Talk:Robert Young (runner)

issues

Article was previously created by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Milram2010.

Commons uploads look lousy with copyvios:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Runultratalk

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Robert_Young_(triathlete)

see also:

https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/4nc18o/robert_young_who_is_on_pace_to_break_the/

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7355147&page=20

©Geni (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Article had been started, almost certainly by Young himself, several times by numerous user identities and with many false claims (but none of the childhood abuse stories) up to 2012: the only verifiable claims in those articles fell well short of notability in Wikipedia terms. Exploits in the Run across America have raised him to notability, but given the attempts of assumed sockpuppet Aboutrunners to close this page, I wonder what duty of care Wikipedia might have to what appears to be a mentally susceptible contributor/subject. Kevin McE (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• NeilN, I'm pinging you because you ran into Woodywing before. This article is a BLP nightmare, a hit job, with Woodywing as one of the hitters. I'm going through slowly, both through the article and the history, but I thought I'd leave this preliminary note in case the sky falls down on me. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: The last version I touched was this which was semi-decent. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's got unsubstantiated claims of abuse, of glory, of cheating, and snide commentary..."again citing truthfulness as a value he admired"... Drmies (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Given the number of blatant lies contained in earlier (almost certainly) self-penned versions of this article, and the subject's proven cheating in competition, I would not be inclined to believe anything at all that comes from his mouth without it being separately verifiable, including his allegedly unfortunate chilhood, no matter what news source has reported it in the course of interviewing him. All that means is the journalist trusted him,it does not mean it is true.

That being the case, we would be left with almost nothing in the article. So either we hedge claims that originated with Young with reference to his unreliability, or we can report nothing other than certified race results. Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you should really read WP:BLP and be more careful of the words you use on-wiki about living people. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But he has undoubtedly and repeatedly made false claims in the public forum. He has posted here that he was a British Triathlon champion, and that he rode for a top level professional cycling team. Both of these are palpably untrue. Anything that originates with him is not from a reliable source. If the journalist is ill-informed about his subject and therefore gullible, and thereby inadvertently allows his publication to publish a fluff piece, that piece is not reliable.

There are plenty of athletes who are low profile for whom we have articles that are no more than a summary of important results. It is not ideal, but it is preferable to publishing unreliable biographical claims. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just asking you to tone it down some. And many of the sources in the version I deleted simply weren't acceptable per WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

And I am just asking that the article not be written in a way that is naive and gullible. Kevin McE (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't revert my removal of unreliable information by telling me to take it to talk, when I have already raised at talk the unreliability of the info and no-one has challenged that. Kevin McE (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, "unreliable" is one of those cliches around here that more often not means "I don't like this information and I don't want it included waaaaaaaaah". So you think Robert Young was born into a nice middle class family in Lymeswold, South Dorset, and went to public school? I'm out of here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think gutting Drmies' work is particularly beneficial to the reader, so I've reverted and adjusted slightly so it is clear we are talking about Young's opinion. I don't think anyone is suggesting the Daily Telegraph is lying about what he said, and as for the veracity, I'll just say I walked the equivalent of a double marathon over two days several times on hiking weekends when I was in my teens - and I wouldn't say I was particularly fit or sporty. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I got a mention, my contact before was largely about how I don't really get how to do this stuff because I am a Wikipedia novice. My contribution to the page was to provide evidence, such as results, that directly refuted claims that were clearly put there by the guy himself. Personally I think a page which is about the controversy in the states and the report by skins is probably the only reliable information that you can have on here. None of his actual evidenced performances are of any note whatever but informing people he's a scammer is important to prevent future scams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodywing (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear option

This article is a disaster from start to finish: it was written as a puff piece in the first person, and along the way got augmented by editorial commentary, supposed video evidence, and was basically turned into a hit job. There is only one solution, and that is to nuke it. NeilN, after I pinged you I saw you had been contacted by a number of COI editors in this history, and I hope you agree that this BLP-violating nightmare needs to die.

Below I'll paste the external links, and I'll cull some of the reliable sources from the article--not the forums, not the videos, not the Facebook posts, not the press releases, not the reputation-destroying https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/. I'll try to rewrite it as a brief stub, but this will take some work. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues, again

Ritchie333, thank you for your assistance. I posted at WP:BLPN also and am hoping that some seriously uninvolved editors will start pitching in. Which leads me to Woodywing's edit, this one: Woodywing, if you are a novice, I suppose you may not know that we have a policy that covers these kinds of article subjects, that is, living people. Please see our policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In light of that policy, I am telling you that the tendentious text of your edit is completely unacceptable (and not just because you state non-factual things in Wikipedia's voice), and please consider this a warning: do NOT make such edits again, because I will block you, just as any other admin would, for a serious BLP violation.

Kevin McE, you also: read the BLP, and also read our policy on WP:Reliable sources. You may think that the person was not being truthful when interviewed BY A RELIABLE SOURCE, but your opinion is immaterial: reliable sources are deemed reliable because we surmise there is editorial oversight, and that things don't get printed without being fact-checked.

For both of you, I am going to leave a templated BLP warning on your talk pages, so you know that I am quite serious about this. I am also going to place a template that informs you of ArbCom sanctioned discretionary sanctions--see WP:NEWBLPBAN--which basically means that you may be sanctioned for BLP violations. Such sanctions may include a topic ban, which means you cannot be involved with this article or even discuss the very topic on Wikipedia: I am already considering issuing both of you a topic ban, and I will look at y'all's edits again to see if they should be scrubbed from the history.

I do not really enjoy being all authoritative, but I thought I had been clear (and Ritchie too) about the problems with this article: to see them being brought back up again immediately is irksome. You both are welcome to collaborate, but it must be in agreement with our policy. And if you can't set your personal opinions on the subject aside when you edit Wikipedia, or this Wikipedia article, then you shouldn't be editing it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not about "my opinion", it is about making a reasonable judgement based on the previous actions of an individual in the same realm of behaviour. That is pretty much the definition of reliable. Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand: the source in question here is not Robert Young but the Daily Telegraph. If they say Robert Young said those things, then we accept that he said them. They don't say that those things are true and so we shouldn't assert that they are true, either. GoldenRing (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with GoldenRing here - if Young says he did two marathons in 24 hours, and if it's physically possible for somebody to do that with no training, then we can state his opinion that he did so here without violating BLP. The Telegraph did not mention any number of other potential possibilities, such as for example that Young walked half the way, collapsed in a heap after 18 miles and needed a big rest, or skipped the last few miles, but without a source saying that we have to work with what we're given. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding content

If you're adding controversial content you must use good quality sources and stick closely to what the source says. For example, this adds a good source but the source does not back up the text being added. Do not editorialize, synthesize, or add speculations based off of thin air. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

But anything that is unreliable is not a good quality source. Have you reviewed the man's previous autobiographical claims? Kevin McE (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Full Protection

I've fully protected this page for two days because of an edit war between three editors that can edit through semi-protection. My primary concerns are WP:COATRACK issues on a WP:BLP. If this is resolved within two days, I'll remove the protection. I felt this was a better solution for now than WP:CSD as an attack page.--v/r - TP 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• TParis BOOOOOM I edited straight through protection since a fellow admin emailed me to make a valid point, which I explained in the edit summary. Really, the edit speaks for itself, and I really should have written it like that the first time. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So you have conceded that the subject's presentation of his own history cannot be taken as certain. I look forward to your apology and retraction of your accusations. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, that was me. I was about to edit through protection myself to make that change but didn't want to wade into an edit war and thought I should pick Drmies brain first - then got distracted by RL for a number of hours. User:Kevin McE: the concern here is not about the reliability or otherwise of Young as a witness but that Young's father is also apparently still living and so statements about him are also subject to WP:BLP. Nobody is saying Young is a WP:RS, but the Daily Telegraph is, and if they say Young said those things then we accept that he said them. They don't say those things are true and so we should not be making such statements in Wikipedia's voice as though they were undisputed fact. Deleting the whole paragraph is not the right response to this situation, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)