Diskussion:Nordic Walking
Füge neue Diskussionsthemen unten an:
Klicke auf , um ein neues Diskussionsthema zu beginnen.
| Zum Archiv |
| Wie wird ein Archiv angelegt? |
Schuhe Bearbeiten
Die Impulsspitzen gehören eindeutig zu den Gesundheitsaspekten. Man sollte mal eher schreiben, was der Unterschied zu normalen Sportschuhen ist. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 84.184.125.70 (Diskussion) 22:41, 9. November 2005)
Link überprüfen Bearbeiten
Kann bitte jemand mit den entsprechenden Rechten den folgenden Link überprüfen und gegebenenfalls löschen?
Schneepflug, B. (2006). Eine Auswahlbibliografie gegen Mythen und Märchen --> http://www.e-walking.de/dbnewsmag/item.php?id=327
In dem Inhalt der verlinkten Seite sehe ich keinen Benefit.
Danke. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 193.29.77.101 (Diskussion) 06:31, 17. November 2006)
Article overhaul discussion Bearbeiten
So with this post I’m going to post the edit that was reversed initially and also all of the factual errors in the current Wiki version of the “Nordic Walking” article.
Firstly the flaws:
- The definition: The initial definition or short description of Nordic Walking is already somewhat incorrect, as Nordic Walking is not just an endurance sport. It is first an foremost a physical activity and then a sport.
- History: Right of the bat, the claim that Nordic Walking’s beginnings lie in the 1930’s is without reference and it is wrong entirely, as Marko Kantaneva is the sports creator in 1997 and the term “Nordic Walking” had never before 1999 been used. It became known through an Exel commercial flier. The talk about 1930 is just Exel’s attempt to remove the creator so as to boost their sales, every bit of this has already been discussed in the English Wikipedia.
- History part 2: Although yes, Tom Rutlin was the first to produce a walking stick it was not a Nordic Walking walking stick, this is also mentioned in black and white in the translated article.
- Another note on Tom Rutlin: Skipping to the next part “Allgemein”, if one is knowledgeable enough it is possible to spot that the entire paragraph is about “Exerstriding” (which Tom Rutlin is now trying to call “Nordic Walking” making the man a, check his homepage if you must). This is because the sentence: “wenn dieses ohne zusätzliche Oberkörperbewegungen durchgeführt wird” states, and correct me if I’m wrong, “if it/this is done with out additional upper-body movements”. That sentence right there is all about Exerstriding as Nordic Walking is all about moving you entire body, while Exerstrider is robotic in appearance. And if you are still confused, since Tom Rutlin does constantly bring up an article from 1988 (the capital times newspaper), the article NEVER mentions “Nordic Walking”. Note: this is why the common-misconceptions paragraph exists because it is a very serious misconception, as if saying a swallow and a pelican are the same because they are both birds.
- History part 3: The whole 1992 thing presented in American literature seems to be unreferenced, am I incorrect?
- History part 4: The number two (2) reference points to an article that isn’t entirely true, but that’s beside the point. My question, is that article even reliable? (I know that some papers are considered at least somewhat reliable, but this is the first time I’ve heard about stern.de.
- I’ll skip the part “Allgemein” as I already said everything about that.
- Movement/Technique: About this part, is it readable and understandable for the common person? The translated article has a much broader out-line marked down, the idea is to soon add pictures to all the (different language) Nordic Walking articles, which are pretty much self explanatory. But the translated version definitely gives a much better understanding about the feel and effect of right technique.
- Equipment: For the most part this paragraph is rather nicely done, but the materials don’t mention composite materials (if I’m not mistaken) as they are also widely used. Also this part separated into two different paragraphs (equipment and selecting equipment) certainly gives a better overview to an interested reader. As everything talked about in the current article is also talked about in the translated article, but in a more organized manner and with extra depth it makes sense to over-edit this. Note: The formula in the translated version is 0.7 as it is simply more practical and doesn’t give you to many odd numbers.
- Critisism: Although I personally really enjoy that this section has been added it is entirely unreferenced, you can’t access the page provided. Without basis, critisism is just someone’s opinion, which isn’t what Wikipedia should provide.
- German championship: Seeing as this is the German Wiki this may certainly be relevant here, but some sort of reference should be provided again or…?
- Nordic Walking parks: Again no references not even examples, some should be provided, although again, the idea is fascinating. (It should definitely be looked into.)
- Literature: The question to be asked here is that how relevant is this literature to the before lying article. Something along the lines of “A great number of books have been written etc.” may stand under that paragraph. Currently however this seems to be nothing more then an advertisement, which is NOT allowed in Wikipedia as far as I know.
- Organizations: Which are missing here entirely should be added, as they are an important part of the activity.
Hopefully these points will get a clearer picture through to anyone who may be reading. And since I was directed here to discuss this article I hope there will be a discussion. Again I apologize for my lack of knowledge in German, but the article that should be compared to the current article (before referred to as the “translated article” I will post below). (nicht signierter Beitrag von KMuuli (Diskussion | Beiträge) 09:31, 7. Juni 2012)