Talk:Water aerobics

Proper noun

Is "Aqua Aerobics" a proper noun? If not, this page should be moved to Aqua aerobics. This would also apply to Freestyle Aerobics. Khatru2 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits May 21, 2007

I have changed the statement "This also makes aqua aerobics an ideal choice for individuals suffering obesity, arthritis or any other medical condition, as well as healthy individuals." because I believe that it violates the "What Wikipedia is not" principle: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise..."

This article must be very carefully read and edited to avoid undue claims for Aqua aerobics, in my opinion.JeanColumbia 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-Up and Advert tags

I tried to eliminate all links to advertising and adverstising language within the article. I tried to take out unfounded, unreferenced claims. Most importantly, I tried to find references to document claims. Unfortunately, that means removing the references to the YMCA, which has numerous water aerobics classes nationwide; perhaps I will revisit this issue but for now I consider their inclusion advertising.

How well I succeeded, I'm not sure. At any rate, I think that the tags can be removed--I'm not sure of the protocol here, so I shall remove them myself. If I have done something against Wiki policy or offended anyone, I apologize in advance-my motives were not to insult.JeanColumbia 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on unverified material

I removed some unverified material ([1], [2], [3]), and User:Tim_Ross reverted my changes and placed fact tags in the sections (I've changed the fact tags to more appropriate {{unreferencedsection}} tags). I don't think any of the material I removed can be verified by reliable third-party sources, but I'm willing to let it stay for awhile to see if other people can find appropriate sources. If nothing happens in a week I'll remove the material again; you're free to place an {{expand}} tag on the article if I do, which would alert people that the article would benefit from more info.

One thing I removed was a section on stress and water aerobics, which Tim Ross reverted saying "This is a referenced quote, so the reader can decide the info quality." The problem isn't that the quote isn't referenced--the problem is that a claim (not backed up by any research) from a non-notable and biased person is being used to support a claim about the benefits of water aerobics. I've removed the quote but left the section, along with an {{unreferencedsection}} tag. MrVibrating (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies, MrVibrating. I had intended to advise you of my deletes myself, and provide a little more explanation. This, though, is perhaps a better forum for that.

You are right, that {{unreferencedsection}} is preferable to {{fact}} to call attention to editing defects in the article. Should have done that myself. Your deadline of a week to improve the article's sources, though, is more stringent than needed. Removing substantial chunks of text because the article's editors didn't respond sufficiently rapidly will not help to build consensus. Part of the difficulty, I think, may lie in the references which you consider to be "reliable third-party sources". "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." Most of the material in this article is non-controversial, and little in need of special sourcing. Unusual or unlikely claims should be backed up by high grade sources, however, and it would be helpful to know which specific claims in the article you think fall into that category.

You are incorrect about the quote. It is perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards to say "Chicken Little said 'The sky is falling'." There is no need to show that the sky is falling, merely that Chicken Little said so. If you feel that Chicken Little's statement is insufficient to back up an assertion that the catastrophe is really occurring, than a request for further sourcing might be appropriate, not the deletion of an accurate quotation. I will go ahead, on that basis, and return the quote. Tim Ross·^talk 15:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about not informing me--that's what the watchlist is for, and your edit summaries explained your basic points.

On the general sources issue: claims about the benefits of any type of exercise are controversial. Most of what I removed fits in that category; the rest was mostly instructional material. Removal of the material from the article doesn't permanently delete it from record, so there's no reason to wait a long time before deleting it. If you'd like the unverified material to be more visible it could be copied here to the talk page.

It is acceptable to include a quote only if the quote/person is notable. For example, an article about a politician could certainly mention their statements without those statements being factual. But in this case the person quoted isn't notable: a single water aerobics instructor with no stated notability/authority quoted in a local newspaper. So it 1) doesn't prove the benefits of water aerobics and 2) isn't notable for inclusion. MrVibrating (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, now, that the article has just been modified in major ways, and I'm losing enthusiasm for further efforts on it right now. I disagree that the originator of a quote must be notable to be referenced, merely that the reference itself must be from a reliable source, in this case a newspaper. However, I'll leave it as it is unless that quote looks to be important for the article as it's now evolving. Tim Ross·^talk 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that a person must be notable if their claim doesn't have any basis. If the claim has a basis then they certainly don't have to be notable: a researcher who has a study published by a reputable peer-reviewed journal doesn't have to be notable, but the study has authority due to the review process. In this case her claim has no basis--she doesn't cite any studies or even give reasons--and she's not notable. The newspaper being reliable isn't enough--that means we can trust that they didn't misquote her, but it doesn't give her claim any authority. MrVibrating (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed and re-wrote a bunch of the page. The getting involved section made it look like advertising, including all the bogus how-to sub-sections. There are now separate disadvantages and benefits sections combining the info into the relevant section. I also removed what appeared to be bogus info about aquafit burning more calories - the other reference to calories burned contradicted this, and I like it better 'cause it's a bit more nuanced due to the inclusion of weight. As far as stress goes, all exercise reduces stress, so this is kinda irrelevant and would be captured by the link to exercise page. I also think the source is dubious, particularly for the claim supported, and WP:MEDRS backs me up. Claims for medical benefits should be sourced to pubmed and peer-reviewed journals, or statements by governing bodies, not to newspaper articles. If aquafit is better at relieving stress than other types of exercise, find the journal this information is published in and cite that. WLU (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of article?

May I suggest that this article be changed to "Water aerobics", with redirects from "Aqua aerobics" and "AquaFit"? Right now, "Water aerobics" redirects to "Aqua aerobics". "AquaFit" does not redirect, currently. A Google search for the three terms just came up with these approximate numbers: "Water aerobics" = 880,000; "Aqua aerobics" = 170,000; "AquaFit" = 150,000. Tim Ross 11:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no one has objected, I have just made this name change. Tim Ross (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "waterobics" in the first line

Beyond the obvious synonym nature of "waterobics" to "aquarobics", there are many Google references to the former, essentially equating it to Aqua Aerobics or Water Aerobics:

The Power of Water: Waterobics and Water Fitness Exercises for All Ages (Paperback) http://www.amazon.com/Power-Water-Waterobics-Fitness-Exercises/dp/0915611260

Sadili Oval Health and Fitness Centre will on September 9 host the latest in their monthly aerobics marathon series. Dubbed the "Waterobic Marathon"' the event features step, dance and water aerobics. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-8-2000-409.asp

DESCRIPTION OF WATEROBICS Energetic warm water based exercise. Due to the water resistance any exercise movement performed gves twice the benefit of the same exercise on land. http://www.barrowinferno.co.uk/17/237/accomodation/Waterobics.aspx

WATEROBICS - This program includes mild aerobic-conditioning exercises performed in a warm pool (90°-94°). Ideal for people with arthritis, fibromyalgia, joint pain or other medical conditions. Classes are one hour and are held twice a week, for more information call 916.423.5928. http://www.chwregister.chwhealth.org/MethodistSacramento/ClassDetails.aspx?ClassID=REHAB-3%20%20%20&ProgramID=30138&ProgramName=Fitness%20and%20Nutrition&CategoryName=Exercise&CategoryID=30139

Waterobics Time - AEROBICS can be defined as any physical exercise that increases the heart rate and the body's intake of oxygen long enough to benefit the condition of the human body. Therefore, performing such simple activities as walking, running, dancing, and swimming can be referred to as doing aerobic exercises. This type of exercise had been around for several years and has also been taken to another level - water aerobics - which brings you the same benefits as regular aerobic work outs. Water aerobics, however, has bonuses. One is that it allows you to exercise every muscle and joint in your body simultaneously. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10426829.html

Waterobics ~ a pool-based exercise program for adults with arthritis or other medical conditions Waterobics is a 45-minute biweekly, pool-based program at the Methodist Outpatient Rehabilitation Center offering low-impact group exercises in warm water (94 degrees). The program is designed for adults who could benefit from and enjoy mild aquatic and gentle aerobic conditioning exercises, particularly individuals with arthritis, fibromyalgia and joint pain. The depth of the pool ranges from 3 to 4 feet. http://www.methodistsacramento.org/Medical_Services/Rehabilitation_Services/Outpatient_Rehabilitation_Center/048888

etc.

CAN WIKI LIST "WATEROBICS" AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTRY, SENDING READERS TO "AQUA AEROBICS" IF NECESSARY???

Yellowpad (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the same thing, I don't see a problem with simply adding it to the lead. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]