Talk:Linford Christie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Save Jamaica Fund

Is he the Patron of this Charity? BubbleChog 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory Paragraph

This is in reference to the following introductory sentence:

Linford Christie (born 2 April 1960) was a disgraced British athlete and the only man ever to win Olympic, World, Commonweath and European 100 m gold medals. (Emphasis mine)

It's NPOV. The term "disgraced" itself implies some kind of disapproval, which is opinion and thus POV. It's also redundant, because the next sentence in that article tells us enough about his later career without having to color our perceptions of him.

A better alternative would be "former", I believe, since that is descriptive enough without coloring the article with a potentially POV position. So that's what I've done. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV issue. Please put disgraced into the WIKI Search and see how many articles it is used in to describe someone once revered who has tumbled from their pedestal. He was TWICE shown to be a drug cheat and all his "achievements" are questionable. It is a very apt term. Robsteadman 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, you've at least got a couple of people who think it is (judging by the reverts), at least for this article. And besides, it's still redundant -- he got caught and banned by the IAAF. There's no real need to say, "Linford Christie is a disgraced athlete" -- we can already tell from the rest of the article. Actually, from the sentence immediately after that. :-) — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a POV issue, as many don't think of him as being disgraced, hence his OBE etc. --Bob 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
So those who think its a POV issue are going to go through and remove it from the large number of otherr articles where nobody has questioned it? Why is it just ok for it to be removed from THIS disgarced person? Robsteadman 07:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Two examples of people who have the word "disgraced" associated with them are Robert Hoyzer ("disgraced" mentioned here, and not in the main article itself) and Alexander Yakovlev (disambig page: not mentioned in main article referencing him). Hoyzer was jailed for 10 years for criminal charges stemming from the match-fixing scandal that he was associated with. Yakovlev has to face three counts of wire fraud and money laundering for accepting approximately $1 million dollars in bribes.
I'm not saying that these two examples are representative (I chose the first two names I could see in the search result list[1]), or that the two of them deserved to have that word applied to them, but I suspect it takes more than a ban from a sports organization to "disgrace" someone. Well, hell, if "disgrace" has to be used to describe someone (again, not something I would advocate), I suspect that the criteria wouldn't even include Ben Johnson. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 09:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And BOB, his OBE was before he was dsigraced, He's disgraced and teh IAAF ban proves it. Robsteadman 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to append a definition here:

dis·grace (ds-grs) n. 1. Loss of honour, respect, or reputation; shame. 2. The condition of being strongly and generally disapproved. 3. One that brings disfavor or discredit: "Your handwriting is a disgrace." tr.v. dis·graced, dis·grac·ing, dis·grac·es 1. To bring shame or dishonour on: disgraced the entire community. 2. To deprive of favour or good repute; treat with disfavour: "The family was disgraced by the scandal."

The question therefore is: does the strength of the word merit inclusion in this instance? My own view is that while evidence did come to light (albeit after he had retired professionally) he was not stripped of ANY medals he had won prior to this. To put it another way, if we are going to use 'disgraced' for an athlete like Christie, what adjective might be reserved for Ben Johnson, which (if you look) does NOT include the word 'disgraced' or indeed any similar word in the introductory paragraph? --Stevouk 11:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lieks of Ben Johnson SHOULD have disgraced added - it is used widely on WIkipedia to describe characters such as C hristie - huge hero until he was found to be a drug cheat (and, of course, don;t forget for some inexplicable reason he was found with identical drugs in his system as Johnson in 1988 but was not banned. Disgraced is correct usage - it should be added to Johnson or removed from all similar uses throughout Wiki pedia - I favour adding to Johnson and other cheats. Robsteadman 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
"Identical drugs"? I believe the only dodgy substance found was ginseng tea. Grant 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I checked the list of athletes listed under 'Athletes who have been punished as drug cheats' and NONE of them, except Linford, have the word 'disgraced' appended to their opening description. You of course have added 'disgraced' to Ben Johnson's entry - a move which I feel is inappropriate as I don't think it should be up to one person to reword every entry to fit in with their own view. Rather, they should follow (as you suggest) the 'similar' use policy already established. In point of fact, the nearest equivalent is used in the profiles of Carl Lewis and Diego Maradona, who are described as 'controversial'. I therefore feel its inclusion is opinion-based, unfair and not factual. Indeed it appears to be personally motivated rather than aiming at being informational, the point of Wikipedia. There have been many other athletes found guilty of more severe offences, and stripped of their medals. The IAAF did not do this in Linford's case. --Stevouk 10:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree strongly with Stevouk, to compare the media/public backlash against Christie to the one against Johnson is laughable. theres a case for +'disgraced' in Johnson's article, more of a +'tarnished reputation' for Christie. StrengthCoach 13:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that these drug cheats are just the unlucky ones that ran their dosing protocols too close to event day... performance enhancing drug use is far more rampant than the public perception. StrengthCoach 13:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going to point that out as well -- for all we know, during that particular period most athletes in that field were doping up in some way or another. We know Ben Johnson and Linford Christie did that -- they got caught with it. We even know that Carl Lewis did it -- he eventually admitted it. For all you know, most of track and field during the late eighties wasn't displaying the peak of human physical performance, but instead the drug-augmented peak of human physical performance. Damn, there goes my childhood. :-/ — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The vterm is widely used on wikipedia to describe such persons - if there are some it is not on then it shoud be added. Maybe it is not on all drug cheat athletes because disgraced suggests they were held in high esteem and then fell because of their dishonesty? I have reverted, I really see no reason why he cannot be described as disgraced unless you are going to remove it from all other introductory paras throughout wikipedia. Robsteadman 11:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have preferred if you had read my earlier comment before returning the opening sentence to reflect your own view. I checked all the introductions for those athletes listed as 'drug cheats' on Wikipedia, and the ONLY entry using an opinion-driven adjective (i.e. 'disgraced') was your contribution - and Ben Johnson's which you added after I cited his name. As I said before, the only remotely comparable adjective was 'controversial'. Therefore following your own logic, the removal of the word from both entries meant every introductory entry was equally treated. But it is clear that you fail to see the essence of my point in your statement which ends '... if it is not then it should be added'. This illustrates perfectly my point about personal opinion over-riding neutrality.
Wikipedia stands or falls on its ability to remain even-handed. Forcing personal opinions onto entries, no matter how deeply felt, reduces its status as a useful tool for researchers. Examine ANY reputable index or biographical dictionary and you will not find the kind of language you insist on employing. I find it regrettable that you want to diminish Wikipedia by ignoring this straightforward distinction between fact and opinion. I personally have no desire to change it yet again, as I have better things to do. As far as I am concerned you have 'won', but Wikipedia is the poorer for it. --Stevouk 19:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
So are you going to remove disgraced from all the other articles it is used in in exactly this context? Robsteadman 07:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that some are trying to protect Christie whilst other articles about sportsmen, politicians etc. are left with disgraced in - there needs to be consistency. If it is too POV then it needs to removed from ALL articles not just Christie's. Robsteadman 10:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am adding or changing absolutely nothing more to this page. The current amendment leaves me in no doubt about its author's misunderstanding of the term 'neutral'. As I have repeatedly said (and been repeatedly ignored) there is NO other athlete listed under those found guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs who has either been labelled 'disgraced', 'drug cheat' or any similar opinion-driven term in the introductory paragraph. Not one. Except this one, and at the hand of one fairly single-minded author. The current revision is even worse than before - its amateurish, partisan wording saying far more about its writer than the subject. I'm beginning to regret ever becoming involved in contributing to this article. --Stevouk 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I think what we have here, really, is an edit war. Apart from that one niggling issue, the article is fine. Look, this is counterproductive. I don't think anyone's willing to budge an inch on this matter for the time being, and frankly, I think what we need people just editing back and forth and stalling further development of this article. Can we just limit our conversation, at least, in the talk page and work out some kind of compromise before we exhaust ourselves trying to make sure that the Right Version gets in the article? — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 01:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
you seem to be ignoring the comments and opinions of the others, and you seem to be the only one insisting he is disgraced. a ban does not automatically qualify as "disgraced", drug use certainly does not qualify, it should be the opinion of the _masses_ that someone has disgraced themselves..StrengthCoach 13:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Request

This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.
Some statements may be disputed or incorrect.
The Mediation Cabal invites you to please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
Please assume good faith, refrain from name calling and observe Wikiquette.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

We had a request over at The Mediation Cabal about a dispute on this page. I have reviewed the dispute and agreed to serve as an informal mediator. Check out our page for more info. If you want to discuss this case I encourage you to continue to do it here, just hash out changes before instituting them. You can also make comments or ask questions over at the MedCab Case page for this article. Alternatively, feel free to contact me on my talk page and leave me a message or use one of the other methods of contacting me. --Wgfinley 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal with Puma

Just watched a program on BBC1 titled "You can't fire me, I'm famous!" which examined Linford's fall from grace. In it he commented that his deal with Puma was not withdrawn, but actually was due to run out at the time the press reported it's withdrawal. He even stated that he still has a 'good relationship' with puma and still does work for them.

Don't know how to cite this referring to net sources (wikinoob) but it seems an important change to the article.--Harveymuso 22:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't find a clear reference. All the original media sources are carefully worded - they don't say 'cancelled' or 'withdrawn', but 'not continued' or 'ended', which can just as easily mean 'run out'. The fact that it wasn't renewed may have been significant, or it may not - it can't be expanded upon without becoming speculative. Mauls 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manly Sea Eagles

Is there any confirmation out there that he trained with the Australian Rugby League club Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles but could not get insurance to play. Londo06 (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Linford1.jpg

Image:Linford1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)