Talk:Parkour/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Needs serious revision to include term freerunning

This absolutely absurd. "Freerunning" had an entire article. Supposing the two should be merged and tabling the vicious debate of their distinction or lack thereof, you can't just throw everything under one term and all but delete the other one. The article is extremely confusing to someone who hasn't even heard the term parkour. Freerunning is a vast community and artform, you can't just throw the term out. If you're going to merge one article with another, they have to be carefully fused. At the absolute least, the differences have to made incredibly clear in the lede. Freerunning should be in the first few words or sentences, preferably scattered evenly throughout the article... Squish7 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion regarding the merger, but I suspect it largely comes down to two issues. The first is whether or not Freerunning is sufficiently distinct from Parkour to warrant its own article, the second is whether or not there is a sufficient amount of reliable information about Freerunning to create and sustain a separate article.

Personally, I think Freerunning is separate enough from Parkour, so for clarity I would prefer Freerunning to have its own article. What I don't know, because I've not looked, is how much reliable information there is about Freerunning. The majority of newspaper reports seem to erroneously treat the two disciplines at the same thing, which makes things hard. The Parkour article has been rescued recently by David Belle's book and Jule Angel's research, but to my knowledge the only book on Freerunning is Sebastien Foucan's, which contains far less information and (perhaps because of the philosophical differences between the disciplines) presents it in a less-structured way. Sebastien has also done a recent radio interview which contains good information, but aside from that I don't know of any other source we could use.

I think the level of information on Freerunning that is present in this article at the moment is appropriate for an article on Parkour. I also think it would be more confusing to scatter mentions of Freerunning throughout this article. They are so similar it's confusing to talk about them together, so I don't think it's a good idea to try and create a joint Parkour and Freerunning article. They are best off being treated as separate.

I think the best way forward is to try and increase the amount of information about Freerunning within it's own section of this article. If we can find enough information on Freerunning as a standalone discipline then we can see about separating the two subjects again. Feraess (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that happening. I think that the simple consensus of the community is that Freerunning is a subset of Parkour. On the WFPF website the selection menu for "About Us" includes "What is Parkour" and "History of Parkour" (in which Freerunning is mentioned). Also note that the summary on the back of the cover for the only major movie on Freerunning (Freerunner (2011)) begins with "FREERUNNER captures all the unstoppable force of urban acrobatic freerunning (also known as parkour) in this relentless..." However reliable or not the quote is as official source, the point is that the net opinion of the people who brought Freerunning to film, of how to nutshell the relationship between PK/FR in a short space, is simply to call them synonyms. I don't have time myself to rummage through individual sources, but I think this quote is a tell of the overall average of reliable sources out there if they were all to be found and balanced.

Still, whether or not a separate Freerunning article is started again, the term at least belongs solidly in here for now. It may not be easy to merge the two terms in a coherent whole which does justice to the precise term balance in the community, but it's a task that should be done. The article is ridiculous as it is now. Freerunning isn't even mentioned in any Contents category, and is only put mid-sentence toward the very end of the lede. I think we have to achieve a balance like the Freerunner quote. The distinction should be made clear in the first several words of the article. I think it should say "Parkour (a superset of Freerunning)..." and have a clearly labeled section called "Freerunning". As it is right now, someone looking for information on Freerunning who doesn't want to comb every sentence of the article looking for it--if they even know it's going to mentioned in the article at all--has to run a search in their browser to find the word throughout the page. I just can't comprehend the basic logic that a topic that at least arguably deserves its own article shouldn't even get a subsection in the only article that it's mentioned, or even be mentioned clearly in the lede... Squish7 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus on Freerunning in the community. There are only three reliable sources that I know of that contain information on Freerunning, Sebastien Foucan's book, a relatively obscure radio interview with Sebastien, and a few paragraphs in Julie Angel's research thesis. All of them are fairly recent, none of those have received widespread publicity, and large parts of the respective communities of Parkour and Freerunning are still unaware of the information contained within.

I don't think we can consider the WFPF a reliable source on anything related to this article, since it's an organisation that exists solely for self-promotion. Same goes for the film 'Freerunner', which shares virtually nothing but a name with the discipline of Freerunning. Within the community, both the WFPF and the Freerunner film are usually seen as bad jokes with little credibility. Neither are representative of anything other than the desire that some people have to use Parkour and Freerunning for self-promotion.

You've made a good argument for Freerunning's inclusion on Wikipedia, but that's not the same thing as mixing Freerunning information into the Parkour article. The only reason it would be necessary to mix information about Freerunning into this article would be if many aspects of Freerunning were important to understanding Parkour. That is simply not the case. The only connection is that Freerunning developed out of Parkour, and so that is precisely what this article should say. Freerunning is simply not notable enough to Parkour to warrant consistent references to it here. Feraess (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

After digesting some of your points in the Ryan Doyle page discussion that were new to me (such as Parkour UK publicly rejecting the Red Bull Art of Motion), I think you're right that Freerunning should have its own article. The problem is that the consensus is currently against it. I suggest studying the history of the old page and figuring what was wrong with it that constituted deletion. If it was by a close vote, then maybe the debate can be ressurected, as you and I would be 2 more votes for it, and our arguments could also give weight (e.g. the point that FR is especially unwelcome here in the view of Parkour UK, and sources demonstrating offense at Ryan Doyle's use of "Parkour" in FR contexts).

It seems so unwelcome that I think even a stub article for Freerunning with minimal sources would be very appropriate calling for expansion from editors, especially since FR is a growing sport, and to boot, that the general demographic (youth athletics) is far removed from encyclopedia editing, and yet its a curious group who may easily be looking for information for it. Squish7 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI I'm baffled why you list so few sources. You're already intimate with Ryan Doyle and the sea of information surrounding him. The WFPF page of founders alone is a fruitful source of experts. Timothy Shieff and Daniel Ilabaca are two more experts already recognized by WP. Your argument that WFPF is a self-interested group doesn't nullify the objectivity of everyone who's ever had anything to do with it, even if you're right. A lot of those people phase in and out of the WFPF, it's not their primary thing.

If you want a really reputable source then examine this National Geographic episode of Fight Science Squish7 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the old FR article was extremely thorough at one point, then over time got reduced to a couple sentences. It's probably best to start from there and ask what went wrong, adding new sources to give it more weight, than start a new article. You can review the history here. (To bring this up from scratch, search for "freerunning" then when it redirects, then click the small link that says "redirected from freerunning", then click "view history".)

I dream of horses says the process of resurrecting a deleted page is to nominate the article for articles for deletion, although I'm not sure if there was actually a debate on the matter. It may have just been user Izno's judgement, who redirected the page on Mar 15 2012 after it was paired down to a stub. I wrote him a message on his talk page. Squish7 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is verifiable information which can be cited from reliable sources, and if those sources also cover the topic in depth, then a separate article is warranted. (Reliable sources also ensure an article has a neutral point of view.) Even then, we must ask ourself whether there are enough sources to establish a separate article. Otherwise, it does more for those who wish to understand free running to read about free running within the greater context of its parent, parkour. Remember, we are not writing for parkour practitioners, nor free running fans, nor even sports aficionados. We are writing an encyclopedia for everyone, from the lay person who knows nothing of anything remotely similar to physical activity to the the Belles themselves, people I would suggest as experts on this particular topic.

A brief review of my decision is that the deletion of much of that information and subsequent redirection of the article was, and is still, warranted. To answer implied questions, no, I consulted with no-one but Drmies, who took part in the work that was done with the article. We simply applied editorial judgement in accordance with what Wikipedia believes make good and featured articles, the vast majority of which do not rely on primary sourcing to any great extent (and all of which have sourcing!, something the free running article did not if ever have). That is the problem with the sources you present, Squish. Until you can show that the information located on parkour regarding free running meets the necessary threshold for a split of this article, I have little faith that a notable article can be drafted. --Izno (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Squish7, I think it's clear that Parkour and Freerunning are separate subjects, since that's what the reliable sources say. The issue, as Izno has pointed out again, is simply finding a reasonable number of reliable sources on Freerunning. So far I know of only Sebastien's book, Sebastien's radio interview and Julie Angel's 'Cine parkour' thesis, however there may be some we can salvage from the old Freerunning page. I think the best thing we can do for now is to find more sources on Freerunning.

There is a lot of media related to Tim Shieff and Daniel Ilabaca so I think we should be able to find sources on their views relatively easily, however I don't consider them to be experts. There is a difference between someone who is good at moving and someone who has a good understanding the discipline as a whole, and they are the former rather than the latter. This difference isn't often appreciated by the media that is focused on spectacle, but we need to be careful when we use their views in an article here. We can use them for sources on the views of freerunners, but we need to word things carefully to avoid confusing facts with opinions. There may be some things we can use from that Fight Science episode, but there is also a lot of nonsense so we need to be careful there too.

The guidelines are pretty clear that until we can find more sources we can't justify a separate article. So that's the place to concentrate at the moment. I'll search for some when I have time.Feraess (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You two have me on the line whether they should be separate articles, at least at the moment, and I definitely don't have time for the research that would be involved in the matter (also I'm up to my limit with edit wars). My point is that at the moment at least, the topic should have incredibly more than just about absolutely no presence in the article in now resides in, whether or not it can be furthered to a separate topic. The term "freerunning" should be a full section as it used to be, with a thorough run-through utilizing the infinite slew of sources out there, or at least the ones you two both agree on. It's just plain absurd for something so world-prominent as freerunning to be thrown under a section starting labeling it an issue of terminology. (Freerunning wasn't even mentioned in the lede until I added it.) It's just a silly non-prestence. The debate alone on the matter warrants documentation (i.e. at least a section "Freerunning vs Parkour". Big kudos to your search for reliable sources, but why not work out from a thorough sub-section here instead of putting it on your to-do list to go all out? I can't sit and bicker with all these particular sources, but anything once having an immersive article backed by 2 dozen sources of at least tolerable weight doesn't deserve to be so diminished as to be thrown in as a footnote in WP. A quick search on the net would bring up hundreds off semi-questionable sources that in conjunction form massive weight. I don't understand why you two are listing 2 or 3 absolutely uber-reliable sources when there are hundreds of tolerable substance, as shown in this revision of the article. Just the constant and omni-present pairing of "Parkour & Freeruning" warrants the latter in the first few words of the article... Squish7 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, why not just call the article Parkour & Freerunning? They're paired practically more often than not. Even listing "Freerunning" in the first few words doesn't come near reflecting its prominence. If reliable sources for a separate article can't be found, then there's still no doubt that the term alone is extremely widespread. Just search YouTube for "Parkour"; up come lots of top results titled "Parkour & Freeruning". (Another good example is the World Parkour & Freerunning Federation.) There are in fact enough sources rejecting Freerunning as a part of Parkour, that many core traceurs will take offense to it being labeled as a subset. This would be solved by saying this article features Parkour and Freerunning. Squish7 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(in response to Feraess's removal of my including the phase "a superset of freerunning" in the first sentence): Feraess, even if you're right about Freerunning being "not relevant enough to be listed in the first sentence" ideally, you have to consider the current situation in which Freerunning redirects to this page. If you create a separate article, that's great, but given the fact that the subject is redirected, the article can't trivialize the term, let alone the subject, both of which it currently does. Whatever the relation between the two disciplines based on available reliable information, you can't argue that the terms/subjects aren't constantly paired. In fact, the fact that they're paired may support your proposition that FR isn't a part of Parkour, e.g. akin to saying "apples and oranges" when an orange is not an apple. However, if the page "oranges" redirects to "apples", the latter can't refrain from saying what an orange is or even mentioning it's a notable fruit. If you think FR should not be discussed on the same page as Parkour, then challenge Izno's complete removal of the page, and start with what you have as a stub. The consensus right now is that both subjects be covered on this page, so even if FR isn't notable enough to warrant a title change of the page to "PK & FR", the page stands strictly functionally serving as place where FR should be represented. If you think the terms are non sequitur, yet can't override the consensus that they should be listed on this page for now, then you have to suggest a method of properly representing FR here while at the same time explaining to the reader that FR does not quite fit under PK. Squish7 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My primary concern here is the quality of the information available on Parkour. This article is fine as it is. There is no need to have more information about freerunning in an article on Parkour. Freerunning is a separate subject. Wikipedia should have more information about freerunning, I agree, but not here in this article. But don't worry, there'll be a separate freerunning article again shortly. I've found that there are a bunch of references so I'm working on it now, so it'll be done by tomorrow at the latest.

There's no need to challenge Izno's merger. Not only is there no consensus that the information on freerunning should be in this article, I checked the talk histories and the merger has been rejected several times in discussions. It shouldn't have been merged in the first place. The article wasn't in good condition, but that means it should have been improved rather than merged. That'll be fixed shortly.

In the meantime, please stop adding freerunning to the lead of the Parkour article. It is simply not helpful to the understanding of Parkour to refer to freerunning in the first sentence. Be patient for a couple of hours! Feraess (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're really that close to a replacement, then fine, that's all fine, there's no point in bickering in a change for a day or two, especially because as you say there's been no solid consensus. Nonetheless, it still strictly stands that agreeing to allow WP to be less accurate and less following guidelines of the material is still a courtesy to you from an editor putting up the correct information tentatively no matter what your personal promise is that the issue will be resolved in any particular time frame. Your relentless riff that there is an issue that needs to be resolved a certain way gives you zero right to revert edits that are appropriate before you take your action. Engaging in even a minor edit war is just a headache for everyone. If you're so close to handling this a proper way, why sit and bicker back and forth to achieve a change that will be up a day or two? You're instantaneous reversions establish your concern that an article be correct even on the scale of minutes. Therefore you can't turn around and tell me that I should be patient just because you promise a short time frame before you apply your future edits.

I think very few people if any will agree that WP should be made less accurate--i.e. that guidelines should be less followed--as the prelude to the personal resolution of an editor that the most accurate edits are coming soon. You've made no argument of what the page should be like in the current scenario that Freerunning is directed to this page. You're sole and only argument stated over and over is that things should ideally be another way entirely. I don't have the information you have about precisely how close you are to applying your master solution--at least I didn't throughout all these back-and-forth edits--so without that I have an obligation as someone assigning himself the task of making certain pages as accurate as possible, to make edits appropriate indefinitely, whether this is a minute or an hour or a year. Your actions are just plain inappropriate conduct. Please correct it in the future. Squish7 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand how removing unsourced material on freerunning from the lead paragraph on Parkour, or removing confusing material on freerunning from the first sentence of the article, could be considered 'making Wikipedia less accurate'. Despite the fact that 'Freerunning' currently redirects to this article, the subject of this article is 'Parkour' not 'Parkour and Freerunning'.

The lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the information contained within the rest of the article. If there's a lot of information on freerunning in the Parkour article then it should be split off into a separate article. If there is only a small amount of information on freerunning in the article, as is the case at the moment, then the lead needs to reflect that. It's not a case of indulging individual editors, we all have to stick to the guidelines in WP:Lead.

The only scenario in which is would be appropriate to include the word 'freerunning' in the first sentence would be if it was just an alternate name for Parkour. That, however, is an idea that we have all rejected.

I'm pleading for patience on your part not to indulge me, but so that this article remains within Wikipedia guidelines. A perceived lack of information about freerunning is not sufficient reason to ignore them, even temporarily. If you're not clear on this, maybe we should get someone else in who can explain it better than I can.Feraess (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You may have convinced me on the precise technicality of every individual point you've argued, but in sum/spirit it just plains stands silly how underrepresented FR is on WP as a term and subject. Every third article or video on the internet feature and list by title FR & PK together, either paired as related but separate subjects (your view), or used synonymously by people who don't know/care about the differences. The major world organization for PK/FR, self-interested or not, calls itself the World Freerunning and Parkour Federation, and prominent athletes with elements of both disciplines sometimes don't even bother with the precise distinctions themselves. FR had its own extremely thorough article here backed by 2-dozen tolerably weighted sources. It got vaporized down to nothingness by an infinite string of these technicalities of yours that do not hold when considered in sum in a whole picture. Maybe 5 sources of the article were only semi-reliable for this reason, and another 5 were only semi-reliable for that reason, but this endless string of red tape has led to not a mild, but a notable vacuum representation of a sport/artform that if looked at in the entire picture, belongs in WP by all means. Where red tape of any kind has bypassed the heart, spirit, soul, and core of the guidelines, policies, or laws they utilized, they've become in violation of such laws/policies, malicious intent or plausible denial.

If the only way to represent that core/spirit is to go back and unravel that entire mile of accumulation of hundreds of points and spend the days of labor with every single one that you've been fighting me on to add it all back up--arguing that these or that 10 sources when put together add weight when they were all discarded because each was only 10% reliable--then our ways of executing WP policy should be revised.

Consider that at least 3 top Freerunning athletes have sturdy, solidly-backed articles that have stood the test of time. That makes it functionally unsound that the general discpline/artform that the individuals study is not represented at all. You couldn't recognize 3 top experts in a scientific field and say the scientific field itself does not warrant attention or even noting. Your argument is perfectly fine on the absolute scale, and more so if you're really on top of things as you say, but what you're ignoring is the fact that life is not perfect; this is the point of tagging endless pages and phrases with "needs changes" or "needs citations", etc. It just shouldn't have gotten to this point if each editor had taken the entire picture into account rather than hacking apart the article with fine details. If it was impossible or very difficult, then the editing of WP should be modified to avoid such scenarios in the future.

I wish I could spend the type of time you've convinced me would be necessary to establish a solid FR presence here, and kudos to you for taking that road, but the basic absurdity should be observed that this endless string of hoops and edit wars shouldn't be needed to establish a subject that's notable by the heart and core of the policies. Squish7 (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is the way of Wikipedia to include controversial information only after discussion and then consensus. If you can spare even a little bit of time, it would be good if you could look over the re-vamped Freerunning article and see if you can improve it.

One suggestion I would make is to not put too much faith in the opinions of people who joined the Parkour or freerunning community after they learned how to move via other disciplines like gymnastics or acrobatics. Parkour and freerunning are training disciplines, and if you join near the top then you've missed out on experiencing most of what those disciplines involve. For example, both Tim Shieff and Ryan Doyle had reached a high level of movement ability through other disciplines before they started using the name freerunning, and the same goes for most of the people who have achieved fame through freerunning so far. They are good at moving, but have never gone through the process of learning the basics of the discipline and so consequently don't understand them.

Anyway, there's a separate Freerunning article again now so we should probably move freerunning discussion back there. Feraess (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Whenever freerunning has it's own page or not does not really matter.

There is one important point i'd like to make:

1) Keep the freerunning page straight-forward and reject nonsense tied to it.

As said before, there isn't a consensus on Freerunning in the community. But that does not really matter at all. You don't need a consensus of what Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do is. Because it is already defined by him - the founder - in the same way as parkour or freerunning. It is not up to debate. There is no war between parkour and freerunning as some people in the community portrays it, particulary in still un-going internet wars and that sort of rubbish. Red Bull or Ryan Doyle is not reliable sources. They were never trained by any of the founders and therefore they are most likely not aware of its origins or its values and philosophy. They were never involved in the development of it. The article should represent facts. These facts are found in history. By those who were there developing the discipline. Reliable sources that we have right now is Julie Angels PhD Ciné Parkour, David's book', Foucans book, and partly Dan Edwardes book which is endorsed by for instance Chau Belle Dinh and David's and Sébastiens former student Stephane Vigroux.

It's vital to understand that parkour or freerunning never have been defined as simply moving but as a specific training method. ParkourHistory (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Movements

Why was the list of movements removed? Sure, there may be no official list of movements, but the common moves list was very helpful and informative, and I see no reason why it was removed. Is it possible to have it reinstated? 63.199.33.70 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you, this policy doesn't (neither does this policy). As it happens, I don't agree with you. They add little to the understanding of what parkour is. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if parkour is not itself a bunch of movements, there needs to be some description of what parkour actually looks like. It's not just "getting from A to B, negotiating the obstacles in between" - in that case a swimmer could be a traceur, or a climber, or a hurdler. But swimming is rarely considered parkour, and simply climbing or hurdling by themselves are not parkour. Rather a traceur needs to use many different kinds of movements, and there are particular ones that all traceurs practise, thus we should describe them.

Thus I've re-added some movements into the article. This is not guidebook material, there is no how-to content, it is merely descriptive. Nor is it original research, I've included research sources.

Please don't start an edit war, discuss it here first. ··gracefool☺ 02:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of including information about what Parkour looks like, but I think we need to do so in a way that doesn't force the article to contradict itself. In particular, we need to avoid even the appearance of creating a list of named movements. Therefore, I'm removing the names from the list and rewording the section a little. Feraess (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

While going through it I also removed a lot of incorrect and mostly unreferenced material from the section. This section clearly needs a lot of work if it's going to be worth including in the article. Feraess (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

FeraessI think including the usual movement names in the movement section doesn't violate WP:NOTJARGON. We're introducing the readers to these terms, not using them to describe other abstractions or actions or movements. As such, I believe it is encyclopedia material. As for WP:OR, can we use official websites like this or this as reliable reference sources? Ki Chjang (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The main issue here is that creating a list of named movements does not help the reader understand Parkour. Parkour does not treat movement as a list of discrete options, and contains no emphasis on naming movement either. Therefore, this article should not attempt to present either of those things in an authoritative tone. Feraess (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Feraess I beg to differ though. A little information of how we name our movements paints a picture of what we actually do and how these movements express ourselves. Parkour CAN be broken down into discrete movements, and we use them when the situation calls for it. I agree that the focus should be put on the mindset of what Parkour is, however these movements are the actual "implementation" of what Parkour actually does.

You don't find the article itself is a bit too abstract for people to understand? Ki Chjang (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't agree that Parkour is made up of separate, discrete movements. That, to me, is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the discipline. Parkour is not about performing movements, Parkour practitioners do not get a list of movements and try and perform them. Practitioners just try and pass obstacles, and at no point in that process do they need to use names for specific movements. Practitioners sometimes use names for types of movement as a kind of rough, quick label when they're talking to each other, but if they think of movement as consisting of separate pieces while practising it ends up hindering them. The key idea in getting past obstacles efficiently is adaptation to the obstacle. You have to let yourself be guided by the obstacle, not your notions about movement. The key idea with safety is small, gradual changes. If you jump from one broad category to the next you're forced to make big changes all at once and this dramatically increases the risk of injury.

I think the article does still need improvement before it can be considered of good encyclopedic value. It needs a complete section on the methodology of Parkour, and the philosophy section needs a complete re-write. I'm still working on the Philosophy section, but unfortunately there are no good sources on the methodology at the moment. Feraess (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include aspects of Parkour conditioning and (maybe) a bit about the Methode Naturelle, because as it stands right now, I think the article is too abstract for the common reader to understand. A little concrete example of how it is trained would benefit in understanding it. Ki Chjang (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is already information on Methode Naturelle in the history section of the article, so I think that aspect is covered for now. The phrase 'Parkour conditioning' is a bit of a tautology, but if you can find any reliable sources that detail Parkour training methods then I agree they would add very useful information to the article. Feraess (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Feraess, have a look at the discussion thread here. This explains exactly what I feel about the current state of the article right now. If we use playing piano as an analogy to parkour, then yes, it would make no sense for pianists to say that "music is all about pressing individual keys on the piano". However, it doesn't really do beginners any good if we start by telling them to play whatever they like on their first day sitting in front of a piano. Ki Chjang (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general crowd, not the specialists (even those wishing to learn). This is per WP:NOTHOWTO, a Wikipedia policy. For that sort of content, Wikibooks is a plausible place to add such information. --Izno (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

For info, letting people do whatever they want isn't the only alternative to focusing on a 'list of moves'. The method that Parkour uses instead is focusing on the obstacles. The practice of Parkour is determined by following a path of progression from easier obstacles to more difficult obstacles. Which obstacle you face then determines the method you use to get past it, i.e. the movement. The problem comes before the solution. Feraess (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Izno, your concern is that it would violate what Wikipedia is not. However, my concern is that as the article stands right now, it is too abstract, and as such, giving names to Parkour's movements would help readers identify and understand easily about the types of different movements that practitioners use. As such, I don't think we are providing a manual of instruction detailing how to perform such moves - we're simply adding terminology that Parkour practitioners use to describe their movements.

Feraess, after your explanation, I fully understand the philosophy of Parkour as being a way to see the world around you, and creating efficient, quick paths to maneuver through obstacles. I believe you are trying as much as possible to introduce the philosophy itself to the audience, which undoubtedly is both your and my goal, and my suggestion is that I think it would be useful to include movement names into the article (perhaps also an inclusion of the function of a specific movement? E.g. the Kong vault is used mainly for distance) to help readers easily identify what we do and why we perform such movements. I think it helps in concretely explaining what Parkour aims to do. Ki Chjang (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to including more description about what practitioners do, but we have to be very careful in our wording when we try and explain it. Practitioners move, but they don't perform movements. Trying to perform a specific, named movement is never an aim of Parkour. Fundamentally there are no such things as "Parkour's movements", and it's a bad idea for a practitioner to think of movement as being comprised of separate set-pieces. Parkour aims to enable people to be themselves and follow their own path, by teaching them how to get past the obstacles they face. You can only do that effectively by adapting yourself to the obstacles. If you put any kind of emphasis on trying to perform a specific movement then you lessen a person's ability to adapt and harm their development. Yes, some people think in terms of separate movements, but it's bad practice and shouldn't be encouraged here. Feraess (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

COI ?

Is there a reason for the recently placed COI tag? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I also have this question. I removed the tag because no one's explained it here despite your question being up for over 3 weeks. You can't have a tag that says "Please discuss these issues" and then refuse to give any explanation when people want to know.

Personally, I'm disgusted with the incessant violation of policy via editing without discussing, especially when directly prompted to give reasoning on the talk page, and especially when experienced editors do it. Please point to the section in the policy files that says that the more experience one has, the less they're required to discuss or explain their edits. Squish7 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Squish7, I apologize for having missed these posts. I'm sorry you are disgusted, but I don't believe I flouted any policy here. To answer GenQuest's original question, after noticing edits by ParkourHistory, and their apparent single purpose,[1] I placed the tag here and at the user's talk page. Again I missed this post but would not have been distressed had I been pinged through the notification process, or had a note placed on my talk page. In any regard, if the editors who edit here regularly are satisfied that the article is neutral, it is fine removing the tag. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to direct my complaining to you; it was a bit of an aside. Squish7 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

State of the article

I have added a couple words to indicate that freerunning is typically done in urban spaces in the intro, as it is not clear at all in the current version 209.195.65.39 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

• "Parkour" or "Freerunning" should be uppercase. Both are names.

• R.e.: parkour or freerunning. They should be lowercase. Neither are proper nouns. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

---

The part about Parkour and Free running being seperate is incorrect as Parkour translated into english is Free running. aslo i agree that the thing about parkour gyms should be looked into as there are now organised parkour lessons in Fed Square in Melbourne. Thatparkourkid (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

MarkTraceur (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

'Parkour' translated into English is 'course'. Although the name 'Freerunning' was initially intended to just be an English name for Parkour, the name was only ever used by Sebastien Foucan and he subsequently used it to refer to his own, slightly different, discipline. It would be good to include more about Freerunning, but the problem we have here is that good references on Freerunning are in even shorter supply than good references on Parkour. Feraess (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the standard above and I've changed the article to reflect it. Feraess (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I understand that on the surface it appears as though the word 'Parkour' should be treated like sports and other activities and not capitalised, however at this point in history 'Parkour' is the name of a single, unique discipline and as such is a proper noun. There is some disagreement within the Parkour community on this, possibly based on politics, but shouldn't the name 'Parkour' be capitalised in this article? Feraess (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think based on the etymology, you could argue it's an improper noun denoting some set of movements. "Le parcours" is certainly an improper noun, and removing the s and modernizing the spelling doesn't seem like it would be enough to negate that fact. --MarkTraceur (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but if that were true could you not also then argue that any names once derived from a common noun should also not be capitalised, for example Burger King? Ultimately, the etymology of a word is not the governing factor in determining how to classify a word, but rather the current usage of the word itself. In the case of this article, 'Parkour' is not an improper noun denoting a set of movements but the name of a unique entity. I think we may have to accept that there are other uses of the word 'Parkour' in which it's treated as another type of word, but I think we're moving into the realms of 'Parkour (disambiguation)' there, and away from the subject of this article. Feraess (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I mistakenly saw some changes to uncapitalise, but I'll change it back now - I've at least changed "L'art..." to "l'art" in a bunch of places, that seems correct-ish to me. Also, the freerunning/l'art du deplacement section is looking a tad better now. --MarkTraceur (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nice work, it looks a lot better now. I've added a reference to support the bit about David Belle's brother Jean Francois. I have no idea where the information about his brothers in David's article comes from, but David himself seems pretty clear that his living brother is called Jean-François. I've fixed that part of David's article. Feraess (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Parkour in popular culture

would certain running chase scenes in parts of the matrix count as and example of parkour or free running? what about run lola run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.96.130 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, for the same reason given below. "Not all climbing on walls and buildings is Parkour, only that which is connected to a discipline of training through trying to move past obstacles." Feraess (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Along those lines, the film noir The Naked City (1948) includes a sequence in which the fleeing villain demonstrates some notably parkour-like moves... kencf0618 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Parkour in Minecraft

Could something be added to the Popular Culture section to mention the popularity of Parkour courses in Minecraft? There are servers maintained solely for the purpose of Parkour. A Google search for "Minecraft Parkour" will turn up quite a few of them. 98.95.65.245 (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources must verify that fact. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why Google is not a reliable source for reporting what information exists. People are always saying "A search for PK/FR will bring up..." and the response is always that something reliable must verify the search. What about is Google not credible, notable, objective, or verifiable? It fits every test WP has for a good source. None of the personal/layman YouTube videos have to be credible to report that a lot of them exist, which is 100% proven by a proper Google search. WP may not have a method or habit for quoting a Google search as a source, but that's not any reason not to start doing such. Squish7 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You missed a very important criterion (or perhaps "credibility" to you is not the same as me): The information needs to be published by a source which a) fact checks its work, b) is known for consistently fact checking its work, and is c) known for consistently reporting the information correctly. You and I fit some of that. Google does none of that.

From a practical point of view, however, saying that there are "many" or that it is "popular" fails another of our guidelines, which is WP:Weasel words (the passive voice helps identify it as such as well). The claim is innately unverifiable because of the way it is phrased. From a second practical point of view, how many does "popular" make? 5? 20? 100? 1000? X% of the total? How many is the total? A certain number of links returned in a Google search? How can we know that all of those aren't simply black hat SEO links which all point to one server? I hope you see my point….

Specifically though, in the case of popular culture, I say that it should be the case because I don't want the section to become the bloated pile of crap that parkour in popular culture was. Everything in that section needs to have a notable topic associated with it, everything needs an RS to go with it as a statement (out of interest of verifiability), and that RS needs to connect parkour to that particular notable topic. (Mind you, as it is, there are a handful of sentences which don't currently meet those criteria. I've let my own discretion leave them….) --Izno (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your responsiveness. I'm not sure whether I disagree or don't understand, so allow me to debate a bit. The article on The sun uses the word "many" 13 times. The IMAX article uses it 4 times. What is kosher about these instances that do not fit under weasel words? Clearly there is a time to use "many", "popular", etc., so how do you/WP quantify the line between usable and not? You can't say the fact that a spectrum exists nullifies the use of the words. Your point boils down to the difficulty of using them properly; it doesn't eliminate the words from the English language. The Popular culture section utilizes the phrases "a few", "a number of", "heavy use", and "a large amount of". All of these are on a scale and have to come from somewhere. All that aside, you can still fulfill your requirement by quoting more exact numbers. Maybe a precise hit count isn't reliable by your logic, but if hundreds of results come up for XYZ, you can definitely say at least "dozens of...".

Put aside the fact-checking policy you quote for a moment. What about the purpose behind the rule is not fulfilled in this case? Google technically does not double-check its work, and is technically not a published source, etc., but this is red tape. The spirit of fact-checking and reliability/history of fact-checking is fulfilled plentifully by a machine that always behaves the same. How can you ask a perfect machine to double-check its results? Your publication requirement would be fulfilled if there was a "Google Magazine" in which the G staff reported the results of millions of searches, because G staff are professional and reliable.

I don't see your false SEO link point at all. We're talking about a search we can run on YouTube and see the videos come right up. It's a light job to click the first 2-dozen videos and confirm they exist. Technically we could say all editor research is original because the editor reporting "the source exists" does not have another source that also says the source exists, etc. The spirit of verifiability and fact-checking is fulfilled by a G or Y/T search combined with the task of making sure the information that comes up is correct just in case of a blue-moon error like Y/T listing 20 videos from the same channel first, etc... Squish7 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's because the collective authors of Sun are attempting to write a both dense and technical topic for the generalist masses within the constraints of both space and neutral point of view. But either way, the sentences in which they are contained are cited to reliable sources, so I would expect that were we to actually verify the truth-statement of the sentences ourselves (by referring ourselves to those citations), we'd find the articles not incorrect.

"Your point boils down to the difficulty of using them properly; it doesn't eliminate the words from the English language. [...] All that aside, you can still fulfill your requirement by quoting more exact numbers." No, this is not the case; my point boils down to the same that WP:GOOGLE's does: A search engine is not measuring what you think it's measuring. On an aside, the number of results you'll end up will be different than the ones I will receive. This machine you call a search engine is not so consistent as you seem to think.

"The Popular culture section utilizes the phrases "a few", "a number of", "heavy use", and "a large amount of". All of these are on a scale and have to come from somewhere." And they can likely be improved, too! I've always been bad at topic sentences. Maybe we shouldn't have any! (I've always wondered how exactly the notion of a topic sentence squares with writing for Wikipedia….)

"Put aside the fact-checking policy..." You are in the wrong place if an axiom in your argument is one which denies the existence of one of the five pillars, so I don't feel a need to argue on that paragraph. If you have a problem with the need for third party reliable secondary sourcing (leading to verifiability and neutral point of view, all guidelines or policies), then you're writing for the wrong encyclopedia.

But let me argue it anyway: "Your publication requirement would be fulfilled if there was a "Google Magazine" in which the G staff reported the results of millions of searches, because G staff are professional and reliable." That they are professional is undoubtedly true (but irrelevant?). That they are reliable about their own content is not necessarily the case. But they still fail another part of the test, which is that they must be seen as reliable on the topic on which we are writing. Does Google (or Google's hypothetical staff) care about parkour? Unlikely, even in this scenario. But either which way, it's all a hypothetical. Google (YouTube) is plainly unreliable. The "spirit" of verifiability and fact checking is not fulfilled by a machine, of any sort. --Izno (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write peripheral stuff about parkour in popular culture, add it to the free running wiki. I've added it as a link in the external links section so hopefully people add stuff there instead of here. ··gracefool☺ 03:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Izno film re-revert

According to policy, unless the claim is nonsense or both doubtful and harmful, you should add a citation, not delete the content, or tag it with {{unreferenced}}.

WP:RS doesn't mean that every single sentence has to have a direct reference.

Re Crimson Rivers II: Angels of the Apocalypse: You can see David Belle listed as a stuntman at imdb, and the movie itself is the citation the freerunning. Citations of everything that happens in a film are not required - go look at any film article - since the film itself is the reliable source.

Re The Sons of the Wind, again there are plenty of sources showing this to be the sequel to Yamakasi (eg. imdb). Just because the article hasn't yet been created in the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it can't be mentioned!

··gracefool☺ 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is useful to ignore such a policy (it is in fact a guideline; there is a distinction) when you have a popular culture section, which can become bloated piles of crap like parkour in popular culture when all that you require is "oh, I think this relation exists".

Our policy on verifiability does require an inline or direct citation if that material is challenged. Consider my reverts a challenge. The onus is not on me to verify that a claim is true but on the adder of the material (see boldface at the bottom of the section).

On Apocalypse:

• IMDB is not reliable when used as a source.
• The film is not a reliable secondary source but a primary source, and it does not pass the test of WP:SPS as this is not an article on the film.
• Lastly, even if it is true that he plays a freerunning character, I would expect to see a WP:RS that connects parkour or freerunning to the film in a substantive fashion, or vice versa. See first paragraph. See also WP:TRIVIA.

On Sons:

• IMDB is not reliable when used as a source.
• My point on WP:N-only articles listed in this section is that it is a convenient requirement for keeping cruft out of the article. See my first paragraph. See also WP:TRIVIA. See Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE, linked prominently at WP:IINFO.

--Izno (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm good to know, that burden of evidence stuff wasn't there last time I read that policy.

It's not just that they're movies featuring parkour, but that they're some of the first depictions of parkour in movies. But fine, Apocalypse doesn't feature parkour, so I'll leave it out. Re Sons, I found it does have an article: Les fils du vent, so I've re-added it.

··gracefool☺ 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that line may have been borne out of AFD….

I can probably live with Sons, as the former film is also in this article without citation. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience :) ··gracefool☺ 06:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other references to sport

There seems to be a continuing effort to call parkour simply "PK". Most references I have seen simply call it parkour, or even free running, but not PK. Is threr a body of additional RS sources out there in which this is referred to as PK? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Even wikipedia itself refers to it as PK. The entire talk page has people referring to it as PK. I added links of the Tapp Brothers using it and they are MANY more. Oh, and you forgot your name. BlackDragon 00:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. The Tapp Brothers article satisfies me for reliable sourcing. There's a lot of stuff enthusiasts add to this article that is unsourced. PK has been one of them, but someone finally actually added a source for their content. For that, I thank you.

Oh, for your information, Wikipedia (especially the talk pages) is NOT considered a reliable source. Cheers. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Its just kinda common knowledge. Thats probably why. And I know its not reliable, I was just pointing out that when you said to look at the talk page the only mention of PK was other people using it. BlackDragon 00:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Need assistance removing vandalism under History

At the end of the third paragraph in the History section, there's this:

Through conversations with his father, he realized that what he really wanted was a means to develop skills that would be useful to him in life, rather than just training to kick a ball or perform moves in a padded, indoor environment.[4][26] Banana is good

I went into the edit console but can't figure it out. There's no reference to bananas in the code. Can someone help? 209.118.51.106 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone vandalised a template. It's fixed now. ··gracefool☺ 12:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Movement" section needs particulars

I can understand if there's no consensus on the terms for the movements listed, but the section should at least list some major ones used like "wall run" or "wall climb" for the first movement listed. The list looks silly without any suggestion of what to call these things. Perhaps names could be pulled from other sports/disciplines with more documentation to support them (e.g. experts/stars that called them something.) Squish7 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has gone back and forth on this issue a number of times. I agree with you that we may as well name them, but some people want to avoid this in fear of presenting Parkour as a list of moves. ··gracefool☺ 13:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've expanded the history section with references to Julie Angel's Cine Parkour research and David Belle's book. I've also moved the section on recent military training to the bottom of the popular culture section, since it's more a reflection of pop culture than a part of parkour history. I'm now going to tidy up the other parts of the article that have been left behind with the recent improvements. Feraess (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

While I too look forward to the appearance of the reference alluded to above—does anyone know if it is yet available—an argument can be made, practically and linguistically that there is a distinction between the original aims of the founders of parkour, where efficiency of traverse was the aim, and more modern forms, where embellishment and flourish appear to be gaining in esteem. I will keep an eye, but it seems to me what may have once been identical, now reflect diverging connotations (because language is not, as we all know, as static as the strongly held ideas of individuals). For now, all opinion, look forward to sources and observations appearing. I may myself write and publish this "divergence" story, if no one else does. Bonsoir. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is biased. Also, please do not remove the incident of the death of a 13years old boy in Greece while trying to do parkour

This article is biased and actually it is an advertisement of the hobby (that some call a sport, but I disagree) called parkour. I find it unacceptable that a few days ago someone (I guess the person you wrote the article) deleted the addition about the 13 years old child in Greece who died on 30 October 2014 after trying to do parkour in Salonica; as he was jumping between roofs of a 7 storey building! Also, many injuries have occured (including fractures) from people (including kids) trying to do parkour. These are facts, regardless if they occured from non professionals. Wiki is an encyclopedia where we should tell the truth, and not to hide things such as the death of a child from parkour. An administrator should intervene in case the incidence with the death of the boy is deleted again. This article is not a personal page. 688dim (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How many sports or adventure articles mention deaths incurred while performing them? It's only appropriate for those with a very high death rate like BASE jumping. In the context of the rest of the encyclopaedia, talking about fatalities gives a misleading idea of the danger of parkour. There are way more deaths from popular sports like rugby or even soccer; if those don't have them, why should this?

It's not about hiding or advertising, but about context and appropriateness.

The facts on deaths and injuries show parkour isn't more dangerous than other sports and physical activities; the article should reflect that.

Also, what is parkour? Is every idiot jumping off a building or backflipping from a roof doing parkour? Is everyone "trying to do parkour" actually doing parkour? You need to show why this is about parkour, as opposed to a general lack of sense. There are many deaths that can be attributed to parkour, like Pavel Kashin's backflip on the edge of a 16-storey building, but that doesn't mean they should be. As it says in the preceding paragraph, "leading parkour experts tend to view physical injury as a deviation from true parkour." That's even more true of death.

So adding the line about the 13 year old's death is not only misleading, but inconsistent with the rest of the article. Convince us why it should stay, in context with the article itself and Wikipedia articles on similar subjects. ··gracefool💬 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if you have written the article, however everything you said is your personal opinion and thus, biased. Of course I think that the death of a 13 years old child that fell from a 7 storey building trying to do parkour should be included here, as this is an encyclopedia and not a personal page of someone who refers to parkour with an ideal way, by hiding some incidents such as the death of a child. Parkour is a new sport (however to my mind is not a sport, but a hobby) so fatalities should be mentioned. In other sports the deaths are well known, so are not mentioned. The death should be included in the article to support the idea that parkour is not 100% safe (that we may assume if the death and injuries were not mentioned here), especially if performed by non - professionals (but still, most do this hobby for fun). Also, your questions what is parkour and what is real parkour are irrelevant with the death of the kid. 688dim (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

lol everything anyone says is a personal opinion, the point is whether or not it's true... I'm not sure why a new sport should be made to look more dangerous than other sports just because it's new. Parkour is already seen as being much more dangerous than it is. Those questions are totally relevant...

Anyway whatever, I'm leaving it, we'll see if it sticks. BTW no one person writes any article on Wikipedia, least of all a popular one like this. Go to the article and click the "View history" link to see all the contributors.

I've improved the sentence and the references. ··gracefool💬 08:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not disagree that everything everyone says is subjective, however this is an encyclopedia where we are supposed to write objective things and facts, with related reference from objective and reliable sources. The incident about the death of the kid is true and there are references related to it. I did not say that this sport is more dangerous than the rest. By the way I doubt that it is even a sport. I think it is a hobby (this is indeed a personal opinion!). About the contributors I don't doubt that they created the article, however one of them removed the incident of the death of the boy, something that as I scientist and a wiki contibutor I find unacceptable. Namely I find it not appropriate to hide things that someone may think that may ruin the good and ideal picture that wants to give for the article that he/she wrote.

I also noticed that this article is so biased that even now you or perhaps another contributer changed the words of the incident with the death of the kid and removed the phrase the kid died trying to do parkour, but left it that he died jumping from the roof, as if he incidentally went to the roof and slipped! Don't you realize that its not your personal web page to add and remove whatever you wish in order to remove any flaws that parkour has? Why do you feel that you need to make an article with an ideal way of presenting parkour? Don't you see that all the reference related to the death of the boy mention clearly that the kid tried to do parkour and fell from the roof of the 7 floor building? I think that if you want to make a subjective description of parkour the best way is to write an article on your personal web page or facebook rather than here. I guess that you realize that this is an encyclopedia where we should not hide things. 688dim (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that was me, learn to use the history... You're not responding to my points, but whatever. Chill out and assume good faith! I'm happy with you re-adding that. ··gracefool💬 08:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The death is relevant, and should stay. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Continuing need for clarification of parkour-freerunning issue

There is a continuing need for clarification of parkour-freerunning issue. Whatever the original founders' perspectives on this—and these should be stated and honoured, to the extent that they were the historical participants in this endeavours' founding—there are separate issues that have to with lexicography and linguistics.

An argument can be made, practically and formally, that there is an evolving distinction between these terms, and between the original aims of the founders of parkour and its current widespread participants. In its origins, efficiency of traverse was the aim; in more modern forms, embellishment and flourish appear to be gaining in esteem. This departure, if accurate in its perception, suggests codifiable distinctives between the two practices, across the board—in philosophy, moves, adherents, etc.

I will keep an eye, but it seems to me that activities that may have once been identical have subsequently diverged, and that the English language usage of the terms may be capturing this reality via diverging connotations—because neither sporting practice nor language are, as we all know, as static as the strongly held ideas of individuals. For now, all this is opinion, but I look forward to sources being offered on this, and others' observations and discussion appearing. I may myself write and publish this "divergence" story, if no one else does. Bonsoir. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, the freerunning article makes the case that freerunning is distinct and derivative. The two articles clearly need to be fully reconciled, and made consistent. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Middle Eastern Influences" section

I've read this section several times, and I'm not even seeing the relevance of it to the article at large, nor does it seem to be what the section is about. It starts out stating that cheap tech and social media have allowed parkour to be seen from places it hadn't been before, but by then end, it's talking about "parkour activists" in Gaza (with no definition of what a "parkour activist" is). So there seem to be several unrelated ideas in this section, none of which actually are connected to the tile of the section. Is there even a need to keep this? MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the references looked liked it was a reliable source. The section needs to be trimmed, renamed, and broaded in scope to international influences per WP:WEIGHT. The editor who made the changes may potentially have a WP:COI or be a WP:SPA given the topic matter, but I'm not sure all of the content is WP:TRIVIAL. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Having a direction to go in with the section is helpful; COI/SPA aside, I couldn't tell what the section focus was. If it's going to be broadened, that shouldn't be too baf, but what's the perspective of "international" here? Is it with respect to the origins of the sport, so that anything parkour outside France would be international? MSJapan (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Parkour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://parkourgenerations.com/article/parkour-history
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://parkour.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=3937

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment revert part 2

(See also Part 1)

From my talk page:

WP:V says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Not every sentence in Wikipedia needs a citation. I fail to see why the obvious fact that Prince of Stride is based on parkour/freerunning needs a source. Just because someone challenges something doesn't mean they're automatically right. If you really care, I'm sure there is a reputable source in Japanese, but the person who thinks it's necessary should find a cite, rather than deleting the content. ··gracefool💬 01:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gracefool: We've talked about WP:BURDEN before at Talk:Parkour#Izno film re-revert (only a year ago?!), the entire section of which affirms my removal.

Besides that, one of the inclusion criteria for that section is the very specific inclusion of "an RS that names the game in the context of parkour/freerunning", else it grows to parkour in popular culture levels. Neither you nor I want that and so I always take the conservative line to that section, which is simply to remove unsourced content on sight (with one or two exceptions per our talk page discussion). --Izno (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I know we talked about it recently, that's why I called this "episode 2". I think the criteria should be rather whether the game/film features parkour as a primary subject or game mechanic, rather than just including it somewhere. That or being an especially noteworthy game/film, e.g. Casino Royale.

I agree that most things need sources, but not everything. If parkour is merely included in the media, it needs a source. If the subject of the media is parkour (even if it's given another name - although it's fair to argue that in that case it should be considered freerunning instead), or parkour is explicitly mentioned, then it doesn't need a secondary source. ··gracefool💬 02:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"One of the inclusion criteria" -> You named the other that I've tried to use -- that it's important to the work in question. Neither alone is sufficient to manage the section IMO. We can get a WP:3O on the question if you want but I think policy quite clearly backs my point of view here. Nothing in the linked Wikipedia article actually names parkour as being the same as "stride" and no reliable source is given for what that article does say presently, that they are "similar". Your removal from November last year of the webcomic[2][3] clearly agrees with my point of view also. So I'm puzzled on why this is a discussion point again, besides trying not to be WP:BITEy to the IP. (An article when you've nommed for WP:GA probably should care a little less for that point anyway since we want the article to have good quality....) --Izno (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a few things I have a problem with. Number one is defaulting to removal instead of improvement. It's not a good way to improve articles, in addition to being WP:BITEy. We should default to finding a source, or tagging it with {{fact}} if you can't be bothered, rather than just deleting. One of the things removed by you was the MTV parkour series, which *was* cited - the only thing wrong with this was that the website had changed. I recovered the original page from Internet Archive which took all of two minutes. I don't think that's acceptable.

Number two is that not everything needs a secondary source. The article currently includes uncited films Freerunner and Tracers. Do you have an objection to these being included? The only real difference is that these films explicitly call it "freerunning" and "parkour", while Prince of Stride calls it "stride".

As for its importance to the article, I think it being the only parkour anime & manga makes it sufficiently interesting to the reader. Whereas I don't think the same of a random webcomic, which is why I removed it. ··gracefool💬 02:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parkour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article2472154.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parkour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120926094647/http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=744129&category=ARTS to http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=744129&category=ARTS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parkour/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  01:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Gracefool: First round of feedback for the GA review.

• There is a "[citation needed]" tag on the page that needs to be addressed.
• There is a "[who?]" tag on the page that needs to be addressed.

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• Headlines should not start with "The" such as "The Yamakasi"
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), favourite (B) (American: favorite), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Article has a "[which?]" tag that needs to be addressed.

Copyright violations Tool

• Possible issue - Can you shed any light on if they copied Wikipedia or the other way around?

• http://parkour-dubai.com/philosophies-in-parkour has a 94.3% similarity, large portions of the text is identical per the tool
• this source lists a phrase that's overlapping, please revise the sentence below
• "Academic research on parkour has tended to describe how parkour provides a novel way of interacting with the urban environment that challenges the use and meaning of urban space, metropolitan life, and embodiment."

Disambiguation links

• No problems Y

External links

• The link titled "Generation Yamakasi" is dead
• "Parkour at UGA (practice policy)" is dead
• LInk named "is there any equipment cost..." is dead
• "Youths on roofs" is dead.

Well Written

Lead

• "others, and is" does not need the comma

Entymology

• "obstacle-course" is not hypenated but "obstacle course"

Raymond and David Belle

• "During the First Indochina War his father" needs a comma after War
• "and he was sent to a military" that is two "Ands" in a row, how about "after which he was sent to a military"?
• "endurance, strength and flexibility" needs a comma after strength
• "athletics, but became" does not need a comma

The Yamakasi

• "find physical" should be "find the physical"
• "During this time a conflict" should be "During this time, a conflict"
• "competing interests" competing or perhaps "conflicting interests"?
• "leave the group, and" does not need the comma

Competition

• "sport competition" should be "sports competition"

• "self refinement" should be "self-refinement"
• Typo "practised" should be "practiced"
• "sport-shoes manufacturers" should be "sportshoe manufacturers"
• "adaptation, creativity and freedom" needs a comma after "creatitity"
• "The 'Leave No Trace' project" - just mentioned as a side note, what is this? who is organizing it?
• "When injuries do occur, many members in the parkour community encourage pursuing the most scientifically sound method to recovery and future prevention." that is a really generic statement, can you be more specific?
• "they learnt no special" should be "they learned that no special"
• "Coca-Cola, Nike and Toyota" needs a comma after Nike
• "large scale" should be "large-scale"
• "Indian administered" should be "Indian-administered"
• "Through visual media, news sites like these have made global the community efforts of traceurs in the Middle East and Southeast Asia." generic sounding, can you be more specfic?
• "six episode" should be "six-episode"
• "with hopes to teach" should be "with hopes of teaching"
• " and some members of the United States Marine Corps have tried parkour." considering how many Marines there are and what they do this really does not say much of anything at all.

Sources/verifiable

• There are references in the lead - there really shouldn't be any references unless the lead covers something not also mentioned in the article. 
• No reference for the first Parkour Jam?
• Refernce 6 - very little detail on the source - who did the interview? for what media etc.?
• Reference 7 - title is formatted incorrectly and has text in danish?
• Reference 17 - missing basic information such as publisher, accessdate etc.
• Reference 20 - missing basic information
• Reference 50 - listed as "Cine Parkour" but same reference is listed as "Angel" elsewhere, consistency please.
• Reference 61 - missing basic information
• Reference 62 - missing basic information
• Reference 63 - missing basic information
• Reference 66 - missing basic information
• Reference 62 - missing basic information
• Reference 72 - missing basic information
• Reference 86 - missing basic information
• Reference 87 - missing basic information
• Reference 88 - missing basic information, showing the url

Broad in coverage

• Yes

Neutral

• Not finding anything obviously wrong here.

Stable

• Hmmm I do see some discussions on if Freerunning is actually a seperate entity deserving of it's own article - I agree I don;'t see anything in Freerunning that indicates it's NOT Parkour. Looking at the last year or so that discussion does seem to have died down, not sure if it is because someone gave up or a consenus was reached.

Illustrated / Images

• No issues found Y

General

• @Gracefool: - I have completed my review and I will put the article on hold for at least 7 days to allow for improvements to be made, more time can be given if I see that you're in the middle of making updates.  MPJ-US  02:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Gracefool: - Review has been on hold for six days, I need to see improvement activity by tomorrow to be able to justify keeping the review open.  MPJ-US  12:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, really nice work. Luckily I logged in today! I've started fixing the problems.

I've finished the spelling and well written issues. Though with the latter, that was make-work - it would've been faster to just fix the purely grammatical issues yourself and I could have just as effectively learnt from the mistakes (not that I wrote most of them in the first place)... I disagree with one: I think it's better to keep the comma in "chose to leave the group, and used the name".

Re stable, would that really be an issue? The worst case would be merging Freerunning back, which would have minimal impact on this article as it contains most of the content already.

··gracefool 💬 02:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree that you would have learned from me fixing it just as effectively, I do IT training for a living, people learn less from watching me do fix an issue than having them fix it while I supervise. As for Freerunning I mainly brought it up because that seems to be the main content dispute on the article, but like I stated it looks like it has not been an issue for a year or so. Not sure if anything really can be addressed right now, just something to watch for.  MPJ-US  09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have no problems with THIS article if free running remains separate, it can still be a GA. @Gracefool: do you believe you have addressed everything else??  MPJ-US  21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Gracefool: - I see stuff still unaddressed, it has been quite a while, which is partly my fault for being really busy IRL, but I am going to fail it. Feel free to address the issues and apply again.  MPJ-US  12:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Parkour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://davidbelle.com/biography-eng/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140203143705/http://articles.herald-mail.com/2009-09-28/news/25176213_1_parkour-cross-country-jfk-50-mile to http://articles.herald-mail.com/2009-09-28/news/25176213_1_parkour-cross-country-jfk-50-mile
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.gamespot.com/tron-evolution/videos/tron-evolution-pre-e3-hands-on-interview-alex-peters-6263033/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Although David could be called one of the fathers ignoring Sébastien Foucan seems pretty biased. The article should say: David is considered ONE OF THE FATHERS's...--172.56.13.114 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

David started before the others. ··gracefool 💬 02:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Unverifiable history?

The 'History' section of this article, in particular section 2.2 about Raymond and David Belle, appears to lack independent sources. References - placed at the end of paragraphs - are to Belle's brief obituary (not a biography) in a French fire fighting magazine(?), and to a book by Julie Angel that I cannot view and so cannot directly refute its quality or sources; the words seem to come from an individual's discussion of their life. Some of this history can presumably never be independently verified, and if left in should be referred to as 'claims' or 'statements'. For instance, instead of "He took it upon himself to train harder and longer than everyone else in order to never be a victim. At night, when everyone else was asleep, he would be outside running or climbing trees" I suggest "Raymond has said of this period that he took it upon himself..." (with the appropriate adjustment of grammar and language).

This similarly applies to the text preceding my example - unless there is proof of birth, parents, father's death, orphanage etc. Ambiguosity (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read Ciné Parkour either but from what I know of Julie I expect it is high quality. Despite their lower accessibility, books are generally Wikipedia's best sources, so it's fair to assume the facts as stated are correct. That said I agree it could do with more objective wording; go ahead and be bold. ··gracefool 💬 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Article presents a gender-biased view

I find it hard to believe that in current parkour NOT ONE woman (or for that matter, non-Caucasian) could be used for the photos here. There is also no discussion of gender in this sport.... Something that many, many parkour groups are openly discussing (see: Google, "women in parkour.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:6824:D8D0:28BA:CA3D:68CB:9628 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add photos or content! That's what Wikipedia is all about. ··gracefool 💬 21:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Trying to do parkour?"

Is it reasonable to say the thirteen-year-old who fell through a skylight died "trying to do parkour?" Both the articles cited say he was "doing parkour" or "parkouring," so an obvious choice has been made to tweak the wording. If someone dies surfing or skiing we don't say they died "trying to surf" or "trying to ski." I suggest the wording should reflect what is in the sources cited, and not someone's personal opinion about the skill of the deceased.Sadiemonster (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sadiemonster: Your comment and suggested change seems reasonable. Be bold. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Change made. Sadiemonster (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Deaths in Parkour

Reports of deaths (some adequately referenced) have been removed from the 'Injuries and deaths' section and it currently appears very non NPOV, seemingly downplaying and minimising the risk. IMO there is no point having a section called 'Injuries and deaths' that does not discuss deaths from the sport. As an example the 11 March 2017 edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkour&oldid=769762295 removed one such referenced death and stated 'Parkour deaths are so frequent I'm not sure how this case is distinguished enough to be mentioned separately'. Again IMO it would be preferable to have a few referenced links to deaths from the sport. Alternatively there could be a general sentence such as the one used above that justified removing a section, for example 'Various parkour-related deaths have been reported in the media', with a few references to those deaths, without discussing individual cases. Some possible references include http://greece.greekreporter.com/2014/10/31/youngster-dies-in-thessaloniki-while-parkouring/ and http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-22/sydney-teen-dies-at-blackman-bay-blowhole/9281106 Thoughts? MFdeS (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Sleep in The Great Train Robbery (film)

Sleep performed a predecessor of parkour as "Clean Willy" Williams in his escape from Newgate Prison in that 1978 film. Bill S. (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to link: Wayne Sleep was in The First Great Train Robbery. Bill S. (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Freerunning. Also merge with or distinguish from other terms like stunt jumping. -Inowen (nlfte) 23:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Recognition as a sport in the UK

I would like to add that sport England formally recognised Parkour as a sport in 10 January 2017 Robert n pearson (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Great - go for it! I'd suggest a sub-heading under History (after Yamakasi), something like "Official recognition as a sport" (and then you could create a lower sub-heading for "United Kingdom" if you like - or leave that out for now), until other countries follow. Are you familiar with the Wikipedia style guide (WP:MOS) and the need for WP:RS citations (WP:IC), etc.? There's no need to get too bogged down in all of that, because it can be daunting, but a sentence or two with citations such as the BBC one and the Conversation will be fine. The citation templates (cite web, cite news, etc.) are a good and easy way to cite your references - this Help:Cheatsheet will guide you to some of them. Good luck! (I will copy the welcome block someone gave me when I joined, onto your talk page for further guidance as you gain experience.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Movement section

Hi, I’d like to break out the movement section into separate pages with images of the various common movements. This may be tricky given the number of names used for moves. I’m thinking broad categories like climbing and jumping, vaults, jumps, rolling and flips, traversing, dropping. Rolls would be brief but vaults would contain quite a few techniques (thief, lasy, easy, speed, step, cat and all their synonyms) Robert n pearson (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this - it may be regarded as too much detail, but I'll leave someone with more experience in editing and/or parkour to respond to this. (If you don't see an answer here within a week or so, try taking it to the Teahouse or Help desk (scroll down and create a new heading in the appropriate spot). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)