Talk:Parkour/Archive 2

message: Really necessary on a parkour page?  I certainly think not.  Post thoughts. IanMcGreene 23:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Throw it out please, it's not Parkour, but a stupid name and extra definition noone needs, invented by people who try to make money out of Parkour 84.161.207.241 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove it from this page, you really should give it a page on its own and links back and forth. In fact, that should probably happen anyway. I'm thinking in terms of the effectiveness of the encyclopedia, but to translate it into more bigoted terms: How will the newbies ever realize it's wrong if they never hear about it? I myself operated for months under the delusion that Urban Freeflow advocated a viable sport, and that (horror of horrors) it was named Parkour. We should work to save people from that grisly fate, not sweep it under the rug. Black Carrot 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the 'Freestyle Parkour' section really belong?

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

message: Added a Template:Citation needed to the Freestyle Parkour section which claims “Urban Freeflow have abandoned the practice of Freestyle Parkour”. Where does this come from? User:SaintedLegion
:Well, if you take a look at the top of http://www.urbanfreeflow.com , I think it makes itself pretty clear. Black Carrot 04:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Freeflow abandons FRPK? 

message: Parkour is a fantastic discipline, no doubt. This Wikipedia entry, however, does not do it justice. It is not an impartial reference for those seeking a definition or understanding of parkour (as an encyclopaedic entry should be). Instead, it is inspired by the authors' own opinions, insights and theories. Furthermore, and more damagingly, this article appears to represent an attempt on the part of the author(s) to undermine certain factions and ideologies within the parkour community, whilst promoting others.
I can see that a lot of effort has been put into this very thorough article and that attempts have consistently been made to discuss all the different approaches and attitudes to the sport. This is highly commendable. Unfortunately, the level of disdain attached to the discussion of ‘alternative’ ideas and philosophies completely undermines any attempts made by the authors of making a balanced and neutral article. One only needs to look at the discussion pages (presumably maintained by the authors) of this article to see the pernicious diatribes about Urban Freeflow and its founder, Paul Corkery. 
I do not, however, mean to compare the authors with the vandals who occasionally interfere with the article, either making it incoherent, ridiculous or inflammatory. And I do thank the author(s) for maintaining the site in light of these infractions.
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource because it is open-source and available for all to use, to edit and to create at no cost. It serves as a barrier to ignorance as it allows all to share in knowledge and information. Please remember that Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. It is not for articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if they are supported by your friends or the parkour website of your choice.
There are precedents in Wikipedia’s history, such as the former MTV VJ and podcaster Adam Curry admitting to anonymously editing the podcasting entry to remove credit from other people and make his own role in the early days seem more significant.
So, please stop re-writing history, stop evading reason with innovative jumps, vaults and leaps and go out and enjoy some real parkour. Parkour is outside, not in the forums and internet. 
Oliver Seeley (USA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliverseeley (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lack of objectivity  

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

message: I just pulled this off the top of Tricks & Acrobatics in the debates section:
:There is a Riply's Believe it or not episode that includes a segment on the Yamakasi. In this segment one of the members states that these move are entirely their own creation... this is not true. Many martial arts have taught these tricks and moves for many thousands of years. They may have reinvented them, but they did not invent most of them.
:(Added by 69.169.228.17 on 24 February)
This doesn't fit where it was put, but it might be worth including. Any ideas where, and in what form? Black Carrot 03:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripley's Believe It or Not 

message: Jerome Ben Aoues:
The most important element is the harmony between you and the obstacle; the movement has to be elegant ….If you manage to pass over the fence elegantly - that's beautiful, rather than saying ‘I jumped the lot.’ What's the point in that?
Do we really need a quote of some guy who played in a movie which is related to parkour?
Sorry, but also if he may be a good Traceur, i don't like the quote at all. 
The point is, that you've overcome the obstacle and will be able to do it again just as fast/efficient, when you want/need to.
But whats the point in geting over the fence elegantly and looking beautiful?
If someone knows of a useful quote of David Belle or the like, to replace this one, i'd say fell welcome. 84.161.207.241 11:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I could have sworn there used to be a different quote there. Black Carrot 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked in the history and you're right, it is has been changed by Duder1 on 9 Oct '05 from the below to the above :
 The most important thing really is the harmony between you and the obstacle; the movement has to be elegant, that's what will make it prettier. Length and distance only add to the beauty of the move, if you manage to pass over the fence elegantly that's beautiful, rather than saying ‘I jumped the lot.’ What's the point in that? 
I think that quote showed, that he hasn't really put too much thought into it what made it somewhat bearable, while the current makes it sound important. Vain. 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people may be lost on the philosophy of "elegance"...consider: When we see a cheetah sprinting to catch its prey, we call its motion "elegant", "beautiful", "graceful", etc.  But the cheetah does not seek to be beautiful; it merely does its utmost to do what it simply must do.  Thus, beauty is inherent in nature and is only visible at its fullest when not masked by other motives.  The beauty in parkour is to see the traceur do his/her utmost to move through an obstacle, as if this is what he/she were MADE to do. 72.1.198.159 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much flow 

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

message: Why were the videos removed? Parkour is a very visual thing, one that is not easily comprehended through words, or even still pictures. I feel the videos were a very powerful tool to help people understand what Parkour is.
I don't know proper protocol for this particular site, so I'll give it a week. If nobody says why the videos are down, I will put some back up, particularly David Belle's interview with English Translation and the Dispersion video by VA-Parkour.
I'm open to other suggestions, there is an older video by the Dash with a bunch of people dressed in Black that I think makes a good representation of Parkour.
M2. 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia:External links. Thank you for pointing out the dead links, I fixed them now. ~MDD4696 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you do create such a video, see if you can upload it to the Commons. Also, the internet archive links are perfectly fine. The archive usually doesn't keep images, that's all... so really, the links aren't very useful. I just had them there for historical reasons; they could be removed if there was consensus. ~MDD4696 22:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to remove them, since they really point to nothing. I'll suggest changes for the article a swell, I feel it's really dated and has a horrible focus, commericalism is over half the article, shouldn't "Parkour" be the main focus? -Let's see if someone else will sign in and say that they should be removed. M2. 02:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove them, yes. Instead get Parkour.net and the video from David back in there as parkour.net is THE community site and has some nice articles and the video really added to this article i think. Vain. 10:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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