Talk:Ian Thorpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Ian Thorpe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2007.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This article contains or may have contained one or more copyrighted photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images in order to better comply with fair use policy. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license.


Contents

[edit] Too long

This article is way too long. We don't need play by play analysis of his life, for that biographies work, we just need a brief document of his life.

[edit] older entries

Read the article some body had a funny idea in one of the pargaphs. Paragraph 5.

Not really. ugen64 20:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, really. It states factually that his success is based on his "huge, powerful physique". I don't think that's POV, but then again I don't think it'd be POV to add "He is very sexy." to the article. --Node 20:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- The current photo of Thorpe, with the caption stating that he had wone 5 gold medals, seems to show him with six gold medals. No doubt there are some silver or bronze mixed in with the gold but it could prove confusing to the casual viewer. --Roisterer 01:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's because those aren't Olympic Gold Medals. Those look like Gold Medals from a FINA swimming event.Mike Hackney

I just think he is really hot!-wetkat

Wait, I think I know where those medals are from. I'll make a change to the caption.Mike Hackney 04:54, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

Ok, i skipped the last sentence, that was a commentary and left the first two that are facts.. This page is full of commentary and opinions about his glorious carrier.. The two sentences that i include have nothing put 100% facts and are ref properly. If someone does not agree, please explain >>>>this is the proposed insertion:


""" On the eve of what was the biggest decision of his life, Ian Thorpe failed to comply with a drug test that was planned weeks ago and was part of a pre-championship testing blitz of Australia's top swimmers. [1] [2] No action was taken from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to that matter, as Ian Thorpe effectively deregistered himself from the ASADA register, by retiring the next day.[3] """


>>> and these are my sources:


""" http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/drug-testers-visit-thorpe/2006/11/20/1163871311869.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/thorpe-wrestles-with-that-sinking-feeling/2006/11/20/1163871343255.html

http://www.asada.gov.au/control/procedures/responsibilities.htm

http://www.asada.gov.au/control/procedures/dopingcontrol.htm

"""



Blnguyen erased my comments as "unsourced defamatory stuff" about the fact that Ian avoided a drug test 1 day before he retire. Also, I should have place my comments here first, before go and edit the main page (sorry, noob).

So here is my source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/drug-testers-visit-thorpe/2006/11/20/1163871311869.html I did not say that he did took drugs, i said that it was reported that he was supposed to be tested the previous day, which is strange.. I will not post anything more until you agree to it. However, I see no reason why not...

This is Wiki after all, it is not Ian Thorpe's personal web site!! Good and bad should be allowed, or at least that is what I think...

Another article: ”Thorpe had been supposed to train at Caringbah pool yesterday morning, but when drug testers from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority turned up to take a routine out-of-competition sample, he wasn't there. The drug testing was planned weeks ago and was part of a pre-championship testing blitz of Australia's top swimmers, a standard practice. Another of Thorpe's managers, Mark Jones, said of the testing: "It didn't faze Ian, he is used to doing it, it is all part of being a swimmer." The authority's chairman, Richard Ings, said that until an athlete officially notified it in writing about retirement it was "business as usual" http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/thorpe-wrestles-with-that-sinking-feeling/2006/11/20/1163871343255.html

We wont write that he was on drugs. Just the facts that the day before he retired, he evaded to be tested for drugs. That is a proven fact and if one thinks it is a coincidence, fine, but let the critical thinkers have the info the need...

ASADA, states that:"sanctions may be applied by the relevant sporting federation(s) if an athlete does not comply with a request to provide a sample or otherwise interferes with the doping control process." http://www.asada.gov.au/control/procedures/responsibilities.htm If Ian had not retire, they would have imposed sanctions because of his actions. This justifies at least a mention in Wiki, especially when there is in such an extend mention of his anti-drugs campaign.. I mean, this is how much he did care for anti-doping; he finished his career with an act of disrespect for the ASADA.Karacult 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug tests are not pre-scheduled - the testers will have put the test in their diaries, but they don't tell the athlete beforehand because it is a surprise test. Everybody knows Thorpe was skipping many swimming sessions in the lead up to his retiurement. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look again Blnguyen.. http://www.asada.gov.au/control/procedures/dopingcontrol.htm

the test could be: No Advance Notice testing or targeted testing. Even if it was a no advance notice testing, "For No Advance Notice and in-competition testing, the athlete is required to report to the Doping Control Station as soon as practical or within 60 minutes of notification, whichever is sooner." Ian was at his house that day:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/thorpe-wrestles-with-that-sinking-feeling/2006/11/20/1163871343255.html

He failed to take the test, it was his responsibility as an athlet to be there in 1 hour. He was in australia and in sydney. The officials wait for 1 hour and he did not come (from his bedroom that he was hiding). You must be blind not to see the truth.

Regardless, the fact remains, he failed to be present at the test and that was his responsibility, so there is merit for this info to be placed in wiki.

Farthermore, this whole article about Ian is very very suspisiously like a press release from Ian's media office. He is presented as God like, with no mentions of any other side of Ian but the one that Tourism Austrlia has for the tourist. If one wants to praise him, one can go at Ian's own website. Wiki should be open and democratic and have all sides of the coin available. I appeared in front of you with lots of refs about the fact that he failed to get drug tested one day before he quited. Now lets let the readers to make their own opinion about it and this will only happen if we don't censure the information I brought here..Karacult 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you show that the test was indeed scheduled at that time for that day, and it was not an unscheduled test? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if the test was unscheduled, random, Ian had the responsibility to be present. How? go to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and see what the law has to say. http://www.asada.gov.au/control/whereabouts/requirements.htm “Athletes included in ASADA’s Registered Testing Pool (RTP) are required to provide quarterly Athlete Whereabouts Information directly to ASADA. The required information includes….” “Athletes are required to nominate one (1) location per day where they will be available for sample collection and provide the start time of the one (1) hour period that they will be at that location.” It was Ian’s responsibility as an athlete to be there and he failed that. It is not up to the ASADA to look for Ian, it is Ian’s responsibility to be there, and he was not.Karacult
What if they attempted a blind test, totally random outside of the one hour where he had to show up? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
where do you get your info about "blind tests"? ASADA website states exactly what tests they do: "No Advance Notice testing" and "targeted testing". In both cases “Athletes are required to nominate one (1) location per day where they will be available for sample collection and provide the start time of the one (1) hour period that they will be at that location.” That is, if you are a pro athlete, you nominate for the next 3 months where you are going to be for ONE HOUR EVERY DAY. That is what being a pro athlete is. He was not there. Fact one :"ASADA wanted to drug test Ian that day", totaly documented in the news, links provided. Fact two: "Ian thorpe was not there", totaly documented in the news, links provided.Fact three: "“Athletes are required to nominate one (1) location per day where they will be available for sample collection and provide the start time of the one (1) hour period that they will be at that location.” ASADA web site... What is your objection? The earth is not flat and it has been proven... ..Karacult

I engaged in a conversation today, with an Australian Pro Athlete in the track, he represented us in the last commonwealth games. He told me that there is a 3months calendar that they have to fill with their whereabouts. They nominate a couple of places like home, pool etc as A B C D E and then they add that letter on every day at a specific time. Therefore, they nominate EVERY DAY where they will be for at least 1 hour. He said there are three ways of drug testing. 1) By appointment, they call the athlete and ask him to be at a location at a future date for the test. 2) During games 3) random with the use of the whereabouts calendar that every athlete submit. The day they tested Ian, they went at the pool, that was one of his nominated places and then they went at his home. He was not there. They waited for an hour. He did not appear. He failed his obligation as a pro athlete. It is a documented fact. It needs to be on the paragraph about his retirement.Karacult

I don't think it is particularly important, unless one wants to give an impression that he retired because he had drugs in him. He could skip training because he was bored, but in this case, the retirement is linked to a drugs test. I'll look around for thrid opinions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do ask around.. Ian should have thought about what kind of image he would give if he failed his obligations as an athlete one day before retiring. Would you do it? If you knew that you are about to announce your retirement, would you behave unprofessionally the days before, or would you be at the best of your appearances, because all the media spotlights would be on you? He was a pro for years, both in and outside the pool. That day he failed, intentionally or not, and that is part of history.... Please let me know about the other opinions you will get..Karacult Any news?..Karacult 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Karacult: The article from the 20th November states:

"The testers were inside the home for about one hour and left without commenting."

This implies that they were actually physically inside his house. I think that would be unlikely if he wasn't there. It states at the end of the article:

"Thorpe remained holed up at home today, and is scheduled to make an announcement about his swimming future at midday (AEDT) tomorrow [the 21st] in Sydney."

The November 21st article states:

"Thorpe had been supposed to train at Caringbah pool yesterday morning, but when drug testers from the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority turned up to take a routine out-of-competition sample, he wasn't there."

"Thorpe stayed in his house all day, only peeking out at one point when [his manager] was at the door."

The SMH's article on the 21st of November contradicts it's article on the 20th November. Other articles at the time implied that he had been reclusive because of the media attention. A contradictory source isn't good enough. What you're effectively implying is that he failed a drug test. Which said on it's own is paramount to slander. If he had failed to comply with a Dope test surely the Australian Media would have ripped him to pieces.

When it comes to the SMH and Ian Thorpe I wouldn't always take what they say with a pinch of salt. SMH is owned by Fairfax and Ian Thorpe works for New corps (Foxtel), there is a history of rivaly there. It was SMH who started the "Ian Thorpe is Fat" bitchfest. So I think there is some hostility there. Unless you can get another published source to confirm that he wasn't at his home or at the pool I wouldn't include it. Cheers --SAS87 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sas87, the article of the 20th has a photo of the testers at his house. I believe that they went first at the pool and then at his house. The point is not where they went, but that they did went to where ever Ian told them that he will be, and he was not there. That by it self is unprofessional and against ASADA regulations, as stated from all the articles quoted from the ASADA website. You are a pro, you give ASADA a 3 month calendar to where you will be each day so you can be test. If you are picked for a test, you have to be there within an hour or tell ASADA to wait for a bit more cause you are stack at the lights!!! When our top cricketers announced that they resign, they did it in full view without hiding behind curtains. Ian is responsible for ruining his pro image, not the media. I only want the documented facts to be available and I see no reason why we should not duplicate what all the newspapers had on their front page those days. Are we all suffering from selective memory? Sas, although Blnguyen gave me the OK, I will not put this in the main page, if you still thing it is not appropriate.Karacult 09:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Karacult: hmm I see what you mean but from what those particular news articles state I get the impression that he wasn't at the Caringbah Pool to take the Drug test, but when the Drug testers showed up at his house he took the Drug test. The SMH doesn't outright state: Thorpe failed Drug test. Sorry I don't have selective memory I wasn't in Aus at the time. If all the front pages of the newspapers were saying that he failed to show up for the test at his home then it will be easy to find another source. From what I read in your sources he was at his home all day on the 20th, the day the drug testers visited. I don't have a problem with what you want to put on the main page but I would be more comfortable with it if you had a source stating outright that he failed to comply with the drug test that day.--SAS87 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right SAS87, my sources do not clearly say if he did the test or not.. I'll just have to look elsewhere for confirmation.. Thanks for that... But the more I read, the more it stinks and if it looks like a duck……Not only we had the footage with him having the munchies in LA, not only he retired from pro the day after he was (or not) drug tested, but the ASADA issued a statement the same day saying :” The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) does not comment on any specifics of an athlete’s sample collection testing.”!!! It looks like a FOI is the only way to go here. Karacult 01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, funny that, i might not need the FOI any more. Looks like it is all coming out.. http://www.smh.com.au/news/swimming/fina-confirms-thorpe-investigation/2007/03/31/1174761802530.html http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=3020&art_id=nw20070330221658395C844194 Karacult 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's also a 9/11 survivor

He forgot his camera in the World Trade Center tower!

Do you have a source for that information? A newspaper? A book? A TV interview? If not, I will have to delete this as an unsubstiated rumour. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He's actually telling the truth. Thorpe was in lower Manhattan on 9/11. He actually forgot his camera at his hotel room, and when he got it, turned around, and arrived back at the Towers, the attack had already happened.Mike Hackney 05:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link. Go down to the bottom part, titled, "Brush with fate." [1]Mike Hackney 06:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The link doesn't work for me. It's a general page. Should we add him to 9/11 survivors, or at least mention it in the article? Morhange 02:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
http://blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2006/08/burgers_or_buff_1.html
This received a tiny amount of publicity at the time (clearly there were plenty of much bigger stories to be told that weeik) however presumably if going back for his camera he was headed to the observation deck which does not open until 9.30 am - long after the planes hit. Asa01 08:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the timing just means he intended to use his camera somewhere sometime. Can you know he knew the observation deck would not be open ? Anyway, unless survivor is for everyone conceived before 11/09/2000, then for WTC survivors, it must only be for people who were in or aboe the fires .. )

[edit] Image

Image:Thorpe crop.PNG is a free image; I was going to add it, but couldn't work out where. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that the current main image is a probable copyvio. The original upload is dodgy and I will nominate the image together with several other images from the same uploader for deletion. / Fred-Chess 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought. The current image, Image:Ian Thorpe.jpg, while under CC license, is not the most flattering photo to have at the top of the page. Jpeob 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a better CC/GFDL/free image available? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that I can find any on flickr.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

104 kilobytes for a bio article about a sportsman who, not doubting how good he is (and he is good), didn't change the world is too much. See WP:SIZE. Although there are a lot of kbs that are there because of the great number of references in the article, which is good, it's still too big. I have to admit. I didn't read it completely because it's too big. It gets boring quickly. And as it got me bored, it will get other people. In a nutshell, reduce the article and leave only relevant information. No need for every single detail in every single competition, although it'd be good to have details for the Olympic Games, i.e. If you don't want to delete that information, you can still put in other articles in link to them with template:main. I believe this is a reason good enough to decline the GA status. Any work on the prose as suggested in the FAC would be good too. Anyway, "good work on the hard work" for the editors here and I'm sure the article has potential to reach the status. Good luck and cheers.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day someone would oppose a GA because it's too comprehensive. Interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not because it's too comprehensive. Read WP:SIZE and you'll see the recommendation. Good Articles, although not at the level of demand of FAs, should follow these kinds of rules as well and not being a GA doesn't represent a loss for the article, it only helps editors getting to the point idealized by Wikipedia. Anyway, Good Article reviews are subjective, and that's the point exactly otherwise the review would be made like the FAs, I guess. Submit your opinion like in a review instead of that irony. Cheers--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This bio needs to be shorter or Athletes biographies like those of Michael Schumacher and Muhammed Ali's need to be longer! Who would read Hunter's biography when this is on the internet for free. I did a word count on John F Kennedy's bio on wikipedia: It has around 8,000 words, Ian Thorpe's bio has around 10,000. Margaret Thatcher's biography is also a featured article and it is also only around 8,000 words. :P Oh Dear! Obviously a lot of hard work has gone into this article but either it has to be less comprehensive or other biographies need to up their game.--SAS87 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty line

I am not quite satisfied with the statement about swimmers generally under the poverty line being cited from his biography. It hardly seems like the place to take that type of a statistic from. Ansell 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not an autobiography, and unfortunately, the book doesn't tell us what source it uses. I think I can get an alternative for you though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, A citation from some official body would prove that it was not just an ad hoc comment from the biographer. Ansell 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this isn't the best so far [2] - It tells us that 41% of Australian swimmers are under $13k, but this probably includes all registered swimmers and probably includes day jobs etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a reputable statistic. I am not sure exactly what the poverty line is (as I live on that much as a student :) ) but that seems pretty close to whatever it is. Ansell 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I might find one in Talbot's book - does that count? He coaches (or did coach) many athletes. Also, what is the difficulty with noting that Thorpe was "claimed" by gay groups? - we are simply reporting what htey have done, as stated in the papers Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Talbot would know a bit about these things being a long-standing coach. I think it is an unnecessary editorial statement to say the gay community claimed him as one of their own. The statement that they put pictures on their websites is objective as is, and the next two sentences follow up on it using objective previously written statements. Ansell 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link?

Is his profile on the Swimming Australia site a broken link, or is my browser just incompatible? If so, should we link to another profile?

Recurring dreams 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the link, Swimming Australia recently changed their site around. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National debut and International debut (this is hugely nitpicky)

Because the latter includes the former in its name, I think it would be preferable to rename one section, but I don't know anything about the subject. Atropos 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Did someone forget to protect this featured page or something? It seems to be getting alot of vandalism. 203.45.11.64 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it is against policy or something like that to protect Featured Articles that are currently on the Main Page, so that anyone can edit and (hopefully) improve them. --LuigiManiac | Talk 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection.--cj | talk 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KILLER STROKE

i think its odd, seeing as it's the current featured article, that there is no mention of the 2007 big story of his newly developed "killer stoke"....124.189.224.26 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interview in yesterday's Good Weekend magazine (The Age/SMH) mentioned it. But he never used it in the pool, anyway. pfctdayelise (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Vandalism

Someone changed the main picture and added the caption "haha he looks like a fag" ... I'm not sure how to change it back can someone help? Thanks :] QuirkyAndSuch 07:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation problems

168 individual citations in an article about a swimmer, no matter how famous, is extreme. Most of the facts cited are entirely uncontroversial and easily referenced even without the footnote pedantry. The sheer volume of notes is really puzzling. Why are notes covering more than one sentence repeated several times? Why has there been no attempt to merge notes that cover a span of pages from the same source? Why are there notes in the lead (a summary of the rest of entire article) in the first place? And why are only print references listed in the Reference-sections? And on top of this, the use of the very pointless citation templates makes it extremely difficult to edit the text. The amount of excess code they add to the article is truly staggering. I've been editing for over two years and I'm reasonably used to wikicode, but what I'm confronted with here is so extreme that I'm seriously discouraged from trying to improve the prose. It's just too damned hard to make it out among all that code clutter...

Peter Isotalo 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factul error in the introduction

It says on the introduction and today even on the wiki front page! That Ian Thorpe had the record of anyone in the world by winning 6 gold medals in one event in 2001, This is inncorrect as Mark Spitz won 7 use wiki to check it yourself I hope this gets changed as I dont know how to edit the introduction.

It doesn't say that, it says only swimmer to win six gold medals in a World Championship. Spitz' record was in the Olympics. Lampman 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use

A couple of points:

  1. Using Fair Use to show what a person looks like (as was done in the infobox) is generally not permitted, as images of living celebrities are considered replaceable (WP:FUC#1).
  2. Images of Thorpe and others celebrating tell us almost nothing about the event that we didn't already know. Fair Use should only be used when it adds significantly to the text of the article. A better example of Fair Use is the over-balancing image where a specific event is being discussed.

ed g2s • talk 12:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Also it's my understanding that press photos should only be used if the photos themselves are iconic (because press photos have a clear commercial interest). Even if the photo tells us about the event therefore I suggest it should not be used Nil Einne 13:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a "better" example, but definitely debatable. ed g2s • talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the pictures? the page looks very bland without them. --Chickenfeed9 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the comments you are replying to... ed g2s • talk 13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright paranoia has struck again Modest Genius talk 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
...especially when it is done while it is currently posted on the main page, not before. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
not the first time images have been removed from the article on the main page for invalid fair use.Genisock2 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are right. The last time it happened was a few days ago when Cricket World Cup was featured. But of course I was being a bit sarcastic in my last comment. Why are we doing this when the article is currently posted on the main page when it is shown beforehand on Main Page/Tomorrow and the TFA archive? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
because the copyright people tend not to look at those pages.Geni 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if they are that serious and concerned about copyright issues, they should because those are the pages where those issues appear first. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well at first glance tomorrow looks clean.Geni 16:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like it was noticed, but apparently nothing was done about it: see the Image section. Cmprince 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take care with images

I removed this image Image:ThorpeCC.jpg as the source doesn't seem particularly reliable. They appear to be user created and they appear to use images which probably don't belong to them e.g. [3]. The image in question also looks far more like a press or similar pro photo to me. When the source is in doubt, it is usually better to check with the source first to make sure they actually own the copyright Nil Einne 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, this is the second article in a very short space of time which has been featured and put on the main page with doubts over image copyrights. Is there a problem where these articles are being promoted to featured without being properly reviewed for such issues? QmunkE 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It's ridiculous to remove the pic while it's main paged. --Russoc4 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Um this isn't a vote or poll. And the fact that it is main paged is even more reason why we should make sure our images are properly sourced & licensed Nil Einne 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Of course it's unfortunate that the copyvio wasn't discovered until the day the article appeared on the main page, but that's what happened. The image was uploaded to Flickr as CC-BY, but in response to a question from a Commons user, the Flickr uploader admitted he's not the photographer and doesn't know where the image came from. In other words, he has no right to license it as CC-BY. —Angr 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/photo_galleries/928232.stm pick one. PureRumble 17:47, 25 March 2007 UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/s1793504.htm more here too. PureRumble 17:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, don't pick any of those, unless you can show that they're licensed freely (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA). In all likelihood, however, they are all fully copyrighted and hence unusable here. —Angr 17:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry. Thought it would be okay under Fair-Use only if we would say the pics come from BBC/ABC. PureRumble 17:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, fair use would not apply. A free image could be obtainable.++aviper2k7++ 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
.... The guy is celebrity... if a paparazzi is lucky to take a pic of him even from far distance and a bad angle... he will be able to sell the pic for like 50-200$ (bad estimations). How do you expect us to find a free image, perhaps we should swim to Australia with cameras and ask him kindly to smile.... *click* PureRumble 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
we have australian editors.Geni 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the image copyright rule has been taken too far when its allowed to remove an image from a main page article.Indianapolis 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. It is even more important to check our image copyrights when the image is on the Main Page article. —Lowellian (reply) 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "too far" when we're talking about enforcing our content policies. Just "not far enough". --Agamemnon2 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It is taking it too far when you allow policy to interfere with encylopedia quality and lose sight of what the purpose of the policy is.Indianapolis 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the policy is to make sure we have a free (as in libre, not gratis) encyclopaedia, not just a quality one which won't get sued. ed g2s • talk 14:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image from Commons, because it was a copyright violation: The Flickr user that uploaded it to Flickr was not the creator. Bryan 19:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fully sick

Shouldn't there be some mention of "Thorpey says it's fully sick!" in the article somewhere? --Ptcamn 20:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Wow, this must be some form of record. So far today I've personally seen five images on the main page for this (two of which didn't even show Thorpe), with a large amount of the time without an image at all. Currently, the only picture left in the article itself is of him falling over, and the main page pic is of an empty swimming pool. This is beyond the ridiculous and well into farce territory, thanks for amusing me anal copyright people! Modest Genius talk 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia should start ignoring copyrights completely.++aviper2k7++ 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... I hope you're not serious. If you are, I have a paper bag here. I... don't even know where to start. I could write a paragraph equivocating in this manner. Wow. Okay... never mind. Now, Modest Genius' concern strikes me as relatively valid. There will clearly be people that don't give a damn about copyright, but there will also be others that are paranoid about it. A balance is important. Wikipedia is the only real chance the world currently has for creating freely distributable knowledge. Let's not mess it up. GracenotesT § 21:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
What did removing the images have to do with copyright law? There was no legal reason to remove the images... just an ideological one. I know this has been discussed to death, but it's rather disturbing that people have actually been conned into thinking it's actually criminal to use a fair use picture of a living person on Wikipedia. --W.marsh 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That is true, this has nothing to do with "copyright paranoia", just our principles . ed g2s • talk 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, Modest Genius... While casual observers probably didn't notice anything odd, many Wikipedia editors did, and it doesn't look good. This is a farce, but I don't think copyright people are to blame here. This is a big article, one of the cruftiest I've seen. A new low for featured articles. GregorB 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone's got a sense of humour - a picture of an empty swimming pool! Another example of asshat implementation of policy I think. 4kinnel 22:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The real problem here is that this article's images should have been checked for copyright before it was ever approved as a Featured Article. —Lowellian (reply) 23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised a featured article of Thorpe didn't even have a main picture. So I went to flickr & found a pic licensed under 'free use.' I was well aware that some users on flickr falsely label fair use/promotional shots as 'free' but the one I uploaded sure didn't look like a promo shot. Nevertheless, it still got removed. Copyright laws can be a little fussy at times. Spellcast 06:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

nothing about fussy. We know the person is lying about the lisence. That image has been uploaded at least 4 times now.Geni 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note the inclusion of a pictogram and an empty swimming pool on the Main Page had nothing to do with our Fair Use policy. There was nothing stopping us having no image at all, but for some reason some editors (admins) couldn't stand the thought of a slightly different layout, which is somewhat beyond me. ed g2s • talk 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An empty swimming pool is better than no picture at all. —Lowellian (reply) 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Because... 4kinnel 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
... people don't know what a swimmimng pool looks like. Brine Pepaz 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That is completely true, but it's still not a good thing to be doing. If some people hadn't taken it upon themselves to be awkward about copyrights on the day it was on the main page (and maybe waited a day?) it wouldn't have been a problem. Modest Genius talk 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Championship Golds

I think Michael Phelps has now won more gold medals at the Worlds than Ian. If I'm counting right, his 4x100m Free Relay win yesterday puts him at 12. Jrssr5 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal bests?

It would be nice with a list of his personal best times over the various distances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anvila (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/n/Talk%7EIan_Thorpe_c43c.html"