Talk:CrossFit/Archive 1

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

Why are affiliate links continually removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.150.225 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

• The article is very promotional. While leaving the criticism section, there is still a lot of hoorah for the general concepts. You try to write this article as an objective party, yet you use articles from Crossfit.com as proof of the facts. Please show medical or scientific proof that the crossfit methodology does what you state it does. Also, while others try to contribute facts to the articles (and I am not saying all are fact), the continual erasing of contrarian points of view further the fact the article is written as self promoting.

lee-tree —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Additional Sources

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

• Actually the trainer aspect is supported by the early paragraphs of the article cited in footnote 1. Should we add an inline reference? As to athletes seeing themselves as part of a contrarian movement, this is supported by the bulletin boards of the Crossfit website itself. I suggest this falls within the exceptions to the general self-citation rules -- unless one believes the posters are being dishonest and are secret conformists inexplicably posing as contrarians. In other words, there is no factual dispute about posters self-perception.
  • Footnote 1 is a self-reference and not appropriate. Bulletin boards are absolutely NOT reliable sources. Rklawton 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay. Understood I have found a news source that supports this sentence, a NYT articlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/fashion/thursdaystyles/22Fitness.html?pagewanted=2e

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"
    

• Well, the first sentence is supported only by the Crossfit website itself. If this falls afoul of self-referencing rules, it should be deleted. On the second sentence, the variability and scalabilty is supported by footnote 1. The open source and website aspect is supported by footnote 5.
  • Again, footnote 1 is a self-reference. The 2nd sentence looks OK. Rklawton 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay. Let's delete the first sentence. I propose moving the second sentence to a new "Criticism" section. It would say that some fitness professionals think Crossfit dangerous(citing the NYT article) and would go go to give the Crossfit response -- that workouts can be scaled back.

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.

• The first sentence is supported by footnote 5. The second sentence may be infered from the Crosssfit website, and I again suggest it falls within the exceptions to the self-referencing rules. The last two sentences are supported by footnote 1.

Qwertman 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • The last sentence might be OK. Rklawton 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, propose deleting second sentence, but maintaining first and third.

Finally, additional support for much of the above comes from another new source, an article in The Montreal Gazette at http://www.canada.com/topics/lifestyle/fitness/story.html?id=a5a28fa9-2973-47c3-a4cc-60ce020f309e&k=19281

Opening paragraph problems

CrossFit is a methodology. Methodologies do not just happen. They have creators and sometimes even owners, and this information belongs in the opening paragraph. Rklawton (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Descripton issues

CrossFit is a methodology. Methodologies don't "publish" their own journals. People and organziations publish. So who is publishing the journal(s) dedicated to CrossFit training? Rklawton (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, methodolgies don't adapt themselves. People or organization's adapt methodologies. So who is adapting the CrossFit methodolgies to these various purposes? Rklawton (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism (section)

Once again, methodologies don't certify trainers, people or organizations do. So who is (or should be) certifying CrossFit trainers? Or is that the problem, that there is no certification program for this methodology? Rklawton (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer: As the article makes clear, CrossFit certifies its own trainers. There are no pre-requistes and no test. The pass rate is 100%. Anyone who pays $1,000 to attend a two day seminar is certified. That's for "level one." There is also a level two certification, for which the pass rate is about 50%. There is no pubiished information on level three certification, but there is speculation that attendace is by invitation only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.19.189 (talk • contribs)

According to this article, CrossFit is a methodology not ananization. org organization (do you understand the difference?). So WHO is doing the certifying? This information should be included in the article. Rklawton (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

CrossFit is an organization and a methodoolgy. The CrossFit organization certifies CrossFit trainers who use the CrossFit methodology. Or, as the article says in plain English, CrossFit "certifies its own trainers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.19.189 (talk • contribs)

According to the opening paragraph, it's a methodology. The article makes no mention of any such organization. Rklawton (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The article now says CrossFit headquarters certifies trainers and publishes the CriossFit Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.19.189 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no references to support the statement that Crossfit has "lax trainer certification standards." I'm going to look through the references already cited elsewhere and see if it's a question of putting in the citation, but otherwise, barring a good reference for the statement, I'm going to remove it in the next couple of days. Walrus 3d (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit Inaccuracy

The reference in the Criticism section to a "Crossfit trainer" having been the target of a lawsuit cites a fairly well-known article, but the trainer in question is a Javier

Lopez, who worked as Ruthless Training Concepts trainer at the now-defunct Manassas World Gym.  

I have yet to see any version of this article that refers to Lopez as a Crossfit-certified instructor, thus the reference is inaccurate. At most, it was a "crossfit-style" workout, but the trainer himself was certified by Ruthless Training Concepts. I believe the sentence should be removed, but as I've been editing WP for all of five minutes now, I'm hoping to leave that with someone who has a better handle on the editing process.

Walrus 3d (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add:

Okay, I removed the statement entirely. If anyone feels it needs to be there, feel free to say, "At least one personal trainer has been the subject of a lawsuit after administering a CrossFit-style workout," or something equivalent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.163.18.2 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistical Evidence behind the link between CrossFit and the Rhabdo Case

Is there any evidence that suggests that the Rhabdo Case and CrossFit have been intrinsically linked, so much as to deserve a primary section on the Wiki page? While I can see that in the VA court the judge ruled that the training performed by an uncertified trainer caused a near-fatal condition, I don't see the case that it needs a prime spot in the brief description and then addressed again in a main paragraph.

Without trying to sound insensitive to the party who keeps making the reverts and changes, the tone is not neutral and does not adhere to Wikipedia standards. Rhabdo is not a common occurrence amongst the people who perform this activity (I'd say muscle strain or another over-use injury would be a much more relevant criticism) and in the main rhabdomyolysis article there is ZERO mention of former athletes being prone to the injury.

Unless there can be more evidence to warrant mentioning of this injury, I don't see the argument for including this single occurrence as part of the article. BFeen (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A judge and jury carefully considered the evidence -- including expert testimony -- and concluded that negligence occurred and $300,000 in damages was justified. Agree or disagree, some weight must be attached to this finding of fact by neutral decision-makers. It cannot simply be swept aside and excluded from the article. Wikipedia articles, after all, are supposed to be encyclopedic and include all relevant information from a neutral point of view. The present text is accurate, relevant, and neutral. Deleting it would not be neutral.

Also: CrossFit ncludes warning on the dangers of Rhamdo prominently on its website and in certification seminars. So it belongs in the article.

The rhabdo risk factor is extremely exaggerated by the media and by this article. The truth is that more marathon runners end up getting rhabdo than people who do Crossfit. Yet the marathon wiki page makes no mention of this. Why? Because it's exceedingly rare, even among those most likely to get it. There have been people who have died during/after marathons, and yet the marathon wiki page makes no mention of it with the exception of Ryan Shay and only because he happened to be one of the best in the world.

The introduction to this article is ridiculous in the fact that it suggests that CF can cause rhabdo. Well marathoning can cause rhabdo, football can cause broken collarbones, and skiing can cause broken legs, but you don't see those mentioned as part of the introduction. The introduction is supposed to be the essence of the topic, and a few rare cases of rhabdo do not make up the essence of Crossfit. Scskowron (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit other articles as required. At issue here is the content of THIS article. Substantial and credible evidence from authoritative sources should not be downplayed because some people find it an "inconvenient truth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.19.189 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. Just because substantial and credible evidence exists that links an activity to an injury does not mean that it deserves to be the essence of that activity, and Crossfit is no different. You don't think that there have been lawsuits about injuries in football, soccer, basketball, and nearly every other sport? Of course there have, and nobody denies them. But nobody includes them in the introductory paragraph either, because it's so rare and so unrelated to the actual subject matter of the sport. Scskowron (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

\\

Okay. The latest version seems to strike the right balance: mention of the rhabdo risk within the article, but nto near the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.19.189 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

This rewrite integrates the "criticism" section into the main body of the text. per a tag that was more than 6 months old. The current version probably still focuses too heavily on criticism; after all the article is called "CrossFit" and not "CrossFit and its Detractors." Certainly, the fact that some trainers once associated with Crossfit have left should be mentioned. But it shouldn't occupy a third of the article, as a previous version did. Also you can't say "CrossFit has gained a reputation for alienating trainers"( Unverifiable: Reputation among whom?) Florian47 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Robb re-affiliated and Rip never left, although he did stop offering his basic barbell cert under the crossfit umbrella. Also, the general formatting sucks.84.136.244.186 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

History and Growth

"Greg Glassman created the CrossFit training methodology in the 1980s." Is there any evidence for this statement? Conjugate method training has been around at least since the '60's, and possibly earlier (http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Forum/tabid/84/forumid/15/threadid/43/scope/posts/Default.aspx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.237.88 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not neutral. I highly doubt you'll find many movements or concepts in CrossFit that are absolutely original and had never been seen before in the history of humanity until Mr. Glassman came along. But no-one ever put it all together and slapped a brand-name on it as a comprehensive philosophy/business/concept/grassroots(?)-internet movement before. Either the above statement or the one currently on the page seem equally valid to me, me being a fairly reasonable dude who just wants to have fun and and wants people to have as much good information as possible so they can make informed decisions. Parl2001 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A recent photo of Greg Glassman has been pasted to the article. One editor has deleted the photgraph and listed the reasoning as the 'photo is unflattering' Regardless, of what someone thinks of the photgraph, it is a current photograph of the co-founder, Greg Glassman. The photograph is current, the article is based on fact, therefore it reasons to leave the image as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-tree (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: image use Can a user simply lift an image from a public web site, attach their own unverified a "copyright user permits all uses" label, and then post it? What are the copyright issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfalot123 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The disputed photo, allegedly from the website www.crossfit.com, has once again been uploaded and deleted. (No specific source page has been listed, only the homepage of a large site and the photo does not appear on the homepage.) The rationale for using the photo appears to be that there is no copyright symbol on the source site. The uploader has attached a "copyright holder has released all rights" label, as though he has the authority to do so.The thinking seems to be that absence of a copyright symbol: a) gives the uploader the right to use the photo b) gives the uploader the right to release all rights to use the photo and attach the label c) gives Wikipedia the right to use the photo Not so. See Wikipedia copyright policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.27.68 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source of the photo is http://journal.crossfit.com/2009/03/the-crossfit-risk-retention-group-insurance.tpl. The photo has been altered and cropped. The uploader then labelled the photo as having been released for all purposes by the copyright holder. That is NOT the case. This is a paid, subscriber only site on which an explicit copyright and "all rights reserved" notice appears behind the pay wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florian47 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The photo was downloaded from a free article http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/CFJ_Berger_RRG.pdf which does not require being a paid subscriber to the site mention above. Please note the free in the url. The image was cropped but otherwise unaltered to better show the facial features of the co-founder, Greg Glassman. There is no copyright, and the image is clearly a free one and may therefore be used as described in the image library and conforms to Wikipedia copyright policy. All rights to the photo have been released for all purposes by the copyright holder by offering the free PDF file and image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lee-tree (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment: lee-tree's argument is completely bogus. Releasing something free of charge emphatically does not release copyright unless that's explicitly stated. The PDF has a clear copyright notice at the foot. The content is therefore not free for re-use. Take it to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you don't believe me. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Outside Comment: Wikimedia copywrite comments actually support lee-tree's claim. Although the actual article itself is copywritten by CrossFit, Inc., the actual image itself does not indicate the source. Since the actual article does not give credit for anyone for the image, it's free-use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.32.146 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to the comments above, this image falls under US copyright law 'fair use' and is allowed to be used under the US Copyright law, sections 107-118. Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. To my points above, the purpose of the wiki is for learning and education. The image was taken from an advertising document published by Crossfit and therefore the image is and should be allowed under the 'fair use' clause of the US copyright office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by lee-tree (talk • contribs) 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I propose an administrator delete the photo for copyright violation. The "fair use" argument above is mistaken. - unsigned edit by Florian47 (talk · contribs)

Seconded. I think lee-tree is trying to game the rules here. The Wikipedia slant on fair use has a proviso on the use of such copyrighted images: that a free-use equivalent couldn't be created. I quote:

Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project

The guy is alive, so a photo of him could be taken. However, discussions here and off-wiki [2], and the repeated attempts to re-create the image with disparaging filenames (see User talk:Lee-tree) make it abundantly clear that the image has been selected in bad faith to show the person in a disparaging light. That's not saying I don't find the article promotional. But trying to spin it by finding a fat-looking picture of someone is equally unacceptable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The issue is and continues to be that the authors of this page have deleted this image for reasons other than they are stating now. The authors also delete arbitrarily other comments (and I am not speaking of the vandalism) because they do not like them. They feel the image is unflattering. As Gordonofcartoon states a 'fat-looking picture' was not my attempt at all. I merely found an image which falls under the 'fair-use' act, is current and represents the co-founder of this exercise program. If I could just go and get a picture of Greg Glassman, I would. There are plenty of photos of the guy online, but many show him drinking what appear to be alcoholic beverages and/or are dated. Just because the guy doesn't have a haircut and is wearing a t-shirt does not exclude him from having a picture used. The image is from a freely distributed document and clearly falls under the 'fair-use' act.

Secondly, I have loaded this one image, twice, because Gordonofcartoon deleted the first image of that I posted as I slept last night. What I posted today is exactly the same image I originally posted. I am not trying to game the rules, merely trying to conform to them. This article reads clearly like an advertisement, and the more the users try to change it, the more it becomes an ad.

Crossfit is not a training methodology. It is a group workout program like any other workout program but with different exercises. Crossfit could easily be compared to any Aerobics, Dancerobics, Yoga, Cycling etc class. yet the authors seem to think it a special workout program.

The authors cite the website of Crossfit for their 'factual' information. And in this light, they want to speak out of both sides of their mouths. We can use references and language from the Crossfit.com website, but you cannot use a photograph of the co-founder which was a freely distributed, fair-use photograph.

lee-tree (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See this forum discussion which discusses plans to upload the image in a clearly hostile context. I agree the article needs work - the likely conflict of interest has been noted (see Wikipedia:COIN#CrossFit) - but the answer is to do it by applying WP:COI and WP:NPOV. The article will not get any better while it's a battleground, but it might if you leave it to neutral editors not involved in some feud between rival fitness systems. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know of the website to which you refer. The folks at IGX clearly admit their dislike for Crossfit. This is not relevant to this discussion. The problem here is, as I see it, is no one seems to be a neutral editor. Further, I do not see this as feud between rival fitness systems at all. I am not biased one way or another, but clearly there seems to be some issue with this photograph (by you as well). Your issue originally started with what was a copyright violation and the most recent comment states that the picture is unflattering. This fact is also not relevant. If the article stays, then all comments must be based on factual, scientific fact and not conjecture or references to articles written in newspapers. The claims being made of the Crossfit program have absolutely no scientific proof of the claims they make, and until they validate all reference to these claims should be removed.

With regard to the photo, it is current, it does fall under the fair-use and it should be allowed. Further, the .pdf was distributed free of charge. The security settings on the .pdf clearly state the copying of content contained in the document is "allowed."lee-tree (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not relevant to this discussion

Yes it is. One of the editors there is called l-tree. Coincidence? Just stop pissing us around and deal with this article in a neutral manner. As I said, take the image issue to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you dispute the copyright. And this war of single-purpose accounts and probable sockpuppets needs to stop. As I said at WP:COIN, if it were up to me, nobody should be allowed to edit this article if they haven't a long-term history of editing unrelated articles: people who are not involved in some dispute between equally stupid culty beef-brained exercise schemes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, the original article was written as an advertisement for Crossfit without any sense of neutrality. It wasn't until others like lee-tree who are correcting this previous advertisement/weasel-worded wiki page into something that is showing BOTH sides of the story with CrossFit. You can't get more neutral than showing ALL sides to a story. Within the fitness industry, there isn't anyone that doesn't have a view on CrossFit due to the growth of its fan-base, so even getting someone who may have a history of editing unrelated articles to CrossFit - the chances of having someone who can do proper edits with proper neutrality is slim to none. Also, whether lee-tree is a member of any forum that is Anti-CrossFit is irrelevant since the issue is making sure that this wiki page about CrossFit has the entire story. If this article gets sterilized to where the criticisms and things like the picture of Greg Glassman is removed, the entire wiki page should be deleted. Also, the picture of Greg Glassman, despite how UNFLATERING it might be, he IS the creator of this fitness program and having his picture on the wiki is appropriate. When it comes to the legality, the document of origin might have a copywrite to the writing, it doesn't have copywrite to the image since there is no direct copywrite to the image listed anywhere in the document AND the document was given out for free-use by the creator of the document. The image of Glassman is fair-use, no matter how bad it makes him look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.32.146 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bilge. The copyright notice covers everything in the article including the image. If you are so keen to have an image, there are plenty others on the same basis, so why this one? As I've said repeatedly, the issue of conflict of interest has been raised. This does not justify long-running anonymous hostile edits to the article. If you think the article is biased, deal with it through the normal channels. Anonymous edit warring won't get the article in the form you want. The article will be locked; and you will be blocked. Now deal with this in a straightforward manner. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, FYI - I'm not lee-tree, just an observer who is giving his own input on this and wanting wiki pages to have full content. This includes any kind of criticism or disputes that are involved with wiki subjects. Although I admit I should setup an official login already. Anyway, as lee-tree mentioned earlier on, most of the other images of Greg Glassman that are online show him consuming what appears to be an alcoholic beverage. Other images are explicitly copywritten by their respective owners (e.g. Images from AgainFaster.com), so those are out. You mentioned taking it up with Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but I don't see anyone (including yourself) taking this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to confirm or disprove the validity of the image being used. Seems that there is a valid argument for both sides, but the argument to keep it on the wiki appears to be stronger in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.32.146 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I admit I should setup an official login already.'

Yeah, you should. When the full protection finishes, I'm going to ask for semi-protection until the multiple sock edits stop here.

but I don't see anyone (including yourself) taking this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to confirm or disprove the validity of the image being used

It's done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, In our previous discussions, you mention being neutral in our discussions regarding this image, yet your posting in the wiki media area clearly is not neutral. What's up with this? Are we being neutral or not? lee-tree (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Image deletion goes through WP:FfD. --Mikemoral♪♫ 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

This article is written as an ad, and needs a great deal of rewriting to make it less promotional. I never heard of this product nor even came across the article before, but my first reading of it obvious to me that it's an ad written by a number of single purpose accounts. I put the ad template on the top of the page, and the removal of my tag by the article's most obvous COI editor should not be allowed. Woogee (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated removal of the ad template without discussing it or improving the article, which I have no particular interest is, could be constured as vandalism. My adding of it is not be any stretch of the imagination, vandalism, since I haven't done any edits to try to destroy or vandalize the article. Disagreements are not vandalism. Woogee (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin intervention

I have just indef-blocked about half a dozen single-purpose accounts both from the pro and the anti-camp, and have exchanged the short-term full protection of the article with a longer semi-protection to reduce the disruption from obviously agenda-driven single-purpose accounts and anon editors. I will semi-protect this talk page too if the need arises. Legitimate editors need to be given the chance to clean up the mess that is this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

I have taken a first crack at correcting some of the worst faults. What's needed now are experienced copy-editors to correctly format the citations. More importantly, we need new and fresh eyes -- more neutral than me -- and preferably from health and fitness experts . I have flagged he page and hope health and fitness experts will find it. Qwertman (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a health or fitness expert but I am neutral on this topic. I've given the article an objective once-over to knock some sense into it but it still needs major work. In particular, I am concerned about the large number of statements that are based on third-party publications which all too often seem to be marketing-oriented "interviews" with, or content created by the company's founders. These need some close scrutiny by an objective expert on WP references, which I am not. Lambtron (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags

The article is currently tagged as follows:

Is this overkill? The article still has a long way to go, but some improvements have been made. Can it still be said to "read like an ad" now that the word "cult" is used in the second sentence and there is a lengthy paragraph on criticism under "History and Growth"? Also, are there any factual disputes about the current version? Or is it more a question of balance, proper weight and neutrality? I would propose to delete the ad and accuracy tags, but maintain the neutrality and expert needed tags. Comments, please. Qwertman (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but we need some fresh, neutral eyes on the CrossFit article. It's been a battleground for years and was deleted entirely at one point. What's needed now is an experienced editor to format citations, check to see the citations support the text of the article, and ensure that due weight has been given to all sides. Qwertman (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic, and I am especially concerned about the large number of statements that are based on third-party publications which all too often seem to be marketing-oriented "interviews" with, or content created by the company's founders. These need some close scrutiny by an objective expert on WP citations. Lambtron (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is CrossFit notable?

After filtering out all the hype and unsubstantiated statements, both pro and con, there seems to be little left to justify this article's existence, though some effort has been made to prove its notability in the introductory paragraph. Specifically, the intro states that CrossFit "is noteworthy for its use of a virtual community Internet model". I assume this to be a reference to the online community of CrossFit enthusiasts who exchange details of training regimens over the Internet.

There is evidence that such an online community exists, but this in itself is not notable; CrossFit's notability must result from it being unique in this regard. That is, it must be the only, or the first, or the largest online fitness community to be notable. A quick google search (search terms: fitness regimen online community) turned up more than 56,000 results, many of them online communities similar to CrossFit with names such as "fitlink", "traineo" and "navyseals". It seems then, that CrossFit is not the only one, and it would be difficult to prove that it was first. Is it the largest? There is no statement to that effect in the article.

I'm trying to be open-minded here, but frankly I can't think of why CrossFit is notable, or why it should have a Wikipedia point-of-presence. Lambtron (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article definitely needs improvement, but suggesting CrossFit isn't notable is going a bit far. Here's recent coverage in the Wall Street Journal [3]. --SimpleParadox 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but a cursory search indicates there are a great many popular fitness regimens in practice. Like CrossFit, quite a few of these have trademarked monikers, the backing of commercial interests, significant numbers of practitioners, and coverage in independent publications that more often than not appears to be influenced by commercial backers. In light of this, what is special about CrossFit that distinguishes it from the rest, thus making it notable? Or perhaps all such regimens are notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles? Lambtron (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not neutral. I have been in the business of working out heavily for sports and military work for the last 15 years, and trained a few people in various sports and workout regimens. Personally I'd like to see Lambtron's "all such regimens are notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles?" come to fruition, so that people could make up their own minds and advance their available information on which to make informed decisions about what workout system - if any - to follow. P-90X comes to mind. My neutral (ish) argument for keeping this entry is that the movement/business/sort-of-open-source-thing has swept the globe in a way that no other workout philosophy ever has. It's just too widespread and huge to ignore, esp. in military/police/fire/rescue circles where you'd be hard pressed to find someone who has been serving for a few years and NOT heard of it. The only thing I can think of that's comparative is the running boom in the 70's/80's and the bodybuilding phenomenon - and both of those were afaik completely disassociated from any central HQ/business/philosophy/people. World CrossFit Games are now in their 4th(?) year, with sectionals leading to regionals since the games themselves got too big to take just whoever wanted anymore. While you may or may not buy into all or parts of the CrossFit 'cult' I think the fact that they challenge stuff like anointing a long-distance triathlete the "Fittest Man Alive" and calling into question what people define as "fitness" is a very good thing as it sparks debate and free exchange of opinions/ideas which is what an open society thrives on. More transparency and more discussion on things like that will work in the movement/business' favour imho. Parl2001 (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the notable question is closed. The article as cited enough references to clearly demonstrate that it exceeds the WP:N guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Crossfit is a fitness program that is marketed and controlled by CrossFit, Inc.

I changed the intro to state that CrossFit is marketed by CrossFit Inc., but it was reverted by Mineralgift for the dubious reason that "... CrossFit Inc. does no marketing and licenses the trademark to affilates who do the marketing".

While it's true that affiliates may do their own marketing, any objective observer would conclude that the program is, in fact, heavily marketed by CrossFit Inc. To wit: The company maintains a major website through which it:

• Espouses the virtues of "our program", explicitly claiming ownership and control of the CrossFit program and name.
• Sells merchandise such as DVDs and clothing emblazoned with the CrossFit registered trademark, which it owns and aggressively protects.
• Profits by charging affiliates an annual fee for the right to legally use the CrossFit name, logo, and its "promotional materials".
• Profits by conducting seminars and exclusive certification programs for CrossFit trainers.

In light of the above facts, which clearly show that CrossFit Inc. is in the business of growing its profits by licensing its name and selling and distributing promotional materials, isn't it true that CrossFit Inc. is involved in marketing CrossFit? In fact, isn't that what their business is all about? Is it really unreasonable, then, to say that "CrossFit is a fitness program that is controlled and marketed by CrossFit, Inc."? Lambtron (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Loosely controlled, marketed by CF, Inc. The trademark is well defended. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a basket case

It's hopeless (sigh!). Many of my recent edits, which were all carefully considered and done with a view toward balancing this messy, highly slanted article, have been reverted without adequate (or any, in some cases) justification by extremely biased proponents of CrossFit. I'm not concerned that said editors will read this and become angry with me, though, as they don't seem to be aware of talk pages. That's not to say that all CrossFit proponents are that way, but there are obviously a few bad apples out there who are not the least bit interested in putting out balanced, unbiased information about this topic. It's discouraging to spend so much time and effort, only to have my work instantly discarded by thoughtless people who are only interested in furthering their personal agenda. It's obviously pointless for me to continue, so as I say farewell I will wish other impartial editors good luck with this article. As my final act, before I permanently remove this article from my watchlist, I will recommend that the entire article be deleted as there is no hope of ever having an impartial, informative version of it. Not to mention that I still have doubts about its notability in the first place. Lambtron (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree it looks like it has bad WP:Neutral point of view problems and is based mainly on CrossFit which isn't a WP:reliable source and has WP:conflict of interest problems. Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some progress. But I agree that the revised article relies excessively on CrossFit publications. Self-citation is not banned in all circumstances, but I think this is a pretty clear case of imbalance. I would propose adding a "may lack neutrality" label to the top of the article. If better references cannot be produced within, say, three weeks....then we should edit the article line by line.

Agree? Qwertman (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information should come from reliable sources other than CrossFit. My understanding is that things like "CrossFit says the Games are a laboratory for human performance and winners have a plausible claim to being the world's fittest man and woman" just shouldn't be in except if somebody else has said something critical of them about it. That's about all that should be in from their site except for straightforward company information or peer reviewed studies. Dmcq (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, in principle. But I think the CrossFit site can be relied on for straightforward and uncontroversial info....such as number of affiliates or description of program. Any claims about the effectiveness of the program should be independently sourced. Buy I don't think there are any peer reviewed studies about CrossFit or other fitness programs. Qwertman (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about the topic to help much, but I was involved in the earlier spotlighting of this article as unreliable. It's definitely drifting back toward promotional. One point: it appears aggrandizing that the lead paragraph is so full of the biggest, the best, the most prestigious organisations who have used it. Another: there are a whole bunch of weasel words in the risks and benefits topics. How is it critics "claim" (implying unreliability or hypothesis) while supporters "find", "note" and "state" (implying fact)?

At the time of previous discussion, Florian47 (talk · contribs) was one advised of the conflict of interest issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I arrived here because one is trying to push the article on :nl as wel. The current version does not look neutral. The introduction could be an advertisement. This looks a lot better. I am in favor of reverting. — Zanaq (?) 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If there are specific elements that are ad-like or unsupported by the citations, let's work through them one by one. Wholescale reversion may not be the best way to proceed. As an alternative, perhaps someone could re-write the introduction in a way that takes into account the references. We could then discuss the proposed revision here on the talk page. Qwertman (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that approach!

I did work through many of the problematic elements, one-by-one. And then all of my thoughtful, time-consuming work was destroyed by wholesale reversion! I gave up editing this article because the compulsion of some editors to insert their pov makes it a waste of my time, but I wholeheartedly agree with Zanaq, who thinks this version of the article is a more balanced and encyclopedia-worthy treatment of this topic. Lambtron (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said above, focusing the lead on a great list of major organisations using it - even before saying what it entails - definitely comes across as promotional. Do you see the Yoga article starting with the number of famous people and institutions who practise it? And now the semi-protection's off, the promotional edits are creeping in again. 99.231.27.68 seems incapable of any adding any fact that isn't readable as some kind of appeal to prestige. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. In response I have re-arranged some text, toned down some promotional language, and deleted a poorly sourced statement about the supposed benefits of CrossFit. But wholescale reversion to a much earlier version still strikes me as an excessive response to the problems with this article. Qwertman (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Could someone add nl:CrossFit the page is protected

 Done  fetchcomms☛ 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader

The lead section should briefly overview the main points of the rest of the article as well as describing the topic. See WP:LEAD. The current lead describes the topic and then the second paragraph is just promotion. The second paragraph should probably go further down in the article and the space in the leader used to give a brief overview of the article. Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Health Benefits

Just did my first substantial Wikipedia edit - added a second para to the H.B. section and think I got the reference citation mostly right. My personal opinion is that the program isn't very useful for people looking for purely aesthetics (i.e., bodybuilding/increasing musclemass via "hypertrophy" or looking like Vogue/Cosmopolitan cover models) unless you're starting off overweight and just want to lose bodyfat. The cited page doesn't seem to be a planted advertisement but is - here's the problem - written purely for the average person, i.e. "have tried to build muscle and get in shape". The bodybuilder and specialized athlete, i.e. the non-average already fairly "fit" person, will not magically gain extreme prowess in their chosen profession via this program. However, I was unsure how to get this across in the article as it's my own (though very mainstream) opinion. Be aware that CF's definition of "fit" is a bit different than mainstream. Please advice and give a reason for deletion if someone takes it upon themselves to revert this. Parl2001 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What does large loads, quickly, and long distances mean?

"They frequently move large loads quickly over long distances,"

The above excerpt is entirely subjective, as what is "large", "quickly", and "long" for someone might not be for someone else. What types of loads, how quickly, and what types of distances?

98.218.147.71 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Large" = significant percentage of a person's bodyweight, rough estimate another human body (buddy carry workouts is fairly common in CF, and a fairly common excuse for learning to deal with heavy weight, i.e. "Hey man, you gotta get strong - what if your buddy is down and you gotta get him to the medic/hospital/car/helicopter?"). "Quickly" = faster than most non-fitness people would consider moving said load, i.e. "Hey people, today's workout is 100-lbs sandbag carries. Around the building, then X sets of Y movement, then back around the building. Ten times. Winner gets their name at the top of the whiteboard. Go." "Long" = in the eye of the beholder a bit, i.e. Haile Gabresellasie wouldn't consider a 10k long, but the average person would. In the context of Oly lifts, taking a heavy barbell from ground to full overhead is a long distance. In the context of carrying a load, maybe 100m. In the context of your average CF workout, maybe 4x400m interspersed with one or two other exercises. Again, I'm not neutral. I'm also the same person as "Parl2001" above. Just trying to help. Pär Larsson (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This particular sentence is ridiculous, utterly unscientific and ambigious and should hence be removed or rewritten ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.129.209 (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's cleanup

"Person" in the leader should maybe read "athlete" - though CF contends that each person is an athlete and "health = fitness". Reason why I picked "person" over "athlete" is that people who don't think of themselves as athletes easily get intimidated when you start talking about "the athlete should do this or that" and CF really isn't a prescription only for already fitness-crazy sportsmen or -women - it's a prescription for people, anybody, whether 65 years and overweight or 18 and college sportsperson. Changed a criticism thing from citing one article at one website to "articles on many websites" as a simply google search for "crossfit sucks" or "crossfit is crap" will get you hits, no need to single out any one of them. Tried to get the teams champions and masters in there, too, but I'm not all that at formatting tables and don't know if there were masters champs pre-2010. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable criticism or not?

I'm inclined to think this is not notable, but in the interest of transparency: http://judoforum.com/index.php?/topic/29928-coach-boyle-and-gray-get-on-a-conference-call-to-clear-the-airq/page__p__408690?s=0e480a40d20e4af2c69dffc49117e2f0#entry408690 and the response: http://journal.crossfit.com/2008/10/crossfit-radio-special-35---addressing-the-boyle-rant.tpl Pär Larsson (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

New intro

I think the introduction needs work. Sometimes less is more. I suggest trimming the intro to something like the following, with the other material moved to other sections of the article:

CrossFit is a fitness franchise founded in Santa Cruz, California by Greg Glassman in 1995. As of 2012, there are approximately 3400 CrossFit gyms worldwide, most of them in the United States. Some followers practice CrossFit's strength and conditioning program on their own rather than at an affiliated gym, completing workouts which are posted daily on CrossFit's website.

Rracecarr (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Rracecarr,

It's not a franchise.

Ok. What is it then? A corporation? Rracecarr (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think HQ is incorporated, the affiliates are not called "franchises" for some reason that non-business educated me doesn't understand, I guess it's a more loose relationship. Overall, I'd say CrossFit is a combination of the following: business corporation, community, activist people, crazy (and not so crazy) athletes who like to hang out together ...and internet-based fitness movement. Occasionally people take it too far, talk down to other fitness people/disciplines/focused-groups, and that's when people start talking about "cult". Pär Larsson (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)