Talk:FieldTurf

message: To 24.126.238.10,
This page is specific to one product and not a generic page.
I added RealGrass to the artificial turf page. It would be appropriate to start a product specific page for RealGrass and I would be happy to help you with that if you like.
1/1/06:
I am the contributor at 24.126.238.10. Yes, I would like help in launching a separate entry for RealGrass, as soon as I gather the necessary information for it. Thank you for your consideration.
Half of the "facts" in this article are wrong and it is obvious that competitors of FieldTurf are populating this page with nonsense. Can an editor please write back to me so we can discuss how to clean up this page so that it is truly unbiased.JaySmo 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand specific pages 

message: "The Ford Field installation differs from the standard installation as the recycled rubber used is made from recalled Firestone tires."  I looked around and didn't find any coraboration for this potentially ironic claim.  (Ford Motor Company recalled many vehicals due to problems with Firestone tires.) Crag 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firestone Tires at Ford Field?  Sounds dubious 

message: "many European clubs are considering installing it"
I flagged this one up for a cite too. Sorry to be a pain, but I find the article way too positive. Here in Scotland, and I think in Europe in general, artificial turf has a long way to go to being accepted. Guinnog 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:NPA and read it VERY carefully.  Please do not make personal attacks against other editors, continuation of such behaviour will lead to you being blocked from editing here at wikipedia.  Thanks, SFC9394 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe

message: This list is too long. Can we make a separate article for it? One has to ask, does it even belong here at all? Guinnog 22:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate '''List of FieldTurf installations''' article?

message: It may just be me but hearing something from a guy or having contacts in an organisation sounds awfully like original research which may just come into conflict with wikipedia guidelines. Anyone? Cesar.vialpando 05:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: I thought that the selling point for all the AstroTurf alternatives was that they reduce the number of injuries and wear on the body, but there is no mention here.  I'd like to hear more about how it works and what players think about it. Skidmark 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand Skidmark's question, he's speaking of alternatives TO astroturf, not 'fake turf' vs. real soil. Please respond tot hat question. Thank you. ThuranX 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury reduction 

message: I thought players needed special cleats to play on this surface? Maybe Im wrong and it was an older surface, but I always remember the college football pugnauts saying that the Oregon ducks Autzen Stadium always needed special shoes (cheap advantage)... Thanks Steve
It depends on the depth of the field. Some products are very shallow which would need smaller studded shoes. Other products that mimic natural grass have much deeper root zones which allow for regular cleats. Tygast411 13:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Shoes 

message: Isn't it a little inaccurate to lead the readers into believing that SRI duplicated the FieldTurf product, when the US court system found SRI innocent of all charges and made FieldTurf pay 4.3 million in legal fees?
Tygast411 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit

message: The claim: "FieldTurf is a major synthetic turf competitor, contributing to the replacement of what was once the most popular artificial turf, [[AstroTurf]." is purely subjective and adds no encyclopedic value to the FieldTurf article. Tygast411 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done --Selket Talk 06:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Selket. Can you look into the concerns I have regarding the "Lawsuit" section (see above) as well? Tygast411 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yup --Selket Talk 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Product"

message: I don't think the sentance or two on the lawsuit deserves a special section, especially one titled buisness.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  --Selket Talk 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but you probably expected that. It would be my suggestion to remove it entirely, but if there's a consensus for it to stay then it definetly needs to be neutralized to say the least (as you've done. Thanks). There are probably three places where citations would be needed to prove it's accuracy, two sources are already provided but neither of those sources states that AstroTurf introduced the questionable product after FieldTurf had which implies that FieldTurf had a better product. And if it stays, then how about including the other side of the story from a source already referenced that states:The November, 2000 verdict arose from a jury’s finding that FieldTurf was guilty of false advertising and breach of contract. In conjunction with the November, 2000 trial, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that FieldTurf and its CEO John Gilman acted in bad faith and engaged in conduct that was intended to prevent a fair trial and constituted obstruction of justice in a Federal Court proceeding. http://www.southwestrec.com/international/news/general/sri_fieldturf_dismissal.htm Adding in legal and courtroom details is going to open a can of worms for FieldTurf since they have been in numerous litigations with just about every synthetic turf provider, not just AstroTurf.http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1553.pdfhttp://www.newsletterlink.info/nx.asp?x=479-631-563-2524-5845-0http://www.iprights.com/ipresources/casewatchview.asp?CaseID=243http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/04/fieldturf_v_tri.htmletc... I will leave the decision up to you. Ben 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business section 

message: I have posted an RfC to gain a neutral perspective on the POV content posted on the FieldTurf article. In the essence of transparency, I must mention that I am an employee of French West Vaughan (FWV) which handles PR and Marketing for GeneralSports Venue (GSV), the current licensee of the AstroTurf brand. Because of my affiliation with FWV and GSV, my views could be seen as biased although my intentions are purely neutral.  Ben 16:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I'd like to discuss making neutral edits to the Product section. The section currently reads:
FieldTurf is an artificial turf composed of sand and crumb rubber mixture with properties similar soil, and plastic shafts which are used to simulate the grass. As of 2005, at least seven out of the nine Canadian Football League teams will had installed either FieldTurf or a similar surface, as well as approximately half of National Football League venues as well as several Major League Baseball stadiums List of FieldTurf installations . The surface is now also becoming popular with high school football and is now even being seen in various world soccer venues, a sport where natural grass had always been preferred.[citation needed]
It would be a good idea to elaborate a little bit more on the elements and construction of the product without making any subjective claims and avoiding marketing speak.
The current section starts off pretty good, with the exception of a few subjective claims. Then the section starts to migrate from the original focus of the section. The following is how I would interpret the definition of the FieldTurf product.
FieldTurf is an artificial turf composed of monofilament polyethylene blend fibers tufted into a polypropylene backing with a mixture of silica sand and cryogenic rubber infill.
Here is a photo for reference to the FieldTurf product:
http://www.fieldturf.com/superbowl/downloads/FTGrass_info.jpg
And just for neutrality, here is how a similar AstroTurf product description would read. (This was more difficult since there are several different AstroTurf products with a variety of features and information about the original product should also be included in the article.)
Current AstroTurf is composed of slit-film or monofilament polyethylene blend fibers, knitted or tufted into a polypropylene backing with an all rubber infill or a mixture of silica sand and cryogenic rubber infill or no infill at all.
And here is a description of the original AstroTurf:
The original AstroTurf, developed in 1964, was a monofilament polyethylene turf with a short pile tufted into a polypropylene backing.
Note: to maintain the neutrality of both the FieldTurf and AstroTurf articles the same adjectives should be used where appropriate to describe the product features. An example of this is "cryogenic rubber infill" versus just "rubber infill". There are significant differences between the two types and since both brands use cryogenic rubber both should be able to use the adjective. When and when not to use feature adjectives may spark debate, but let's discuss any problems as they arise.
Ben 00:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Product

message: I've added sources for Beckham's claim that MLS ought to use only natural surfaces, and I also added a source for another MLS player's negative comments. After adding the citations and extra information, the section was not displayed properly in the article. Can someone verify this and/or help fix it? Amavel 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the C-F conversion and also restored much of the "Criticism" section that was deleted on February 18 without explanation. As it is reliably-sourced content, the deletion of it requires an explanation. JGHowes talk -  14:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I recently removed a link to the AstroTurf article that was placed in the reference section of the FieldTurf article. In the recent past the inclusion of such a link has been the topic of debate and I'd like to start a sincere and neutral discussion on whether the link should be permitted or not. The floor is open. Ben 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say no.  "Astro Turf" is a specific brand name of a completely different type of product.  --Coz 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though your suggestion that the FieldTurf and AstroTurf products are "completely different" is inaccurate your stance on the inclusion of an AstroTurf link has been noted. Ben 14:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course they are completely different, but a link to the generic version would be different as opposed to one specific brand.  This is like putting a link to Yugo's on the Formula 1 race car page. --Coz 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coz, please keep this conversation on subject. If you'd like to discuss the similarities between AstroTurf and FieldTurf then start a new thread and I'll be happy to correct any misperceptions you may have. Ben 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It seems to me that someone from the FieldTurf company doesn't want an astroturf link.  These products are both artificial grass.  And astroturf is the for runner for it - therefore anyone doing research on FieldTurf should be aware of the products origins - astroturf.  Themepark
The origins of FieldTurf have nothing to do with Astroturf. If you are familiar with the product, you will see that they are not even similar. Don't believe me? Ask any professional athlete that has played on both surfaces - or search the internet to find out how many people think it is leaps and bounds different than Astroturf. Also, it is quite clear that people involved with FieldTurf's competition are trying to vandalize the FieldTurf page as it is the only well-known brand of artificial turf on wikipedia. On wikipedia, there is no room for this kind of smearing campaignJayjaysmo (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AstroTurf Link

message: does anyone want to add the questions some have about health concerns associated with the rubber?  some people were worried it contained a lot of toxins.  it was mentioned in the ny times a couple months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.124.162 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm personally not aware of any health risks with rubber infill (also called Crumb_rubber) used in most artificial turfs. Rubber infill is generally ground up automotive tires. I assume if there were a health risk associated with rubber infill, the same health risk would be associated with tires and would be a lot more public. I'm also not a chemist so there could be some leaching of toxins that I'm not aware of. Since rubber infill is relatively new (20 years old) there are probably a lot more tests to be done before determing conclusively one way or the other. Hope this helps. Ben 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  health issues 

message: "In 2007, a Connecticut non-profit organization Environmental and Human Health Inc. (EHHI), released a report ... [etc., etc]" should probably be moved to the crumb rubber article, with a shorter mention here of the concerns raised. It's a general concern related to the rubber, not to FieldTurf specifically. 204.4.13.72 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism About Crumb rubber 

message: A source was from the manufacturer and quotes were taken out of context. Neutrality is disputed. FieldTurf looks like the best of all artificial surfaces from what I have read but those sources also say that grass is better. Top tier players have had concerns and that is OK to say in the article. Headlines isn't even appropriate anyways. The section is discussing praise and criticism so that is what it should be split into two sections or at least retitled and and include the proper content.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: This article is a mess now but at least it is not a series of press releases. Below are my thoughts on improvement:
General structure needs to be corrected
*Things are repeated (Middlesbrough and construction). What deserves to go where? 
*Grammar and proper prose were unfortunately removed in an effort to get rid of the fluff
Soccer 
*Section might need to be broken down into a paragraph for pros and a paragraph for cons instead of being what is essentially a back and forth list. 
*Growing FIFA acceptance (not World Cup finals but everything else) 
*The growing trend of use in the MLS (please do not removed sourced information again. It is better to reword it and find additional sources if it looks off but to completely removed it is bad form)
NFL players and coaches along with stadium owners have expressed many positives which deserves space (no divots, surface is softer than other turfs, yada yada yada)
Both environmental concerns and benefits with artificial surfaces with an obvious emphasis on this particular brand
Industry Leader
*Expanded use in US pro stadiums 
*Replaced market share lost by AstroTurf 
Other uses
*MLB
*Originally made for golf (history section best?)
*Street medians in Windsor
*Paris Airport Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that there should be discussion on the surface's use in (American) football and baseball. Soccer is basically the only sport for which it is controversial, so only mentioning its use in that sport may paint an overly negative picture of the product.  24.11.127.26 (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw one source mentioning criticism with high school football. Most of the information regarding sports other than soccer is positive, though. Also: Thanks for the recent cleanup.Cptnono (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Market share is in. Does anyone want to expand the uses as mentioned above?Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Is cryogenically ground rubber what is meant? Delmlsfan (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really have no idea what it is but their website states "Cryogenic rubber"  and term is used in secondary sources. Is "cryogenically ground" the same thing and a more descriptive term we should be using?Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the term "cryogenically ground rubber" should be used, as it is probably what was intended.  Its not that its any more descriptive, but its a clarification on the process, which demonstrates how fine of a grind they get.Radiomantodd (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryogenic rubber?

message: The section about Middlesbrough is misleading. They installed a training pitch. The wording here makes it sound to anyone not familiar with the Premiership that they play competitive matches on FieldTurf rather than just train on it. The article is still reading like a PR piece. Jonknight73 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company History 

message: Macae misread the 2 sources provided. Henry has not played due to the turf. Further edit warring without using the talk page will result in a request for admin intervention. Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Macae

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on FieldTurf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121202233952/http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017343/index.htm to http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017343/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217111633/http://www.fieldturf.com/product/designConstruction.cfm to http://www.fieldturf.com/product/designConstruction.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824092758/http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=130784 to http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=130784
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130522072133/http://www.sd129.org/database/district/downloads/district/College%20Safety%20Study-b.pdf to http://www.sd129.org/database/district/downloads/district/College%20Safety%20Study-b.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420040340/http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/pitchequipment/footballturf/star%3D1/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/pitchequipment/footballturf/star%3D1/index.html
*Added  tag to https://www.lusheslawn.co.za
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729110223/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/08/beckham_speaks.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/08/beckham_speaks.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified