Talk:Street fighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Street fighting article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Neutrality disputed

The neutrality of this article is disputed. At the moment, it's merely an anti-police rant. -- The Anome 09:35, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is this drivel all about? Ditch it I say! User:Big Jim Fae Scotland
Neutrality or lack thereof aside, this article's got a lot of good information in it. It should be refined and edited rather than deleted. Bryan 09:22, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This page now seriously lacks real information. User: Masssiveego
This page is alot of shit. It's alot of dubious statements, like victims of muggings won't stand a chance in a fight. That's speculation, not fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.194.106 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Definition of street fight

I was going to complain that by "street fight" we mean small street fight, having only a few participants. But what do you call large street fights between two (or more) factions? If governments or government-like things are involved, it's war, revolt or revolution. But the new text cites examples where this is not the case (and the Irish faction fights qualify too).

Nevertheless, big street fights are different from small street fights. Martial artists have little interest in the former, while historians have little interest in the latter. Also the big fights section is much better written. I'm going to go ahead and put them in a different section. --Andrew 07:56, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Edit conflict

Sorry about the edit conflict! I'll stay away for a while... --Andrew 08:48, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of article

I second Big Jim's recommendation to delete this article. Unfounded statements such as "The most common factor in street fights is drunkenness" and informalities such as "Of course, when drunk people spill out of nightclubs, the bouncers do not follow" have no place in scholarly writing. The entire article seems to be based on the author's anecdotal experience with the topic.

On a broader note, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," not that "anyone should edit." I would encourage potential editors/authors to make an honest assessment of their qualification to write encyclopedia articles before doing so. A strong grasp of formal writing is a prerequisite. 64.231.204.49 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I came to this article expecting an article on Street Fighting, people fighting unofficially for sport or money. Instead I found an article on people fighting in the street....delete this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.186.22 (talk • contribs)
I think this is an important topic, though obviously not a very well written article. I have written a whole e-book on the topic and if I have a chance will clean it up. Remember that the Nazis rose through the conscious tactic of street fighting. And that it was a tactic rejected by leftists in this country through the 1980s and 1990s until re-adopted after the 1999 Seattle "riots."
Carol Moore 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
personally i think this is rather alot of shit because this does not tell you what you need to know just stuff about legal street fighting not the real stuff like people fighting in a circle for money.. so personally i think this is a load of bullshit!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsmanson666 (talk • contribs)
This article talks about fighting in the media more than what people have come to expect from an article about fighting itself. I'm taking it upon myself to make this an article about street fighting in general
Also, when I'm done, please contribute.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weightofair (talk • contribs)
There, I got this started. If anyone doesn't like the definition, go to www.dictionary.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weightofair (talk • contribs)

[edit] Urgent Re-write Required

As it stands, this page is awful. It contains woeful English, childish and unencyclopaedic material and stark irrelevencies to the topic. Can anyone salvage this? Should it be salvaged? Blaise Joshua 13:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You spelled "irrelevancies" wrong, and "unencyclopaedic" is not a word.... I rushed through this article but I'm fixing it now. It is now an article about anything related to street fighting instead of just violence in the media. It's also difficult to make this encyclopedic cause there's no written law when it comes to street fighting so if someone could help me out on that, I'd be very thankful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weightofair (talk • contribs)
You're quite right about the typo on irrelevancies, but I would dispute that 'unencyclopaedic' isn't a real word. You did seem to understand me well enough, though. However, all of this is yet another irrelevancy to the article - I assume in good faith that you're just attempting to be helpful, and I'm much obliged. However, your assertion that there being no written law on street fighting making it difficult to make the article encyclopaedic is, I believe, false. There's no written law on, say, skateboarding, but it hasn't prevented an article being produced that is considerably more encyclopaedic than the one found here. Blaise Joshua 13:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK ... nothing's been suggested, so I'm going to put over a few things that I believe need attention in the article's opening:
1) Street fighter - the opening definition, apart from being unsourced and waffle, is odd as the article is actually on street fighting.
2) Street fighting - this definition is just as bad. Firstly, it says it's spontaneous, but then talks about organised "pit fights". The sentence "This violence is intended to end in a number of ways" is vague, uninformative and pointless. Also, the point that the lack of control in street fighting means it can result in death is, again, ridiculous. Boxing is a controlled sport and that can result in death.
3) Lack of sources / references - as you will all see, I'm not an expert on this subject, but after reading the article I'm wondering if it really is an actual subject. If it is, and someone knows what they're talking (or writing) about, can we get some actual references to back up what is on here? Otherwise, it just looks like adolescent waffle. Blaise Joshua 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've attempted to improve the definition myself. Please, if anybody knows about this subject, please come forward. Blaise Joshua 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

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)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Changes to First Two Sections

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)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Re-Wrote The Page - Feel Free to Add Examples and References!

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)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

[edit] Street Fighting Article Socio-Political More Than Martial arts

Someone added "Start-Class Martial arts articles" which does not reflect over all thrust of article which is more socio-political that a martial arts page. It should probably be added to sociology category.

The original writers actually specifically excluded use of martial arts in street fighting which I think went to far in one direction. I'm working on another version which admits possibility of using martial arts in a limited fashion, since I'm sure people do and it seems arbitrary to exclude them. So article probably could use a section on martial arts if related to actual people street fighting in the streets and not the kind in movies, video games, etc.

Carol Moore 03:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

The article is about fighting and while not primarily about marital arts it is related, boxing, kickboxing & wrestling listed in the first paragraph are all martial arts. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Your changes make sense. Just didn't want to see the non-marital arts features overwhelmed and the page becoming a martial arts page as the category might lead some to assume.
Carol Moore 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
Fair enough, martial artists do get involved in street fights, there were news reports about some UFC fighters being attacked a while back, and several people I train with work as bouncers. The most likely problem is you will get a drive by advert about some martial art being "T3h d34dly 0n t3h 5r33t!". A section on progress and outcome etc would not be unreasonable, and would compliment the causes sections, but I don't have the time or sources to write any thing worth while right now the article seems to be partly on street fights partly on riots might be worth linking in there --Nate1481( t/c) 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was weird some original poster totally ruled out martial arts, and article does want to reflect reality. I actually am updating it offline with more references now. Not sure what you mean by "progress and outcome."

Also, does it need to be made more clear that the strategy of street fighting when used by political types and labor organizers -- or even sports fans -- may or may turn into a full blown riot? Obviously, there can be a thin line between the two, usually as more people join randomly and things become more chaotic and more property destruction, arson, happens. Like the Seattle "black bloc" property destruction of specific targets and attacks vs. cops, where locals started joining in "for fun" and police also began to riot, as well as some more activists, and part of the protests became a real riot.

Carol Moore 14:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Sorry, "progress and outcome" is not all that clear, there is very little on what actual happens in the fights, dose it start with individuals pushing, or in large (street wars?) 'calling out the champions' where two 1 or two start fighting then others join in? or go straight in to an all on all, this will partly depend on the participants, but is largely not touched upon.
I admit I'm looking at this from the MA perspective in that I'm thinking of the actual fighting bit rather than the back ground to why fight. One of the common things I've heard anecdotally, but believe is true, is that in 1-on-1 'drunken brawl' type situation it start with insults & the first punch is aimed at the mouth in a 'shut-up' mentality. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As a separate note, I'd just like to mention that care should be taken that this article does not begin to overlap with Riot. Bradford44 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street fighting in popular culture?

The article mentions briefly games that depict street fighting, but perhaps there should be a section on games and movies (such as West Side Story) in which it features. Thoughts? 211.30.131.91 01:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would say go for it. Read through talk since it seems others might have wanted clearer divide in past. But if they don't pipe up now with their objections, I see no problem. thanks for asking! :-)
Carol Moore 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc