variation. SamBC(talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i can certainly agree with the notion of having the title-term as the preferred term in an article, and then having other regional terms used when the article specifically deals with the topic as it occurs in that country, like using petrol when referring to Gasoline use in Australia. Even more so, when this article refers to a champion such as Doug Pruden winning a pushup championship, as attested by the certificate he held, it should use pushup in the caption, not press up. Reference to Pruden has been removed altogether for some reason, although there was considerable disagreement about what the caption should say. We still have the photo of the U.S. MArine doing pushups (per the caption which came with the photo when it was imported to Wikipedia, and Matt has mutiple times reverted the caption to say he is doing press ups, a term he or North Americans in general would not recognize. I hope there is no move to quash the issue by removing the photo. Edison (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The emerging consensus at WP:ENGVAR calls for the U.S. Marine photo to have push up rather than press up. Is this acceptable? Edison (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help but laugh a little. First, no God-fearing U.S. Marine would ever call a "push up" a "press up". Ask a Marine that in person and they'll give you a "What the hell are you talking about" look. Second, it is beyond obvious that the term "push up" is an earlier term and used in a much much more frequent basis. So we're basically ignoring the consensus of society in general in terms of some Wikipedia policy? Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I spoke above in favour of "push up" in the specific context of the photo caption, "press up" is the term used in Britain and some people in Britain might not understand "push up". Wikipedia convention and consensus is that spelling (and terminology?) should be kept in the "dialect" first used by the article, at least for non-national articles. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not confuse the need for consistency of spelling (color/colour) with the variation seen in many articles as seen by the freqeunt cases where the alternate term, such as "cock" is used in the Rooster article, or where the alternate term "aubergine" is seen in the Eggplant article, or where the alternate term "lift" makes frequent appearances in the Elevator article. This should not be the only article in Wikipedia where someone's strong preferance for their own regional term uses a mistaken interpretation of WP:ENGVAR which is not born out by the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to prevent the appropriate use of the other regional term in a photo caption of a U.S. Marine doing a push up. Edison (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And 'First, no God-fearing U.S. Marine would ever call a "push up" a "press up".' makes it sound like calling a press-up a press-up is a heathen thing to do, or something. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Attaqched video displays bad form - he is not doing them properly
The guy at the front of the pic has an arched back.Thats not a press up and encourages bad form in those that read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.16.70 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has come up a couple of times before. The marines are clearly doing press-ups / push-ups. They might well be doing them badly, but the question then is who decides what constitutes "good form"? The issue of what is and isn't "bad form" needs to be driven by a reliable sources. I don't have any myself, perhaps others do. &mdash; Matt Crypto 14:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were a usable image showing an ideal pressup, a pressup with some typical defect, and a pressup with some other typical defect, the article would be improved. Since there is but one photo of the Marine, we can't tell if the U.S. Marine Corps trains recruiteds to do pushups badly, or if this man did 50 perfect pushups then raised his head to shout "Fifty" (as it says he is "counting out pushups" in the original caption). We know nothing about his form in the course of the performance of the complete exercise, just a frozen view. Pressups are done more often and intensely in militaryt training than in any other pursuit I can think of, except perhaps in pushup competitions, and there the emphasis is probably on how many rather than how well. An illustration of a military recruit doing a perfect pushup would be better than one with arguably bad form. It is original research for someone here to analyze the form based on posture perhaps after completing the exercise. Edison (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It still looks wrong though. It's kind of sad watching someone in the military fail at doing a proper push up klosterdev (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I think the angle of the picture exaggerates it, because the head is closer to the foreground and so any arch is magnified by the perspective. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sample is clearly showing bad form, based on fairly universal judging standards. The posture from head to toe should be straigh and erect; instead, the man's head is sagging (which is bad form because it gives the practitioner the false idea that they are going closer to the floor than they actually are) and the man's hips are reaching the floor well before his chest (this "sagging" posture takes load off of the abdominal core, whcih with otherwise have to excercise harder to support the posture.) Most importantly, however, the very high elbow position (almost perpendicular to the shoulder) is nearly universally regarded as bad form and can be dangerous - the perpendicular posture means that, at the bottom of the stroke, the weight of the body is supported less by the muscles and more by the shoulder joint itself. Doing large nubmer of pushups this way can lead to problems with the shoulder joint. In addition, doing rapid pushups in this manner lets the practitioner "bounce" off the bottom of the stroke by bouncing off the tension in their shoulder joint. While this may be an effective way to raise one's total pushup count, it's neither the most effective nor the safest way to perform the exercise for the purpose of increasing one's health and strength.

New Idea
First of all i have never heard of the term press-up (i live in Australia). But I do have a idea to make everybody happy. Leave this page like it is, and make a completely new page devoted to "push ups". that way if a person searches for "push up" they will go to a "push up" article (and they wont get confused), and if a person searches for "press up" they will go to the "press up" article (and they dont get confused). There is logic in this. A person will only search for the term they are familiar with, therefore they will go to the page that is made for them. So if a british person types in "press up" they will go to their page. And the rest of the english speaking world types in "pushup" they will go to their page. Anybody with me? 124.184.147.41 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not me. There's no real benefit in (or precedent on Wikipedia for) for maintaining two articles with different variant spellings. And if we did it here, by the same argument why not do it for every article where different regional terms are used? It's not practical, or even particularly necessary. The solution really is for people to just live with the a term being used that they're not familiar with. Heck, UK readers have to put up with unfamiliar terms for thousands of articles on Wikipedia; why is it so hard for others to do so when the situation's the other way round? &mdash; Matt Crypto  17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that I thought of exactly the same thing. It’s not that practical to do it. But besides everybody just getting over it. It’s the only way. I did however change the opening sentence. Because its not only a American English term, the whole of the English speaking (besides UK) uses it. I think one of the major reasons why people want to change it, is because its not the spelling that is different it’s the whole word. I'm sure a person won't care if it was the word "Recognized" over "Recognised", because its very close. Most people wouldn't even notice. But since its a completely different word that’s why people want to change it. I would rather it changed, since a lot more people use "push up" more, and since wikipedia is a global site, it should go with the majority. 124.187.145.48 (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't really any reason why that would be good to do. If a non-British person goes on Wikipedia and types in "Push-up," they will be directed to the "Press-up" article, and then read that "Press-up" is the British version of "Push-up." Yes, they might be confused for a second, but it can't be such a terrible confusion that it would cause an uproar. And as a side note, there is absolutely no reason at all to call the article "press-up." But that's another discussion. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The term push up was first recorded in 1905-1911. Press up wasn't recorded until 1945-50. Clearly push up is the correct term for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.121.171 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the more popularly used term.... -- 72.24.26.8 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt Crypto wants people to believe that only Americans say "push up," but he neglects to include the rest of the English speaking world. "Press-ups" are things women wear to enlarge the bust size. According to Google, "press ups" can overwhelmingly be concluded to be a regionalism confined to Great Britain:

Google Search for either ("press ups" exercise site:ccTLD), or ("push ups" exercise site:ccTLD):

Country               Press-ups        Push-ups

Australia (au)           280             8,830 Canada (ca)              612             4,970 India (in)                84             1,460 Ireland (ie)             591               646 New Zealand (nz)         520             1,710 Pakistan (pk)             11                55 Phillipines (ph)          23             1,220 South Africa (za)         84             1,720 United Kingdom (uk)   18,200            14,400 United States (us)     1,730            56,100

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.234.223 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Military Push ups
Military Push ups There should be a section on them, they are the clap push ups. Iankap99 23:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there could be a section on clapping push-ups. I would suggest that it not be called "military" push ups however since the exercise has other very common names such as "Plyo push ups".  Additionally, the term "military push up" is rarely used to mean this and more often refers to another type of push up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.38.190.22 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop being stupid
I can see why we might stick with whichever was used first in a case like defense v. defence, criminalise v. criminalize but the fact is "push up" and "press up" are totally different words. 1) In most cases the British term is used in New Zealand, Australia and most English speaking nations minus the US. In this instance however the entire world uses "push up" except for the UK. 2) Push up is FAR more common. 3) Push up is the original term. 4) A google test reveals that there are 18,000,000 hits for "push up" and 700,000 for "press up". HOWEVER, the majority of references to press up are not in reference to the exercise. Searching: "Push Up" exercise yields 18,000,000 hits, Searching: "press up" exercise yeilds just 57,000! In other words as a term "push up" is more than 200 TIMES more common. To even be debating which term we use here is utterly ridiculous.

Futhermore I looked up the terms "push up" and "press up" on UK google and hit the "pages from the UK" button. Even in the UK the term push up is TEN TIMES more common. So essentially here we have a case of the "Entire English Speaking World plus 90% of the UK" v. "The other 10% of the UK" and somehow we retain the term "press up". COME ON? 211.26.143.225 (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So? Firstly, looking at hits on UK Google is a stupid way to gauge how much a word is used. Secondly, who really cares about how common it is or whether it's original, on a website which uses "sulfur" over "sulphur" et.c. Thirly, "press-up" and "push-up" or pretty similar words which have a fairly obvious meaning and both redirect to this page, and there is an explanatory introduction at the top of the page just as there is at the top of every other page with multiple redirects. Nobody is going to be confused by this (unless they're pretty stupid) so what's the point of changing it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 188.74.101.228 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't think this page was about push-ups until I searched it on Google and found this article again. It's pretty misleading to everyone else, if you ask me. 71.233.13.147 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Press ups? Yeah it's misleading, I can't believe this is even being used as the name. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

British or American Word
Can we establish a consensus please? The term push up is far more common Can I get an idea of how many people are for the page being moved to push-up?

I am for the move.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure consensus has already been established multiple times on this matter.  Mi re ma re  16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'd like to challenge that consensus. I was reading through this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English, which, in our case of a "press-up", basically says that if a phrase is less common outside a variety of English, to then just use the most popular vocabulary. In this case, there's no reason why we should use something as isolated to a single country as "press-up", whereas everywhere else "push-up" is used. There could be a simple redirect from press-up to pushup after the change with both names in the intro like they are now, but the whole point of using a common word/phrase is to avoid superficial confusion. I almost didn't even find this article when searching push-ups; I thought it was a different exercise.71.233.13.147 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think WP policy points towards a rename. I also disagree that "consensus has already been established multiple times on this matter." What has been established is a lack of consensus, due to a very vocal minority that is against the move. Clconway (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus evolves through time, and, moreover, there has never been a consensus that the page should be at the present location. Initial attempts to form consensus were inconclusive, and the last clear straw poll connected with usage clearly favored the name 'push up'. I am also in favor of the move, as the only country that uses the word 'press up' of which I'm aware is the UK. Moreover, there are errors in the article as a result of the absurd hegemony of 'press up' - Hindu pushups are barely ever called Hindu 'pressups', for example, whereas WP seemingly suggests that that is the canonical form. More opinions are welcome, of course. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed. Even within the UK, push-up is more frequently used and known. From the Manual of Style "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." Clearly push-up is a word that is common among all varieties of English, even in the isolated portions of the UK where press-up is used along side it. 216.80.135.123 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried to find this article, and wasted about 1 minute in confusion. I am relatively new to exercise, and simply assumed I was stumbling on a completely new activity, the "press up" (given things like chin up and pull up are different, the most logical conclusion to draw is that "press up" and "push up " are different).  I agree that this article should be changed to push up given all the evidence presented above about frequency of use, and no reason has been given to keep "press up".24.102.155.202 (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the very first sentence of the article says that both terms mean the same thing, how can you waste "about 1 minute in confusion"?  Mi re ma re  15:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree to a move. Push up is used in Canada, the U.S., and Australia. It's also known as that in the UK, and is just plain confusing to other English speaking countries. Besides: push_ups has been viewed 1174 times in 201011. push_up has been viewed 2490 times in 201011. press_ups has been viewed 0 times in 201011. press_up has been viewed 2384 times in 201011. (mostly redirects) Is this not reason enough to change? --AerobicFox (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start a move discussion. I'll support you. But don't be surprised when the opponents come out of the woodwork. Clconway (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Me again. I'd add that it's important, if you do start a move discussion, to ground the argument for it in WP policy. Numerical arguments have been rejected over and over again. I personally think that WP:COMMONALITY points strongly toward a move. To wit: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles.... Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." Clconway (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AerobicFox, you're looking at the wrong pageview statistics, the article isn't at "Press_up", it's at "Press-up", which has 25,390 pageviews for the same period, with only 1,255 for the redirect at Push-up, and 2,331 for the redirect at Push up. "Press ups" has 0 views because there is no such redirect.  Mi re ma re  15:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which just serves to prove my point about numerical arguments. Nobody has ever contended that "press-up" is a more common term than "push-up", globally. Clconway (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support a move in a move discussion. But I suspect the user who has been following this article for years will call up his old friends to come oppose en-mass. Also the title of this section is a little misleading. This isn't about it being a British or American word. It's more like "British or internationally accepted and historically older word". 216.80.135.123 (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the requested move, please comment below. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hindu Push-ups
Yes I also found the "Hindu push-up" section unintelligible. Could someone rewrite it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.40.247 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move per WP:COMMONALITY; however, this is not a challenge to the use of British English per WP:RETAIN. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [see end of section]

Press-up → Push-up — Move to change the article Press-up, to the common term Push-up, per WP:COMMONALITY:

Dictionary.com on press-up: –noun British. push-up.

Oxforddictionary.com on push-up: noun No reference made to press-ups
 * an exercise in which a person lies facing the floor and, keeping their back straight, raises their body by pressing down on their hands.

Oxforddictionary.com on press-up: noun
 * British term for pushup

I'm all for the opening sentence mentioning Push-up(British:Press-up), but from an international viewpoint it would be less likely to confuse those outside of the U.K. if we used push ups. The noun push-up also seems to be understood by many British, but the noun press-up is not typically understood by English speakers outside of the U.K. Citing WP:COMMONALITY to move the article then to Push-up. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support moving to push-up. (P.S. I fixed this request so that it would display correctly on WP:RM). Themeparkgc   Talk  09:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... WP:ENGVAR and particularly Manual of Style would probably support keeping it as press-up. No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per the previous move discussions. Can I also say that the "confusion" argument for people who don't know the term "press-up" does rather rely on them being too stupid to understand the opening sentence, in which case the title is probably the least of their problems. There is absolutely nothing "confusing" about the current title - if anything it has less potential for confusion than "push up" as a Google image search for "push up" will quickly illustrate. Cherry picking WP:COMMONALITY (a subsection of WP:ENGVAR) as a reason to move, ignores the rest of the guideline, which also says "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". There are no such ties, so it should stay where it is.  Mi re ma re  12:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. In my opinion, if there's cherry picking being done here, it's with respect to WP:RETAIN. It's simply common sense that the article should give preference to a term that is nearly universally understood in preference to a term that is largely unknown outside the UK. Clconway (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I personally use push-up (Canada) but this is certainly a case of WP:ENGVAR - notice that you'll find the word at List of British words not widely used in the United States. There doesn't seem to be any confusion with redirects, so I fail to see the reason for the move. The article has also been stable at this location since Sept. 2007 and I don't believe a good reason has been presented for a change (per WP:TITLECHANGES).--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that editors inclined to geek out over whether WP:COMMONALITY or WP:RETAIN is the controlling precedent refer to WP:IGNORE and apply some common sense. Clconway (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Common sense being to rename the article after a type of bra? ;) But seriously, the article has been written in UK English and at a perfectly valid title for a long time, and there are no pressing reasons (unless you consider nonsensical mumblings about "confusion" to be a pressing reason) to change it. To me, common sense clearly says it's fine where it is, and that's in line with WP:ENGVAR, WP:TITLECHANGES, etc.. Articles get written in a number of regional English varieties and attritional move requests really shouldn't be changing that.  Mi re ma re  19:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Support When a term is universally understood in all varieties of English to refer to the topic of an article, then that term should be preferred as title over a term that is used to refer to that topic in only some varieties of English. To the extent that WP:ENGVAR disagrees with that statement, it's broken and needs to be ignored because using terms that are universally understood in all varieties of English is an improvement of the encyclopedia. I note that the first image that pops up when googling "push up" at google.uk is one of someone doing a push up. The use of "push up" as a type of bra lacks encyclopedic notability by definition (not covered in WP) and, so, is irrelevant here. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Support as nominator, and because push up is understood by the UK, but press up isn't understood outside the UK. --AerobicFox (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking the above - sorry, but as you're the nominator you've already made it perfectly clear which side you are on, so taking another !vote down here to support your own nomination is neither necessary or entirely fair. You're only one person like the rest of us.  Mi re ma re  14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DICK 216.80.135.123 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — User:216.80.135.123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Does that mean you disagree with what I said, or are you just flinging insults because I'm on the other side? While being called a dick by a single-purpose anon isn't the worst thing that's ever happened to me, I'd certainly be interested to know what part of the above you disagree with and why. I've fixed your link for you, btw. ;)  Mi re ma re  01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unstriking. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, is there any particular reason why you think you deserve the appearance of an extra !vote? I'm sure it doesn't matter now, but I'd still be interested to know. I wonder if there would be righteous indignation if I were to add another !vote to give the appearance of greater support for my side of the argument? I expect there would be, and rightfully so.  Mi re ma re  15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just doing what I have seen in every other poll I've been to. see here. From what I understand it's common practice writing "Support as nominator" striking out others comments though isn't. I hope changing the bold up above clarifies, I could just move this to the top, but I didn't remember until after others had already posted.--AerobicFox (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is quite a difference between the example there and what we have here. Occasionally the nominator will add *directly after the nomination* whether they "support" or "oppose" what they've just said. This is hardly standard practise though, for obvious reasons (i.e. if you start a discussion and make an opening argument, it's implicit that you agree with the argument you just made). As this is a discussion rather than a vote, there is nothing to be gained from the nominator adding another statement of their own, because it contributes nothing that is not already known from the nomination. Obviously if it's a procedural nomination or otherwise unclear what the nominator's own opinion is, then a seperate !vote can be necessary. But the bottom line is, this isn't a vote, and adding a !vote halfway down the discussion gives the appearance to anyone who hasn't noticed/remembered the name of the nominator, that this comes from a different person, especially when coupled with an ambiguous term like "support as nominator". If you really feel you must clarify your position, it would show good faith to strike this one and add another along the lines of "support per my nomination" directly after your nomination. Thanks,  Mi re ma re  14:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really not about to engage in this pointless conversation. If you have an argument to make against changing to the common term push-up instead of using a British exclusive term then you should make it. Otherwise I wouldn't be worrying about people being confused by "Support as nominator" or not noticing your lengthy posts against this practice. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little difficult to assume good faith when you consider an objection to making more than your fair share of !votes as "pointless". I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that I have tried to explain why I object. Perhaps you would have prefered me to resort to fatuous insults or a curt snub as the anon user and yourself did to me when I first objected? But yes, best to get back to the proper argument.  Mi re ma re  00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't insulted you. I would've removed or moved my comment to top if you asked, but instead you struck out my comment and directly attacked my character. Try assuming good faith, and approaching an editor from that perspective the next time you disagree with something they do. --AerobicFox (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck the bolded first word. I didn't strike or remove your comment. You're perfectly entitled to make as many comments as you like without them having the appearance of new !votes. I didn't ask you to move your comment because without the implication of it being a !vote from a new editor, it didn't require moving. I also didn't say you insulted me, I said the IP did, please re-read that. I haven't "directly attacked your character", so please quote where I did. I've tried to assume good faith and given the reasons why I'm finding it difficult. Thanks,  Mi re ma re  15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"fatuous insults or a curt snub as the anon user and yourself did to me when I first objected?" You accused both myself and the anon user in this sentence of insulting and snubbing you. Neither of which I have done. "You're only one person like the rest of us." Facetious, and is directly implying that I think I deserve special rights/etc. If you didn't think this would be taken as an insult then you should look up common etiquette for dealing with people that you disagree with as comments like these would not be recommended. Again just asking me to remove the comment or place it at the top would've been fine. You should realize that the "appearance of an extra ivote" is not as important as generating ill will between editors as your striking out other comments, making accusations of incivility, and continuing this conversation have all be doing. You can go ahead and reply; I'm not going to be replying back to it.--AerobicFox (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dammit, you know how to get me to reply don't you? ;) Insult/snub, IP/you: One each, in that order. "Only one person": not a "facetious direct implication" that you think you "deserve special rights", but a pointing out that you don't, in explanation of the edit, and I find it quite bizarre that you take all of my attempted explanations of it as some kind of continued attack against you. Once again, I did not strike your comment. And that penultimate sentence of yours was just a tad hypocritical.  Mi re ma re  00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Support per above. I've described my reasoning in the section above too. 216.80.135.123 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC) — User:216.80.135.123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Oppose - I would not understand "push up" to mean the same as "press-up". Deb (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal vocabulary isn't really relevant here. As far as I understand, both sides stipulate that "push up" and "press up" are synonyms and that "push up" is by far the more commonly used term. The questions is whether WP policy supports or opposes the move. Clconway (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You've had your say. Your understanding is incorrect. Deb (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have yet to say anything yet other then you don't understand what a push-up is, asking for more of a clarification is not unreasonable, at least no more then a curt "Your understanding is incorrect" response. Why post if you aren't going to make an argument? Your vote doesn't even really count then. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the argument, viz. "both sides stipulate that "push up" and "press up" are synonyms and that "push up" is by far the more commonly used term", is still incorrect. That is not what both sides say, and "stipulate" is the wrong word in any case. Deb (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to tell you what to think and I'm sorry if I came off that way. It's just that it's difficult to have a debate if we don't agree what we're debating :-). You are the first opposing editor to not base your position on WP:ENGVAR and to refuse to stipulate the underlying facts of the case. As for your factual claims: (1) "Push-up" and "press-up" are synonyms. It's the first sentence of the article, so if you think it's wrong you should change it. (2) In the (voluminous) previous debate on this issue, the most that has been claimed is that the U.K., Australia, and perhaps a handful of other Commonwealth countries prefer "press-up" while the U.S. prefers "push-up." You're going to have to dig up a few more populous countries (India, perhaps?) before you have a majority for "press-up". Clconway (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a start, the article does not say that "press-up" and "push-up" are synonyms. It says that "push-up" is the American term for a "press-up", which is true.  That doesn't mean that the rest of the world uses the term "push-up" to mean the same as "press-up"; it doesn't mean that the rest of the world doesn't mean something quite different by the term "push-up".  Secondly, I don't have to dig up anything, nor do I either need or seek a majority.  The move will be made if there is consensus for it - there is not consensus for it at the moment.  As for the idea that if I don't "argue", my vote does not count, that's just laughable. Deb (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Votes don't count, only arguments. WP:NOTAVOTE is funny to you? --AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your lack of experience has caused you to misread that page as though it means we have to challenge other people's opinions until we get our own way. Deb (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhh, sorry. I didn't realize that's how I was reading it. If you think voting without an argument, and then refusing to argue and saying your vote by itself disproves consensus so no changes can be made is supported by policy then you need to go back to wikischool.--AerobicFox (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

oppose - its a british English article using a british English title. 82.132.139.30 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I think you mean support? --AerobicFox (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * clarified what i meant. 82.132.248.71 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, your position is that you are for continuing the usage of "press-up" because the article is currently using British-English, and you are not against changing it because you think this article is about a necessarily British subject. --AerobicFox (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Support It appears that while press-up is used exclusively in the UK, push-up is used in the US and elsewhere. andkore 23:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC) SupportFor the sole reason that although Push-up is understood in the UK, nobody in the United States knows what a Press-up is.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Votestacking in favour of the move. .  Mi re ma re  15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, assuming it's true what's been said about Americans not calling them press-ups, then the change would seem to increase recognizability at no cost.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll cop to that. I didn't realize it was frowned upon when I was doing it. -Clconway (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in my defense, I'd like to point out: (1) I was mostly trying to drum up participation in the discussion, which is not as active as previous move discussions (I should have done so in a more balanced way). (2) The status of voting/consensus building isn't really changed by the "stacked" votes. -Clconway (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:VOTESTACKING i s f Clconway was notifying both sides of the previous debate instead of just one. --AerobicFox (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * AerobicFox, stop trying to help. ;-) My notifications were one-sided. Like I said above, I didn't realize that was a problem. As penance, I have now also notified a number of editors who previously opposed a move. -Clconway (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to say "if" instead of is. Didn't realize you were only contacting one side. :P Contacting the other side should undue some of this though. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Since the History section indicates the American term pre-dates the British one, there actually needs to be significant justification not to make the move. So far, I have not seen any. --12.106.209.61 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Support The word 'push up' is universally understood; 'press up' is limited to a far smaller population. If New Zealand referred to the exercise as 'bungawungas' and created the article under such a title, the move would be rational, insofar as the usage of 'bungawunga' was limited to a sufficiently small sector of the Anglophone world so as to preclude its usage as the title on grounds of having been first used alone. Push up also has a longer etymology on both sides of the Atlantic. The Rhymesmith (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. I can't help but feel that the sole reason this issue rises again and again is not confusion for some readers (who can, after all, read "push-up" in the very first sentence) but rather simple cultural imperialism. It is important for Wikipedia to retain some linguistic diversity in articles to avoid US-centrism. If we go with the most popular English variety we will always end up with US English. I also believe WP:COMMONALITY to be inapplicable. Many US vocabulary variants, including "push up", are also familiar to people outside the US to varying degrees, even if they are not preferred, simply because the wide export of US culture. But familiarity does not imply preference or common usage. &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help but feel that the sole reason a stubborn minority blocks consensus on this issue is simple cultural ressentiment. If a Rhode Islander created an article for Frappe, it would be utterly uncontroversial to move the article to Milkshake to match the much more common usage (indeed, many New Englanders have shown up at Talk:Milkshake to be cranky over the years; they've been largely ignored). But because this issue can be cast as American vs. British usage (note that "push-up" is used many places outside of America), it has become a proxy war against cultural imperialism. -Clconway (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "If we go with the most popular English variety we will always end up with US English."
 * "Many US vocabulary variants, including "push up", are also familiar to people outside the US to varying degrees, even if they are not preferred, simply because the wide export of US culture."
 * Kind of a self defeating argument. I agree that those opposed seem primarily on a anti American imperialism crusade. --AerobicFox (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * >I can't help but feel that the sole reason this issue rises again and again is not confusion for some readers (who can, after all, read "push-up" in the very first sentence) but rather simple cultural imperialism.
 * Please assume good faith. 216.80.135.123 (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — User:216.80.135.123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose, per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. To clarify, your sources state "Entry from US dictionary", according to the OED however:
 * Push-up, n. and adj. (Deb makes a fair point) 1. Chiefly N. Amer. A gymnastic exercise in which the body is held erect, supported by the hands on parallel bars, and raised and lowered by straightening and bending the arms. Also (now more usually) = press-up n.
 * Press-up, n. Chiefly Brit. An exercise in which a person lying face down raises and lowers the body by straightening and bending the arms while keeping the hands and feet on the ground and the legs straight. Cf. push-up n. The earliest quotation is also given as 1928, somewhat earlier than 1945-50. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So a British dictionary give preference to the British usage and an American dictionary gives preference to the American usage... Where does that leave us? -Clconway (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is your sources are meaningless and your arguments inaccurate. The OED is "widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. [...] from across the English-speaking world." Chrisieboy (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You just proved our point. N. American does not equal U.S., N American is U.S. and Canada, where as "chiefly British" is only Britain. Now which is more international? --AerobicFox (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought I had made the point a) that the term push-up has a more ambiguous meaning, and 2) that press-up is now the more usual term. Obviously, though not strictly relevant here, English as spoken throughout the Commonwealth generally derives from British English rather than North American variants. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The term is unambiguous to non-British people who use the word push-up. Also, what version is your OED from because according to it's article only two full and complete versions produced one in 1928 and one in 1989. Do you have one of the more modern revision of the "p" section, or are you using an older version? --AerobicFox (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No it is not unambiguous, push-up is also an adjective. Third edition, December 2006; online version November 2010. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per WP:ENGVAR. Wikipedia is not an exclusively American encyclopedia, and should reflect the numerous varieties of English. There is a common assumption nowadays that American English reflects global English usage, which is not always true (the Englishes of India, Australia, Africa etc are rapidly becoming Americanised, but they are not completely so). Also, if we go down this road, we may as well respell/rewrite every single article to reflect this.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. 216.80.135.123 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — User:216.80.135.123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your contention that "Wikipedia (not being) an exclusively American encyclopedia... should reflect the numerous varieties of English" has no basis in policy. WP:ENGVAR is intended to stop relentless editwarring over matters of grammar and spelling alone, given that the international nature of the encyclopedia does not in itself supply reasons for preferring one dialect to another (although there are other reasons for doing so, as detailed under WP:ENGVAR). Wikipedia exists to provide information, not to provide a representative sampling of dialects across the articles; that it happens to do the latter is a function of the former's being supplied by those of many different nationalities. This structure is protected to prevent edit-warring, but exceptions are included to improve articles' ability to participate in Wikiepdia's mission. That being said, the contention is that the usage 'press up" is limited to Britain, whereas 'push up' is universally understood, as well as the dominant term in much of the commonwealth. If this contention holds, then the article should be renamed per WP:COMMONALITY, which is an exception to WP:RETAIN. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat. English language Wikipedia is not "American English Wikipedia". Most of the content will probably be in US English, but there is no reason to convert the entirety to it, especially when there are obscure aspects of American English little known to non-speakers (even with the global dominance of American culture). This is just a very hollow ploy to americanise this article.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "... especially when there are obscure aspects of American English little known to non-speakers..."
 * Which is not the case here. As Rhymesmith said, "The contention is that the usage 'press up' is limited to Britain, whereas 'push up' is universally understood, as well as the dominant term in much of the commonwealth." -Clconway (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That contention is being contested above. Who says that press-up is limited to Britain? Where is the evidence that push-up is "universally understood"? and on what basis is it claimed that it is the "dominant term in much of the Commonwealth"? Chrisieboy (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the data shared above by 85.82.234.223, which shows that usage of "press-up" is exceeded (and mostly far exceeded) by usage of "push-up" in every TLD but .uk and that even in .uk "push-up" has a healthy 44% of the hits. Maybe you don't find this data convincing. If not, what data would convince you? Would you support the move if the data were incontrovertible? (There's no sign that the other opposing editors would.) -Clconway (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Support I strongly support the move. Attilitus (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Chrisieboy (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:ENGVAR is quite clear on this.  When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. When an article has not yet evolved to that point, the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.  The article was written using British English; therefore it stays in British English.  End of!  Skinsmoke (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think WP:RETAIN trumps WP:COMMONALITY? I'm asking in good faith: I think it might help build consensus if the two sides really grappled with the balance between the two guidelines, instead of repeatedly shouting "WP:RETAIN!" and "WP:COMMONALITY!" at each other. -Clconway (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Press-up" and "push-up" are both perfectly valid ways of referring to the excercise, and the article lead clarifies the different terminology that is used in the U.K. and U.S. The confusion caused by the bra-related meaning of "push-up" in British English is in my view more significant than the relative obscurity of "press-up" in American English. The Celestial City (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm here as an admin looking to close this, either with or without the move. Here's how I see it: if "press-up" is UK and "push-up" US, then there is no reason to move the article; the alternate meaning of "push-up" in the UK might counterbalance the opacity of "press-up" in the US (and, as a Usonian, I can tell you that I'd never heard "press-up"), but regardless, there's no reason to abandon UK English only to replace w US English. If, however, "press-up" is a UK island in a sea of "push-up", then IMO moving the article would be warranted. However, we'd need some reference that this is the case. The OED merely says that one is British and the other North American; can someone ref Australasia? Is "push-up" recognized even if it's not preferred within the UK (and any other 'press-up' countries), so that its use would truly create universal comprehension? It doesn't seem that anyone has met that basic criterion for a move. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Response: the Australians use push-up. One has simply to attempt to look for any Australian saying press-up to find that it is not used there.


 * 1) Australian Defense Force calls them push-ups
 * 2) Random Australian fitness article calling them push-ups
 * I have found no use of the word press-up in any Australian source, and I think unless someone is able to find one we should just assume that they use push-up predominantly.
 * Scratch that I just found this link:


 * 1) Push-up Australia.com
 * I believe I can now say with certainty that they use push-up instead of press-up.
 * With that being said the U.S. and Canada both also use push-up, and only the U.K. uses press-up. Does anybody have any reasons why they believe that press-up is more widely used, and if not would you be willing to reconsider changing the article in light of this discovery? AerobicFox (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking further back in the discussion than this proposal itself, it does seem to have been demonstrated that 'push-up' predominates everywhere but the British Isles, and that even in the UK it is quite common. Thus 'push-up' as a title wouldn't even necessarily conflict with the use of British English in the article, which I agree there is no reason to change, per ENGVAR. Does anyone think I'm missing anything? — kwami (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why do we have one moderator (kwami) engaged in the discussion and seeking consensus while another moderator (Deacon of Pndapetzim) is closing the discussion and declaring the lack thereof? -Clconway (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * *Dazed and confused* AerobicFox (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Deacon had overlooked my intent to close. I was holding for any final comments, but the evidence given above makes it clear that 'push-up' is the common English term, used commonly outside the UK and not uncommonly within the UK. I'm moving, but note that this is not a challenge to the use of British English in the article. I won't even venture an opinion as to which term should be used in the body of the article: that's an MOS question that's potentially independent of the decision to move. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''

Lede
Following the move above, I changed
 * A press-up (British English) or push-up (American English) is a ...

to
 * A push-up, or in British English also a press-up, is a ...

Two reasons: to start off with the article name, and because 'push-up' isn't an American term, but an extra-British one, and is apparently commonly used even within Britain. I'm not offering an opinion as to whether the rest of the article should continue to use 'press-up', as that doesn't require admin action. (Personally I don't see how it would make much difference either way.)

Note that the rewording, like fixing double redirects, is a formality and should be changed if people disagree with it. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Once we've called the article "push-up" (for more universal comprehension), it makes sense to use "push-up" consistently within the article as well (for exactly the same reason, as well as the least surprise principle). --Kotniski (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the header: Famous to Popular
Why heck iPhone or mobile apps be that "famous" software? See "[| Famous software to count push-ups]" article. This table sound like it is endorsement of such product; rather it should be direct to topic devote on software comparison article, instead seeing the embedded table in an encyclopedia article that devote to arts and science of push-up. Would anyone care to edit this header directly? DRC 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmaestoso (talk • contribs)

Hip push-up
Perhaps there should be a section discussing hip push-ups? While they are clearly more difficult to perform, it isn't immediately obvious why this is so. According to a brief Google search, some claim that the added difficulty is due to more of the overall weight being borne by the upper body as opposed to the legs, making it an intermediate exercise between "ordinary" and planche pushups in that regard. Does this make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.70.191 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to strike pushups software section
The idea that people need or seek out software to count pushups is absurd. Such software is, at best, a novelty - I have never seen counting devices in actual use in dozens of gyms, countless training videos, and even record attempts. The tool of choice is, in fact, the video recording. This entire section blatantly smacks of advertising inserted by sellers of the novelty software listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.108.226 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Side View of a Push-Up
Just pointing out that the picture labeled 'Side view of a push-up' shows a really bad technique and should probably be deleted until a more accurate substitute can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.185.206 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Animation of a full push-up
That is not a full push up. Rip-Saw (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea the guy in the yellow shorts isn't doing a proper push up. The side view picture and the navy video are both very informative but the guy in the yellow shorts has the wrong form. Your arms should not be out to the sides. They should be parallel to your torso. Really the navy video is perfect. That guy knows what he's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.200.66 (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Divested?
"... it is not rare to use "nastier" variations, e.g., in mud, gravel, snow or dirt, hot ground, divested, ..." What does "divested" mean here? - naked? clarification needed. --rossb (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. I can't think what else it might mean, but it sounds silly (as does "nastier", with or without scare quotes). Anyway, the entire section is unsourced and I wouldn't object if it simply disappeared; it can always return, worded more carefully and with citations. Rivertorch (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Differentiating the term push-up from press up
The term "press up" in the US (and elsewhere) is, apparently, used interchangeably with "push-up." I was quite surprised to learn this because the press up that I learned about years ago was something that fitness guru Jack LaLanne did to demonstrate his supreme level of fitness. The press up he did was significantly more difficult to do than an ordinary push-up. The way it is performed is the person lies flat on the floor with his legs together(straight)and arms stretched out straight over his head (if he was standing in this position it would look like he's reaching straight up to the sky). Then using only his hands and his feet he lifts himself off the floor (while keeping his arms and legs straight). This requires total body fitness, not just strong arms. I remember reading that this is considered to be the single most difficult calisthenic exercise to perform. At that time it was estimated that only 1 in 30,000 could do it. I would venture to say that even people that can do hundreds of typical push-ups would have a hard time doing this kind of press up. It would be nice to see one of the editors of this article look a little more deeply into this and, if what I have said above can be verified and cited, add that information to the article. I think those who are interested in physical fitness would enjoy hearing about it. RavenAreBirds (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)RavensAreBirds 8/21/14