Talk:IronMind

Rewrite and developed references[edit]

This article had been identified as a stub, so I expanded on it, rewriting most of it. Some information in the original entry was also inaccurate or incomplete and poorly referenced, so I have tried to fill in the gaps and added a more complete list of references to fall in line with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Please comment on what may have been left out. I have also included a section on the Captains of Crush controversy, as suggested in earlier Talk posts.Stephen Fletcher (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from VfD:[edit]

Advertising. --BM 00:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did link several sources on their website, which can be removed if there is a consensus that such links are inappropriate. I did in, addition, put "Request a catalog" on the bottom (really because I love their catalog and many others have said the same), which can also be taken out if necessary. However, I am in no way affiliated with IronMind, other than being a happy customer, and they are certainly a notable organization - the long list of institutions that testify to using their products [1] should be sufficient affirmation of that. They really do fill a niche by offering unique and well-designed products to assist in strength training. Ground 00:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further, the statement They are renowned by weightlifters for their innovation, product quality and customer service is factual and representative of a majority viewpoint; it is part of the reason the company is notable. Ground 00:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reworded the article to make it (IMO) less effusive, and removed the "Request a catalog" link. Ground 01:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But you haven't removed the "renowned" sentence. How do you know this statement is true? What is the source for it? If it is based on your personal assessment of "weightlifter opinion", based on what other weightlifters have said to you, that is unverified and unverifiable original research and is not admissable. Statements made in the Wikipedia must be based on verifiable public sources, nor personal impressions. For example, if a recognized journalistic source about weightlifting has surveyed weightlifter opinion regarding the quality, innovativeness, reputation for customer support, etc, and that is the finding, then you can report the finding and state the source. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from the P.R. puffery of the company, and is no better because you don't work for them. --BM 02:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've eliminated the original research. Ground 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep, well known business, peerless in the relm of handgrip sales. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. --BM 00:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. In what way is that article a product catalog or shopping guide? I see no products. It's just an average company info page. Dan100 09:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep de-POVed version, but it would be nice to have some external references like a magazine article about the products or something discussing major companies in the field. Kappa 17:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An article about a company is not necessarily advertising, or we'd have to delete Pepsi too. And if they publish a journal that makes them notable enough for me. Bryan 19:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep this article as the company's notability exceeds Wikipedia's standards, even if they do fluctuate. Triped 21:53, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Keep this well known business. Bryan Derksen says it best. —RaD Man (talk) 02:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not a product catalog, a shopping guide, or a place for testimonials about consumer products. GRider\^talk 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Captains of Crush controversy[edit]

Why not talk about the Captains of Crush controversy? Used to be that you could get the cert if you had the gripper closed from parallel to close (the hardest part). Unfortunately, they decided that they'd change these rules and all subsequent closes had to be done with a credit card between the handles, widthwise, before start. This means for many that they'd be in a mechanically disadvantaged position and interestingly enough NOBODY has closed the #4 with these new rules. Many who were 1/8" or less on the #4 before the rule change abandoned the quest.

This article is 99.9% spam and likely exists to increase the pagerank of the linked site. My website gets regular waves of spam for this website - attach

/ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/tramadol-line.html
/ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/tramadol-best-buy.html
/ironcms/opencms/ironmind/forms/tramadol-ultram/link-move.to-online-tramadol.html

to their domain name and check for yourself. It's a link-farm: Similar Pages List on Google

124.177.4.56 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added cleanup-Spam tag[edit]

I am aware that the website has been reviewed in 2004 already and has passed a community review, however I believe that certain things have changed that may warrant a re-review of whether this website should indeed be listed.

The main reason for that is that ironmind.com appears to be a link farm - look at this example of related pages in Google to see what I mean. Searching for ironmind.com on Google also yields a lot of results showing how aggressively this website is advertised, as such I am confident to say that the entry on Wikipedia - especially since its suitability for an encyclopedia was already disputed at one point - only exists to boost its Google pagerank.

124.177.4.56 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all you're saying really is that Ironmind is a business. There are plenty of businesses with Wikipedia entries, that doesn't automatically make them all spam. I don't agree with your claim that the Ironmind site is a "link farm" either, as I understand the term (it certainly doesn't fit with the definition of link farm). Dsreyn 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding POV/neutrality and lack of citations for recent section[edit]

The following section has been added by Athom1790:

IRONMIND CONTINUES IT ROLE AS THE PROPOGANDA WING OF IFSA DBA CHAMPIONS STRONGMAN LEAGUE

INTEGRITY OF ARNOLD STRONGMAN CLASSIC IN QUESTION STARTING IN 2008 Marcel Mostert, Christian Fennell and the rest of the IFSA organization (reopened as Champions League) ended its tenure in the Fall of 2007 by abandoning 25,000 pounds of equipment and burning dozens of athletes for over $100,000 American dollars in prize money when it held its last competition in Korea. The freight bill Marcel Mostert and Fennell abandoned totalled $63,000.00. There were tens of thousands of dollars also lost storing and transporting the four giant crates that had to be held by the Philadelphia-based freight forwarder for two years. The Philadelphia forwarder ended up shutting down one of his offices and laying off employees, some of who had been employed by the Philadelphia Freight forwarder for over 20 years. These same IFSA officials (several now with Champions League) and others from its executive staff and Board of Governors have entered shows such as The Arnold Classic and Fortissimus in the roles of officials. The integrity of these shows has been questioned in several circles since 2008. It has been questioned if these officials have used their role in THE ARNOLD STRONGMAN CLASSIC to influence the outcome of the event and also to influence competitors who took part of the competition in Korea from joining the Federal Lawsuit. The process to file a Federal Lawsuit has started again in the Summer of 2010 and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is being notified of the problems with his strongman competition in Columbus Ohio. Dr. Todd was notified of these conflicts of interest and chose to ignore them.

Whilst I do not dispute that the article should contain reference to the issue I am concerned about the way it has been presented, i.e. that the facts are not being presented in a neutral way and I believe they violate Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality. The section is also written in an inflammatory way. I have removed the section twice stating that I think it ought to be rewritten from a neutral standpoint and that it should have citations. However, the edit has simply been replaced. In fairness, the talk page is the place to discuss this, hence I have begun this discussion. Similar edits by the same editor have been made on Strongman Champions League‎, Fortissimus‎ and Arnold Strongman Classic‎.Kwib (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the intention of resolving the potential issues surrounding the above section and other articles, a centralised discussion has begun on the talk page of Athom1790.Kwib (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on IronMind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IronMind. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090402105439/http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/907261.html to http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/907261.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on IronMind. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]