Talk:Robert Young (runner)

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

issues[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ritchie, after a couple of years training Mr Young got his time down to 3:07 for the marathon. Yet somehow you believe that he ran just outside of 4 hours off zero training and completely out of shape, the woke up the next morning and ran 3:20. That's what he claimed in his book. If this article is to be kept to a stub then there is no space to go through and debunk each of his self aggrandising claims, but they have been debunked. Taking him at his word in the face of such claims does readers a disservice

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 [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodywing (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Woodywing, PLEASE listen to the advice of non-novices. You can't say the kinds of things that you said, and if you say them again I will report you and ask for a block for BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, Ok can you please explain to me how to correctly word that the report summarised that before being observed Mr Young spent large parts of the run being driven and then link to the actual report on the Skins website or the piece on Mr Tuckers personal website as first hand information instead of a 2nd hand article in the Gaurdian. Given that the report does actually state this and is freely available surely there can be no issue. It also stated categorically that the watches had been wiped, but if I can link to the actual report then people can read that for themselves.

Nuclear option[edit]

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)[reply]

Sources rescued from deleted version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this means not too much from an IP but I know Derek who runs Marathon Investigation. He has much higher standards for proof and evidence than many of your listed sources. He issues corrections, retractions, and any statement by the person mentioned in the article. He only posts when its beyond a shadow of a doubt. He's also frequently cited in the press as well. 129.9.75.191 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues, again[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Adding content[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
In what way is the Daily Telegraph "unreliable"? You've got this backwards - a source is reliable for a particular fact. To give an obvious example, the Telegraph has a basic political alignment similar to the Daily Mail, yet even it was happy to say that the British judiciary system are not "Enemies of the People", no matter what the Mail says. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While written with scientific phenomena is mind, following WP:EVALFRINGE might be useful when adding content to this article. In particular, "Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context..." and "Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality... but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment." --NeilN talk to me 12:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the only source for biographical information is the subject, in conversation with journalists, then the information is only as reliable as that source. Anyone who has been involved with the repeated efforts of many sockpuppets over many years to get an article about this man onto Wikipedia will know that the assumption of good faith that can usually be made is not a confident judgement here. We now have the ridiculous situation that some of the biographical detail is presented as reliable, and some as uncertain. I propose again that the biographical section be removed, and we make it a simple reference to verifiable events in sporting competition. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, since newspapers that are considered reliable have editorial oversight. You seem to think that they merely function as blogs. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can only conclude that your attitude is pitifully naive. But as you have repeatedly failed to confirm that you have had enough interest to do research, I suppose that you are more inclined to believe that publishing without research from more than one side of the argument, as these journalists have done, is acceptable. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Telegraph source is basically a (sympathetic) profile of the subject, and the 370 marathons claim most probably comes from the subject himself. Unfortunately, it is quite a common practice (not only by newspapers) to report the subject's claims without much checking. Is there any evidence that the Daily Telegraph did any independent checking of this fact? The number 370 marathons/ultras in a year was plastered all over the press at the time; it is likely that they were all coming from the same source: namely the subject himself. Given the questions raised afterwards (the report by Pielke and Tucker), it's reasonable to be careful here. The later news reports often take a skeptical view of the entire story; see this and this article in the Guardian, for instance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable application of the BLP provision for exceptional circumstances of WP:ADMIN.--v/r - TP 14:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but "claimed" has a negative connotation to it. I propose "In interviews, he has said he suffered abuse from his father, and his attempts to cope with this gave him his resilient attitude.". This removes the negative connotations with claim, and puts the whole sentence under one statement by him. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would, as a basic minimum, need a second 'that' in that sentence, otherwise it reads as though his resilient attitude is an encyclopaedic fact.
We now have the ridiculous situations that some of his uncorroborated claims are presented as things he says, and others as unquestioned fact. That is still potentially libellous to his family, who we should assume are living persons. The many earlier attempts to make a page for this individual made no reference to such childhood issues, and that places reasonable doubt on what is said in later discussions.
Normally reliable publications are not always correct. We would not accept something from the Telegraph, or any other newspaper, if it could be seen that it was eventually sourced to vandalistic claims on Wikipedia: we should not accept without question things told to a journalist at the Telegraph by someone who has been unreliable both professionally and on Wikipedia. Has the Guinness Book of Records verified his claims of most miles run in a year/without sleep? Have local running clubs published anything of him doing these runs in their areas?
Are those editors who are willing to absolutely trust everything that is published in the Telegraph or the Guardian going to put their names to edits saying that Young had nails hammered into his feet, or that he was pushed downstairs in a zipped suitcase? Or are they more suspicious than they care to admit?
Is there a reason why we state that investigators were appointed, and yet fall short of publishing the results of that enquiry which are explicitly reported in the Guardian article cited?
I repeat my call to make this article about a sportsman an article that focusses on the verifiable sporting results, not private training activities, and public controversies, not private matters that no-one can confidently remark upon except those involved.
Oh, and while it is edit protected we cannot do anything about the semantic mess that is "he reported to have run two marathons" Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can put a proposal together, gain consensus, and then use {{Edit fully-protected}} to get an uninvolved admin to make the edit.--v/r - TP 16:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The most obviously correct point that Kevin McE makes, among many, is that the omission of the report's findings is bizarre. I've now inserted a direct quote from the report's executive summary. The report is free and online at Skins' website for anyone who wants to verify it. The only reason I didn't put the url in the reference is that for whatever reason Skins' website is Wiki-blacklisted.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing here, Black Kite? The content seems sourced per this. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins editing through the page protection without there being any consensus for, or evidence of research in, their edits. Very poor form. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were problems with the content removed by User:Black Kite - the claim that Young had "hitch-hiked" where no source I've seen says such a thing. There are repeated accusations in RS that Young ride in his support vehicle, though no-one claims to have proof of that. The expert report comes close, using "consistent with"/"inconsistent with" language. But the claim of riding in the support vehicle has been repeatedly changed to claims of hitch-hiking without sources and I think BK's edit was a fair way of dealing with it. IMO we should be saying something like, "In 2016 he attempted to break the record for the fastest run across the United States, but was accused by other runners of cheating, with some claiming to have observed his support vehicle traveling at running speed with no runner in sight." We could also add some material to the end of the paragraph, covering the expert's report finding that the GPS/side data was consistent with him riding in the support vehicle. GoldenRing (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Disjointed[edit]

After the hacking at the article, the last paragraph seems to be highly disjointed with the "out of the blue" mention of cheating. If I can find time later I'll do a rewrite to make it flow better but it seems there's a lot of gatekeeping going on with respect to the cheating allegations. I know this is a BLP and sources matter but it seems there is a higher standard being applied here than elsewhere. 129.9.75.191 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The report was issued, and the authors appear to be recognized experts in the field. No claim is made in the body of the BLP as to the contents of the report or the statement by the sponsor. Collect (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: the link to the report and the actual press release were removed as being "blacklisted." I note that "blacklisting" generally does not include material directly and uniquely attributable to the source, but is intended to prevent improper use of a source, especially as spam. Collect (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young on Robert Young[edit]

The biographical "information" in this article is based only on what Robert Young has said about himself. This is through a series of interviews and/or press releases given by Young in the course of his promotional work for a book. Publications that we usually consider to be reliable sources have apparently chosen to accept that on face value.

Consistency demands that we also consider other things that Young has said about himself, not least here at Wikipedia. Admins will be able to access the series of claims that he made about himself in the series of articles accessible by looking at the contributions of this set of sockpuppets. Several admins have involved themselves in this issue and have failed to confirm, when invited to do so, that they have informed themselves about this history: strangely, none of them have been able to bring themselves to give a categorical yes or no.

Perhaps an admin will look at the deleted articles and extract some of the claims therein so that they can be compared with this more recent version of Young's descripion of his own personal and sporting history. The contrast that will then be abundantly clear will give all editors the chance to make an informed choice as to what level of trust they are willing to place on statements ultimately sourced to Young himself. Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only express my disappointment that no admin looking at this page has been willing to do this, nor to give any reason for withholding from other readers the opportunity to make an informed opinion. I would be interested to see them defend this position. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Young_(runner)&oldid=1209729996"