Talk:Rafting

It would be great to add some photos and a bit more meat to this. Mark Richards 01:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking this classification system should really be in the whitewater article, since Kayaking & canoeing uses exactly the same system right? But then there'd be nothing left of the rafting article! Nojer2 12:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You can take ideas from it to enlarge this article and if you can to add rafting rivers in USA and other countries I going to thanks you so much. Regards, river team! --Gengiskanhg 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hey whats up. stop by from the white water page. one suggestion you might want to break the article into a section for those interested in trying whitewater rafting. or you might not. I was just thinking that there is certin redundencies.--Stranger 09:44, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

The safety section seems to imply that rafting without a paid guide is inherently more dangerous than a commercial trip:

"In the past there have been many accidents, but predominantly in private travel."

While a discussion of commercial outfitter certifications and licenses is certainly appropriate, I think this section should focus on "the usual safety precautions" that are alluded to but not explained as it currently stands (i.e. knowledge of current conditions, river route, ability to read rapids and pick lines, avoidance of large recirculating holes and undercuts, strainers, rescue equipment, personal safety gear including throw ropes, wetsuits, helmets, PFDs, etc). Also, the reference to the Colorado River "swallowing whole expeditions in the past" is a pretty exceptional claim to make without specific wiki links to historical examples. -- BlueCanoe 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I get the feeling this section is a product of conflict of interest editing. Let's see if we can't wikify it a bit and remove some of the bias. Ryanx7 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I rewrote the first paragraph of this section to better reflect what the research shows. This included deleting the line about private boaters having more fatalities than commercial trips as I was unable to find any research to substantiate that claim. The rest of this section needs work. It looks like most of it is plagiarized from commercial rafting "about" pages. For the time being I am going to leave the the subsequent paragraphs in place, as I work my way though researching and rewriting. Ryanx7 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

This article has a tendency to attract external links. For the general Wikipedia policy on external links, see WP:LINKS, and in particular this section. See also conflict of interest and what Wikipedia is not. This talk page is the appropriate place to ask other wiki users what their opinion is of any potential changes in this article. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi I am working an information web page about the rafting on the Main Salmon River and the surrounding area. The site is idahowhitewater.com. I am wondering if this could be added as a link to this page?

Thanks SalmonWeb 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that idahowhitewater.com is too commercial to be linked from Wikipedia, as it is essentially a directory of businesses with services for sale (Wikipedia guidelines here and here). I suggest removal. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi rafting editors, I have a site whitewatercampsites.com that, while it does have some advertising to offset costs, is a valuable resource of the rafting community. The link was on the Rafting topic until Katr67 deleted it last night. She suggested that I appeal here. See her talk page for our discussion. In trying to figure out why my link got deleted, I blundered into signing up as an editor. I just want to get the link restored because it was serving people. Thanks for taking a look at my case, Will

whitewatercampsites.com is, in my opinion, close to the line between too-commercial and acceptable. Looking through the website it appears that nothing is for sale, and the only advertisements are the sponsors on the home page and the text Google Ads throughout. On a commercial basis, I'm willing to accept this link. However, we must also ask: is this website directly related to the article's subject? And again, I think it is debatable, but ultimately the fact that the website is focused on rivers in the U.S. Southwest, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest (a very small subset of the popular rafting locations in the article), and focuses on river campsites rather than the act of rafting itself (which is the subject of this article) makes me think that this link would be appropriate in a different article more closely aligned with the focus of the website. Overall I would suggest removal. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's a rafting user box that you can use. Just copy this piece of code on your user page:

   {{User Rafting}}

This will produce this:

Bu b0y2007 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest that the Popular rafting locations section is a problem for a couple of reasons. Firstly, "popular" is, by definition, a blatantly POV term. How does one objectively measure popularity in such a way as to decide if a location is "popular" enough to be included? Secondly, sections such as this generally become magnets for people to put in their own personal favourite spot and for jokesters to sneak in silly puns, etc, in the hope of not being discovered. I note that that section now takes up almost half the article space. It's hard to say how this should be treated in the long run. I can tell you that we had a similar problem at the Fly fishing article and it was resolved quite nicely by removing the section and by creating a category for destinations that could collect the various location articles under a common heading. Perhaps something similar might work here? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Pull it. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • OK, I'll include it here, though, as an archive in case anyone has a use for its constituents. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am deleting the entire "History" section, as well as several sentences in the "Whitewater rafts" section due to plagiarism issues; this text has been taken with minimal re-writing from the website Rafting History @ ABC-of-Rafting, which is clearly labeled as "© 2003-2009 ABC of Rafting, part of MaxLifestyle International Inc. All rights reserved." See WP:Plagiarism for guidelines and Wikipedia policy. --BlueCanoe (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am seeing further evidence of this in the safety section. I will replace with new researched information as I work my way through it. Ryanx7 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There were a couple of rubbish edits followed by a couple of crude edits that had the effect of highlighting Nepal as a rafting tourism destination, all now reverted. BenevolentUncle (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose we delete / archive the Techniques section for a variety of reasons. First, it contains a series of rafting related lingo that is not critical to the understanding of the sport. Second, it looks to be mostly plagiarized from commercial rafting sites. Last, it is completely unsourced. Thoughts? Ryanx7 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

afaik, all the encyclopaedias I grew up with were unreferenced. Instead, readers relied upon the assumption that they were written by experts. And the publisher was careful with QA, because any scandals re accuracy badly damaged the brand. Despite that, Nature magazine's article (ref required) showed that wp was more accurate than Enc Brit, except for instances of vandalism, presumably because multiple editors had removed obvious mistakes. i.e. wp gets buffed into shape by the fact that anyone can edit it. afaik, the main reason wp 'requires' references is to constrain contributors to npov and info that is of secondary source reliability, and these touchstones are essential for resolving any edit wars in an environment in which all contributors are equal. BUT, wp can also function as a repository of the wisdom of its contributors, who may or may not have time to a) hunt up secondary references, or b) write the secondary reference themself and then quote themself. If they self-select as an expert and write material, then imho it can be left in by those who think it is reasonably accurate, with the referencing left for one fine tomorrow. Could I suggest that you only go about demanding references if you have strong reasons for doubting the accuracy / need to invoke the refing touchstone to resolve an edit war. Or if accuracy is critical, such as in wp:med.

I have a fair bit of Australian rafting experience, and re the Techniques section, the only pars that look doubtful to me are 'Back Pivot' and 'Troying'. There has been some vandalism, so checking for accuracy is not inappropriate. The way I would check for accuracy is to check that these are as they were when first written (a binary search makes checking this feasible), 'coz most of that stuff is authoritative.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

→I actually think there are texts that could describe some of these techniques (ie Bennett's "The Complete Whitewater Rafter"). The problem is that there are a massive amount of techniques that could be listed here (Ferrying, eddy catching, etc...). At some point it turns the article into a how to do rafting guide book, and that is not the intent of an encyclopedia article. We also run into the problem that rafting lingo, as used in this section, varies a lot based on region. I am just not sure we want to spend time listing various terms for things. Ryanx7 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

On a side note, if we do keep this section it would be easy enough to rewrite the section to remove any plagiarism and add in references. Ryanx7 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

While I love the encylopedic nature of wp,

Well, a rafting ferry glide is a bit of an oxymoron, and eddy catching is hardly a specific technique - the first time you get in any craft it is obvious that they can be caught. Except for biner, alluvial, and beam (which I will delete), the list of techniques imho nicely encapsulates most of the main ways in which rafting differs from canoeing. Ryanx7, do you have much experience in rafting yourself? Any native English speaker outside of the US will note that 'taco' is regional, even though instantly understandable - this ain't a problem, and I think we are all comfy with variant spellings and idioms. Lets not spend too much time on this, and lets concentrate on creation rather than destruction. There has already been a fair bit of vandalism which I suspect is designed to wear out wpians with the aim of inserting commercial content, so lets not wear out each other. BenevolentUncle (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

→Sorry if it came across as wearing anyone out. That said, I think debating about the relevance of sections is a worthy topic of debate. This is not a huge issue to me as I am more interested in improving the other sections. The techniques section feels out of place compared to other articles. If the consensus is to keep it I think we should add some references and clean it up a bit. Yes, I have about 15 years experience rafting in the Western United States.Ryanx7 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool, no worries; sorry if my frazzle at all the subtle vandalism leaked out; just as well the rafting locations section got archived, otherwise it would have been non-stop attacks. I've now rearranged the techniques section and deleted 4 items, and added a sentence to its intro; although its list format differs from other articles I think it presents useful info OK enough. btw, thanks for your refing safety of commercial vs private - that's where primary & secondary refs are particularly useful.

also btw, does the 2nd section re catamarans in the USA seem reasonable to you? If not, perhaps chop. I just google-images

russian rafts

and

russian rafting

and they do seem to use catamaran rafts a fair bit. They also seem to do a fair bit of rafting on anatomically correct inflatable dolls, but I guess we can leave that out. BenevolentUncle (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was actual thinking we should add an "Equipment" Section. The difference between round boats, cats, paddle rafts, oar boats, etc... could use some coverage. And yes the inflatable love dolls do tend to show up...especially on bachelor party trips...but lets leave that out Ryanx7 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Although simpler would be to change the title of the section titled 'White water rafts' to 'White water rafts & equipment', and amplify that. BenevolentUncle (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That works. I just dug out my copy of "The Complete Whitewater Rafter," I am going to work on an update of that section in my sandbox.Ryanx7 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I removed the list item on Troying, with my following comment:

/* Tricks */ Removed troying, created by 130.215.124.122 in 2013/April, almost certainly vandalism. a google of rafting troying only returned articles that have mindlessly ripped off wp. This article needs review for other subtle vandalisms.

I found who entered it by doing a manual binary search. But there are probably tools for identifying small changes made by anonymous or one-off editors. I've got to get back to my day job, but if someone could arrange to get help on how to efficiently check thru the edit history for subtle vandalisms, I would be happy to help later. BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

btw, @Ryanx7, when I googled

rafting troying

the first several entries were commercial websites that probably had mindlessly plagiarised wp, rather than vice versa. There is an interesting case study there for anyone who has time. BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have just read the entire article, and it seems reasonable, except that if

Jalcomulco River in Mexico, which has swallowed whole expeditions in the past, leaving only fragments of boats

was inserted by a one-off editor then I would pull it as a plug for that river, and I have no idea re Russian rafting and USA catamarans, so if they were inserted by one-off editors I suggest reverting those too. BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, the Jalcomulco assertion was made by a one-topic editor and was clearly commercial vandalism. The article seems clean now. If attacks persist, I will ask if page protection is appropriate. Meanwhile, please forgive my brusqueness with future reversions, because unless you do a nice edit summary of an obviously constructive change I will be rude enough to revert first and ask questions later. BenevolentUncle (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right, that's it. From 5 minutes of checking, the stuff since 2014-03-12T14:40:10‎ is either obvious vandalism or softening up. Sorry Jain for not assuming good faith, but your additions are unnecessary, the page is being softened up for vandalism, so I am calling in a roll back to 2014-03-12T14:40:10‎ - otherwise I just don't have time to sort thru all the vandalism. BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to work on adding sources if that's okay. Miguel Pena (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just removed an external link to a commercial outfitter. I suspect there might be more of that in the article proper. Will go though it this week. I'm not sure this article needs the external links. Better to include specific sources as references and remove the temptation. Thoughts? Ryanx7 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ryanx7, thanks for your work on cleaning this page up. I have attempted to clean this page up as well. There seemed little to no mention of do-it-yourself rafters and I have changed that. Do-it-yourself rafting has been happening since the 1800's if you include wooden craft. The first rubber raft in Grand Canyon was in 1938. As to safety, Myers et al have done a lot of work on rafting safety in Grand Canyon. Do it yourself folks are safer according to Myers, Becker and Stevens in Fateful Journey. Thank you again, Tom RRFWTommartin (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

1. make Zimbabwe a better place economically

102.128.79.65 (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply