User talk:71.198.82.215

Archery
Hi,

In light of the note you added to the Archery Honor, I rearranged the section a bit to make your warning more prominent. I'd like very much if you would review the changes I made and make any corrections you feel are necessary. Thanks for pointing out the problem. --Jomegat (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks for updating the page. It looks fine. Push Pull is a time honored method of stringing, but I've met at least one person in person who almost lost an eye to it, and plenty of others in archery forums, so the method is now counter-indicated by associations like the NAA, NFAA and FITA. Push pull was probably relatively save with English longbows, which are sufficiently long such that only the flat of the bow could hit your head. Recurve bows, on the other hand, curve back so that the limb forms a hammer-like striking tip which is perfectly aligned with your temple (the thinnest part of the skull) or your eye socket, which is why the method is so dangerous--even with a light bow. I've even read one claim of a death caused by the method-but I'm unable to locate that claim and verify it.

I'm sorry that I'm too much of a noob to properly link my claim in the article to the citation I provided in the references section. There is a 4th method of bow stringing that uses a foot loop, one that is simple and easy and one that is safe for bows and people, but I don't have a free image of it yet. I'll post some time when I do.

Excellent. I'll add the citation link in a bit. We don't do a whole lot of that in Wikibooks like they do in Wikipedia, so I'll have to figure out how to do it (again). It's not that hard - I just don't remember how.

I do keep a pretty close eye on this book, making several checks on it per day. There are vandals about (though they don't seem to specifically target this book - just Wikibooks in general). The main criticism I hear against this resource is that anyone can change it in a most unsavory way. But I think that could well be its main strength - you are an anonymous editor who has corrected potentially dangerous advice. Static print-only versions of these resources cannot be fixed once they're out there, and even then, new copies are not updated frequently. Thanks so much for the info. Also, you might consider creating an account. --Jomegat (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I may have one. Is it different from Wikipedia? (I suppose I could look it up). I hadn't come here with an eye to changing the book, I was just following a google image link and happened to noticed the outdated advice about push pull stringing...

As to the citations, I can see why they might not be as common in wiki books (which I hadn't heard of until today) but they seem like a good idea in that they don't hurt anything and provide an extra level of confidence in the material. I figured a mod might check on the claim I added and I figured a cite would give them some confidence in the veracity of the claim.

The citation is now in place. A picture paints a thousand words, and in this case, those words are very convincing. Most of the images that appear on Wikipedia are hosted by the Wikimedia Commons which makes them equally available on Wikibooks (the two projects are run by the same organization). Please take a crack at adding the section. If you mess up the formatting, I will happily fix it. It's nice to get competent contributions! --Jomegat (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A question for you. The book title is "Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Recreation/Archery." How morphable are wikibooks? Were the title just about archery, I'd figure it would be open season to modify the book with the goal of providing clarity about archery (specifically recurve target archery, which seems to be the area of expertise of the author) but there is also the issue of of the "Adventist Youth Honors." Is this a text book that must conform to a specific Adventest program or set of goals? Ah, I see that the Adventist Youth Honors is a very specific program. Well, the Push Pull method needed to be noted as dangerous, and hopefully that won't mess up students on their tests for this requirement. And given the very specific nature of this text, there isn't much I can add to it since I don't wish to mess up the congruence with the Honors program requirements, even though some of them are outdated.

Yeah, this is very much structured for a specific program. The requirements for the honors are set by a committee and I have no authority to change them. But when I see something I think ought to be changed, I tag it (see requirement 8 for an example). Mark West, a professional archer who put most of these answers together also believes that this honor ought to be overhauled completely.

If you'd like to start your own archery book, I encourage you to do so. For starters, you could cut-n-paste this one and then morph it into whatever form you desire. Lemme know if you decide to do that so I can help you preserve the edit history from here. Or if you don't want to use this work as your starting point that's OK too. To start a new book, just click Archery and start editing. If you do undertake such an effort, there are concrete advantages to registering. Believe it or not, your anonymity is more anonymous if you register (if you prefer to remain anonymous anyhow). If there's any way I can help you, just let me know. --Jomegat (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to go with Mark West on this one. Archery has changed since the text in question was originally written. Mark West is clearly qualified to tell you what to change if anyone is. I know how tough it can be to get a change through a large organization, though. As to some of your proposed small changes, I don't think it makes sense to use metric conversions to identify the targets in the specifications. FITA targets are always referred to by their metric size (60 cm, for example) and never by Imperial measurements. Since people have to purchase these targets there is no value in providing an Imperial measurement which will not aid in the acquisition of the said targets. Imperial equivalent for the distance, though, has some utility. Also, the term Olympic bow, while descriptive, is no longer strictly accurate. Such bows are more officially referred to as FITA Recurve bows, but given all the different classes of bows it might make sense for the proposed changes to just say what they mean: A Recurve bow with a sight, stabilizer and clicker. However, beginners are typically taught to use recurves with no sights, no stabilizers, nor a clicker, so I'm not sure requiring such bows is really a realistic idea for a beginning archery merit program.

I'd also love to see someone provide equivalent content for you to replace the outdated (not completely outdated, though) and out of print 1974 NAA Instructor's manual. The chance of a student ordering an out of print copy to read the recommended chapters is rather low. There are a number of free resources on the web that might provide some equivalent material for you to refer people out to:

Archery Australia: Basic and Advanced: http://www.archery.org.au/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=ASP0009/ccms.r?pageid=10282

FITA Basic and advanced:

Beginners Manual http://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Document/FITA%20website/04%20Development/Beginners_Manual/BeginnersManuel-e.pdf

Coaching Manual http://archery.org/content.asp?id=1036&me_id=836&cnt_id=2625

and the Archer's Reference, by Murray Elliot.

http://www.archersreference.co.uk/download.html

Because of these excellent materials which are available free, online (though not open source), I'm unlikely to start an archery wiki book unless I see an under-served area where it would provide value that is not already served. Unfortunately, none of these materials is open source, so the future availability is not guaranteed, though there are some archery sites like Texarch.org that tend to have mirror copies.

Thanks for all the advice. Sometimes a club director can replace a requirement with something requiring equivalent effort. I think it would be totally acceptable to use the books you have mentioned to meet such a requirement. --Jomegat (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)