Jump to content

Talk:Bill Green (hammer thrower)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Hammer Throw in America

[edit]

I added tags to this section, but they were removed without explanation. So I'll ask the question again here: this section appears to be a general essay about the history of hammer throw. What is it doing in a biography of one specific athlete? What are its sources? -- John of Reading (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concerns run deeper, and I've templated the article as largely unsourced and having conflict of interest issues. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed nearly all content [1], as is appropriate per WP:BLP. I suspect WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and a lot of this was WP:ESSAY that didn't belong here. I've requested more eyes on this at the BLP noticeboard, if only because this has been carefully maintained by a series of accounts for a long time. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Use

[edit]

While looking for sources, I came across these articles about Green's drug use and suspension. Worth adding a sentence to the article? [2] [3] [4] --NeilN talk to me 02:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can also find a source that says the suspension was quashed; the long and unsourced version said that, and I have little reason to doubt it. Otherwise there are NPOV and BLP concerns. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extent of the coverage, I think it's definitely worth including, if we can summarize the facts properly. No easy task given the complexity of the case as described in the 1988 LA Times article. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in that LA Times report it says he was "stripped" of a medal. Was it reinstated thereafter? We need more recent sources. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track and Field appeal

[edit]

(copied from my talk page)

Will you zealots take the time to read the citations!: "Mitchelson brought out the big guns. He told Holt that TAC is empowered by federal law to conduct hearings on the eligibility of athletes. He said they believed that the IAAF had assumed TAC's burden to give Green a fair and timely hearing. He said that their legal opinion was that the IAAF had failed in that and was not living up to the requirements of U.S. law. Holt paid close attention. Mitchelson said that Holt agreed to raise the matter with Primo Nebiolo of Italy, the IAAF president. In the meantime, Holt said, get Green on a plane to the Olympic trials" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.126.88 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully read the article. Holt is with the IAAF. How does that possibly source, "An 18 month suspension from sports was successfully overturned on appeal to the United States Track and Field federation following a 10 month process..."? --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous exercise, you editors now profess to be expert on the governance of the sport of Track and Field? You are quiveling over details you don't even understand. The domestic body is a component organization of the international body, and as an American Green competed under the auspice of the country-specific member federation. The article clearly says that he got approval from the from higher (international) agency to compete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.177.213 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your interpretation. The article says the TAC didn't suspend him so they couldn't have overturned anything. In these cases, you need to stick closely to what sources say. --NeilN talk to me 21:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References to the Subject's Family

[edit]

I am engaged in a debate with Wikipedia monitor "NielN", who believes the page has conflict of interest issues, and as a result has deleted language describing facts about the subject's family as "name dropping", "trivia" "not about the subject". All entries were properly sourced and referenced with public information verifying accuracy.

The subject matter deleted was pertaining to:

-College education of the subject's father, grandfather as professor at Stanford University -That the subject's son is a semi-finalist for Jr National Team selection in another sport -that a film the subject worked on was directed and produced by Danny DeVito, based on a book by Roald Dahl

"NielN" is clearly demonstrating bias, as this information is quite relevant to the subject's life story. Will an objective Wikipedia monitor please intervene.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.208.95.194 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article has always suffered from conflict of interest editing from Green and his associates who try to stick in as many "accomplishments" as they can, even if they're not Green's and namedrop as much as possible. For example, we get all this - "Green also worked as a consultant to actor and filmmaker Danny DeVito, who produced, directed and starred in the children's movie "Matilda", based upon the final novel by best-selling British author Roald Dahl. His work on the film included adviser for actress Pam Ferris, whose character in the story Miss Agatha Trunchbull had been an Olympic hammer thrower." - from one single mention in a cast listing. The name dropping endorsement section still has no source after a year and a half. If I was really biased, I could easily justify removing the entire section because of the lack of sourcing (a mention in a listing is not proof that it's this Bill Green). Similarly, the family section, despite some efforts to trim, has such irrelevancies as, "who in the 1970s and 1980s performed in over 20 productions at the Frauenthal Center for the Performing Arts in Muskegon, Michigan and other parts of Western Michigan." --NeilN talk to me 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May WE PLEASE HAVE another Wikipedia monitor who doesn't believe proven facts about the family of a public person are irrelevant to his life story? If this Wikipedia article was about someone much more well known like former President George HW Bush, would the fact that his son also became President and his other son was governor now running for president as well be irrelevant? The scale is quite a bit different, but the logic is the same. Noteworthy achievements of family members are not only relevant to the life story of the subject, they add flavor and context to a greater understanding of the person. "NielN" CLEARLY is biased against the subject of this Wikipedia article, or its editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.208.95.194 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for a third opinion here. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scale is quite a bit different is an understatement. Articles aren't family scrapbooks. There are plenty of sources analyzing the Bush family as a whole. I doubt sources are going to cover "finishing as a semi-finalist for National Junior Team selection" in the context of Bill Green's notability. --NeilN talk to me 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion
[edit]

One thing I do notice when I look through the history of this article is that there substantial contributions by a number of single purpose accounts, namely:
Wilburhalo
1984olympics
Fallen1leaf
Hammerthrow1984
with most of th remaining content from IPs from Oakland California:
173.8.177.209
71.6.126.82
173.8.177.213

Could you give me some more examples of the disputed text please? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hogbin, currently disputed is probably this: [5], [6], [7] If you're looking for past disputes I can probably come up with diffs for those as well. --NeilN talk to me 11:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty obious that one or more editors want to promote Bill Green in WP; the article reads like a CV. On that basis, much of the content should be removed as this is not the purpose of WP. On the other hand, it is well sourced and harmless, unlike the effect that various pressure groups have on articles when they do this kind of thing. I would suggest that NeilN removes what he, after a bit of friendly discussion, considers to be the worst cases of promotion and we leave it at that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill Green (hammer thrower). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Green_(hammer_thrower)&oldid=1207426306"