Talk:World Runners Association

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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]

See here for more details on the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Runners Association Jaa.eem (talk) 17:48, 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]

That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia could care less about what WRA says about itself or what those affiliated with say as those are considered primary sources, which are fine to use for very basic uncontroversial facts that are not unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim given they are reliably published but not helpful for establishing notability. In order for a source to meet the notability criteria it needs to meet the following four criteria as outlined in the notability guidelines and multiple sources meeting the criteria are needed: reliable (WP:RS), secondary (WP:Secondary), independent (WP:INDY) and contain significant coverage about WRA (WP:SIGCOV). All this other stuff about it being "official" matters not as far WRA warranting an article. Please also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy prohibiting orginal research which is what you are proposing. Not going happen. S0091 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle with your English. But if what I understand is that the WRA cannot be present on Wikipedia, then it won’t be. As a Wiki user with an interest in such topics I though it was informative. But « not going happen » apparently, so we rest our case. 92.184.123.9 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy surrounding this article seems misplaced. It is an informative article on a legitimate association in its purpose and operation, covering a area of interest for many people from diverse backgrounds. Fetswag (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is no promotion, but just information on a unique association in the world whose legitimacy has not been questioned except on this forum…! 78.208.220.247 (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ORGSIG.

Just because the WRA exists does not mean it is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia page.

Also see WP:PSTS. Almost all of the information currently presented in this article is based on primary sources - including the claim that the WRA is the “international governing body” of the sport.

Wikipedia articles are primarily based on reliable secondary sources: Just because you’ve claimed to be the “international governing body” doesn’t mean it should be accepted as fact on Wikipedia - that claim needs to be confirmed by reliable secondary sources.

Even if this article isn’t deleted it will need to be totally rewritten based on what little information there is available in the secondary sources. Jaa.eem (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the authority deciding on this? 2A04:4A43:972F:F046:59E5:2D9A:A767:969 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply informing you of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines which are determined by the Wikipedia community at large.

If you disagree with my comments I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with said guidelines and present a case for why my interpretation of them and how they apply to this article is incorrect. Jaa.eem (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Thank you for informing me. Let’s see what will happen to that (obviously) tremendously controversial page about a legitimate association adjudicating on world-runs, a discipline so niche less than 10 people in the world have ever accomplished it. Thank you for your input and your interest on the subject matter. 2A04:4A43:972F:F046:4930:D4EB:DF5E:4DA3 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my tuppeny worth here. l must say that as a distance runner for some years, l have found no other body on the internet or elsewhere that sets out a precise definition and criteria of what might be considered a run around the world. Others may have different ideas and if they do lets hear it...but for now, at least, there is no organisation, other than the World Runners Association, that sets out a guideline for myself and others to emulate the magnificent 7 runners, that have so far achieved their goal to circumnavigate the globe. So l say,please, enough, lay off the World Runners Association! 2A04:4A43:972F:F046:789E:E832:9D81:FE3F (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank - your personal views are not relevant: WP:TALKPOV

Anyway, this discussion has veered far too much into meta chat. If you’d like to actually discuss the article and its sourcing then I’ll happily continue, otherwise I’ll leave it here. Jaa.eem (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Farce

See WP:NOTFORUM. Take the bickering to some other platform.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is obvious that this article exists solely to grant the WRA a sense of legitimacy in the wake of its recent claims regarding Russ Cook's run of Africa. It is equally obvious that the vast majority of contributors to this article and talk page have clear conflicts of interest, to put it mildly.

It is beyond me why this sort of behaviour is being tolerated. 148.252.146.103 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a farce:

1- The only known controversy is the one about Mr Cook who wrongly claimed to be the first man to run the length of Africa. The controversy was made public when both WRA and Guinness came up with athletes who had previously run across Africa.

2- Now Mr Cook’s supporters are trying to imply there is a controversy about WRA, which of course there is none and there is no trace of.

It is a simple case of displacing the controversy away from one.

A farce. 92.184.108.196 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally made no reference to any position on the legitimacy of Mr Cook's claims in my comment. The fact that you felt the need to immediately introduce your position on the matter to a discussion on whether or not this article should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia demonstrates exactly why it shouldn't.

This website is not a place to settle personal grievances. 148.252.146.103 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No position was expressed. I simply researched on « controversy » and all the results that were generated were about Mr Cook. I did not see a single one about WRA itself.

It appears that there is a group of people who have taken offence to the WRA in the wake of the « Cook controversy ». They should be advised that Wikipedia is not the place to air their grievance. 2A04:4A43:972F:F046:4930:D4EB:DF5E:4DA3 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead

Hi @Jaa.eem, the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the body which is why I repeated some of the content in the in the History section so that needs to be added back in some form.

For anyone wondering by, suggestions are welcome as long as they are backed by reliable secondary sources so cite/link them. Primary sources such as the WRA's website or what they/those affiliated say can be used for uncontroversial facts that are not unduly self-serving, is not an exceptional claim or makes claims about third-parties (see also WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF). Also, keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site or forum. The focus has to be accurately reflecting what secondary reliable sources have written about WRA. Personal experience, analysis or claims for which no reliable, published source exists is original research and is not allowed. S0091 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

noted thanks - I’ve reverted that change to the history section though kept the modified lead as I felt the addition of the pedestrian circumnavigators link is useful reference for further info. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the lead are fine as long as the body and lead the align. S0091 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]