Talk:Stephanie Rice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interests[edit]

what are her other interests??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.99.184 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Loves Prison Break, The OC, America's Top Model and Grey's Anatomy, owns a dog called Missi and lists her greatest asset as being aware of her weaknesses. ("The fab four - OLYMPICS" - The Age, (Melbourne, Australia) - August 15, 2008) Pingku (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lasagne[edit]

I love lasagne. Stephanie Rice loves lasagne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.24.74 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
Bronte Barratt is the one who loves lasagne (and pizza, the Brisbane Lions and Brisbane Broncos, going to the beach, shopping and dancing). (Dream Machine - Golden girls smash world record

Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia) - August 15, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingku (talkcontribs) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good, what about a sauce though? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC).
The saucy bits keep getting deleted. Pingku (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Steph?[edit]

Hahaha. Is there anybody called Stephanie without the nickname Steph? Constan69 (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the citation request is there because I found a ref for "Ricey" and someone added "Steph" later but in primary position, which could imply the ref also applied to Steph. I also have a problem with the simple shortening of a name being referred to as a nickname. (See also wiktionary:nickname.) On that regard, even Ricey is dodgy, but at least there's a reference stating that it is one. For Steph I could only find usages by people such as trainers and journalists. Pingku (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dogs[edit]

A recent article in The Age ("The fab four - OLYMPICS", 15 August 2008) said she is afraid of dogs. And that she owns a dog, called Missi. Pingku (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But is this really significant? - Tbsdy lives (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not significant enough, surely, to contribute to the article, but it perhaps says something about her personality. Refer to her listing her "best asset" as "being aware of her weaknesses", above. Pingku (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning but there are sources available regarding a homophobic slur the subject made through twitter, (http://www.smh.com.au/sport/swimming/stephanie-rice-in-trouble-over-homophobic-tweet-20100906-14wb9.html) which has resulted in the termination of her relationship with Jaguar (http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/stephanie-rice-asked-to-give-back-her-jag-20100907-14yh6.html?autostart=1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.213.245 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In recent days there it seems that the controversy issue is being constantly deleted. It is my opinion that this should remain on the article because it is an event that is and has caused considerable repercussions. Repercussions such as Jaguar has terminated their sponsorship with Stephanie as described above and recently the Seven Network has recently ended their partnership with her (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/stephanie-rice-without-television-deal-after-gay-slur/story-e6frf7l6-1225916816835).
I get the feeling that a number of fans whom are idolising Stephanie Rice wishes to censor this with claims that this is just a judgement error. --Throttler (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
These details are once again being downplayed, most likely by Rice's fans. This created a big media storm when it happened and Wikipedia should therefore include it clearly. If any users (anonymous IP addresses or otherwise) continue to delete any of these details they will be reported and blocked for vandalism. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Content disputes are not vandalism. That said, various editors repeatedly making the same/similar changes without discussing the matter will be warned and blocked for disruptive editing. Any indication that various IPs and/or user names are in fact one person will result in protecting the article and/or blocking for sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Removing accurate and adequately sourced details from an article without reason and trying to call it a BLP violation is indeed vandalism. And I am in total agreement about IPs and sockpuppets, so I suggest all editors heed this warning. Kookoo Star (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." The edits do not seem to meet the definition. As for the "accurate and adequately sourced details", it's a bit of a stretch to call it a BLP vio, but I see no source indicating the apology was "forced" and I clearly disagree with the weakly-sourced "homophobic" interpretation. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The disagreement here appears to hinge on three issues: 1) Should the comment be described as "homophobic"? 2) Should we include the word "faggot" as the controversy or the phrase "Suck on that, faggots!" 3) Did Rice "apologise" or was she "forced to apologise"? Discuss. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For my opinion, I looked at the source currently cited for the incident and did my own search, taking the first three large media sources I found: Daily Telegraph, ninemsn adn foxsports. For issue #1, only the given source uses the description "homophobic", and then only in a video link caption. This leaves me fairly cold on the issue. To me, "homophobic" implies that she meant to refer to gays. While the term is generally offensive, assuming it is always homophobic strikes me as being similar to assuming the word "damn" always refers to the judgment of an eternal soul. For issue #2, all four sources use the full phrase. I think it should be included. For issue #3 I see nothing to indicate that she was "forced" to apologize. Certainly, she may have seen the writing on the wall and realized that not apologizing would be foolish. She may have felt pressured. Her agent may have threatened to dump her. Her parents... whatever. I see no indication that she was forced, felt forced, felt pressured, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
1) The term "faggot" is indeed a homophobic slur (and saying "suck on that, faggots" leaves nothing open to interpretation), and if you don't think it is then perhaps you should examine your own prejudices. It is quite obvious what Rice meant, and also quite obvious how ignorant and inappropropriate this wording is. The fact that she held a press conference in the days after it and publicly broke down in tears on television after the shitstorm it created for her is more than enough evidence.
2) Since Wikipedia is in the business of providing factual information, it is appropriate to put Rice's entire comment into the article so that it puts the whole thing into context. To not do this shows bias towards Rice as it downplays her error by deliberately obscuring what she said.
3) It is more than likely that Rice was forced to apologise publicly considering the storm it created and the damage it did to her reputation. Whether this was due to pressure from her business advisors or her parents isn't really the point. However, I have no problem with the paragraph reading that "Rice made a public apology...." rather than "Rice was forced to make a public apology....". The fact that she made the apology is the important detail. Kookoo Star (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
We agree on points 2 & 3, so I have no comment there. As to point 1, your imagining my prejudices has no relevance here (and you're absurdly off-base). Your interpretation is that it is always homophobic is bullshit. No, I do not mean it is fecal matter from a bull. Seriously, WTF? Having nothing to do with sex. You'd have to be pretty damned literal to think that. No, I don't think you are condemned to an eternity in Hell. Next, you'll be suggesting that she was calling them gay and inviting them to perform oral sex... wait... really?!?! Yes, I get it. Calling a gay man a "faggot" is, with exceptions that don't apply here, offensive. I see no indication of any kind that she was saying the men in question are literally gay. Offensive? Yeah, sure. Displaying some ignorance? Maybe. Homophobic? Hell, no. ...and I'm not referring to the theoretical place of damnation. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop using sources which are over the top (sensationalized to get hits online and to sell papers), I also suggest you take some care on a living person (reason why WP:BLP exists). 124.183.163.127 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Of the sources so far discussed (the three I mentioned, Daily Telegraph, ninemsn adn foxsports and the one cited in the article, The Sydney Morning Herald), which one(s) do you feel are "over the top (sensationalized to get hits online and to sell papers)"? At the moment, these seem to be reliable sources providing a fairly careful reading of the situation. Of the three contested segments (detailed above), what are your specific takes and why? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the discussion thus far and a recent revert by another IP (124.183.163.127) claiming a BLP violation, I have place a conservative version up. On the three issues: 1) it removes the contentious "homophobic" label 2) it includes the extremely well sourced full comment 2) it removes the unsourced "forced to apologise" in favor of the well sourced "apologised". I do not intend to be the final say. However, with a BLP claim on the table, i want to tread fairly carefully. I personally don't see a strong BLP case here. I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to take this to the BLP noticeboard. Without this action, or some additional support for the BLP violation claim from some other party, I cannot see a policy problem here. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the word "homophobic" as it is quite clear what Rice was meaning in her comment. If Rice simply uttered the word "faggot" then that may be a different case, but she said "suck on that, faggots" which is clearly sexual in nature and was intended to belittle. There is no room for interpretation here - she said what she said and was condemned for it. Please note that the article does not actually label Rice as homophobic, it merely states that she made a homophobic remark. And then she apologised for it. I have no problem with the rest of the wording so I'm prepared to leave it as it is if others are. 88.104.22.64 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it again as unsourced. This is still under discussion. You feel it was quite clear what she meant?If it's so obvious, there is little reason to include it and should be no problem finding substantial sourcing for it. Please discuss the issue before making changes/continuing the edit war. Additionally, due to the number of IPs involved and the possibility of socks, I have requested temporary semi-protection on this article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not unsourced! All three of the sources that are currently in the article actually desribe this as a "homophobic slur". The only WP:OR going on here seems to be yours as you seem to be denying actual facts. And removing factual, adequately sourced content puts you in no better position than the IP user who keeps removing it. 88.104.20.103 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia is at the very centre of this issue. Whether she intended it to be or not, Steph Rice made a homophobic remark - and she was sanctioned for it. If the comment was not homophobic (e.g. - if she had said "take that, losers!") then there would have been no fuss about this. Rice herself may well say that she meant no offence to anyone, but that doesn't stop it from being homophobic. It's like calling somebody a "wog" and then saying "but I'm not racist". It's still a racist term. The person may or may not feel they have a hatred or prejudice against that particular minority group, but the word itself is still racist - regardless of whether they see that or not.
There is an important distinction to make here between the remark and the person who made it. Do I think Stephanie Rice is homophobic? I don't know, possibly not. Do I think she made a homophobic remark? Yes, definitely. The remark can be labelled as homophobic, even if Rice herself cannot. SummerPhD - if you say you looked at three sources and only one of them mentioned the word "homophobic" in their article. If so, then that is still one source that can be used, but there's far more online. I've just done a quick Google search and in the first page or two of results I came up with half a dozen valid news sources that use the term "homophobic" in their coverage of this, including ABC News[1], Sporting Life[2], The Australian[3], The Australian Telegraph[4], The Daily Mail[5] and The British Telegraph[6] (the latter of which are both right-wing British newspapers and probably far less inclined to be critical of Rice's remark). This is only six, there are tons more.
The word "homophobic" should still be included in these details because it is the central issue and also adds context to why this created such a controversy. Removing the word entirely is once again downplaying the incident and shows bias towards Rice, which is not what we are here to do. Wikipedia is not a Stephanie Rice fan site and it has to include details - warts and all - without censoring or watering them down. This is not a BLP issue as some would have us believe, it is simply the ugly truth. Kookoo Star (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying "homophobic" whether they meant it or not, damages and harms the person at the center of the poor choice of words. Really was one event on a slow news day, media can hardly be trusted as they over sensationalize anything which will give them hits or sell newspapers (its the nature of media, not all what they say is fact). We have a BLP here and we need to use the right words which do not cause harm to the person at the center of the BLP, the words she used tell the story, not the media and other POV editors view of it being "homophobic". Sorry but if this was a fan site, we wouldn't have a controversy. 121.218.208.129 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are totally missing the point of Wikipedia. We have to provide an unbiased account of things, and as long as it is adequately sourced, that includes details that may be less than flattering towards a subject. We are not here to promote people or make people look good, and it is not your place to tell us what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia articles based on your own preferences. Wikipedia is not condemning Rice for the comment, it is merely including it because it is relevant to her public persona. Even though it was only one incident, it became a huge controversy (she even lost her sponsorship deal becuase of it) and full details of it belong in the article. If Rice wanted to avoid such controversy, she shouldn't have made the comment in the first place, and we are not toning the incident down just because you don't want to see her portrayed in a bad light. The fact she made an apology goes some way to making amends, and the article also includes that but the fact is she still made a homophobic slur - whether she meant to or not. That is something nobody can deny and there are a ton of reliable, quality sources that categorize it that way. Since you are so keen on quoting BLP as an issue here, you might actually want to read Wikipedia's BLP rules, particularly WP:BLP#Public_figures which completely torpedos your argument. You might also want to familiarise yourself with WP:NPOV as well. 88.104.20.53 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been a problem on this article for months now (ever since it happened) as there are obviously fans of Stephanie Rice who are trying to downplay it or remove it entirely. No matter how bad, this was an important event in Rice's career and it should be covered properly in the article. That's what Wikipedia is for. And yes, that means including the word "homophobic" to describe the comment she made as it is simply too well sourced to ignore. We should not be censoring the truth, even if it means ruffling a few feathers. Roguana (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

After allowing two further weeks of discussion, I have restored the wording of the article as a) it is in accordance with Wikipedia's BLP policies (WP:WELLKNOWN), b) it is superbly sourced from quality sources, c) there has been no good reason presented by any editors in this discussion to omit it. Kookoo Star (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

World Record[edit]

I have a problem with this bit "She held the world record in the 400 m women's individual medley," because it doesn't say directly when she won the medal. A reader needs to dig through the article to find when. She has also apparently just had that World record beaten so past tense is appropriate but perhaps it should reference just when she attained that record and when, and to whom, she lost it. 58.168.50.37 (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to add: She apparently held 3 world records according to: http://www.stephanierice.com.au/30/About-Stephanie-Rice

"In 2008, Stephanie Rice cemented her dominance in both Individual medleys and as the lead off swimmer in the 4x200 Freestyle relay team, with the stunning haul of three Olympic Gold medals and three World records."

The last to be held has just been "lost". I can't see why just one record is mentioned at the start of the article and then a reader needs to dig through to find more info. I suggest the statement "She held the world record in the 400 m women's individual medley," is changed to something more general such as "is a former World record holder" and perhaps an additional section is added for "World records" where mention of the specific records and when they were attained and lost is made. 58.168.50.37 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)