Talk:Marathon

Nature of this article

I think we should decide what kind of article we want to write here: a) Information on Marathon (Encyclopedia article) or b) Training and Racing advice (Training handbook article)? A lot of the material here is geared towards people who are planning to run a marathon (Energy gels, when to get a massage after the race, dehydration etc). But I guess aspiring marathon runners already have read a lot of information in handbooks, running-sites, forums etc. To have a really substantial source of training advice a separate article would be useful.

I would suggest to limit or focus the current article on information you could expect from a good encyclopedia article: history, rules, athletes, major events, and perhaps an overview of physical challenges to the body during a marathon. Such article would be geared more to a general audience (without the intention to run).

If we do both at the same time (training handbook and encyclopedia) it will be a huge mess and not of much use for anybody. (remember: the article on cars is not explaining how to drive one neither). What do you think?

How can you create a list of great male marathoners without including the name of Dick Beardsley? It is accepted by most that but for a stupid mistake by a police motorcyclist, Dick would have passed Alberto Salazer to win the 1982 Boston Marathon. Please add his name.

Done, based on overall career achievement. Not every Boston winner makes the lists of great marathoners on this site. It would be good to have explicitly stated criteria for inclusion on these lists. Hertz1888 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HISTORY DISPUTE

See http://www.marathonguide.com/history/olympicmarathons/prologue.cfm for an alternate history. This information cannot be posted as it is under copywrite. If anyone knows if Charlie Lovett describes the true history, the history section should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.202.8.1 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a current dispute about this. I believe that for several decades now the consensus of modern historians has been that the legend didn't occur in that way, ie the messenger running from Marathon to Athens and dropping dead. See for example Persian Fire by Tom Holland. But the true history of events over 2000 years old will always be patchy at best. The only contemporary source is Herodotus who talks about the messenger running, not a mere 25 miles, but over 100 from Athens to Sparta, then back again. There's a modern race to commemorate this, too. He also says that on the day of the battle, most of the Athenian hoplites, having already a fought a full battle in heavy armour, marched rapidly all the way back to Athens because they were afraid the Persian fleet might attack the undefended city. They arrived in the early afternoon, a stupendous feat in itself.

However, although the legend may not be true (and looks pretty weedy compared with the events in Herodotus) it is still the source of the marathon race today. I'll update the article to ensure that the legend is reported as such.Cavort (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Added yards

regarding the marathon, Summer_Olympic_Games says "The final yards were added on at the request of British royal family in order to improve the view of the finish from their box" while Marathon (sport) says "race organizers added 385 yards to the course in order to have the runners start in front of Windsor Castle." Which is it? Kingturtle 05:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MarathonGuide.com says it's both. [1]. The Boston Marathon site says it's the former. [2] "The distance between the castle and the Olympic Stadium in London proved to be 26 miles. Organizers added extra yards to the finish around a track, 385 to be exact, so the runners would finish in front of the king and queen's royal box." It's probably worth noting, though, that both the start and finish were at the royal family's request. KeithH 07:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I Guess the links you added are two specific. I´d put them in other page !

ever watched Qi with steven fry this article is wrong

After the marathon

Nipple chaffing/bleeding is extremely common in marathons and probably should be mentioned, as well as ways to prevent it. I'll probably add a blurb to the article when I'm n ot lazy, unless someone else beats me to it. Unfortunately, most of us first learn this from painful experience, and not Wikipedia.

Personally I recommend putting vaseline on ones nipples for any event over 13-15miles. Its also useful when running in cold weather, erect nipples seem to get destroyed quicker! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.192.41 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Sub two hour marathon

Any discussion of this? Used to train with a friend back in the day who planned to become the first sub 2hr runner. However out coach Lydiard didn't think that would ever be possible by any human ever! Anyway, he certainly never reached that and I expect he never will. Ah, the days of being young and crazy. Anyway, some of the science into why not and also predictions based on stats etc.. would be handy. Because a sub 2 hours marathon would be even bigger than a sub 4 minute mile. Mathmo 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

marathon races

Do we really need a list of every marathon on this page? I expect every major city has one but how many are notable? I would think the notable list should be restricted to those that have a course record in the top 100 for either men or women.

The hundreth best time for male athletes is 2:07:46 run at the following cities. Source of men's list of best marathon times Berlin, London, Chicago, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Paris, Fukuoka, Otsu, Beijing, Shanghai Boston, New York City, Seoul, Torino,

The hundreth best time for female athletes is 2:24:06 run at the following cities. Source of women's list of best marathon times. London, Chicago, Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Rotterdam, Osaka, Bangkok, Nagoya, Amsterdam, New York City, Paris, Sydney, Seoul, Xiamen, Wien, Saint-Denis,

It is possible that some of the above cities do not qualify as notable marathons too. For example we should consider if the result was a one off fast race or do they consistently have excellent fields? Were the fast time due to a world or olympic championship race being run in that city? These should not count towards a cities regular marathon being notable if the regular city marathon is never of such quality.

I have only suggested the top 100 as an arbitary cut off. We could always do the top 1000, if people are worried that marathons such as Los Angeles are not on the list. At present the absolute criteria is not that important, but I think we do need to come up an objective crietria before this list grows too large and is populated with minor marathons. We need to keep the noise level down. David D. 17:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I say make it a lot easier and just move the whole list out to List of marathon races, and then replace it with a discussion of the most prominent races. Only those that warrant being mentioned by being different or very important should be covered. This is a very standard way of handling this issue because it allows both keeping all the information, and having a concise and well organized main article. I've been thinking of doing that in the last few days, and just haven't gotten to it. I'll go ahead and do it unless people have any specific objections, or you can feel free to do it also. - Taxman ^Talk 17:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll watch and learn but will be happy to do some research if you need it. David D. 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I did that. And there's always a need for good research. If you can find some information on what are the largest and most competitive or important marathons worldwide that would be great. We need to cite good sources, so if you can find some numbers, comments from important people, etc, that would really help. - Taxman ^Talk 23:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with only having races which have had times in the top 100, because then you are selecting only "fast courses" as opposed to "famous course" and/or "notable courses". While there is often a very large overlap, they aren't the same same thing. Because you are excluding courses which are famous/notable but are on much harsh courses/conditions.

I think there is room to disagree. Note that above I wrote "At present the absolute criteria is not that important, but I think we do need to come up an objective crietria before this list grows too large". Which courses do you have in mind that might not have winning times in the top 100? I had thought of your points when i originally thought of this idea to limit the list os notable marathons. It struck me that Boston is one with a very tough course, yet very notable. The fastest times on that course are within the top 100. It seems that if a race is notable it will have fast times, even on a tough course, because the notable races attract the top runners. Also, this may all be moot now as taxman has since created the list of marathons as a separate entity from this page. David D. (Talk) 12:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize that I do not know the etiquette for using wikipedia, but I had some comments. Perhaps you could make several lists: One of the "fastest" courses, as given by fastest time ever run on that course, one of the most popular races (number of participants), one of races with the largest prize money, and maybe one of races that have been notable for other things, such as US Olympic Trials qualification purposes (although perhaps this is biased towards the US?).

World-Class Marathoning vs. Popular Marathoning

I would enjoy seeing some discussion of the performances of all runners. For example: What is the breakdown of runners finishing in 2 hours, 2:30, 3, 3:30, 4, etc; How many people complete marathons every year, etc. Such data would combine competitive and recreational runners and recognize the popular participation in the sport (rather than focusing on olympics and record-holders).

Section 5 has the tone of the recreational running (i.e. not world-class) while the rest of the article speaks of world-class marathoning. Also relevant to popular running is the swelling of participation in recent decades. This could also be backed up with numbers and stats. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.158.211.28 (talk • contribs) .

Go for it. It sounds like an interesting analysis. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonking

Is it really called bonking or is someone taking the piss?! -Liam86.41.192.194 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really called "bonking"! -- MisterHand 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Going to the bathroom in your pants

Why did someone delete my post about runners crapping in their pants instead of finding a toilet? People considering running a marathon should know what they are getting into.

errr... crapping is a bit much!! I'd say that would be very rare, simply pissing however is a different matter. That is why you splash all the water over you so people can not tell. ;p Mathmo 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Article naming

I think this article should be at Marathon, and the current contents of that page moved to Marathon (disambiguation). Comments? Coffee 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Funny you should bring this up, I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. The foot race is by far the most common use of the term. -- MisterHand 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and move it. Coffee 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but if it comes up again: I think Marathon should be a disambig page. Njál 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Tapering"

Doesn't "tapering" refer to the practice of decreasing milage prior to a race in order to rest and repair the body so the runner can perform at her peak? Carbo loading just refers to eating a lot of pasta a day or two before the marathon to maximize energy stored. Anyone disagree? --Slowdiver 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• You're absolutely correct. The article is somewhat misleading as currently written. -- MisterHand 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Corrected it.--Slowdiver 15:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Port-a-pottys?

Anyone else think a comment about long lines at portable toilets doesn't really contribute to a dictionary entry on marathons? Does the entry on movie theaters have anything about how there are long lines at the bathroom before and after a movie starts?--Slowdiver 15:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Removed it. --Auximines 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with removing it...but I think it actually is more significant that the movie theatre example. Lines are typically long enough that people miss the start of the races, and are continuing to peel off for miles. I'm just not sure it's encyclopedic.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 14:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You could almost argue it a is a feature of marathons as common as bonking?? Certainly for a lot of people one of the main things they may remember about their race. Mathmo 20:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Honey Nonsense

This smells like bogus "original research". Any sources for this? If honey works for you that's great, but that doesn't mean that the recommendation belongs in an encyclopedia.

Honey is definitely not a good substitute for glucose and maltodextrin-based products. It contains a lot of fructose, which can't be used by the muscles, and can upset some bowels. It also contains pollen, which some people are sensitive to.

During a race, you want pure glucose, or polysaccharides that break down into glucose. Maltodextrin, the constituent of many carbohydrate powders, power gels and bars, consists of several glucose units weakly bonded together.

Glucose can go straight to your bloodstream, and into the muscles. This is what you want during the race: the quickest, simplest possible intake system. Fructose has to go into the liver and be converted to glucose. This is why fructose is marketed as a sweetener to diabetics: it doesn't raise the blood sugar level.

Save the fructose for post-race recovery: the liver can use it to build glycogen. (But it can't be used anywhere else in the body: it won't replenish muscle glycogen. Excess fructose is converted to fat!)

By the way, you can make your own "power gel" from any commercially available maltodextrin powder, which can be purchased in bulk. A 2000 gram container of the white powder, costing as little as ten dollars, will probably mix up enough gel to fill several hundred of the little packets.

KazKylheku 19:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link from where you buy yours? Mathmo 20:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont know of any sources, but the use of honey is a widly spread myth among marathon runners Slimdavey 02:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dehydration vs Hyponatremia

The article currently says:

However, overconsumption of water is now believed to be a more serious risk to marathon runners than underconsumption

Do we have a source for this? It seems to me that in general dehydration is more likely than hypo, but less well publicized in mass media. I have added {{citation needed}} to the article. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC) (former EMT)

• It's been almost a month with no citation, and no discussion. I'm going to remove the statement, and it can be re-added if we have a citation. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dos and Don'ts

First of all, this information really isn't encyclopedic in it's purist form, it belongs more on a discussion board. Second much of the information is far from accepted as truth. Many marathoners (including myself) train for MUCH less than a year before running. If no one steps forwards to defend this section's existance, I'm going to delete it. Slimdavey 02:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely in the right in removing it. It's not only unreferenced, but Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This material would be better put in a running wiki or, as you suggest, posted to a message board. -- MisterHand 00:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I will set out the Dos and Don'ts that Slimdavey has deleted, in case anyone is interested what the above discussion was about:

Some do's for beginners

• DO seek medical advice before starting your training, as to the general state of your health and well-being and whether you should be running.

Ideally, DO get at least twelve months' good quality running behind you, and several 10ks and half-marathons completed comfortably at least, before thinking of attempting a marathon.

• DO research properly at the outset what running a marathon entails, and the amount and types of training you ought to be doing. Then ask yourself whether you are prepared to commit yourself to that amount of effort.
• DO join a reputable running website, and communicate with other runners in the discussion forums there (e.g. in the Runner's World discussion forums) about how to train properly for your chosen event, and other issues arising. There is plenty of free advice available out there from those who already know, and they will be happy to help.
• DO buy proper footwear with plenty of cushioning, suitable for running.
• DO try to train on softer ground and not on pavements, so far as you possibly can. This is kinder on your body.
• DO train properly for your event (see 'training', below). Unless you train properly, probably you won't be able to run the marathon well but will end up disappointing yourself by walking much of the second half, or dropping out entirely. If you train properly, however, you should reap the reward by being able to run the whole way, and feel very satisfied with yourself at achieving that feat.
• DO start your training for a particular marathon slowly, at least six months in advance, increasing mileage gradually, without trying to do too much too soon.
• DO include several half marathons at least, during the six months before your chosen marathon event. Ideally, time your last half marathon to be about one month before the full marathon.

In addition to your daily training, DO complete one long run each week, building that long run up gradually from about eight miles (at the start of your training) to about twenty miles (near the end of your training). That weekly long run should be an 'LSD' (='long slow distance') run: taken at a slow steady pace without pressing yourself too hard, and keeping going, to get your body used to running a long way without stopping.

• DO include at least one rest day each week in your schedule: a day on which you won't run. This gives your body a chance to relax and recover. (E.G. You might prefer to have either the day before, or the day after, your weekly long run, as your weekly rest day.)
• DO stop your training if illness or injury suggests you ought. Your long-term health is far more important than completing a marathon.
• On the big day, DO aim to run your marathon all the way, without any walking, if at all possible. Running a marathon is supposed to be about running it, not about walking the last eight or ten miles in order to get round the course. And remember the story about the hare and the tortoise: it is better to start off more slowly and manage to keep running all the way than to go off too fast only to peter out and end up walking much of the tail end of the event and be overtaken by the people who started slower than you and conserved their energy better.
  

Some don'ts for beginners

• DON'T try to do too much training too soon. Build up slowly.
• DON'T do too much running if you are seriously overweight. You may damage hips, knees, ankles, or suffer some other injury. Get the weight off first, by eating less and exercising more, before training for a marathon.
• DON'T attempt a marathon if, for some reason, you haven't done enough training or you become ill or injured in some significant way, or have other serious health concerns about yourself. Drop out. Do it on some other occasion rather than now. There will always be plenty of marathons next year, or the year after, which you can do instead."

It took me about an hour to put them together. It's par for the course on Wikipedia that someone bothers to write something, then someone else comes in, thinking they know better, and just chucks the whole lot in the bin. That's one of the reasons I don't bother contributing to Wikipedia any more (too many destructive people who think they know best, destroying other people's contributions). I have better things to do with my time than draft something very carefully, just to have a blue pencil struck through the whole thing.

For the record, I get tired, year after year, of seeing about 10,000 people at the tail end of the London Marathon WALKING. They don't know how to train for a marathon, they go at it blind, they aren't fit enough, they go off too fast, so they get what they deserve - an eleven mile walk (or whatever) in the final stages, out of sight of the BBC cameras. The function of my Dos and Don'ts was to try to tell those beginners that, actually, they need to get up to about 35 miles a week in training, and take the thing seriously, or they will be among the walkers. Unfortunately my edit doesn't survive the likes of Slimdavey or Misterhand, who think they know best, so there you go. Maybe they should be asking quite what purpose anyone would be typing 'marathon' into the search engine for? Maybe to know how to run one? Surely not? But you know best, gentlemen.
An editing system which allows anyone to come along and destroy anyone else's handiwork without any proper discussion about it is a mad system. That is why I am no longer wasting time drafting stuff on Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes people's time for granted because it doesn't have to pay an hourly rate, so it has thousands of mugs typing information that goes very swiftly in the bin. -- 213.48.46.141 11:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Couple points:
  1. Wikipedia is not a search engine. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not how-to manuals. You might try Wikibooks, though.
  2. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Says that right underneath the editing box on every editing page.
  3. Not everyone's trying to set a world record time when they run a marathon. People do it for reasons other than attempting to finish in less than 2 hours. -- Jonel | Speak 17:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said, you hit some great points there. It's frustrating to have hard work removed from an article, but we all need to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOT and other guideline and policy pages for more information. -- MisterHand 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have taken your second point on board Jonel already, and have no intention of contributing substantive pieces to Wikipedia any more. Not through sour grapes, but through the application of common sense. There is no drafting 'system' on Wikipedia, unfortunately. If anyone contributes anything, the next person in the door can just put their pen through it all, with no questions asked. One puts up with it once or twice. When it happens eight or nine times though, the penny drops that unfortunately Wikipedia isn't a system at all: it's just an arbitrary collection of material where there are no rules as to what remains on a page. People do a great deal of hard work if they put material on a page, but someone else comes along and does the easy job of putting it in the trash. There isn't a drafting committee here, just a random collection of people working against one another with their own separate ideas of how things should be. So the answer is, unfortunately, not to contribute at all. Then one doesn't waste one's time. Regards,
      213.48.46.141 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Training..

It's incorrectly stated that individuals training for a marathon run in total 40 miles per week. Even if recreational marathoners are being talked about, the training is much more than 40 miles a week and i believe that the training of elite marathoners is what should be cited, in which case its 120+ miles per week

• Depends on the training plan. Some popular plans are even less. I seem to recall the Runner's World plan is in that neighborhood. Yep. [3]. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• This month's Running Times has an example of a sub-4:00 woman who trained 30-40 mile weeks. My biggest week was ~50 when I qualified for Boston (age 60). Granted elites do 80+, but a lot of back-of-the-packers do ~40. Probably better to describe the wide variability. Wake 03:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---
Is it too frivolous to mention the -athon suffix's usage for events that go on for a relatively long time? --I like pants 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any description of the wide variability of approaches to marathon training should take into account that surviving a marathon and running one are two different things. 146.151.58.167 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do you make the cut between running and surviving? 2:30, 3:00? If you are a runner, I think you would be disappointed if the cutoff was 3:00, and you ran 3:15 at age 50, resulting in you being labeled a "jogger", or non-marathoner (Whew! Lance just made the cut at 2:59:36). I think you are talking about the current trend of marathons to be walker-friendly, making what used to be a significant test of fitness into an "everybody wins" party. However, some barely survive it and some sit home and watch the superbowl. I think it's fair to give at least a little credit to those who survive it. Wake 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Road running event?

Not all marathons are on the road. Some are on sidewalks. Some are on pathways. I changed the opening sentence as a result. Spaomark 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are completely off-road marathons as well, a lot of the early marathons by today's standards would be regarded as off road marathons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

1896 Distance

In the "Distance" section, in the text it says that 1896 was 40.8 km, but the table says 40 km. The text also says there were two different times there were 40 km races. --zandperl 01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

World records

The list is not complete. See http://www.sporting-heroes.net/athletics-heroes/stats_athletics/worldrecords/mara_w.asp for a complete list. Look for example on Elisabeth Bonner. 80.126.94.132 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable marathoners

This list of runners is far too big. For examle, why Ryan Hall? Potential, yes, currently notable, why? I think we need to cull this down to a top ten, however subjective that might be. And if that kind of list cannot be agreed upon then this list should be maintained separately similar the notable marathon list. David D. (Talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it needs culling. Ten? That's rather severe, hard to implement, and seems unnecessary. But I wouldn't mind seeing criteria (or guidelines) for notability agreed upon and adopted. Going to a separate list would only move, not solve, the proliferation problem, and require the same amount of monitoring, possibly more. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess ten was a random low number, I could go with more, certainly some sort of guideline for notability would be useful. David D. (Talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This section seems to have grown more since this discussion. If we wrote a brief sentence for each athlete on why they are notable I thik it might be clear which ones to cut out. Some don't even have their own articles so I wonder how notable they might be? David D. (Talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should create a list article of notable marathon runners, otherwise it gets too long to include here. I'm trying to at the moment look up some info on the red linked runners, I guess they might just be able to have an article on themselves. But struggling to find sources at first glance. Anyway, the point is clear though is that they certainly do not appear to be notable to the same extent as say Clayton is. Mathmo ^Talk 19:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to develop some objective criteria. Otherwise, we will get more self-submitted autobiographies, like Dane Rauschenberg who will try to add themselves to the list. Runreston (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• A notable marathon runner would seem to be readily defined as a notable individual who is known for running marathons. If they don't have an article, and an article that describes their notability as being based on marathon running they don't belong on the list. Is there any issue in this universe that does not revolve around Dane Rauschenberg? Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd that that definition might be too broad. I'd say we want a criteria that reduces the size of the section we currently have not increases the size. David D. (Talk) 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

After a marathon

"...soaking the lower half of the body for 20 minutes or so in cold or ice water may force blood through the leg muscles to speed recovery."

Is that really correct? I have also read recommendations to do the opposite, that is to take a warm bath after a marathon.

Taz0k (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Top 10

Why are both of Gebrselassie's top-two times listed and only one of Radcliffe's top-three? Didn't want to just remove it without asking Thatlot!! (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merger Dane Rauschenberg into the multiple marathons section. It is more appropriate to deal with all such multiple-marathon endeavors in one place. Otherwise it is misleading to the reader as to how a particular project fits into the overall progression of these achievements. Runreston (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Notability has clearly been established for Rauschenberg. Dozens of independent sources from national media and local-area sources across the country to establish the clearest possible notability for Rauschenberg and for his 52 marathon accomplishment in 2006. I would be more than happy to assist in creation of standalone articles for all others who have accomplished similar feats that are similarly supported by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. It is unclear what is "misleading" here other than the persistent attacks from a stream of sockpuppets. That the latest incarnation, User:Runreston, has devoted nearly 90% of his edits to this one article for Dane Rauschenberg is sign of an obsession that goes well beyond any rational discussion of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that Rauschenberg's notability has been established. Why are you so eagar to promote Mr. Rauschenberg's self-written autobiographical article? His achieves do not come anywhere near the running achievements of the people discussed on this page. Runreston (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You seem to have a monomaniacal obsession with Mr. Rauschenberg that blinds you from understanding consensus on Wikipedia. Please read through the comments here from the other editors who have participated in your overwhelmingly rejected merge proposal. I am far from the only one who expressly stated that Rauschenberg's notability is clearly established. No one has supported your merger proposal, and every single person who commented here believes that independent notability has been established. Why are you so eager to defame Rauschenberg? What issue do you have with an article that I have mostly re-written to address imaginary and non-existent issues raised by you and your fellow sockpuppets? If you genuinely believe that "His achieves [sic] do not come anywhere near the running achievements of the people discussed on this page" and you "disagree that Rauschenberg's notability has been established" there's a simple solution: Start a second Afd (ask your puppetmaster User:Racepacket for details on how to do this, he created the first one) and see if you can build a consensus that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As the person above has said: "Notability has clearly been established for Rauschenberg." I took a quick look at the article and I can immediately saw that the article shouldn't be considered for merging, I'm surprised it is even suggested. Mathmo ^Talk 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose DR clearly merits his own article. Trying to merge a biographical article with one about an athletic event is a non-starter, but that doesn't preclude his having an entry in a list of multiple marathons in this article (or as a separate list article, if the list grows too large). NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Merging would open the door to limitless growth of the article with others' stories that are best presented separately and can readily be linked to. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Clarification the proposal is to add one sentence to the multiple marathons section and treat Rauschenberg's accomplishments like the others. His notability can be summarized in one sentence, if that. The Wikipedia policy is that if someone does something of transitory notability, it should be covered by the substantive article rather than in a separate article about the person. "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." No running accomplishments worth talking about before 2006, and none since. Runreston (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's abundantly clear that there is no support for your merger proposal. I must admit that I like the "No running accomplishments worth talking about before 2006, and none since", after all, he had one heck of a 2006, and dozens of sources supporting his running accomplishments in that year. I'm impressed that you're willing to summarize his entire existing article and career down to "one sentence, if that", a giant leap for you from the usual push for deletion. It only becomes harder and harder to take the monomaniacal obsession with Dane Rauschenberg seriously. Alansohn (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. in fact I'm wondering why the multiple marathon section is even there? It seems like trivia and should probably be moved to ultrarunning or an equivalent article. David D. (Talk) 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose the Rauschenberg article is well-written and sourced. It's appropriate given the amount of media coverage he has received. As for multiple marathons section, it's not the same thing as an ultramarathon. It's probably best here, although I agree it needs to be cleaned up. Still it's in a lot better shape than the "how to" material in this article which needs to be purged. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Running a marathon

This section on preparing for a marathon and the cardiac section appear not to fit in this article. Should we think about splitting it into another article? Possibly a new article called Physiology of the marathon? David D. (Talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Miles and Kilometres

Hello - seems to me that in the opening paragraph miles should be listed first and kilometers in parentheses as the distance of the modern marathon as it stands was arrived at in this sytem of measurement.Leau (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Leau. What you say about the historical derivation is certainly valid. However, the introduction says "official distance", and that is specified by the IAAF in their Rule 240 as a metric distance. Though I realize it is splitting hairs to distinguish one distance from the other, I believe the introduction to the article should conform to the official definition in the Rules by putting the metric specification first. I am reverting your edit on that basis. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)