Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	S.dedalus, Carlosguitar, Undaunted, Feraess, Billscottbob, 87.61.141.109,
Mediator(s)	Vassyana (talk · contribs)
Comment	Case stale/lack of participation.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

There is a heated dispute over whether a criticism section should be included in this article, whether criticism should be merged into the text of the article, and if so how much. I originally wrote a criticism section [1] (Please scroll down, I created the section in multiple saves) but this was reverted by User:Carlosguitar. I have not attempted to restore it yet because I do not want to start an edit war. The dispute continues on the talk page however. The dispute can be found there under #Safety and response to criticism section and also partly in #Categorizing as a individual sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.dedalus (talk • contribs)

Nothing was reverted. I removed the undue weight that you did and summarized the use of unreliable sources talking about supposed unsafeness and dangerous on parkour. I am striking your comment. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the section and added a token sentence to an inappropriate place in the article. If you like the word "removed" better that’s fine. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to find a compromise that satisfies all parties and maintains a NPOV in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by S.dedalus (talk • contribs)

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

A few things to keep in mind while considering this article:

We should avoid commenting about other editors, focusing on the content.
We are required to provide sources for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged.
We are expected to cite those sources, including page number when applicable.
Sources used should be broadly considered to be reputable and reliable sources of information.
We should not focus on "balanced" presentation, but rather report what reliable sources have stated in proper proportion. (If most sources are "balanced", the "majority view" of the article should be "balanced". If most sources are critical, the main view presented should be critical. And so on.)
Information reported in only one reference, or in an extremely limited number of sources (relatively speaking), should probably not be included in the article.
Broadly reported information (whether negative, positive, balanced or neutral) should be included in an article.

Suggestions

Build a modest collection of sources about the topic.
Avoid discussing or debating issues.
For the topic, discuss only what the sources collected discuss.
If the reliability or reputation of a source is disputed, please explain the reasoning calmly, politely and in as short a fashion as possible.
Bear in mind that separate criticism sections are generally discouraged. It is encouraged for critical information to be included in the main body of the article, where appropriate. (For example, if multiple sources discuss the danger of a particular environment or of particular moves, it would be best to include such information where the article discusses such environments/moves.)

Questions

Is there any agreement about a "legality" section? What should and should not be in such a section? What sources are available to support such a section?
Is there any agreement about how to include health issues and concerns? How should that material be handled? What sources are available to support such information?
Is there any agreement about how to categorize the pastime? What sources are available to support categorizing the pastime? How should conflicting reports be handled?

Discussion

The Dispute About Parkour

Parkour is defined in Websters New Millennium Dictionary of English as follows: parkour

Part of Speech: noun Definition: a recreational pursuit in which participants traverse urban structures by running, jumping, vaulting, rolling, etc. Example: A young man who practices parkour is a traceur; a young woman who does this is a traceuse. Etymology: 2002 Usage: also parkourists (n.)
Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.7) [2] to verify Copyright © 2003-2008 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC

The debate, as I understand it, is between those who think of it as a sport, those who think it just an athletic endeavor, and still others who find it a nuisance.

If all sides are to be presented then there should at least be a list of pros and cons, consequences for the community, and a note toward the obvious hazard involved to discourage anyone who is not under mentor ship or otherwise highly trained.--Izivkovi (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Izivkovi, there was a dispute about the nature of a sport and how that would pertain to the categorization of this article. However at the suggestion of a neutral third opinion I dropped this issue, at least for the time being. The dispute at the moment is about the inclusion of a criticism section. Thanks for the help though. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a participant in a Parkour league. It is most certainly a sport. Park Crawler (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite reliable sources for your claim. By the way, parkour should be represented on a worldwise view, not by a local community view. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 12:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. . . that doesn’t mean you decide what goes in the article Carlosguitar. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when I said "what goes to the article is decided by me"? Do you understand what is verifiability, original research, synthesizing material and undue weight or not? Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t be condescending. Other users are perfectly free to state their views regardless of sources. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when I said that "users are not free to state their views"? That is still about verifiability, and if a statement is unverifiable after research it is considered original research, and I think you misunderstand it. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we use the word “sport” in the article is primarily a matter of semantics. It is commendable that users such as Park Crawler help build consensus through discussion. Sources are not commonly required to prove that a single word should go in an article. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk about "a single word should go in an article" when we were always discussing about definition and categorization of parkour as a sport. You are wrong if you believe that it is only a matter of semantic and sports are non-competitive. Yes there is a lot of difference by defining parkour as recreational pursuit, verified by Webster's New Millennium than parkour is a sport, an original research. As I said before, start getting consensus on Talk:Sport to change the "wrong definition" of sports. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 06:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Mediator notes > Suggestions, No. 5

I realize this. However I believe that 1.) Criticism of parkour is widespread enough to justify a separate section, 2.) While I would be satisfied with a NPOV representation of the criticism and response merged into other sections of the article I do not believe “Movements” is an appropriate place for this information nor do I find another suitable location elsewhere in the article, and 3.) I believe criticism in mainstream media is pervasive enough to warrant a more detailed discussion within the article. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without endorsing one view or the other, they are general guidelines to work within. Such treatment as I mention in the suggestion is encouraged, not required. We are just as equally encouraged to use some common sense in our determinations. Vassyana (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism section makes false impression that parkour is more dangerous than traditional sports. There is no proof or even evidence that the rate of injury or deaths on parkour is more high than traditional sports. In 1979, Richard B. Chambers supervised six sports (american football, soccer, basketball, baseball, swimming, and gymnastics) and concluded that the risk factor in football was twice as high (1.72) as its nearest competitors, basketball (0.88) and gymnastics (0.85). [3] The risk-factor on parkour is unknown. [4] If American football is so dangerous why there is nothing in its main article? It seems to be another case of undue weight. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 07:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For on one thing, American football is a competitive mainstream sport; totally different from parkour. What consensus is on that article has nothing to do with consensus on this article. Secondly the American football article DOES talk about injuries.

Despite protective equipment and rule changes to emphasize safety, injuries remain very common in football. It is increasingly rare, for example, for NFL quarterbacks or running backs (who take the most direct hits) to make it through an entire season without missing some time to injury. Additionally, 28 football players, mostly high schoolers, died from direct football injuries in the years 2000-05 and an additional 68 died indirectly from dehydration or other examples of "non-physical" dangers, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research.[11] Concussions are common, with about 41,000 suffered every year among high school players according to the Brain Injury Association of Arizona.

And

The danger of football and the equipment required to reduce it make regulation football impractical for casual play. Flag football and touch football are less violent variants of the game popular among recreational players.

Finally in the parkour article we must discuss the well documented media attitude and the concerns of some notable critics. I am NOT proposing any sort of risk assessment for the sport. It’s your opinion that parkour is not more dangerous than other sports, Carlosguitar. Many other very notable institutions hold a conflicting viewpoint however, and per NPOV we are required to write about other notable viewpoints regardless of whether we agree with them or not or whether evidence currently exists to support those view points. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As can you see there is no criticism section on American football and the information is summarized same as on parkour. Yes American is totally different from parkour, it is a recognized sport while parkour is not, there is blatant competition which increase the risk of injury while parkour is a non-competitive activity. The point is not about consensus on American football it is about WP:UNDUE which is used for any article. Again the article does not talk about the benefices of parkour, so there is no problem with neutrality. Soccer was featured without any statement about safety and risk factor. It is not only a matter of opinion, it is about verifiability. You must WP:PROVEIT if "Parkour has got to be the second most criticized activity/sport after skate boarding" and "Parkour often draws criticism for motivating untrained children to attempt unwise drops or vaults". Please do not mix legal issues with risk issues, I am not against inclusion of legal issues, I am against your attempt to represent the risk of parkour by undoing weight with unreliable source based on anecdotal evidence. No we are not required if there is undue weight and sources are unreliable. Yes, there will be a health issues section with properly studies about parkour as User:Undaunted and me requested. If some day parkour become competitive it will be categorized and defined as a sport without doubts. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my original post above. I am not necessarily asking for a criticism section, merely an unbiased representation of the facts. You weren’t talking about a criticism section in your last post: “If American football is so dangerous why there is nothing in its main article?” As you can see editors DID decide to include information about football’s risks. In any case we can do something different in Parkour. How exactly do you consider sources such as the BBC and a peer reviewed medical journal unreliable and anecdotal evidence? I will prepare an abstract of the available sources. There are many. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Edit to add. That sentence you quote “Parkour often draws criticism etc.” was from the talk page, not my criticism section. I am perfectly free to voice any personal opinions I please there. What do you mean “legal issues”? Trespassing allegations and such? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again they are currently represented in the movements section, and two editors want only a health issues with properly studies about parkour. There is no fact here, there is only opinions, beliefs and anecdotal evidences, they are all unreliable to talk about the "facts" of parkour, which is done with careful studies. No you made clear that want a huge criticism when you said that "Criticism of parkour is widespread enough to justify a separate section". I will not repeat what said on Talk:Parkour, but two editors explain how peer reviewed medical journal is misleading and unreliable. You are free to say anything, but you cannot use original research and synthesis of material trying to address the issues with WP:UNDUE. Legal issues are related to training in private and public places, where some people are criticized by damaging these places, but generally these people are not considered traceurs. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I can decide what I want and don’t want. I have stated many times that I am willing to compromise, but you must meet me halfway. On the her hand three editors have stated their support for a criticism section. If we could for instance add criticism in a similar manor to the football article that might be a solution. The sources listed bellow include three scientific studies. Could you give me a source to justify your statement that people who damage property are not traceurs? --S.dedalus (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seventeen reasons why we need a criticism (and response to criticism) section

**Sources**
Ref. No.	Link	Source	Description
1	[5]	BBC	Rooftop-jumping youths arrested (police warn of dangers, legality)
2	[6]	Times Online	addresses safety concerns, describes parkour as “extreme sport”
3	[7]	Colombia Missourian	“It is dangerous, but danger is everywhere,”
4	[8]	thisisgloucestershire.co.uk	FOUR teenagers from Stroud have been arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage. . . police warn of danger
5	[9]	Cambridge News	Rooftop jumpers risking death
6	[10]	Daily Vidette	U. Illinois student dies after fall from broadcast tower, suspected parkour stunt,
7	[11]	Idsnews	Student banned from parkour, school warns of liability, also legality, dangers
8	[12]	Journal of Orthopaedics	Case study of injury sustained from parkour, warns of danger
9	[13]	Time magazine	parkour injuries reported to United Educators Insurance, schools fear lawsuits
10	[14]	The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery	Parkour: A New Extreme Sport and a Case Study.
11	[15]	Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence (journal)	scientific study finds a positive link between parkour and narcissism
12	[16]	DVDfeed	describes parkour (apropos of video game) as “semi-suicidal French sport”
13	[17]	thisisgloucestershire.co.uk	firefighters warn of parkour and free running dangers
14	[18]	The Times of India	expert traceur falls and nearly dies during movie shoot
15	[19]	Sleaford Standard	“people taking part in Parkour are damaging property”
16	[20]	Sleaford Standard	“Police say the craze, which has increased in popularity in Wrexham, is dangerous and it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. . .” "The game of jumping from buildings and structures is extremely dangerous. . .” etc.
17	[21]	Gazette Internet Edition	Fire and Rescue Service warns of dangers

--S.dedalus (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested comment by WP:SPORT participants. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not place for advices, how-to, disclaimers, essay, etc. The propriety place is Wikibooks. Especially for sources 13, 17.
Extreme sport is a original research term, often used as POV and without any scientific basis. List of extreme sports and Category:Extreme Sports were deleted.
Talking about children or adults who were injured or died is WP:UNDUE, since this happen on almost any activity. We still need careful studies to talk about factual danger.
"Parkour is the Art of Moverment. Not the Art of Movement by jumping off buildings." by User:Amishbhadeshia. Due to accessibility, strength and mental training needed, absolutely the minority of practitioners go to buildings.
Well researched articles like The Washington Post and The New Yorker, not even talk about "dangerous parkour" and if they talk, they made clear that injuries on parkour are rare as Mark Toorock and the director of the American Sports Medicine Institute states "We have not seen any injuries from parkour or freerunning that I know of. It's not even something that has come to our attention at this point." on The Washington Post.
On the contrary to soccer and American football, where there is always a risk to become seriously injured by rival players at any match. Parkour is a dicipline or art that is based on control. Rarely traceurs does what they cannot control, that is way the rate of injuries is equal or minor than soccer or American Footbal. Mark Toorock explains it on The Washington Post.
#6 This source made clear that "very rarely you might try to move up a building as quickly as possible, but climbing something that tall is a completely different thing," and "Police are looking into a possible connection between Fu's death and parkour, Christensen said, but he added that his affiliation does not necessarily show cause of death." It is not possible to know the cause of death and members of I-Parkour Facebook states that going to tall places is not considered part of parkour.
#7 You need to talk about it on University of Illinois not on parkour. It is clear explained on WP:UNDUE. This source also contains lots of inaccuracy and unfounded claims. "Le Parkour involves a series of complicated moves" walking, running, climbing or even vaulting are never considered "complicated moves". What basis to claim that parkour is dangerous activity? One thing is ban a person by damaging and trespassing private propriety another thing totally is ban someone by doing "dangerous things".
#9 Same about source 7. I also quote User:Undaunted who is Tyson Cecka of report: "I was in that TIME article and trust me, it was not well researched".
#8 and #10. They are not careful studies only isolated reports of person who got injured doing parkour or free running. A careful study is a long-term study with multiple traceurs and scientific method where report if the legs, heels and ankle of these traceurs got more strong or damaged during the time of study such as Skateboarding: More Dangerous Than Roller Skating or In-line Skating. As I said before, people get injured on anything. If you want to write that a person was injuried doing parkour or free running, you need to do it on his/her bibliography not by undue weight of parkour.
#11. I read the summary of source and did not see any criticism. Why is it related to criticism?
#12. It is a source that talks about a video game, totality unreliable, biased and unfounded to talk about danger of parkour. Obviously children are attempting to suicide when doing parkour at playgrounds.
#14. The question is: was Dean doing parkour or stunt for a film? It is clear that he was doing stunts and most of stunts are not considered parkour. A example is Jackie Chan who is a stuntman and do not carrier traceur in his description.

Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 23:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for your analysis of the sources, Carlosguitar. I’m still review your post and will reply shortly. My question is, do you have a problem with creating a “Legality” section? I see no other place in the article where this information on this could go. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I already said to you not mix health issues with legal issues. But if you are going to write it, make clean that people who damage proprietaries are not considered traceurs. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will make that clear if you provide a source for that statement. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite simple, traceurs do not damage or destroy the proprieties because they need of them to practice and train. Amish Bhadeshia and Andreas Kalteis, explain it well. Unfortunately there are vandals in everyplace. By the way Dedalus, you should read carefully the words by Amish Bhadeshia. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching base

What areas of disagreement remain? Have any further sources been found? Vassyana (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depend on what Dedalus wants. I also want to make some points:

Parkour is not an activity of jumping or climbing buildings. If there is some concerns about buildings it must be summarized to not create the undue weight that parkour is art of jumping the buildings.
The majority of traceurs, adults and children do parkour on the ground. That is how parkour article must be represented.
If parkour becomes competitive, it will be something like Sasuke Obstacle Curse, also know as Viking: The Ultimate Obstacle Course. Therefore categorizing parkour as a sport is original research.
The Lantern article address some misconceptions on parkour such as "it is commonly miscategorized as a sport" and "common thought that parkour is an extreme sport is far from the truth".

Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 07:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the next few days I will write up a short section on legality, including high profile trespassing arrests (source no. 1 and 4), accusations of property damage (source no. 7 and 15), and Carlosguitar’s suggested refuting sources for that above. I also think at least one more sentence could be added about concerns of danger in the “Movement” section. If these terms are acceptable to all, then I’m satisfied that the article will meet NPOV criteria. I still disagree with the removal of the individual sport category (individual sports are not true sports), but in the interests of harmony I’m willing to concede this point, at least until a time when a more lasting consensus can be met. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Would you mind doing it in a subpage here (such as /draft001)? I look forward to your draft. I would ask that you both bear in mind, while we work through this process, that regardless of what is "true" about parkour that we must present the topic as it is presented in reliable sources and that there's plenty of space available to present all significant published views on the activity. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve written a VERY early draft of the legality section in that subpage. I’m really busy in the real world right now, but I’ll try to improve the section this week. (I particularly need to add proper references.) --S.dedalus (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There's no deadline. :) Thanks for touching base. Vassyana (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching base again

Could people provide a bit feedback about the draft section? Why is it a good proposal? Why is it not? How can it be improved? Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with section written by Dedalus is the potential of adding every new or previous cases of vandalism and police conflict, causing the section to become very large and unbalanced. Another problem is that the section really does not talk about legality, which are the legal places to practice? Is parkour recognized by any organization? It is more a news report of vandalism and police conflict. I think that it is possible to improve the section. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 07:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to be more specific in the draft section about what it is that is considered illegal. None of the sources mentioned have suggested that parkour itself is illegal, nor have any I've ever seen, but at the moment the draft reads as though it is parkour itself that has questionable legality. Also, I don't think the point of view attributed to parkour practitioners in the final paragraph is a response to the issue of legality and so needs removing and a suitable response adding. I think it would be better to reduce the size of this section, given that it is not directly related to parkour itself, and instead of spending a lot of space re-writing the sources in the article simply use them as references to support much shorter statements.

"Parkour practitioners have been criticised in the past for trespassing on private property and the possibility of practitioners causing criminal damage (ref 3), however there is agreement from both officials(ref 4) and the parkour community (refs 6,7) that this sort of behaviour is not to be encouraged.

There is also the concern that practitioners are needlessly endangering themselves as well as property by practicing at height, with both police forces and parkour figures calling for practitioners to stay off the rooftops (ref 4).

However, these issues do not appear to apply to the majority of practitioners whose relationship with authorities is generally a positive one (ref 5)."

I feel this reflects the sources used in the existing draft, and the facts, more accurately. Feraess (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feraess, thanks for participating, I added your section to /draft001#Legality section 2, it is better, but needs some fixes. What do you mean with "parkour figures calling for practitioners"? I think parkour figures is redundant to police forces. I will try to find more sources related to legality, but I do not know if I will able to find them. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 09:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'parkour figures' is redundant, because saying that it is the view of parkour community is a completely different point from saying that it is the view of people in the police force. You need to mention the practitioners' view, because otherwise it gives the impression that safety is being ignored by parkour practitioners, which is neither correct nor an accurate reflection of the sources. If you can think of a better way of saying it then feel free to make suggestions but this section needs to represent the issue and sources accurately.Feraess (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel adamantly that the part about universities and insurance concerns should be included in the final section. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give us any reasons why you feel that the information about universities deserves to have more importance attached to it than any other? I can see nothing in the sources to suggest this report is important enough to warrant specific mention. Also, what insurance concerns are you refering to? The only mention of insurance in the original sources states that there has been no significant insurance problem, so I can't see how claiming a problem exists could be justified. Unless reliable sources can be found that indicate a problem exists, I cannot support including that in the article.

Carlosguitar, I think there are a number of inaccuracies in draft 3. Saying that "there are no legal places for practice" is factually incorrect, because there are many places where it is not illegal to practice parkour. It would be accurate to say that 'there are no dedicated parkour places', but it would make no sense to put that in a legality section. Also, neither of the statements about where practitioners practice and the role of freedom in causing the concern about training locations are supported by sources at present, and I think both would need to be written more clearly even if they were.Feraess (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine [22] is a very high quality Wikipedia source, and that information is very relevant. As Vassyana says “there's plenty of space available to present all significant published views on the activity.” --S.dedalus (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feraess, I have added your suggestions to the section 4, the wording is better. I have also removed "practitioners are needlessly endangering themselves" because this is related to health issues not legality and police are the last persons to claim that parkour is dangerous. About the place, I think it is important to cite which places traceurs practice, since the concerns raised to trespassing and damage of propriety are often related to the practice in inappropriate places. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the new /draft001#Legality section 5. It seems like a good compromise to me. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's much better now. However, the legality of parkour is still not in question so I've renamed the category 'criticism' as I think it reflects the content more accurately. I've also tidied up the language and grammar so that it reads better, and re-phrased the insurance paragraph to avoid the issue about needlessly repeating referenced material. I think section 6 addresses all of the issues we've mentioned so far. Feraess (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feraess, I have fixed some problem and added a section 7. "Parkour is not currently practiced in dedicated parkour facilities" is not accurate, does in fact there are private parkour facilities and traceurs prating in, what I have not I see is public playgrounds designed for traceurs, since playgrounds are generally designed for children. I have renamed to training places which is more appropriate and accurate, since criticism is inappropriate and has many other problems. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 04:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosguitar, apologies, I typed 'parkour' instead of 'public', which I have fixed now. The rest of your changes, apart from removing the line about lawsuits (which I think needs to be present, but also needs more work), seem to simply re-introduce gramatical errors that I corrected earlier, and they will need to be fixed again for any final version. Feraess (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the grammar errors, feel free to fix them, I am still learning English. Keep in mind to follow the Manual of Style, references are after punctuation, and I am using serial comma. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 04:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feraess, how do you feel the line about lawsuits need to be changed to make it better? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.dedalus, I can't find a reference to support the line about lawsuits, so it needs to be removed until one can be found. Carlosguitar, I've tidied a few more things up in section 8. Feraess (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s looking good! I support the new title for the section (although, with this new title we might as well merge the other criticism content into it), and I think it’s almost perfect. Some of the contents seem a bit sparse though. I’ll see what I can do. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Segregation of content is against NPOV and it is explained on WP:NPOV#Article_structure and WP:WTA#Article_structure. There is also a essay dealing with criticism section and this section will never have "other criticism content" merged in, especially due to NPOV violation. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 04:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits

Dedalus, which part of TIME article is saying that traceurs or officials has fear of lawsuit? I have reviewed the whole article and it does not directly says it. From WP:OR: "even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source you are also engaged in original research". Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 04:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the article say in your reading? Vassyana (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about my reading or interpretation, it is more about what the article is saying or meaning to support such information. I cannot find the term lawsuit in the whole article. The sentence referring to this information is probably this one: "It's no surprise then that while students at a small number of colleges have registered parkour clubs with their schools, fear of crackdowns has kept the movement largely underground." which is very unclear. Who has fear of crackdowns? Traceurs or officials? Fear of crackdowns by whom? Officials, police or inspector? Have they fear of crackdowns due to trespassing, damage of propriety or injuries? Apparently the affirmation that fear of crackdowns is keeping the parkour underground, unrecognized or without legality is at least inaccurate. Americanparkour has a how-to stimulating traceurs to create parkour clubs, on this how-to also you can see that other factors could be causing a small number of colleges with parkour clubs. So this information should be changed, removed or other source must be provided to support the information in the section 5 and 6. Unless I am missing something in the article. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe that the lawsuit line in section 6 is a true statement, the article referenced does not support that statement. I am sure it should be possible to find an article to support that statement. Feraess (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feraess I also agree that statement written by you in section 6 is true. But we need a source directly supporting this information and Time article is not this source that we are looking for. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Time article:

“Most college campuses, with their airy courtyards and often zigguratish architecture, are well suited for testing the bounds of sneaker-clad samurai and, at least in a few cases, their school's insurance coverage. Grisly parkour injuries--from broken face bones to a bruised liver--have been reported to United Educators Insurance, a major insurer of colleges, but so far, schools' liability exposure has been minimal. The question usually comes down to, Did officials know that students were jumping from high places? If so, did they try to restrict access to those areas? In October, Christopher Fu, a junior at the University of Illinois, got past a tall chain-link fence before plummeting to his death from the school's TV tower. Because Fu had expressed interest in a local parkour group on Facebook.com campus police couldn't determine whether his fall was an accident or a suicide. Like cops on many campuses, Illinois' assistant chief Jeff Christensen had never heard of parkour until the death at his school but is now on the lookout for what he calls "very risky behavior." It's no surprise then that while students at a small number of colleges have registered parkour clubs with their schools, fear of crackdowns has kept the movement largely underground.”

Seems pretty clear to me. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear and I am not the only user who is seeing it. You also have not explained how this quote supports the statement written by you. Who has fear of crackdowns? Who will apply the crackdowns? This quote does not says: traceurs have fear of lawsuit if they damage a propriety or trespass nor says that officials have fear of lawsuit if a traceurs dies or get seriously injured. So other source is needed to support this information. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what are you talking about? What "crackdown"? I’m talking about the legality paragraph I wrote which says:

“Parkour is of particular concern to some university officials who fear a lawsuit should a student become seriously injured through parkour. A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.”

This is all perfectly supported by the Time Magazine article. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article in no way says that "some university officials who fear a lawsuit". Second, the whole article does never uses the term lawsuit. Third, the article says "fear of crackdowns has kept the movement largely underground" which is highly questionable and does not support the information saying that some university officials who fear a lawsuit. The only verifiable information is it:

“A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.”

This information has nothing to do with legality. Legal concerns are damage of propriety and trespassing, these are health and safety concerns which would be reworded and added to other section. What you did is synthesis of material to advance a position. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s ridiculous. You’re quibbling over details in an attempt to “work the system.” WP:LAWYER

It is in no way an invalid conclusion that Universities are made nerves by potential insurance claims. Lawsuits ARE actually a branch of law. Please provide a source for your statement that “Legal concerns are damage of propriety and trespassing.” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The article may indeed say "fear of crackdowns has kept the movement largely underground,” but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. Time is a very high quality source regardless of your personal opinions about it. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all you can do? That is not ridiculous, that is called WP:Verifiability. You are well aware how Wikipedia works. But if you have not understand yet, I am glad to repeat over again. Go back to the discussion and comment on content not on contributor. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, if you fail to provide a source directly and explicitly supporting this statement, then it will be removed. I do not need to provide source for my statement, because in the so-called "very high quality source" you can read that: "Today Webster says there is no official prohibition against parkour. Other schools seem caught between safety concerns and not wanting to stifle student enthusiasm." As I said before, these are health and safety concerns not legal concerns. By the way Dedalus, what is most reliable source is explained on Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship, which are academic and peer-reviewed publications, they are not the sources that you claim "very high quality", and please, do not mistake Time magazine with The Times of London that is cited on Wikipedia:RS#News organizations. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lawsuits are clearly a legal mater. From our article: “In American law a lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court in which the party commencing the action, the plaintiff, seeks a legal or equitable remedy.” If you don’t think so you must provide a source for that claim. The Time magazine does provide direct and explicit support for the statement that “A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.” If you would like to add a sentence there to the effect that "Today Webster says there is no official prohibition against parkour. Other schools seem caught between safety concerns and not wanting to stifle student enthusiasm." That’s fine, I have no objection. I find it slightly ridicules that you are referring me to Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship when you argued very strongly that two peer reviewed sources (8 and 10) should NOT be included. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I never said that lawsuits are not legal matter, what I am saying is that health and safety concerns are not legal concerns, health and safety concerns are just health and safety concerns. You cannot file lawsuit against someone for risking its own life, only for risking other people life or against people that have asserted 100% secure or safety if you do X thing using Y place or Z equipment. About sources 8 and 10, they are reliable description of fractures, but in no way they can be used as definition of parkour, factual danger, or your attempt to represent these source with a claim of "very high risk". By the way Dedalus, there are other people giving a not good feedback over these studies here included a PhD person doing a parkour research. Apparently you have not yet understand the problem of WP:WEIGHT that these studies has inside the parkour article. As I said before, these fracture descriptions should be written under the biography of these persons, not in parkour article. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 17:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references support a statement on fear of lawsuits. I've spent a while looking for a suitable reference and can't find one. People go out of their way to avoid suggesting they are afraid of lawsuits, and I think I've realised why. In the modern world the fear of a lawsuit implies that they are doing something wrong, and nobody is going to make that suggestion to someone who is going to publish it for many people to read. I therefore doubt we will ever find a reference to support this statement. Feraess (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t particularly care about that specific line, Feraess, it was meant as a transition sentence and could be replaced with something better. My only concern here is that the information from the Time article be included somewhere. Is that fair Feraess?

Carlosguitar, I don’t appreciate your deprecating tone (“Apparently you have not yet understand the problem of WP:WEIGHT.”) The “problem of WP:WEIGHT” was dismissed by an impartial third opinion. A criticism of those sources posted on a Parkour site is hardly an impartial criticism. The “PhD doing parkour “research” is actually little more than a philosophical cartwheel: “One somewhat similar case, in which parkour is used as metaphor, should not go unmentioned. . .” Consensus across Wikipedia is that peer reviewed sources should be used wherever possible. I agree that it is not possible to draw the conclusion from those sources that “Parkour is dangerous,” but what information is provided there should go in. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedalus, you are the last user to talk about civility here, especially because you have accused or attacked me of disruption, ownership and wikilawyer. I hope not see you doing it against other users as you did to me. I do not buy your claim that an impartial third opinion resolved the problem of weight of these source and you fail to see that User:Feraess and User:Undaunted are also impartial third opinion that have never supported the original content written by you. You may do not like the sources provided by me, but they just show how is problematic the accuracy of information written by these orthopedists and pediatrics on how parkour works. No, what information is provided there is where WP:WEIGHT works or not. If you bring statistics of death or injuries in parkour, then we can add this information to the article, but never isolated cases. Do you want to use source 8? Then we can add that "the injury risk factor for parkour is unknown", but nothing more than that, because the discussion topic in this source contains plenty opinions of parkour as well as misconceptions, these opinions in no way are facts. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You feel wronged? Great, feel free to bring it up on WP:WQA anytime. I’d love to see how this turns out. In fact I think I may do that myself.

You say “Then we can add that "the injury risk factor for parkour is unknown", but nothing more than that.” Unfortunately you and I are not gatekeepers for this article or any other article on Wikipedia. Whether a source is or isn’t used is a matter of consensus, as I’m sure you know. Now can we please get back to the legality question? --S.dedalus (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA now seems to be unnecessary, but keep in mind what I said to you is never to be dismissed even if you are angry. You just will not "win" this discussion with these accusing or attacks, sir. Again, you show poor understand of policies and guidelines. Whether a source is or is not used is a matter knowledge of policies and guidelines and common sense. You never need consensus to remove poorly sourced from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, other poorly sourced content is also removed or deleted from Wikipedia, but again it is about common sense. For the content of section, both Feraess and me agree with section 8 and since you failed to provide a source for your original thought about fear of lawsuit and Feraess and me are also failing to find a source for it, then this will stay removed. The only issues that I see is with name of section. For source 8 I really doubt that you will get consensus to re-add the original information that you have added to parkour article, especially when there is a third opinion saying how misleading is this source. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 04:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's bring it down a notch. Do not forget to take a breath. :) I think everyone agrees the Time Magazine article should be used. I also believe everyone can agree on the statement: “A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.” Can we all agree on that? Vassyana (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think WP:WQA is a really good idea right now. Here’s the link. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, I agree that the information is verifiable, but not with the statement written by Dedalus, it is reading like a news report. You can find injuries on almost every activities created in this world, especially if they were designated to competitiveness, this does not mean that we can add inside the activity article that X person or in Y place Z persons were injured. This information need to be reworded and added the appropriate section, statistics of injury in parkour would resolved this issue. But I will wait for Feraess' comments to see how to deal with this. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 11:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. This could be added to movements section here: "Despite the variety of injuries that may occur in parkour while training, [23] the American traceur Mark Toorock and Lanier Johnson, executive director of the American Sports Medicine Institute say that injuries are rare because parkour is based on the control of movements not on what cannot be controlled." Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can add that, as long as we also add the “A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.” sentence. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any of statements on this article do not use the name of publishers, in this case it will not be different. The place and whom brought the injuries is not important because traceurs may be injured anywhere and this article as well other activities should not report an injury every time that it receive mention in the news. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support using the “A Time Magazine article in April 2007 described insurance claims brought before United Educators Insurance for a variety of injuries suffered during parkour activities on college campuses.” sentence because the article does not describe any insurance claims. In fact it states almost the opposite, that there haven't been many. I don't object to using the Time magazine article, but the only statement it can support about legal claims is "Practitioners have been injured in the past while practicing on college campuses, but this has resulted in minimal exposuse to lawsuits". This article is not criticising parkour, it is praising parkour, and even if we could find a source to support a statement that officials fear lawsuits, this article would refute it.Feraess (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow! You brought something that I missed.

The Time Magazine article is not really saying insurance claims, but I still cannot support the lawsuits thing. What the article says: "suited for testing the bounds of sneaker-clad samurai and, at least in a few cases, their school's insurance coverage" and "but so far, schools' liability exposure has been minimal." yet there is no directly and explicitly link to lawsuits. Yes I agree that Time Magazine would refute it. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. I’m not interested in pressing an anti-parkour POV as you seem to think. I just want the article to be neutral. We can add exactly what the Time magazine is saying and if you don’t feel that is a criticism of parkour we can all be happy. And yes, I’m sure Feraess is quite capable of seeing things we’ve missed. Neither of us is omniscient. ;-) --S.dedalus (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touching base 3

Besides the Time Magazine article (we seem to be working towards a consensus on that), what points of disagreement remain? Vassyana (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s a bit hard to tell since we currently have 8 versions of the section. Some of these I’m almost satisfied with, others I’m not at all happy with. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hard and there is not much to see here. I have working with Feraess and we stopped in the 8nd section, the only issues that I see is with name of section. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just so the artical ends up NPOV. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 8th section to parkour. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of section

Feraess, why the section cannot be named as training places? I have to ponder that this section must be a neutral name such as training places or other name. Criticism, concerns and controversy sections are problematic on Wikipedia, they are often POV-magnets separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section. This name also implicate that we add every concerns related to parkour, included health, safety and other concerns and I believe you and me has no intend to do that. If you cannot find a better term for the section, we could probably use this. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 10:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a major issue in my view, but I think this section deals with the way practitioners train as well as the places they train, and although a lot of the concerns mentioned deal with locations I think the main issue is not where people train, but how they train. Parkour can be practiced anywhere without causing any problems. Problems are caused by practicing in ways that are inappropriate for the location.Feraess (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, well if it is not a major issues to you, I am willing to add the section 8 with training places name to parkour article in the next days. Maybe another editor can see a better name for section. I do not remind yet a better name to the section. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 05:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

We need more people commenting here. I’d like to file a request for comment on this discussion. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

Formal mediation

Vassyana is off Wikipedia for a time with some nasty injuries. (Hopefully not Parkour injuries. :-)) I wish him a speedy recovery.

I think we should take this discussion to formal mediation. Perhaps with their help we can find a solution that is agreeable to all. Do you all agree? --S.dedalus (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana's back now. It's been 6 months now, so if you guys agree to take it to formal mediation you're certainly welcome to. (though of course all parties wold have to accept) Wizardman 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that there is much to see here, the legality concerns seems to be resolved above. New sources to talk about lawsuits are pending. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand?

?? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another week for people to respond, as responses have been staggered and things have been slow in moving. However, if no one else touches base, I will close the case as stale/inactive. Vassyana (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]