Talk:CrossFit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Warning: This page will be nominated for deletion if the nonsense does not stop.
2 Weasel
3 Starting New Page
4 Deletion of Old Page
5 Citations
6 Hype
7 Consistency
8 Consistency, References
9 Unjustified reversion... =

[edit] Warning: This page will be nominated for deletion if the nonsense does not stop.

I have put in a request for multiple citations. Please stop putting opinion and unsupported blather into this article. Facts folks. Disclosure: I am a Certified CF Trainer and owner of an affiliate.

The original article which I posted here came out of a discussion with Coach Glassman at a Seminar, and he agreed that the original version was, in fact, descriptive and factual. There is no need for all of the unsupported claims on this page. Cylon 15:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure Cylon's intentions are honorable, and I appreciate his disclosure and candor about the history of the article, there are some issues. He is a CrossFit owner and Coach Glassman is the CrossFit founder. Both are interested parties. Both have points of view. Wikipedia discourages articles about an organization by members of that organization. There are also issues here with original research. As I understand it, Wikipedia editors may not conduct interviews or original research and then "write up" the results in an article. They must rely instead on published, verifiable sources. That's what my version of the article did. Every fact is backed up by references and citations. So the "citation needed" tags are not especially helpful. As a relatively inexperienced editor, I'm not sure what the issue here is. Does every sentence really need to have multiple and repetitive inline footnotes? If so, I can add them -- but it does seem like overkill that would greatly impair readability.

Time for my own disclosure. I have been CrossFitting at an affiliate for about three months. And I was frustrated than I couldn't include certain things I've seen with my own eyes. An example is mentioning the simple fact that some people formulate their own CrossFit workouts. No article mentions this, and I can't rely on the CrossFit website or CrossFit journal due to the prohibition on use of self-published sources. Nor can I rely on my own observations or knowledge.So I just have to leave it out.

But I tried for an even-handed article from a neutral point of view, relying only on such acceptable published sources as mainstream newspapers. For example, the article must make mention of the criticism of CrossFit. There are no "weasel words" in that section. The "some fitness professionals" are those mentioned in the referenced articles. If we should name them, let's do so. Now, the criticism may be unfounded, but it exists and must be acknowledged. That's what I did, adding CrossFit's response.

Can we calm down, please? If there are specific problems with specific facts, let's work through them one by one. It might even be helpful to have a third party involved, since neither Cylon nor I are exactly models of objectivity. If you'd like, I could start by adding the inline citations and then invite the scrutiny of one and all.

Qwertman 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel

The following phrase in the criticism section "Some fitness professionals say Crossfit workouts require so much technique and intensity that participants risk injury." is entirely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. In fact good Wiki articles don't have a criticism section, as points of view are woven into the main article. If this is not cited and fixed in 48 hours it is out.

Cylon (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starting New Page

Starting a new talk page here and editing the Crossfit entry to provide more content, so as to avoid deletion. I'm new to Wikipedia, but have read the help files, and am deleting the dated:prod tag when I edit the entry to make it more substantial. I'm doing this because I believe crossfit warrants a wikipedia entry. It is basically a non-commercial fitness methodology with a great and growing influence in a number of high-performance sports, disciplines, and jobs. It is an important phenomenon to health and fitness in North America, and increasingly around the world.

[edit] Deletion of Old Page

The previous CrossFit entry on Wikipedia was deleted last year. The problem was it contained too many POV statements with no research material provided to back up the claim other than referencing CrossFit articles itself. Also, an edit war broke out with a bit of vandalism tossed in. You can read your own entry in how it sounds like a lift directly from CrossFit's website and reads like an advertisement instead of a research article. Lots of luck in making it stick this time though. --205.56.145.34 09:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

-I have deleted most of the present article for reasons reasons expressed above: too many POV and fansite type comments. Wikipedia is not a place for opinion or original research, there are plenty of forums for that sort of thing! Let's work together to make a high quality article on this interesting subject. Please Use Citations for everything in inline, detailed format to avoid edit wars. Please do not put your opinions into this article. Please do not use phrases such as "it is said of CrossFit", etc. Everything needs to be FACTUAL.Cylon 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Please refer to this page for citation format for this article. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources

Cylon 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hype

This is an encyclopedia and not a platform for marketing. This article makes a lot of unsupported claims, and that simply won't do. If this article continues to take a marketing-oriented direction, I won't hesitate to nominate it for deletion. In the meantime, I suggest finding verifiable, reliable sources for each claim made. Rklawton 13:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

The lead paragraph introduces this subject as a "methodology." The rest of the article should be consistent to this point. To wit: a methodology isn't responsible for raising money for charity, and the fact that some of its adherents participate in fundraising has little or nothing to do with the methodology – unless charity is a necessary part of the workout. Typically, a methodology is going to have proponents, advocates, detractors, and associated studies. This article doesn't read that way. On the other hand, perhaps this isn't an article about a methodology but an article about a company or organization…? Rklawton 16:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency, References

Some references have been added and more are on the way, which I hope pre-empts the deletion discussion. CrossFit both a "movement" and a methodology. The methodology (short, intense workouts based on key exercises done in a certain sequence) is the basis of the organization. A key point about Crossfit is that basic concepts can be used to modify and scale workouts. But CrossFit has its own certification, vocabulary and journal. It is not much interested in external validation, so relatively few studies exist. (The same might be said of psychoanalysis!) As far as I know, CrossFit's claim to provide superior results to other fitness methodologies cannot be independently verified, and so has been omitted from the article. I would ask that other editors carefully monitor the article lest unverified "we're better" claims by CrossFit adherents creep in. Qwertman 18:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified reversion... =

...has been undone and the previous version , supported by multiple references, has been restored. If specific claims are disputed they should be discussed here on the discucsion page. Let's work these issue through one by one, assume good faith, and avoid edit wars. Many thanks! Qwertman 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another unjustified reversion

by an editor who mistakes seniority for merit. Civility, please. Substance, not style. Again, let's work through the issue and not make mistake assertion for facts.

[edit] Apology

First, let me say that I appreciate Qwertman's frustration. He's been reverted by three experienced editors without explanation - other than a "trust us" left on his talk page. That's not the best approach to take in a content disagreement, especially when working with an editor who is making his best effort to learn, so I apologize. Rklawton 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major reversions

Three experienced editors have removed large pieces of Qwertman's edits. We should take some time to discuss these reasons here for several reasons. First, it's polite. Second, it will help Qwertman learn more about editing Wikipedia, third, there's room for compromise.

Most edits removed generally consist of self-sourced hype or fluff. At least, that is how an experienced editor will view it.

The main section of the article should focus on defining the subject and explain the reason why it is notable. It should be fairly short and leave the reader with no doubt as to the subject and its significance to the world.

Other parts of the article in question are primarily self sourced and therefore not reliable. Lines such as

 Many CrossFit athletes and trainers see themselves as part of a contrarian insurgent 
 movement that questions conventional wisdom.

are entirely unsupported and over generalized. As such, its entirely inappropriate for inclusion in this article.

This line suffers the same problem.

 CrossFit is now growing quickly, fueled by its website, increased media attention, and 
 word-of-mouth referrals from its passionate adherents. CrossFit has often been compared 
 to an open source project because workouts can be varied and scaled"

Another example:

  Some Crossfit athletes perform the "Workout of the Day" posted at the Crossfit Website 
 and never visit a Crossfit gym. Other CrossFit athletes formulate their own workouts. 
 CrossFit rejects the notion that endurance athletes are exemplars of fitness.CrossFit 
 maintains that proficiency is required in each of 10 measures of fitness: cardiovascular / 
 respiratory endurance; stamina; strength; flexibility; power; speed; agility; balance; 
 coordination; accuracy.

On the other hand, this part:

 In 2007, The United States Marine Corps incorporated CrossFit workouts into its 
 recruit training. Many police and fire departments, US Navy SEALs, 
 US Army Special Forces and many units of the Canadian Forces also use 
 CrossFit. CrossFit methodology is now being adopted by professional athletes and by 
 high school and college sports teams. Most CrossFit gyms also offer "Boot Camp" or "
 Elements of CrossFit" introductory classes for beginners.[1]

Appears to be interesting, relevant, and sourced. I see no reason why it can't remain. Thoughts? Rklawton 14:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crossfit Article ==

Can we de-escalate the edit war, please. I am genuinely puzzled because I believe I have acted in good faith. From my perspective: - my text is fully supported by the references and is encylopedic - nonetheless, my version has been repeatedly deleted with unspecified reasons and with no discussion on the talk page - a much older and less complete version has been substituted - I have now been warned that I am engaged in an edit war and bad things may happen soon!

Let's leave aside recriminations and past history, and move forward from here, assuming good faith . A useful way to proceed might be: -maintaining the current text for the moment on the article page -on this discussion page, working with the current text by deleting or modifying any text that falls short of Wikipedia standards and arriving at a consensus

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertman (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. But this section and the section above this do just that. Rklawton 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Sources