Talk:Street fighting

message: "Other evidence indicates that many of the recent violent conflicts between peaceful, legal protesters and police are the work of "agent provocateurs" working for the police or even policemen themselves. Dressed as a protester and usually masked, police provocateurs commit violence such as throwing bottles at police, or rocks through windows or even committing arson. The police use these acts by provocateurs as an excuse to march on otherwise peaceful protesters, with batons, horses and tear gas. Video has identified police officers, in one case by their SWAT issued police boots, at several protests acting in this capacity. Canadian police have admitted one "protester" with a rock and a bandanna tied around his face was in fact a police officer. The video shows a burly guy with a crew cut handling a hefty rock and trying to throw it at police while real protesters try and stop him. The Canadian police insist he was there to stop any violence with his rock."
I'm no great fan of the police, but this has got to be one of the more slanted pieces of writing on Wikipedia. Any sources, or are we just throwing arbitrary rants into articles now? The fact that the authour cites a video which they haven't even bothered to link, suggests to me this is bullshit.
NLI, 6/8/09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Really? Give me a break. I'm removing this unless there is some documented phenomenon Mylakovich (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Havent you seen how so many school kids are fighting and uploading. Its an epidemic! Portillo (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Youtube Fights"

message: While I admit I suck at editing articles, I am pleased to announce the article is open for someone else to fix. I'm not fixing the parts about violence in the media though. Someone else do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weightofair (talk • contribs) 
:Wish I had the time to update the parts I'm familiar with since again it IS an important political topic in today's world, whatever one may think of the phenomena (and I'm not a big fan myself).  Witness the "street fights" with cops just last week at the G8 Conference!! By the way at least some insights on the **organized political version** of street fighting can be read in my article RETURN OF STREET FIGHTING MAN  It probably would not be appropriate for me to link to it, but someone else can.  Or maybe I just will anyway as one of many references. In fact there's a few things I could link to. When I get a chance.
:Carol Moore 16:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I give up

message: OK, I started cleaning up this mess, starting with the first two sections, deleting a lot of verbiage, tightening things up.  
I don't think pit fighting belongs here since it's more a quasi-commercial illegal sport, like cockfighting.  Unless I hear some rousing defense of it, will delete all references.
"In the media" as a section title makes no sense. I think we need to more clearly differentiate between SPONTANEOUS and ORGANIZED street fights which is what the "media" and "faction" sections seem to be about.  Noting that obviously it only takes a couple organized people to promote a "spontaneous" fight.  Or some other obvious differentiation. Will think about it.
Finally there should be a reference to the avid interest in street fighting video games, videos and manuals etc. to show that this is a social phenomena.
Carol Moore 15:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to First Two Sections

message: I mostly reorganized it more rationally, cleaned up excess verbiage, added a few more examples.  But it still needs more examples and more references, which I'll do at some point.  Feel free to research and add some, now that the organization isn't so chaotic.  Also, might add a social psychology of street fights section at some point since have a lot of referenced material on that, but not til add other references and referenced material.
Carol Moore 02:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Wrote The Page - Feel Free to Add Examples and References! 

message: Anyone who wants to add citations and more material to this page should take a look at Streetfighters by Julian Davies. It contains accounts of streetfighting from a fair number of fighters, ranging in styles from bare-knuckle boxing (esp gypsy fighters) to bouncing and bar-brawling. Here's its page on Amazon almost-instinct 13:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Its a British book; all the subjects are resident in UK. However, it has been published in the US almost-instinct 13:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful book 

message: As most watchers of this page will know this AfD is now closed and the overwhelming response was keep. As I expressed in that AfD though, my concern is that this is still a very poor article, full of what looks like WP:OR and incorrect information and is almost completely unreferenced. Since so many editors want to keep it, who will volunteer to take on the job of removing the OR and incorrect information, expanding it and finding refs for the retained text? - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the total lack of response here shouldn't be a surprise, as I forecast that in the AfD. I would like to propose that this article be edited as proposed by User:Yoninah in the AfD, who said: "This article reads like OR from beginning to end. While it is an extremely notable subject, I agree with Ahunt that we can't just leave it and wait for someone else to insert references to match all the assertions. Are any of us prepared to take the time to do that? On the other hand, we can't delete it entirely, or else someone will probably come up with a new post that looks just as rough as this one. I suggest leaving the first paragraph and deleting the rest, with a wiki note on the editing page that warns people to reference whatever they're going to say. This might be unconventional, but maybe it will solve the problem here." If there are objections to this proposal please state them. I will leave this a few days to see if anyone has any thoughts on this. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like User:Simonm223 has taken that task on and reduced the article! - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stubbing is the appropriate course of action when a notable topic has no refs. Simonm223 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No criticism intended at all - as you can tell from above we were heading that way anyway - you just sped things up, which is greatly appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street fighting]]

message: These  images would be a good illustration of street fighting, but I am not sure if the licence permits putting them on wikipedia. More info about the source can be found here. 
The image shown in the current version of this article looks more like some guys having fun training than a real fight. 
Niky cz (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that those are better images, but they are copyrighted and so cannot be used on Wikipedia. The one I put into the article was the best one I found on Commons, but if anyone can substitute a better free image that would be great. I am certainly not attached to the image in the article right now, but I thought a photo would help dress up the article a bit. Of interest a search for "street fight" images on commons picks up about 90% scenes of fighting in streets during events such as the Battle of Stalingrad. The military use of the term refers to warfare in urban areas and is very different from what we have in this article and we should probably add a section on that. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My solution to the military term was to add a link to Urban warfare on Street Fight, which is the general disambiguation page on this subject area. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The article has the same problem as many articles about general terms: it was written by people who arbitrarily follow the terminology of some minor subcultural scene, here, the martial arts scene. And that's just because you have got nothing else to rely upon. While of course there are differences between social phenomenons like brawl, free fight, affair of honour, duel, self defense situation, assault, hooliganism, urban riot and urban warfare, the differentiation between the terms used here is in no way sociological founded. It's obviously taken from some special interest magazine for the practioners of a certain hobby. Outside martial arts fanzines, a street fight is just a (physical) fight on the street. For now the whole article appears to be a pretty ridiculous attempt that doesn't represent many common definitions of the term in any way. If people don't want to delete this article, they will have to work on it with much more sources and from a wider perspective. Otherwise they'll have this nasty childish thing in Wikipedia. (On the other hand it's funny to think that someone could stumble across that photo in the article Battle of Stalingrad, which shows a scene of urban warfare and is described by "A street fight in Stalingrad", and that this someone might think the picture depicted a couple of martial artists who agreed to have a bare handed affair of honour.) --JakobvS (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While you make some very good points here, expanding the scope of the article relies on references. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem of the article: it tries to follow the term's narrow definition by a late 20th century phenomenon 

message: This article should make some mention of the law concerning fighting in the street and other similar public places. In many jurisdictions, it is against the law to fight in a public place, while organised fights are often subject to various forms of regulation and control. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be added, but we need references to do that. Any sources? - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws about and regulation of street fighting 

message: Under "biological" it states that human jaw muscles have "evolved" to protect the mandible, and that human teeth have "evolved" to become larger and thicker. 
However, over hundreds of thousands of years human musculoskeletal structure has evolved to be generally less muscular with much lighter bones and smaller teeth. Joe Eggett (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims in the text are sourced to WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the source material for those claims was talking about pre-Hominins and early Hominin species, including the earliest species of Homo. It is true that the modern Homo Sapien has a more gracile frame as compared to archaic humans, and the source material does make mention of that. I've edited the "biological" section to be less conclusive in phrasing as the source material article, while well-argued and well written, is still theoretical in nature. Soldier198 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological?