Talk:Nordic walking

message: With the recent discovery of new documents, it seems that the history of nordic walking has been re-written. It turns out that it has been widely plagiarised over the course of almost 20 years. The Finnish organisation TUL (tul.fi) has just recently made these unearthed documents available to the public (http://tul.fi/Koulutus/Materiaalit/Vanhojamateriaaleja.aspx). To sum it up, rather then in 1997, nordic walking was created in 1974. This claim will be back up by the chief-editor of TUL, whose contact number can be found on the TUL homepage.
*(Note: The only problem is that these reference materials are currently available in the Finnish language only, but if you visit the equal Finnish wiki article "Sauvakävely", you will see that they are accepted.)KMuuli (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History re-written

message: Since the page is being constantly vandalized could some protection be placed upon it. THank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Contsant vandalization

message: The pole walking history is unmistakably and deeply connected with the individual Marko Kantaneva. The argument that pole walking is a sport that developed over time, is quite simply false and unproven (without factual evidence). While the sport does use principles that were known before, the sport itself did not exist until Marko Kantaneva created a scientific piece about it (describing the sport, the proper equipment (with specifications) etc.). Who ever keeps reediting the page and completely deleting this is quite clearly trying to cover up some proven facts (while they keep uploading unproven statements in turn). Please could the page be monitored by a competent individual and whoever is continuously and stubbornly reediting this page, I strictly suggest you to follow a bit of common courtesy and contact me if necessary to fix any statements that you aren't happy with (provided you can prove them).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate editing

message: Pole walking "pioneer" references are ridiculous and Wikipedia is not place for exaggeration and myth. The true pioneers were the Scandinavian Ski Coaches that had their athletes utilizing poles for training when deprived of snow - they are the true pioneers. Also the thousands of Europeans utilizing ski poles for hiking for decades could be considered pioneers. Pole walking was popular in Europe long before Nordic Walking ever arrived on the scene. Let’s be real.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkiCoach (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading statements in article

message: Am I the only one that sees the rather odd little red herring, rather sourceless anti-darwinism argument in the middle of there? Where did that come from? Can we have a source on that? O_o --
151.203.190.88 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwinism?

message: This is a very interesting article, I'd love to discuss how to make it better. For example, I came up with the idea of incorporating weighted clothing with this, ideally beginning with wrist weights, although vests and backpacks and shoulder weights could work. They would require some modifications in gait, but would add variety to training progressively off and on. Tyciol 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not have an opinion on anything. If there is a broad, general consensus that that certain kinds of poles are better than others, we should cite sources for that; if there is not, we should include both points of view and avoid supporting either opinion ourselves. Of course, citing sources is crucial again. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss!

message: I moved the "inappropriate tone" tag up to the top of the article - I'm pretty sure that lines like "Mind you, there is a difference in Tom Rutlin's technique and the "scandinavian" Nordic Walking technique." aren't what you'd expect in an encyclopedia. I'm also getting the feeling that the article may not be entirely neutral; pole walking was certainly done before 1988, although it wasn't called "nordic walking" then. Someone who knows more about this than I do should rewrite this article. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: The examples of "inappropriate tone" given here have been removed or changed. I don't believe this is a concern now.
Gary (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone no longer exists 

message: It has become all too obvious that someone is consistently removing
all Nordic walking links from the article on Nordic walking and
substituting the International Nordic Walking Association (INWA). For
everyone's information, INWA is simply a front for the pole manufacturer
Exel and despite the name, not really the "International Nordic Walking Association".
There could be a number of useful links in that article, including
anwa.us, poleabout.com, nordicwalkingus.com, Exerstrider.com and
others, even INWA...
Is there a way to control the people from INWA, so other useful links,
besides theirs also appear and stay within the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalewsk (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm probably as guilty as anyone of removing external links from the article. See, I believe that WP:LINKS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:NOT, jointly and severally, are pretty clear. Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Now, after looking more deeply into the INWA site, I see that you're correct that Exel and a couple of other companies bankroll that site. Of course, the exact same thing is true for the ANWA site, which you seem to feel is all right. In any case, I've looked at each of the sites you've suggested and, in my opinion, none of them is appropriate for inclusion as external links on the page, INWA probably included. If you read the guidelines I linked to, you'll see that, if there's a site with information you think would be useful to include in an article, the best thing to do is to expand the article to contain that information and use the website as a reference. Of course, it's a lot more work to expand, format and copyedit articles than it is to simply slap external links onto them. That's why there are literally thousands of spammers who troll Wikipedia for the sole purpose of slapping external links onto articles in the hope that they will draw hits to their site; whose only edits are adding external links or whining about their links being removed. As I read those guidelines, however, the purpose of the External links section is solely to link directly to the subject of the article. For example, in the Nikon article, a link to the Nikon corporate website is appropriate. Links to blogs that discuss Nikon equipment or sites that sell Nikon equipment would not be. In addition, the External links section could be used to temporarily store a link with useful information until an editor has time to work it into the article. For an article such as this one, the only external links I think should permanently be attached are links to non-commercial associations or educational institutions teaching about the subject. If you can find some of those, they're highly unlikely to be removed. Sites, however, that include advertising for equipment or that promote or sell equipment, excursions, books, etc, are wholly inappropriate. So, in an effort to placate your sense of injustice at having the INWA link in the article, I shall remove it forthwith. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordic walking links 

message: That is named as one of the benefits in the article. But the corresponding German Wikipedia article refers to a study (in German) which investigated the positive aspects of the use of poles to your joints. The study says, that there is no significant benefit: Joints study  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.127.148 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German study questions "significant un-weighting of hip, knee and ankle joints" 

message: I believe this section should be removed. It does not describe a new style, rather a hybrid of the Exerstrider and European styles. It could be seen as more commercial than informative as an attempt sell particular types of Nordic walking poles.
Gary (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Nordic Walking System style section should be removed 

message: Nordic Walking Pole "Pioneer" type lingo doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The Exerstrider Poles may be great poles, but they were originally heavy downhill ski poles with heavy strapless molded grips. We could say that the "REFLEX" downhill ski pole company invented the 1st Nordic Walking Poles, but that would be silly - just as silly as calling people Nordic Walking Founding Fathers, Nordic Walking Queens and Nordic Walking Pioneers. The ski coaches in Scandinavia deserve the credit for successfully introducing and fine tuning ski walking and hill bounding with poles - decades prior to Nordic Walking coming onto the scene. So let’s drop the marketing hype and keep Nordic Walking clean and simple. Less hype and more walking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.129.63 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More typical marketing hype spam regarding Nordic Walking 

message: I believe this section should be removed. The only source this section has cites to a false supplement to an article in an edition of a real magazine. My reasons for believing such is that the only websites that contain any mention of this supplement are websites that profits through sales of nordic walking poles or related health items. Similiarly to the Benefits section, I think, though I haven't decided whether or not I'll put in the time to research those links too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description section should be removed 

message: I seem to be at a loss now. As I face being blocked if I properly edit the page, I am encouraged to discuss/dispute over the article's contents with my "edit-warring" opposition Natashadashenko who is answering to absolutely no messages, without exception. In resolution the article is largely faulty and there's nothing to do about it. KMuuli (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain (This is the help I've gotten so far, which really isn't a lot)
"I'm writing to figure out what was so bothersome about my edit of Nordic Walking. What instances were promotional and what where unsourced, because you reverted my edit back to FALSE information. Read through the history (of my edit) compare it to this one and contact me ASAP. The whole claim that "Nordic walking is defined as fitness walking with specially designed poles. It developed from an off-season ski-training activity known as ski walking, hill bounding or ski striding to become a way of exercising year-round. Ski walking and hill bounding with poles has been practiced for decades as dry land training for competitive Nordic skiers. Ski coaches saw the success of world class cross country skiers who used ski poles in the summer for ski walking and hill bounding and it became a staple of off-season Nordic ski training." is utterly false as there is concrete evidence that tells otherwise. Carefully read through the edit and instead of bluntly reverting it FIX IT to a more fitting state. The information provided is sufficient and sourced (if not tell me exactly what isn't). Further I can provide more sources to those health benefits, but they are benefits of Nordic Walking, not Exerstriding. Exerstriding and Nordic Walking are NOT the same thing. KMuuli (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: (NOTE: ALL MY CLAIMS AGAINST BAREK I TAKE BACK. THE SENIOR-EDITOR WAS TRYING TO HELP, AND I IN MY "EDIT-WARRING" FRUSTRATION FAILED TO SEE THAT. I APOLOGIZE TO BAREK AND GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR HIS HELP, DESPITE MY IGNORANT, THOUGH UNINTENTIONAL INSULTS.) KMuuli (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: KMuuli, as I mentioned at WP:ANI, lets just forget all that and put it behind us.  I'll try to be more responsive here on the talk page to assist - but keep in mind that we are in different time-zones, and due to travel there are many times when I can only view/edit Wikipedia from my phone, which is difficult to say the least (my fingers are too big to type easily on a tiny phone). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of options

message: I removed the health benefits section as there wasn't a reliable third-party source for that content, as well as removed some of the promotional wording to try to bring it to a more neutral wording.  The problem with the health claims is that they don't seem to be published by any third-party reliable sources.  The original author apparently has data on it, but that would be a primary source, so not really usable for encyclopedic content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned before, I can provide that third-party. I just need sometime to look the sources/files up and I will contact then. I would like to know as well, that is it basically okay (not that I'm planning any now) to make edits again. In the sense that I don't know what happens with the "edit-warring" block warning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any issues with your continued editing at this time.  Just remember that Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines; when in doubt, it's usually best to drop back to discussions on the article talk page, or if not getting traction there to review WP:DR for tips on getting others to help review a situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health benefits 

message: Reading through the article again sometime later now I'm pleased to see that appropriate edits are finally being made. However, the statement: "Both Exerstriding and Nordic Walking are based on extensive written and proven research work, but the two utilize slightly different techniques and equipment so are commonly misinterpreted as synonymous." seems to be unverified. Thus far, and I apologize upfront if this is due to my lacking research , I have yet to see a certified work about Exerstriding by Tom Rutlin (equal to "lets say" Marko Kantaneva's "Sauvakävely", basically a piece that defines Exerstriding the way Nordic Walking was defined). 
Furthermore under the benefits section: "Compared to regular walking, Nordic Walking - also called poling, pole walking or urban poling, involves applying force to the poles with each stride." behind Nordic Walking brackets should be added with the following "Note: These benefits apply to Nordic Walking only and should not be taken as the basis for other sports/exercises using poles."  Lastly I suggest the part where the "other names/ nicknames" of the sport are enlisted should also be moved into brackets.
Note: I explain the changes here before applying them. I'll be checking back regularly for some constructive critisism on the matter, if none is presented after a week or so (also objections are welcome) then i'll go a head and apply the changes.
:: The differnences between Nordic Walking and Exerstriding seem clear and well defined https://www.verywell.com/top-fitness-walking-poles-3435994 http://www.livestrong.com/article/363036-comparison-of-exerstrider-and-nordic-walking/.
Can you provide a source evidencing that the benefits don't apply to other sports/exercises using poles? This seems rather unlikely to me. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification needed

message: I realized, while editing this article a few moments ago, there's no technique section. As the technique is often misinterpreted and used in a faulty manner I think it is an important section to have. The proper technique would probably need some pictures that describe the actions better as well. Also, this section would help people understand the difference between Exerstriding and Nordic Walking, should the question arise.
On another note all references to urban poling point to Exerstriding. Notice the locked elbows, pointing to Exerstriding technique. Even further there is no reference to the word urban poling nor poling in any dictionary. Could someone also look into this matter. If poling does get approved then it stays, but urban poling definitely refers to Exerstriding, thus Nordic Walking is not also called urban poling, it is a different sport. KMuuli (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No technique so far

message: I further edited the equipment paragraph. I am aware that the material is unreferenced and it is based on what I've found while browsing through the web. Sadly none of the pages are reference credible. Hopefully the new edit is unbiased and will be used as a basis for further editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Last equipment edit

message: After a bit of brain-storming on the common misconceptions topic I noticed something that may or may not be necessary to the article. Should the word "original" be placed at the very beginning of the article, because nowadays there is Exerstrider (mentioned in the article), something called urban-poling and also a wide variety of wrong or full out unhealthy techniques (after a brief scan through YouTube). So the article would begin "Original nordic walking..." opposed to "Nordic Walking..." As usual, I'll wait a week, if no feedback is given I'll go ahead and make the edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: "Nordic walking poles come with removable rubber tips for use on hard surfaces and hardened metal tips for trails, the beach, snow and ice"
Surely the hardened metal tips are for use on hard surfaces and the (wider / larger surface area) rubber tips for use on the soft surfaces mentioned as the harder (more pointed) tips would dig / sink in?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.96.31 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft vs. hard tips 

message: Considering Nordic Walking just requires a comfy pair of trainers and a pair of sticks, it seems to have a massive and competitive industry built around it with associations that operate more like gym clubs... This whole article reads like advertising promoting the activity rather than as a neutral description of a sport and exercise activity. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. Poles and wooden canes has been used for walking since the dawn of man. This is not a new thing, or even a Scandinavian thing -- well, at least if you exclude having to using two poles, and require the poles be former skiing poles. Having people sell you a "technique" for this reeks of snake oil. With that said, being from Scandinavia I've seen quite a few people walk like this on the various mountain paths over here, so I guess it at least bears mentioning as a cultural phenomenon. --Kebman (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole article reads like an advertisement

message: For nordic walking, should I buy poles with or without an antishock system? The article does not address this question yet. Thanks! 85.194.243.243 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Equipment recommendations are outside the scope of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Antishock?

message: Members of *what*?  There's no reference in the article to anything where anything/anybody can (and/or should) be a member.  It's just a freaking list without motivation. --jae (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country Members? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion