Talk:World Runners Association

Hi,

I have been commissioned by the WRA World Runners Association to create a page concerning the association, its functioning as well as the runners who have validated a world record.

Content taken from the website with permission from Phill Essam, President of the WRA.

This is the first page I created on Wikipedia. Can you tell me what changes I need to make to continue editing this page?

Thank you, Xanareld

Edit

In agreement with the WRA team, we will soon post a revised version of the content reworded so that it is no longer a copy of the website.

Status as ‘the international governing body’ and general notability

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Runners_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1218195230

@LootieRun whilst the WRA may be a legitimate registered association with a constitution etc. that, in and of itself, does not confer a status of being the international governing body of a sport.

Unless evidence can be supplied from reliable and significant sources to show widespread recognition that the WRA is such a body it cannot be stated as fact.

Without such evidence and given the registered conflict of interest this edit is blatantly Wikipedia:Promotion

Furthermore, there appears to be only a single significant source verifying the notability of the WRA and from a brief search I couldn’t find any others. Wikipedia:Org clearly states multiple sources are required and that an organisation cannot inherent notability from notable individuals. Unless further sources are added I would suggest that the article fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and should likely be deleted. Jaa.eem (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the discussion on notability I can see that @S0091 previously added a notability tag, however, that was subsequently deleted by the writer of the article with no modifications made or further sources added. Jaa.eem (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this take.

Note that the World Runners Association website is a Wordpress site whose headline banner promotes this exact Wikipedia article. And this article was commissioned by them.

Feels like a clear conflict of issue and promotion issue. As a result, this page should be deleted. 46.208.180.214 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added multiple sources verifying the notability of the WRA.

This article about the WRA is informative, and there is nothing to promote as is suggested in the previous edit. The WRA is a not for profit NGO where no money exchange hands, whose purpose is to independently verify and ratify claims of runs and walks around the world.

As of today, no other international body or institution, not even the Guinness Book of Records, perform this task or has set about to do so.

LootieRun (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the added sources appear to meet criteria 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

They are all articles about Russ Cook and/or the comments made by members of the WRA. None of the articles are providing significant coverage of the WRA itself. At most the articles state that the WRA exists and consists of a group of runners.

The articles also most certainly do not back up the claim that the WRA is “the international governing body” of sport. In fact one of the articles backs up the idea that such an assertion is merely a claim rather than accepted fact:

> “The WRA is a small group of seven members which calls itself the “international governing body…””

Finally, @S0091 - surely the draft should have been reviewed prior to moving the article back to mainspace given the conflicts of interest for @Xanareld and @LootieRun? Jaa.eem (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem I just nom'd it for deletion which is the best way handle it. You and others are welcome to join the discussion there and we will also see what others in the community think. Any editors with a COI should state that in the discussion for transparency. S0091 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why there should be any controversy about the WRA, its legitimacy and field of action.

The following is an informative article about what the WRA is, a group of athletes from all over the world who had wished to have their world-runs recognized in an official manner (since no other body or institution had tasked themselves to do so).

The WRA adjudicates on world-runs, circumnavigations of the world. That is its only jurisdiction, and has never been doubted by any source (please quote if there is any).

Please advise what you think is so controversial or illegitimate about the WRA (which will keep existing legitimately, regardless there is a Wikipedia article about it or not).

I contest that there is anything else than an informative article in the proposed content. LootieRun (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LootieRun From a notability perspective, legitimacy does not matter and content does not determine notability. Only sources that meet the the criteria can prove notability. From a content perspective it has to written in alignment with Wikipedia's non-negotiable Neutral point of view policy. What WRA says or wants to say about itself is of little use for either.

It is for these reasons those with a COI should not edit the article directly and most certainly should not circumvent Wikipedia's various policies, guidelines and processes which is what @Xanareld has done by unilaterally moving this mainspace, not once but twice, removing the tags, not once but multple times, the two of you exhibiting ownership behaviour and violating WP:NPOV. If this article is kept after the deletion discussion, it needs to be rewritten by editors who have no affiliation with the organization. S0091 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091,

This is the first time I've created a Wikipedia page. I probably made mistakes, that’s undeniable. But the process of publishing and notating Wikipedia sources is relatively complex to handle for a first article.

However, I would like to clarify: I have no connection with the WRA except that I know one of its members who participated in and validated a world tour. I was not paid in any way to create this page. What would you like ? That the first guy found on the street writes an article about something he doesn't know and has never heard of? No source is completely dissociated from a subject. For my part, I am not a member of the WRA. Xanareld (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously stated that you were commissioned by the WRA to create this article.

Furthermore, one does not need to be a member of an organisation to have a conflict of interest.

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest:

”Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest” Jaa.eem (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for having legitimacy of the WRA as the governing body of the sport of world running, the WRA is completely legitimate. All governing bodies MUST have the imprimatur of the athletes for which it purports to represent. This goes for the UCI, the IAF, the IAU and every other sport. It is organisations like Guinness that have no authority to act as the decision makers on athletic records, although it’s fine for Guinness to publish such records. If every single person who has completed a world run agrees that the WRA is the governing body for the sport, then the WRA IS the governing body for the sport. Just because someone hasn’t heard of the WRA before means nothing. 2A04:4A43:977F:F7A2:1C9D:F24C:DA93:CF61 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but commissioned = request from the person I know to create this Wikipedia page because I have some technical knowledge. No more no less. And the word may not have been correct, but English is not my original language. I use Google translate to write my messages.

I ask again: How can you write an article if you have no knowledge in the field in question? Example: If I don't know the world of cycling, how can I write an article about a notable association in the field? I can't. If I don't know a person who is interested in cycling, and who tells me about a Wikipedia page and asks me to create it, in fact I am in COI. I can't too.

In the REAL world, in REAL LIFE, who can write something about what they don't know and about which they have no or no knowledge at all?

We all have, more or less, a certain degree of COI. It's obvious, the world isn't full of people willing to volunteer to write a random article on a subject he or she doesn't know about. However, the important thing for me, it seems, is to determine whether the degree of COI has a significant impact on the angle from which the article and topic is approached.

Regarding my contribution, I have written this page with public information, whether on the association's website, regarding the rules, or various media for athletes, records and other information. I did this not with the aim of promoting this association, but to report on the existence of a relatively unknown branch of athletics which achieves extraordinary sporting performances. The fact is that all the athletes who have completed a world tour are members of this association. I can't do anything about it, and that in no way delegitimizes their sporting performance, nor the legitimacy of this association to determine the rules of the discipline that they created through their respective exploits.

These are associations which regulate and determine the rules within which their discipline is carried out. It seems to me that the WRA association has the same status, with the exception of the popularity of the discipline, effectively limiting the number of practitioners, its notoriety, etc.

I am willing to understand that the angle of the page is not the most suitable, in fact the latter is centered on the WRA association and not the practice of "Running around the world". And if this is the case, it is possible to modify the angle of this page so that it is less focused on the association and more on sports practice.

I regret that the discussions have been so unconstructive from the start. Writing a Wikipedia page is a task that is not easy, both in terms of the technical aspect and the content itself. This is the first time I've done this, I don't have any experience on the subject.

Let's discuss the angle to adopt for this page and try to find a way to make this discipline known, thank you. Xanareld (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, See WP:COI:

”Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest”

Knowledge of an organisation does not inherently constitute a COI. A personal relationship with individuals within said organisation does. One does not need to have a personal relationship to possess knowledge of an organisation.

“ the world isn't full of people willing to volunteer to write a random article on a subject he or she doesn't know about.”

Wikipedia itself is evidence that this is false. Jaa.eem (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for having legitimacy of the WRA as the governing body of the sport of world running, the WRA is completely legitimate. All governing bodies MUST have the imprimatur of the athletes for which it purports to represent. This goes for the UCI, the IAF, the IAU and every other sport. It is organisations like Guinness that have no authority to act as the decision makers on athletic records, although it’s fine for Guinness to publish such records. If every single person who has completed a world run agrees that the WRA is the governing body for the sport, then the WRA IS the governing body for the sport. Just because someone hasn’t heard of the WRA before means nothing. 2A04:4A43:977F:F7A2:3128:5BC0:889C:116C (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not necessarily with regards to your definition of what makes a governing body but rather the fact that it has been asserted that the WRA is such a body without significant secondary evidence.

Where is this evidence that every person who has completed a world run agrees that the WRA is the governing body? I can find several examples of people who have been documented as completing a pedestrian circumnavigation who are not recorded as members of the WRA - it cannot be assumed that these people agree that the WRA is a legitimate governing body as you have stated. Jaa.eem (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All known people who have to date completed a run around the world do recognise the WRA as the governing body for the sport. This is a fact. 92.184.104.3 (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some evidence to support that assertion then great!

Until then you can’t claim it as a fact. Jaa.eem (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an assertion but a fact. If you do find, in your research, others who have completed a legitimate world-run and are not recognised by the WRA, please provide evidence of this ? LootieRun (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid bogging this talk page down in what one does or does not believe constitutes a “legitimate” run I will avoid posting direct links.

That said it is trivially easy to find an example of one who has significant secondary sources verifying their run who is not a member of the WRA. Jaa.eem (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to provide evidence ?

As for the current matter : What is the status of the discussion? I have not seen or read anything that jeopardizes the legitimacy of the WRA. And I suggest the tag for deletion is removed as it is not appropriate. I am yet to understand, what in the informative content of the page is in any way controversial ? @S0091 please advise where we stand with all this. LootieRun (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist: Robert Garside#

To be clear: I will not be drawn into an argument about what exactly constitutes a “legitimate” run. My point is merely to show that there exists examples of athletes having completed runs as verified by secondary sources who are not members of the WRA. Thus the previous assertion is false.

With regards to the status of the overall discussion at hand. It is not a question of if the legitimacy of the WRA has been jeopardised but rather whether its legitimacy as a governing body has been established at all.

The secondary evidence presented thus far proves only that the WRA is a group of people who call themselves a “governing body”. No significant evidence has been presented to show that this claim is widely accepted. Jaa.eem (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is blatant: all athletes of that discipline which consists of running around the world DO recognise the WRA as the governing body.

FYI: Robert Garside's run elicited so much controversy in the ultra-running community, that it called for a governing body to be created (WRA) - a little research will show you that Robert Garside's run is marred by lies and being photographed in England whilst concurrently claiming to be running in India or Egypt. The lies of Robert Garside have been widely reported on and the WRA has set standards of verification and ratification that have never been contested, and accepted by all those who have since embarked on a world-run journey.

As of today, the controversial Robert Garside is the only run, which also pre-dates the constitution of the WRA, who is not a member of the WRA. LootieRun (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 It seems very obvious that user Jaa.Eem has no arguments against the WRA other than he was not aware of its existence, and this fact alone seems to cause him issues. Whatever Jaa.Eem issues, it should not justify the page about WRA being taken down. Please advise in the status of the discussion @S0091. Thank you 92.184.104.3 (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to disprove the notability/legitimacy of the WRA.

It is the responsibility of those making a claim of notability/legitimacy to provide evidence which verifies the assertion.

Thus far little to no evidence has been provided. Until significant secondary evidence can be provided claims of notability/legitimacy cannot be stated as fact.

As a final point, @LootieRun as I said I will not be drawn into such an argument. Your personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the fact that multiple secondary sources did verify the run in question. The suggestion that only members of WRA can have an opinion on the legitimacy of the WRA is patently absurd.

With that said, I think the above fairly clearly describes my position - given that this discussion looks to be slipping towards a non-constructive one I will step back for now. Jaa.eem (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to discuss with the President and the Committee of the WRA if you have some doubt, to educate your opinions rather than making assumptions. They have a contact section on their website, and from my own experience, they are prompt to respond. 92.184.104.3 (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]