Talk:Sphereing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reads like an ad

"Zorbing is a recreational activity which emerged in the early 21st century. It involves rolling down an incline in an inflatable, usually transparent, sphere made from PVC.

Zorbing originated in New Zealand as the brainchild of Dwane van der Sluis and Andrew Akers, who invented the necessary device, which they named a "zorb", in 2000"

This reads like an ad. The date can't be true because I've seen it in an older Jackie Chan Movie. It was either this from 1986 or this from 1990.—Preceding unsigned comment added by R.H. (talk • contribs) 04:09, 9 July 2005

  • This one: Armour of God II: Operation Condor (1991). The "invention" date is impossible. This German article says they were invented by v.d.Sluis and Akers in 1994, and in 1999 there was a zorb race in Hamburg, Germany. 1994 still doesn't explain how it could appear in the movie.--84.188.129.253 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In Russian newspaper article [1] 1973 is given as the year of zorb invention. And two mentioned guys from New Zealand named as persons worked on improving zorb in 1990-ies. ru:User:Дмитрий Кузьмин —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.195.11.101 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 May 2006

The zorb is an awesome experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.110.91 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 July 2006

The Dangerous Sports Club article claims it was they that invented rolling around in an inflatable sphere[2], not a bunch of New Zealanders. Is "zorbing" a sport or trademark? 220.233.191.2 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

9th April 07- Zorbing appears to be a TM used by the original firm offering the experience. Others seem to use their own name- e.g. 'Sphereing'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.89.54 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2007

24 April 2007 - I have corrected "Canada" to "New Zealand", where Rotorua really is, and corrected "1867", an obvious mis-print, to "1967". Nicholas Newman 15:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoky Mountains location

Why did my notation of their upcoming Smoky Mountains location get removed? Alex 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV review

  • In all my time on wikipedia I have NEVER seen an article done this badly. Over the entire thing, Some moron added there own little advertisements into the origins and current situation of the Zorb without even incorporating it into the text; "This is not the case"... And the part that really got me was the Company History tid-bit. It sounds like it was written by a disgruntled employee. When I find myself feeling comfortable with my Wikipedia article editing skills I'll come back and do my best to make this article the least bit informative. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.119.146 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2007
    • I agree. People involved with or related to the Zorb business appear to be fighting with each other, according to the change history. Currently the article contains obvious NPOV commentary. It also reads like a marketing brochure (see similar comments above). I am nominating this article to be checked for neutrality. --Fjarlq 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that the most recent editor of this article was Craig Horrocks, a user claiming to be "CEO of Zorb Limited". See also Craig Horrocks' contributions --Fjarlq 02:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI with reference to the "most recent editor... claiming to be the CEO of Zorb Limited" I am that person. I have provided my email address. If you want to check the facts please visit the New Zealand Companies office link NZ Companies Office. I simply edited a completely erroneous entry. The replacement text contains a number of false statements. While others may have had similar concepts over the years the Zorb was invented and patented in New Zealand. There is no issue of the people related to Zorb "fighting each other". That is what my edit was designed to show factually. Zorb is like many innovators, flattered by its --Craig Horrocks 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)copyists, condemned by those that have no imagination and wish to free-ride. The point of the edit was also to set out the true history. Zorb has patents. It has however watched other copyists and preferred to take the higher ground of focusing on what it does. I invite anyone to contact me directly at craig_horrocks@zorb.com if they are really interested in the facts and the paperwork that supports that. Frankly, we would prefer if the entry was deleted completely and replaced by reference to the generic term of 'sphereing'. Zorb is our company name, our trademark and we would would be happy if Wikipedia just ignored us and let us get on with making history! --Craig Horrocks 04:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a further edit to make it clear that this is history (corrected!). Zorb Limited is not interested in advertising. It is interested in establishing the facts. Our hope is that our provision of references to the official sources will enable this entry to be consigned to history. We created a new sport which is about challenge and fun. We are happy that that sport is genericzed as "sphereing". Apart from that we just want to get on with do what we do. Again we would welcome the removal of the term 'zorbing' completely and have x-referenced to 'sphereing' in the hope that that might happen. --Craig Horrocks 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Craig Horrocks: as CEO of Zorb Limited, your recent edits are inappropriate considering Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. They are also inappropriate in other ways, because they do not reflect a neutral point of view. In my opinion you should avoid further edits to main articles while neutral parties work this out. This issue has been reported to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. --Fjarlq 05:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fjarlq: I accept that I have a conflict of interest. I do not accept that I cannot edit demonstrably false, malicious and defamatory material. We had nothing to do with the original entry. we only intervened when the entry became so absurd and unlawfully made what was noted at the time as ridiculous statements. We would like the entry completely deleted. If it is to stay we will have to consider our rights as the trademark holder. That is not our style. Our hope is that now attention is drawn to this the entry (if not removed) will be accurate and fair. We are certainly not interested in promotion through this medium. We have our own marketing program and Wikipedia is not in it! --Craig Horrocks 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Horrocks claims there is non-factual information in this article but rather than correcting the information or alerting users on this page as to what the non-factual information is, he replaces the entire article with his advertising. It is not the place of persons with a COI to place advertising on Wikipedia nor to complain that Wikipedia is not part of their marketing. Wikipedia is not supposed to be marketing. It is an encyclopeadia and it is not for companies' to decide they would like to have an article there or not. Horrocks and his employees should respect that and stay away from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.8.237 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 December 2007

mjmcb1: I arrived at this page because a travel insurance policy used the term 'Zorbing' as a form of recreational activity that their policy would cover [they don't use the term 'sphereing']. Zorb Limited can't really stop anyone using the term in this way, in spite of what Craig says; it's not a trademark infringement unless someone is trying to pass off a similar product under that name, so ZI should save their lawyer money for that eventuality. It must be simultaneously galling and gratifying to have a trademark adopted as a generic descriptor, but it's happened, guys. --[[User:mjmcb1] 31 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmcb1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of important content

The most glaring problem with this article is that there is no mention of the activity itself, though the picture does provide a strong clue. The article is almost completely comprised of the equipment and the company owning the patent. The sphering article shows a similar lack as it only mentions Zorb. 68.176.139.61 02:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod because the topic deserves an article, and there have been so many revisions that there probably is useful, non-POV, non-ad content in them that I wouldn't want to delete to help people work on cleaning up the article. I reverted to a version from last year, before Craig Horrocks's COI edits, and which has less ad-like language. I kept the disputed tag, though, since the reason Craig began editing was apparently because of factual problems, and added a rewrite tag per the concerns of others here. There may be additions made after this revision which contain useful materials, and I encourage people to work on improving the article, observing spam, verifiability and neutral point of view. Rigadoun (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this article has been hijacked by those with a conflict of interest - specifically by the COI of Zorb Limited, Horrocks and others who it appears are connected with that company. References to the term 'sphereing' appear to be by another company 'Spheremania' who have trademarked the term 'sphereing' as an alternative to the term zorbing. However my research has shown zorbing to be the normal term used (by the dictionary, MANY media articles, insurance companies, etc). I have researched my edit after experiencing zorbing (great fun!)and checking out a number of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that any edits to this article are being changed by Lizzie Dean. A quick google search shows a Lizzie Dean who is Zorb Limited's group licensing and franchising manager. Can they be the same person?! If so, it is not appropriate that an article is edited by those with a Conflict of Interest who are advertising one particular company! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 08:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Protection

As the Franchise and Licensing Manager for Zorb Limited I reserve the right to protect our trademark and correct factual inaccuracies in this article. As our CEO has previously stressed, we have no desire to advertise via Wikipedia but we do have a problem with our trademark being used in connection with other products which are not produced by our company and over which we have no control in terms of safety. Amongst other factual inaccuracies I have removed reference to Zorbs being used on water. This is a serious safety issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie dean (talk • contribs) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributors, specifically employees of the company calling itself Zorb, seem to be confusing this encyclopedia article as being either about their company (in which case why don't they start a new article called "Zorb (company)" or similar) and/or that this article is about the (disputed) use of the Zorb trademark as a verb (in which case why don't they start a new article called "Zorb (verb)" in a similar vein to the Google (verb) article.) Either way they should stop vandalising this article with their clear and obvious conflict of interest.

In addition, there is clear evidence of Zorbing on water despite Lizzie dean claiming this is a factual inaccuracy. In particular there are internet articles detailing the use of Zorbs at Seaworld, including an article about a performer being injured in a Zorb at the show (evidently Lizzie dean's safety concerns are valid, which still doesn't permit her to deny that the activity occurs.)

Ultimately the Zorb company must accept that Wikipedia does not exist as an advertising vehicle for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.14.36 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Zorb Limited's claims of copyright infringement seem confused. It appears they may well own the trademark to the word 'zorb' in some countries (although the ownership is disputed in some countries), but I can find no reference to them having any right to protect the term 'zorbing' which is the generic term for the activity! Amy Talkington (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Zorbing" is not the generic term for the activity and we strongly refute that claim. In fact we believe that the practice of copyists referring to their activity this way is a clear example of "passing off" thier product as a Zorb - an infringement of our trademark.

We accept wholeheartedly that Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle for our company and we have no desire to advertise through Wikipedia. We wish only to protect our trademark and ensure that the public is aware of the difference between Zorb and other products which pretend to be associated with our company. There are numerous copyists out there with inferior products - we go to great lengths to distance ourselves from these organisations! We would be very happy if the article "Zorbing" were removed completely.

With regard to the use of Zorbs on water - let me make it clear that Zorbs must not be used on water as this practice is extremely dangerous due to the weight of the device. The Seaworld Zorbs are designed and constructed specifically for the performers at Seaworld and are not for public use. The minor injury sustained by the performer was not a fault of the device itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie dean (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks are covered by the WP:MOSTM policy. It doesn't explicitly mention using trademarks as a verb (I've started a discussion on that). However, I personally agree with Lizzie dean. We shouldn't use a live trademark as a verb (the Zorb trademark can be found in the TESS database. Serial no. 75628871).
I think it might be appropriate to move this article, to make a clearer distinction between the Zorb trademark and other, similar products. Is there a generic term/descriptor for products like the Zorb? — Ksero (talk | contribs) 10:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The terms most often used for products similar to the Zorb Ball are "sphere" and "sphereing device". We would be happy for the article to be moved to "Sphereing" but definitely consider use of the term "Zorbing" to describe the activity as a whole misleading as it suggests to the reader that the article is about our company as opposed to the sport as a whole. 203.109.157.87 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Lizzie Dean

[edit] rename

We definitely have a bit of a problem here. I think Lizzie Dean's suggestion that the article be renamed to sphereing is a good one; it should also get a rewrite to make it more generic and less focused on the zorb company. We can note in that article that while many people, possibly including the OED, call the activity "zorbing", this is a case of band-aid/adhesive bandage, jello/gelatin.

There have been some questionable edits just today; some of them are obviously justified, such as unsubstantiated allegations about employees leaving the company; we can't pass around rumors like that without evidence, a {{Fact}} tag does not cut it. Other changes, though, like removing the mention of a video game that features "xorbs", I'd say are probably unjustified. I suggest we grab the appropriate material from the previous edit ([3]) and incorporate it into the rewrite. Could someone please be bold and do it? I have to go to bed now... :) -- Akb4 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Akb4 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] zorbnewengland

someone made a small pile of additions mentioning zorb new england (or ZorbNewEngland) in several places. I've cleaned them up to be a bit less npov, and for grammar. I entirely pulled this bit:

In 2007, Barry Billcliff, CEO, ZorbNewEngland, redefined the sport bringing the most balls owned by any country to numerous ski resorts and tubing parks across the United States easter seaboard, stemming from Amesbury Sports Park in Amesbury, Massachusetts

I'm not usually one to gripe about cites, but online searches for zorbing locations in the north east US mention only amesbury (as opposed to parks across the eastern seaboard), amesbury sports park doesn't mention zorbing on their own web page, and zorbnewengland.com redirects to complexplastics.com, a plastics manufacturer. While I don't think absence of web pages means something doesn't exist, at the same time I see a lot of hype with little substantiation. And websearching on barry billcliff reveals some amusing information about someone of that name being rather dishonest. Of course, that might be a completely different barry billcliff of massaschusetts/NH; I have no idea how common the name is around here. -- Akb4 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the previous discussion about use of trademarks and the decision to move the "Zorbing" page to "Sphereing" which I wholeheartedly support,the fact that Zorbnewengland are trading under our trademark is extremely irritating and a subject which we will be addressing directly with them. As the holder of the trademark, we are the only party entitled to use the term Zorb. On this basis I intend to remove all direct references to Zorbnewengland. 203.109.157.87 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

removing information from the article relating to a competitor with whom you are having a trademark dispute is not generally acceptable. That said, it does look like zorb new england is a marginal enterprise that's been trying to use wikipedia to gain legitimacy. I can find almost no web cites of their supposed trademarks, so I'm pulling the section on their trademarks and I've edited their name out of several places; I think we need good cites before including much about them. -- Akb4 (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed reference to Zorb New England as they are not legally entitled to call themselves "Zorb" and have written directly to them to address this issue. They have not yet replied. The assertion that although the trademark is registered there is "leadway" for hybrid products to use the term 'Zorb' is incorrect. There is no "leadway". What would be the point of spending time and money registering a trademark? We are happy with this article to reference our competitors and to talk about the sport of Sphereing generally, and we are very happy that the aricle was moved from " Zorbing" to "Sphering". Our only issue is with other companies attempting to use our name, which suggests an association with our company. The risks associated with this sport, although not on the same level as bungy, are high enough for us to be seriously concerned with any other company using their products under our name. We fight this battle on many levels and Wikipedia is just one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.157.87 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)