Talk:CrossFit/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Response to Criticism

Reading through the "Response to Criticism" section, it reads like a personal statement by somebody rather than the neutral tone or quote I would expect. I would rather expect to read something along the lines of "CrossFit has responded to the criticism [ref] by ..." or "In a response to the criticism a representative has been quoted [ref] as saying". Right now it looks oddly out of place. 2001:620:600:4400:100E:66D7:FCD2:94E (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Rracecarr (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Criticisms of CrossFit

The Canadian Forces has not issued a warning against CrossFit. The Personnel Support Services program attached to the Canadian Forces has issued an opinion piece, and has done so to coincide with their announcement of their own training website for CF members, one that provides materials akin to Crossfit.com. The Canadian Forces supports CrossFit indirectly within individual military units - many of which have provided copius amounts of funding for CrossFit-type gyms and CrossFit Certifications within their units.

PSP continues to provide High Intensity Training classes to military members and civilians and have designated spaces within several of CF athletics facilities to enable this style of workout independently for members. In September 2012, PSP at CF Base Petawawa changed it's "X-fit" class name to "Warrior Fitness" however, the exercises and combination of movements have not changed, and these classes are absolutely CrossFit-inspired. The following link (accessed 20.10.2012) is an example where PSP actually lists CrossFit as a class it provides: http://www.cg.cfpsa.ca/cg-pc/Petawawa/EN/FitnessandSports/MilitaryFitness/Militaryfitnesscalsses/Pages/CircuitTrainingClasses.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.226.117 (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

dumped 'discussion' and support section

I dumped the discussion and support section. Discussion needed to be dumped as a header because it's an encyclopedia entry, not a talk page. I dumped the 'support' section because it linked back to the crossfit journal as a source distilling down to 'crossfit is good because crossfit says it's good' and violated the neutral point of view rules.

I went ahead and restored this edit after someone put it back in. Drsocc (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issues?

Is anyone looking into this? I imagine hundreds of people are attempting to visit this page for info on CrossFit, especially with it being in the news. They are being denied some objective info. Sam metal (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but Wikipedia is not allowed to copy and paste from other websites without specific copyright allowances, a release to Wikipedia or public domain, If you are interested, there is a link to allow you to recreate the article without copy vios, and I encourage you to do so. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC))

If you look at the Duplication report, the duplicated language is all common CrossFit lingo. It does not prove any sort of copyright infringement: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Fapi.php%3Faction%3Dquery%26prop%3Drevisions%26titles%3DCrossFit%26rvprop%3Dcontent%26rvstart%3D20130927222333&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fcrossfithardcore.com%2Flocations%2Fcfhc-kids.html%29&minwords=2&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Functionalaesthete (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That is the copyvio. Wikipedia is not a place for CrossFit to publish their press releases. It is an encyclopedia. It is a fix it situation, no matter how many CrossFit employees come here, never learn how a Wikipedia article should look without copyvio and argue, the copyvios and badly written cruft are not part of Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

What parts, then, must be edited out? CrossFit Hardcore is an affiliate of CrossFit Inc. It is not the same business as CrossFit Inc., and the available evidence indicates that the wikipedia page's language preceded CrossFit Hardcore's: http://web.archive.org/web/20120830054007/http://www.crossfithardcore.com/about-crossfit-hardcore/ The terms highlighted on the Copyvio page include "strength and conditioning" and "workout of the day." Are you saying that these words can't be included in CrossFit's wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Functionalaesthete (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Write a decent article that isn't a spamvertisement for CrossFit, if it is notable, you can, if not, then it needs cut down to a single sentence. -(AfadsBad (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Can you please be specific about what parts of the previous CrossFit entry are unacceptable and need to be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Functionalaesthete (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost everything, and I won't play games about it. It was obviously written by being copied and pasted from corporate websites with the idea of using Wikipedia to sell CrossFit. It won't fly. The company is notable enough for an article. You have a couple of choices, learn to write an encyclopedia article, or settle for a one sentence stub if you can't get someone to write a non copyright violating encyclopedia article to replace this copy and paste badly written press release. CrossFit would actually look better if it had a good, well-written encyclopedia article. I wish I could convince companies not to do this, to allow the community to write the article. So, read about a dozen good articles in the sports, fitness and health categories, and see if you can come up with an outline from that, and then I will be glad to help you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Copyvio resolved

There was exactly one paragraph that was copied from the website you linked in your copyvio report, AfadsBad. You could have just removed it yourself instead of making the whole article invisible. If you think it's too promotional in nature, either rewrite it, leave it tagged and someone will get to it, or nominate it for deletion; please don't mark the whole article as a copyvio over one paragraph. —Darkwind (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that was bad enough. You didn't even read the article before you restored it. And, you didn't read anything, because I did rewrite it. It is not just one paragraph, if you had read the entire article you would have seen the clues that it is badly copied from press releases, most of which have been used all over the web and especially on CrossFit's promotional youtube videos long before they appear in this article where they were added by SPAs. Read it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://crossfithardcore.com/locations/cfhc-kids.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue has not been resolved. A number of sock puppets have been adding material from other sites on line to this article.

[1] look at the dates

[2] from CrossFit mag

[3]

[4]

The entire article is promortional phrases copied from various websites and youtube videos about CrossFit, and I assume that it comes from CrossFit's own promotional material as a lot of it is in magazines.

I am going to revert your removal of the copyvio notice. I rewrote the article with almost all of the material that I could find is from the web, from older sources, on the web before it was added to this article. Please do not revert me, without showing that you have investigated the article at a greater depth than you have. Wikipedia is not CrossFit's personal soapbox for touting their exercise gyms. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Darkwind, have you seen Talk:CrossFit/Temp which AfadsBad worked on before she retired? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that was part of the problem with our interaction - nobody ever uses the /temp page (which is a pity), so I never bother to look, and nobody pointed it out until our discussion had already blown up. I have no objections either way if someone wants to review and implement the rewrite or work on it further; I don't intend to get involved in this again. However, one thing I will note is that, just on a casual perusal, the Criticism section is overly large compared to the whole of the article. —Darkwind (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This [5] is not a copyright violation: I wrote the Crossfit Games section, including the phrase in question. The fact that it was afterwards copied to a Crossfit commercial website does not make it a violation. I have seen other examples where private websites and even Crossfit HQ have copied text from the wikipedia article. I also wrote most, but not all, of the material highlighted here [6]. I'd be interested to see the evidence that this is a copyright vio: I certainly did not copy the bits I wrote. For the record, I am not affiliated with Crossfit in any way, never have been (beyond a gym membership, which I have had in the past) and don't plan to be in the future. Rracecarr (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reverting because the replacement text is well-written and gets the point across, but I would also like to see the evidence that this edit really removes a copyright violation. Again, I wrote most of the removed material, and did not copy it. If it shows up in identical form elsewhere, the copying went the other direction. Rracecarr (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section clean-up

I decided to create this section after anonymous user 99.59.232.177 threatened to report me for vandalism because I rejected his recent edit to this section (paragraph 3) rather than attempting to discuss the issue with me.

The text in question reads:

“In July of 2012 Crossfit came under fire for a number of incidents involving Crossfit Affiliate owners engaging in illegal and immoral behavior, causing some newspapers to question Crossfit's quality control when it came to screening affiliate owners. Crossfit Mean Streets affiliate owner Ronnie Teasdale was involved in a scandal in Los Angeles where he and several workout partners allegedly abused drunks and homeless people, captured in photographs. Teasdale later defended the behavior in a letter distributed to his gym's members. Colonial Crossfit owner Jeremy Doyle Harrington was arrested in Virginia in early July for heading up a drug ring in possession of over $600,000 worth of cannabis. The owner of Crossfit Groton, Tim Devine, committed suicide after a stand-off with police on July 24, 2012. After his suicide, it was revealed Devine was under investigation for molesting several teenage boys at his Crossfit gym.Former CrossFit Affiliate owner and certification instructor Robb Wolf stated that "CrossFit HQ has a history of kicking out and de-affiliating people ... for simply requesting some level of quality control." John Sheaffer, another former Affiliate Owner agreed with Wolf, stating that "it wouldn't have been very lucrative for them (Crossfit) to try and enforce any kind of quality control," and told of visiting affiliates that he found to be sub par, causing him to de-affiliate from CrossFit. CrossFit Legal Counsel Dale Saran defended against charges that CrossFit has lax quality control, or bears responsibility for the actions of its Affiliate owners, stating: "If a United Airlines pilot goes off and does something wrong, it's on him -- not all of United Airlines ... unless what he did is the direct result of a UA policy or procedure."”

Note that the addition includes three data-points to support the position of the quoted critic (Robb Wolf):

1. A CrossFit Affiliate owner engaged in ethically questionable acts towards homeless individuals 2.A CrossFit Affiliate owner arrested for cannabis possession 3.A CrossFit Affiliate owner who committed suicide while under investigation for child molestation

The greatest problem with this addition is that it does not read as a sincere attempt at documenting criticism of CrossFit external to wikipedia, but as an individual editor’s attempt to create an argument himself by citing separate news clippings and tying them together under the same banner. The addition in question reads as if the quotes from Robb Wolf and John Sheaffer are in response to all three instances, when in reality, the news article that provides these quotes is only related to item 1. In fact, Item 3 had not even occurred when these quotes were first published. This edit is therefore deceptive and seems to be an attempt to turn the page into a personal soap-box. On these grounds alone reference to points 2 and 3 should be removed.

As for the first point (the article in the LA weekly about Ronnie Teasdale), the addition in question relies heavily on weaslewords. It refers to “some newspapers” when it really means the LA weekly, and states that these newspapers “question Crossfit's quality control” when it really means that a person interviewed in the article raised these questions. Second, the integrity of the article is up for debate. A representative of Teasdale’s gym has posted this comment in a number of places:

“A few weeks ago the LA Weekly posted an article, which used some photos from our gym’s Facebook account as a frame for a hit piece against both our gym and the CrossFit community as a whole. I been trying to contact the LA Weekly for the last few weeks to get them to correct some of the misstatements in the article, or at least to print a response, and they have yet to reply.”

LA Weekly also ran a small [[ http://www.laweekly.com/2012-07-19/news/santa-monica-trailer-park-crossfit-mean-streets-homeless/%7Cclarification]] on a few of the disputed aspects of their story.

Most importantly, the quotes used to flesh-out this critique are from a man named Robb Wolf. He is an ex-employee of CrossFit who does not hide his animosity for CrossFit, as seen in this quote: "Obviously I've got a bunch of fairly angry feelings at the CrossFit HQ scene" - Robb Wolf. He is also apparently engaged in a legal dispute with them over his squatting on a licensed CrossFit Affiliate’s domain name. Treating him as an neutral expert reads as deceptive. Any inclusion of quotes from Robb Wolf criticizing CrossFit cannot be absent context. Therefore, the addition in question clearly violates the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. In in order to fairly include reference to Robb Wolf’s critique of CrossFit, his association, history, and firing from CrossFit Inc. must first be directly addressed, and I do not believe that this is necessary or relevant to an encyclopedic entry of this kind.

Do not confuse my rejection of this addition as my protecting CrossFit from criticism. Rather, I would like to see reputable external criticisms take the place of personal editorializing. The current “Criticism” section is almost as problematic as the complete lack of effort in the “Response to criticism”, but this is at least an attempt to remove the worst of it.

AMRAP23 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AMRAP23 is correct. Robb Wolf is not a reliable, nor objective, source. Furthermore, Wolf was only referring to the CrossFit Mean Streets issue, not to the other two instances. Lastly, even if we were to accept a criticism based off of all 3 incidents (note that I have not yet seen such a criticism), it would still not be a meaningful or relevant criticism. 3 affiliates out of 4,500 is .067 per cent. That's 1/15th of 1 per cent. "Quality control" is not a sensible complaint when 99.967 per cent of CrossFit affiliates are uninvolved.Technethalesian (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arcang7, I’m removing your addition for a variety of reasons, but in general, you’ve ignored my above criticism of poorly cited, biased editing that attempts to construct criticism rather than documenting it. You must either not understand how wikipedia works, or you have an agenda that is preventing you from honest editing. Here is a breakdown of each section of your recent addition and why I am removing it.

1."Several articles and numerous blogs and message boards have criticized CrossFit for promoting a cult-like and potentially dangerous culture."

Your sources for this point are insufficient or even contradictory:

(40)This article includes the word “Cult” in the title, and word cult is found once in the article where it is used descriptively and is not tied to any stated criticism.

(41) The word cult does appear as a sub-header in this article, under which the author states ‘’”It’s [CrossFit] not really a cult”’’.

(42) Someone saying something on a message board doesn’t constitute noteworthy criticism for an encyclopedic entry.

2."The most common complaints include aggressive recruitment of friends into CrossFit; peer pressure to conform to certain aspects of CrossFit culture, including practicing the Paleo Diet, and wearing certain clothing brands and styles; shunning of friends who leave CrossFit; and elitist or aggressive attitudes towards those who criticize Crossfit."

This is completely unsourced and reads as personal opinion. This is a beautiful example of exactly what wikipedia editors should work to avoid.

3. "An article in Men's Health cited certain aspects of CrossFit culture, including Pukie the Clown, and Uncle Rhabdo, as encouraging potentially dangerous behavior."

(43) The only part of the cited article relevant to your entry is: "But CrossFit's embrace of its worst qualities goes even further. One of its unofficial cartoon mascots is "Uncle Rhabdo," depicted as a beat-up clown connected to a dialysis machine, with what appears to be a kidney, his large intestine, and a copious amount of blood spilling out of his shorts and onto the floor around him. The other, Pukie the Clown, is shown crawling away from a loaded barbell and gymnastic rings, clutching his chest and projectile vomiting."

Note that this is not making a stated criticism, much less the completely unfounded criticism you claim it makes.

4. "Other articles, in the wake of a scandal in which members of Crossfit Mean Streets, including gym owner Ronnie Teasdale, were caught apparently abusing homeless men and women, questioned whether elitism within Crossfit culture actually breeds dangerous behavior in and of itself."

Not only does this entry read of personal editorializing with words like “caught” (from what I can tell Teasdale publicly posted his photos), but your sources are again insufficient.

(45) In this cited article, the author doesn’t draw any personal conclusions, but relies on quotes from Robb Wolf and John Shaeffer, both of whom shouldn’t be accepted as neutral critics without heavy contextual introduction on this page for reasons I addressed in my first statement in this section.

This is an editorial that makes no such claims about CrossFit breeding some sort of dangerous behavior- thinking that this article makes that specific claim is complete fantasy.

Finally, I’m inclined to agree with Technethalesian, who said: “ Lastly, even if we were to accept a criticism based off of all 3 incidents (note that I have not yet seen such a criticism), it would still not be a meaningful or relevant criticism. 3 affiliates out of 4,500 is .067 per cent. That's 1/15th of 1 per cent. "Quality control" is not a sensible complaint when 99.967 per cent of CrossFit affiliates are uninvolved”.

AMRAP23 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here and suggest that both AMRAP23 and Technethalesian cease editing this article as well, as you have only edited articles regarding CrossFit, and one of you has a username that refers to a CrossFit workout, it is questionable whether you're connected to CrossFit in an official capacity. AMRAP23, your writing in particular uses selective quoting to defend why content is not relevant. The section in question could have been cleaned up. The fact that you two choose to keep deleting entries rather than cleaning them up shows an agenda to remove all criticism of CrossFit from this page rather than act in a helpful, editorial manner. A quick typing of the words "Crossfit" and "Cult" into google returns many results. Clearly, Crossfit being cult-like is an active criticism of the process, as evidenced by the fact that Crossfit HQ employee Lisbeth Darsh has seen fit to address the issue on multiple occasions, in writing: http://crossfitlisbeth.com/2011/10/19/the-hottest-cult and http://crossfitlisbeth.com/2011/07/06/you-are-not-alone. I'm suggesting that you stop editing this article, as there is evidence that both of you are heavily-biased on the subject. I will make an effort to clean up the section, though. TruthLeague (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also redacted AMRAP23's previous post, which offered unsubstantiated, though convincing arguments as to the identity of the author of several edits to the criticism section. I have done so, because it was both an ad hominem attack, rather than a criticism of the material in question, and because without clear proof, it's potentially slanderous. TruthLeague (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

TruthLeague, Arcang7 himself is welcome to show that I am wrong and I will apologize and remove my comments.

I also gave specific arguments against Arcang7’s edits that in no way related to his possible identity but dealt with his weak citations, editorializing, and use of weaslewords. You have now questions my removal of Arcang7’s edits only on the basis that I appear associated with CrossFit, and yet failed to respond to my arguments against the edit. This makes you guilty of the very thing you accuse me of.

I make no effort to hide the fact that I consider myself a “CrossFitter” and that I only feel comfortable editing wikipedia articles I know something about. You’ve argued that because of this, I must be connected to CrossFit. A closer look shows that your contributions have only been to the CrossFit Article, making you again guilty of the exact thing you accused me of... with one additional detail- that today is the first time you have apparently contributed anywhere on wikipedia.

You went on to argue this: “The section in question could have been cleaned up. The fact that you two choose to keep deleting entries rather than cleaning them up shows an agenda to remove all criticism of CrossFit from this page rather than act in a helpful, editorial manner.”

This would only be true if I had, in fact, attempted to move all criticism from this page. Your claim is explicitly false. I have only removed a handful of questionable entries that are not verifiable through proper use of sources. Note that I have not edited any criticism that is properly sourced. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.

You also said, “A quick typing of the words "Crossfit" and "Cult" into google returns many results.”

Again, wikipedia articles are not places for editors to create criticism simply because they believe it exists somewhere. Your job is to document substantial existing criticism while keeping a neutral tone.

You also said, “Clearly, Crossfit being cult-like is an active criticism of the process, as evidenced by the fact that Crossfit HQ employee Lisbeth Darsh has seen fit to address the issue on multiple occasions, in writing: http://crossfitlisbeth.com/2011/10/19/the-hottest-cult and http://crossfitlisbeth.com/2011/07/06/you-are-not-alone.”

I would agree that there are real, substantial criticisms of CrossFit being cult-like. I even personally believe that CrossFit is cult-like... but that is my personal opinion and If I wanted to include that in the criticisms section I would need to cite something other than “google search results” .

You have suggested that I am biased in this subject, I would argue that we all are, and that is the nature of human beings. That is why wikipedia has policies and best-practices to help prevent the kind of edit war we are currently in. The only arguments I’ve made have been on this basis, and you’ve failed to respond to any of them. The claim you made about me using “selective quoting” was a start, but you failed to provide any evidence that I did this or to make a counter argument. Because all of my criticisms of its sources have gone unchallenged, I am again removing this line:

You also said, “Several articles and numerous blogs and message boards have suggested that Crossfit promotes a Cult-Like culture,[40] [41] [42] a claim Crossfit HQ employee Lisbeth Darsh has addressed on several occasions. [43] [44] ”

This recent addition seems well cited, so I see no reason to remove it:

“Other publications have defended Crossfit from charges of being a cult, but have raised concerns that CrossFit promotes a potentially dangerous atmosphere that encourages people, particularly newcomers to CrossFit, to train past their limits, resulting in injury.”

AMRAP23 (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Will the real Jon Maseng please stand up? Yes he will. That would be me. Take that defamatory section about me down. I don't have a fucking interest in being dragged into anymore of this CrossFit bullshit. That may very well be one of my relatives, and I have an idea which one, but it wasn't me. Thank you for not dragging me into this shit any further. I really couldn't give less of a crap about this issue. JMWriterLA (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that settles the first issue here. I'd agree that Maseng is a public figure as a reporter, but clearly he didn't appreciate being dragged into this issue.

As for AMRAP23's edits, I'd posit that if a Crossfit HQ employee found it necessary to defend against charges of being Cult-Like on more than one occasion, then that means they took the accusation seriously. I would also point out that the sourcing on the cult-like claim is clear, as I cited it. Men's Health is a well established major magazine. Their article on Crossfit ends with this quote: "It's like a cult crossed with a pyramid scheme, and the base is always widening. It brought me back to my first conversation about CrossFit with Becky, my old girlfriend. There's something about CrossFit that makes some people want to post videos of themselves doing pullups—while that "something" drives others like me away." This is a very clear charge that CrossFit is cult-like. The title of the article is "Inside the CULT of Crossfit." I don't think the criticism could be any clearer. TruthLeague (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have re-removed sections of AMRAP23's comments which are know known to be defamatory. The issue should be put to rest.TruthLeague (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm resigning from this discussion and won't be making any further changes to the CrossFit article on this subject. I'm confident I'm talking to the same person using different user accounts and have opened a case under wikipedia:sockpuppet investigations. AMRAP23 (talk) 4:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the citation for Crude Fitness' criticisms, which are not suitable. While other sources are academic and construct reasoned arguments, the Crude Fitness 'criticism' was primarily ad hominems and slurs without any substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.10.55 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks, wikipedia.

i "ain't" sure exactly the correct procedure, but i want to the the writers for producing a good article. easy to read, seems complete. i think it is a good introduction to the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.250.217 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy about transgender atheletes?

I suppose there should be some mention of the recent controversy about CrossFit disqualifying a transgender athelete? See http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/06/crossfit-lawsuit-games-transgender-athlete-chloie-jonsson/

2607:F470:8:52:1074:7582:5ABA:64A9 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Added. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much 'first party intervention'

Apparently there are manifest attempts to manipulate the content of the article in a way that is more favourable for the CrossFit Inc. position itself. There are some claims embedded that are simply at the edge of absurd, such as the invention of the CrossFit methodology by Glassman in the early 1970s whereas the reference leads us to the information that Glassman was only 18 by the year 1974! On the other hand, there is a purposeful scheme to erase the presence of Jenai at founding of CrossFit Inc, which I assume fits in better with the current official historiography by CrossFit. I think the article should be watched more closely for such fraudulent and obviously manipulative edits. Ahriman2014 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentions of "CrossFit" as random trivia in Bios of Living Persons

A number of live-person pages have (or had) a stand-alone line in their "personal life" section that was basically "So and so does CrossFit to help stay in shape." In the context of a bio of a living person this is basically spam - no better than mentioning any other product he/she prefers. Unless it in some way can be linked to the person's life or success (which in many cases would be dubious) it does not belong in an encyclopedia page.

I have removed this line from 6 pages so far but have not removed other mentions of CrossFit when it is relevant to a person's life (e.g., they own a CrossFit gym, competed in CrossFit games, etc). I have created a similar section in the two of the corresponding Talk Pages but this might be the best place to have further discussion on this -- if it is needed. Arbalest Mike (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can point me in the direction on how to find BLP's with the "cross fit" content, I will gladly take the time to go through and remove it. Meatsgains (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done that, to some degree, but only where it stands alone with no other context relative to the person. I may have missed some cases and there are still some places where it can be arguably removed but I don't want to be overzealous, start any battles nor offend anyone. Some of those cases are where CF is mentioned in a sentence along with other stuff rather than as a stand alone line.

That being said, one approach is to go to the CrossFit page then click the link of the left that says "What links here" and follow the links that are to BLPs. Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I didn't even know that tool existed. Thanks for the help! I went through and removed "cross fit" info from a few of the pages. Meatsgains (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Extraneous or overly detailed sections for inclusion in Wikipedia

The following sections are overly detailed per the Wikipedia standards: Common CrossFit movements and CrossFit Games. The Common CrossFit equipment is partially advertisement.

It has been stated (by policy) that the WP is not a how-to manual and I have seen other articles severally edited to remove content like this. In spite of disagreements, the removal prevailed. The "movements" are not uniquely CrossFit, and they do not call for a full detailed coverage like this. This material belongs on a CrossFit site, not here. If anything, the movements could be described in a list without the details.

The CrossFit Games seem worthy of inclusion but with less detail, and without the inclusion of a table of annual winners, by category etc. If anything, the Games results could be on its own page, perhaps on the WP itself (maybe not), but not here.

The inclusion of Common CrossFit equipment is, IMHO, on the edge of being worthy of inclusion, especially as a bullet list as it is. Some of the citations are links to sites to purchase the item.

I will clean up the Common CrossFit equipment problem now but allow the other stuff some time for discussion and for a CrossFit person to step up and make the changes. Arbalest Mike (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently some do not feel that further input in this Talk Page section is necessary and started the editing process immediately. Therefore, I followed along with the rest of the edits. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This page has needed some serious cleanup for awhile (especially the equipment shopping list)and it looks much better. One thing that might be worthwhile in the long run is creating a separate page for the Crossfit Games in general. There appears to be an overly descriptive one for the 2014 Games but a more generalized version might be in order as they seem like they are going to keep happening. Also it would help differentiate Crossfit as a fitness program/company versus a Crossfit as a sport. 192.92.203.149 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer to make the edits and then if controversy begins to arise, I go to the talk page. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

CrossFit Games article

I started a draft article on the 'CrossFit Games'. It can be found here: Draft:CrossFit_Games Please review it and improve upon it.War (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added an external reference, edited the draft lightly, and pasted it into CrossFit Games, which was formerly a redirect. Rracecarr (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Non CrossFit assiciated citations

I have gone through and added 4 non CrossFit associated citations within the article as part of a project for this course

Citation Suggestions:

Herz, J. C. "The 3 Reasons People Are Obsessed With Crossfit." Time.Com (2014): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

This replaced the old Citation #4

Sibley, Benjamin A. "Using Sport Education To Implement A Crossfit Unit." JOPERD: The Journal Of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 83.8 (2012): 42-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

This replaced the old citation #17

Spandorf, Rochelle B., Jennifer L. Brockett, and Anna R. Buono. "Certification Programs: Franchises Or Not?." Franchise Law Journal 33.4 (2014): 505-524. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

Added this as a reference under business model and affiliate fees as well as the accreditation piece under criticism

WRITES CELINA, MURPHY. "Irish Independent: MEET THE FITTEST WOMAN ON EARTH." Irish Independent (Ireland) 19 Sept. 2013: NewsBank. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

Added this as a citation for the "Fittest on Earth" quote — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRammy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@JRammy: Good job. However, citations are not to include the arbitrary method by which one editor happened to have accessed the sources, so please delete the "academic search complete" type of stuff. And while you're at it, please properly format them using templates such as {{cite journal}}. Or else someone else will inevitably be forced to do all that for you. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: Thank you. I apologize if I am being dense, as I am new to the world of Wikipedia; but I am unclear about the reference to arbitrary methods. Academic Search Complete is the research database in our library that allows us access to many journal articles etc. That is is where I originally accessed the material and was instructed to cite from that location as part of our course work. The notes above are in MLA format, but when I added them to the article, I did use the templates provided. Did I do something incorrectly there or were you just referring to my text here on the talk page?JRammy (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@JRammy: This article could certainly use some third party articles but I cannot currently access them through the links provided. They need proper citation for journals (as mentioned above) or with proper links to the web page such the Time.com article - The 3 Reasons People Are Obsessed With Crossfit Yosemiter (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I will look into why the links are not available publicly. We were told to use the permalinks for public access as part of our project grade. I will get this corrected as soon as possible. Thanks for catching this. I will work with my professor to either find a public link from our academic database or will update the links to the public link locations directly from the source. Thank you. JRammy (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@JRammy: Hi. You can pass on our thanks for a class that does research for public benefit on Wikipedia! Don't forget to log in, because you weren't logged in on your last few posts here. Your URLs are not publicly retrievable because of the fact that you're linking to proprietary subscription-only academic search and archival engines, which are generally accessible only from the networks of libraries and schools and such. And you're not supposed to list them anyway because they aren't an actual source at all; they're just arbitrary access methods. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. And you don't always need to, because as Yosemiter said, some of the articles are freely published online anyway. Time is primarily a print medium which is then made available online, so you always cite the print source; and you can cite both sources at once, as if to say "here's the whole magazine issue, but you can get this specific article online". And finally, you're saying that your class was instructed to create citations for a digital encyclopedia which are formatted for a print-only medium. So someone will have to just re-research and recreate those ambiguously manual citation formats from scratch someday. A digital encyclopedia uses templates like Template:cite journal. For example, you'd fill these in: <ref name="The 3 Reasons">{{cite journal | magazine=[[Time Magazine]] | url=http://time.com/2890075/crossfits-primal-appeal/ | title=The 3 Reasons People Are Obsessed With Crossfit | first=J. C. | last=Herz | date=June 17, 2014 | volume= | issue= | page= | accessdate=February 18, 2015}}</ref> — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola:Thank you so much for the guidance. I will try to update all the citations with the appropriate information and will look through that article. I will certainly thank our professor for orchestrating this project as well. I apologize for not signing in before. I was trying to respond from my phone and evidently forgot to sign in first. Thanks again.JRammy (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Smuckola: and @Yosemiter: thank you greatly for your help. I have gone through and formatted the citations to meet the template requirements as well as have documented as much information about the sources as possible. I have provided direct links where available and have denoted the sources as being accessed via our Academic database, via the postscript section, without actually linking to those proprietary links. Again, thank you for your help and I appreciate your patience. JRammy (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" section is rather worthless...

...if this workout is not compared to other programs. What does 20% mean in context? -- megA (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

20% is relative improvement per individual in power output over a 6-week time span, not 20% better then other fitness programs - 192.92.203.149 (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I asked what it means in context. Without comparison, that figure is worthless. -- megA (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not sure by what you think "in context" means, but I believe the point of the article was that after 6 weeks the soldiers performed the exact same workouts better by an average of 20%. In context they are performing 20% more effectively at particular Crossfit WODS then they had 6 weeks prior. There was no comparison to whether or not this group performed more effectively than another group performing traditional PT. I think what you are looking for is a study that compares different fitness programs to Crossfit and so far the studies that I have seen are either inconclusive or still in progress. This entire conversation might be a moot point as the link is broken and the only version of the study I have found is only in downloadable pdf from the Crossfit mainsite. 192.92.203.149 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also of note, the second study in this list (http://www.outsideonline.com/2019441/crossfit-injury-study-corrected) is currently the subject of a lawsuit between CrossFit and the NSCA over claims that the data was false. I would suggest removing this until it is resolved.Ischus (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ischus: While it is the subject of a lawsuit, it appears the only part that is in question is that the researchers grouped the no-show subjects into the overuse injury category which then inflated the overall injury rate. The overall injury rate is what CrossFit is suing about. But if you had read the actual NSCA report itself it states there is overall improvement in VO2max and body composition through CrossFit methodology with a single sentence about injury rate (saying it is 16%). The rest of the date is likely accurate for those who completed the study. Yosemiter (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: fair point, but I would lean towards avoiding a cited study entirely if it was shown to have included false data. Ischus (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading through this again, It seems like having a paragraph titled "effectiveness" is unnecessarily promotional. It is implied that CrossFit Inc. claims their program is effective. Citing evidence that it is without including the context of criticism does not seem ideal. Would it be better to remove this section and include the various sources it cites in the criticism paragraph when appropriate?Ischus (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. First, I think it is worth mentioning that the first claim has no citation and the second claim is a citation that cannot be read (except for the abstract) without an account at that site.

In any case, all three studies only mention that subjects doing crossfit during the study showed improvement. I don't doubt that, but nearly ANY exercise (even taking the stairs instead of the elevator) will result in some improvement. Furthermore, a "real" scientific study would include not only different types of exercise but also a group who did none at all over the time period of the study. Then independent assessment of all participants (by someone who doesn't know which group each participant was in) would need to be conducted. The correlation (data analysis) should then be done on that anonymously gathered data. This is a long winded way of saying that the "effectiveness" section does not provide useful additional information to the overall article. Whether it is promotional or just fluff is another matter. Arbalest Mike (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" is so vague in this article I agree that it could be seen as promotional. I would argue against your statement that doing any exercise will cause the improvements measured in the studies (VO2 max and body fate percentage) since they all include participants previously involved in fitness-based activities (2010 were soldiers, 2013-Ohio State were mixed levels, and 2013-Wisconsin specified their participants as fit). I propose combining this section with the Criticism section to make it more like a Pros/Cons list (with a better title of course). It would make it appear more subjective in this manner. I think if a random reader were to come across this article in an attempt to learn what CrossFit is and whether or not they want to try it, then giving them currently known (published research) positives and negatives is the best option. Yosemiter (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to see the "effectiveness" section go. It seemed wholly promotional and out of place. However, Is it our place as editors to argue with the methods and conclusions of scientific papers used as citations? I would think no. It also does not seem that it is the place of wikipedia editors to start analyzing the effectiveness of a program through original research and listing pro's and con's about it. It seems the most accurate and objective thing to do is to list notable and relevant criticisms of the CrossFit program and then cite CrossFit Inc.'s response to those criticisms where such a response exists. Anything else seems like editorializing to me.Ischus (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I did not re-add it and I am not suggesting OR. I only thought it was better than nothing because otherwise the article is about 25% about CF business practice and history, 25% about CF as an exercise regimen, and 50% criticisms. It seemed to add some balance to an otherwise seemingly critical and possibly biased article (even though I agree with the criticisms). I would argue that the sources were not promotional, none were sponsored by CF or CF advocates, and one of the sources was the S&C article that was being sued by CF for misrepresenting the injury rate. I do agree that they were not the greatest sources, just better than general editorials or bloggers (which is the majority of "CF works" articles that have been written). I am neither for or against using an effectiveness section I have just been trying to make it balanced instead of looking like a yelp review were everything is negative. In fact it would probably be better in the Overview section with generalized CF effects on fitness which should include both the improvements in VO2max and body composition as well as injury/rhabdo risks (as both are possible "effects" of CF training). Yosemiter (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added something: there's only one source I could find which was a WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for the article. Since you seem to know more about reliable medical sources than me, what makes the one you added (which appears to be a summary of the effects of non-traditional exercise done by other independent studies - making it a good secondary source) significantly better than the primary non-peer reviewed sources for at least some inclusion. In the end they both types of sources would have to end with your phrase of "not substantiated by a body of good medical evidence" since there is no other type currently. Also if we are removing the previously included sources from the effectiveness, then how many of the sources in the Criticism injury/rhabdo section meet WP:MEDRS? Yosemiter (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't (except in rare circumstances) use primary sources for biomedical claims because they are considered unreliable. WP:MEDRS spells this out and the essay WP:WHYMEDRS has some great background. I haven't looked at the injury etc. section - will do! Sadly for this topic there aren't that many good sources because there isn't much accepted knowledge "out there" about the effect of CrossFit. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: and @Yosemiter:, I can see what you mean by wanting to have an effectiveness section to balance the very hefty criticism section, but these citations do not represent what CrossFit claims about its program. CrossFit claims it improves "work capacity across broad time and modal domains" which is distinctly different from muscle size, VO2 max, cortisol levels, etc. In fact, CrossFit seems to look down on these metrics as correlates to fitness and not goals of the program. Any description of CrossFit's effectiveness should include this stated goal and perhaps expert opinion on how well it is achieved. I think academic studies that focus on what CrossFit would call correlates to fitness seem fine, but should be noted as such.Ischus (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to treat CrossFit how RS treats it, and if that is out-of-alignment with how CrossFit's creators want it to be treated, then so be it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ischus: I don't necessarily want an "effectiveness" section, and in fact think that including how and why CF can be effective would better be included into the Overview section. While it would be good to have reliable sources stating the positive and negative effects they just don't seem to be there right now (as @Alexbrn: corretly pointed out) and since popular media likes to be critical, the negatives seem to get a lot more public emphasis than the positive. The way this page has been written in the past makes it appear to almost violate WP:CRITICISM, but it does seem to be slightly better now. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: CrossFit's own published training materials should be considered a reliable source for how their program's effectiveness is measured, right? I was not talking about citing CrossFit to show how effective CrossFit is, but citing CrossFit to describe what their program is supposed to improve. @Yosemiter: I agree, and have argued this entire time that an "effectiveness" seems unnecessary and promotional. If we all agree on this, arguing about how to define effectiveness is irrelevant anyway! Ischus (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Crossfit are a RS for their own views, of course - but without secondary coverage of those views it's hard to know how much WP:WEIGHT to accord then. On the other hand, if we have high-quality sources on Crossfit we need to reflect them regardless of whether they're in sync with what Crosfit wants. Alexbrn (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Yes, I see what you are saying now and I agree. Thanks for the clarification. Ischus (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are we all in agreement here that the "Effectiveness" paragraph should be removed? Ischus (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No! It's about the strongest source in the entire article, and needs to stay. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I vote for keep the content but find a good way to incorporate it into the Overview section. It seems rather empty as it currently stands. Also I was think about changing the Criticism section name to Public criticism and response since each section already seems to explain how CF Inc. has responded to public criticism and makes it less about possibly non-reliable research. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I agree it's a good source, I actually read through it and it also notes that CrossFit claims to "improve work capacity" but similarly notes there aren't any documented studies showing this. I think this should be included, though I prefer what @Yosemiter: has suggested about putting this into the overview. Ischus (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)