Talk:Michael Phelps

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]

Portal
 Michael Phelps is maintained by WikiProject Swimming, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of swimming and other water sports. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Picture!

Will somebody please find a picture of Michael Phelps?

[edit] Gold Medal Records

Phelps winning 4 individual gold medals doesn't tie Mark Spitz's record of 7, unless this means Phelps tied Mark Spitz's individual golds. I'm going to fix this for now, if I'm wrong in my assumption, please fix. Jrssr5 14:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tables

3 inconsistent table styles. all ugly.

Maybe not to that degree, but I agree...could someone please fix these so that they are atleast similar? --Jared 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Esprit15d 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence

That sentence on Tom Stone appears to be a hack job. Did Phelps *really* want that mention in? If so, it could have been organized better.

[edit] Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there is no references section. Worldtraveller 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious beliefs

Does anyone know what Michael Phelps spiritual beliefs are? Jlaforteza 06:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't and I don't think it should be in the article, because it is not relevant to his public life, which is swimming, unless he is a religious advocate of some kind.`Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I just wanna know for my personal knowledge. Jlaforteza 05:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk Driving...

I can't believe Michael did such a crime! He was my honest idol, but now I'm not so sure. If you read this Michael, just know that now many of your fans will not believe in you as much now that you have a Criminal Record. Meldshal42 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? He made a mistake. In no way does this tarnish his character. Jrssr5 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was only a silly mistake. Michael Phelps is also my idol. Is not important for me than he did it.

While demanding references for potentially libelous biographical information is a noble goal, it seems counterproductive to me to just remove material when a simple google search can provide a reference in about the same amount of time.

  • Is it me or does the article give undue weight to his DUI? Seems excessive. MahangaTalk to me 15:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree... shouldn't the DUI section be removed? It seems strange to have an entire section devoted to a single driving incident, and it is not relevant to the reason he is listed in an encyclopedia - which is his swimming. Posting this sort of thing makes Wikipedia seem more like a gossip site than an encyclopedia. If you look up other sports figures in "regular encyclopedias", you do not get a rap sheet. Gacggt 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the DUI section should have been removed. It was a highly publicized event. Kolindigo 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


If someone were writing a 300 page biography, such an event migh get a paragraph. To devote a section here, taking about 15% of the space, really does seem to blow such an event out of proportion. The individual has spent more than ten years garnerning swimming records; to have an entire section given to a single event like the DUI really does seem disproportionate - it gives one a scewed view of the person, which is the opposite of the goal of an encyclopedia entry. So for these reasons I agree with the removal of the DUI section. People who want that sort of thing should start a Gossipedia. Gacggt 12:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


nearly every celebrity article has a controversy section. these controversies range from homophobic/racist remarks or drug use. If size length is a problem, then shorten it. Don't act like it never happened. if you do so, you should go to every celebrity page and remove controversies. Not a good precedent. Binks 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Well, let's take your example. For a celebrity like Robert Downey, Jr., his arrests and drug use almost cost him his life. They're quite material to the story of his "personal life" and they effected his professional life. In contrast, with Michael Phelps, there was a single incidence of a DUI - and it took up about a third of the space devoted to his personal life (since there is not much there); also there is no evidence that this is diagnostic of a problem he has. Last point: if you glance at this talk page, you'll see no shortage of libelous remarks casually thrown about - while the DUI actually happened, the overall picture one gets are of people with bad intent who just want to throw a little dirt on the page. The concern is to give an accurate picture of an individual - thus if even a true event gives an incorrect portrait (i.e., Michael Phelps has a drinking problem when he does not); that should be taken into account. Gacggt 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

just because it is a blemish on his reputation and disappoints people who idolise him, does not mean it should be ignored. this is an encyclopedia not a fan page. A criminal record is a criminal record. If you take my example of lleyton hewitt, there is a much longer part about his black linesman remark. under your logic, this could give an inaccurate picture of hewitt being genuinely racist (although there's a good chance he is). Anyway, who are you to say he does not have a drinking problem? This is an encyclopedia, we work with the facts (he got charged with many crimes) not the speculation (it being only a one off). FInally, if you are so concerned about it taking up a lot of his personal life percentage-wise, make the rest longer. Binks 08:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Lleyton Hewitt page (your example); as documented, there are multiple incidents, all adding up to a coherent picture of him. That is not the case here. This is not some idolizing fan who has some need to whitewash a person; I invest a lot of time in Wikipedia, and would like it to be better. This imay be a more subtle case than usual - but it's worth talking about, and your example proves the opposite of the point you were trying to make. Gacggt 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

there is only one incident of racism. the other incidents may be controversies but otherwise unrelated. The point is you can't take out facts just because it makes him look bad. If you need further examples, Wendell Sailor has this huge section making up a third of the WHOLE ARTICLE, not just the personal section, about being caught for taking cocaine. Like phelps, it may have been a one-off and was unlucky to be caught, just as phelps could have drank (and driven) frequently while he was under 21. Wikipedia reports known facts, not speculation. You can't remove facts in favour of speculation Binks 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading more into the article, I don't think his drunk driving incident is notable at all. As Gacggt has said, this was a minor event and no one, when thinking of Michael Phelps, will remember his DUI. The inclusion of his DUI is a plain case of recentism. Look at some of the things removed from Barack Obama. We should be as sensible as they are there. I've posted now at Request for Comment. MahangaTalk 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Phelps has a criminal record, he was charged and sentenced. Many, many celebrities have a controversies section, i don't see why phelps is any different. This is only three sentences. If you look at marion jones, there is a huge section on her alleged drug use, but she has never been found guilty (phelps on the other hand has) yet the section is so long. Or if you look at martina hingis, there is a substantial section about her comments (including remarks about her doubles partner being "old and slow"). Do you think when she retires, anyone will remember that? These are just comments and they take up so much room, phelps actually has a criminal record. Binks 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If anything, he deserves a bigger section on his DUI. I went to highschool with the guy and he REALLY let the whole "I was in the Olympics" thing go to his head. He would do things like throw food at people from across the cafeteria or take peoples' things and then use his celebrity status to avoid any blame for it. I know I can't back any of that up, but it's all more or less common knowledge around the Towson area. Willickers! 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the two comments above, first off, yes, other articles do have big sections on controversy arising around the noted person, however, that does not necessarily mean that that is how every article should be. Think of it this way, he is known for his swimming. If he was a normal person with a DUI, chances are he would not have an article on Wikipedia. He is not famous for the DUI, but rather for his swimming. Second, the article is not to show how much of a jerk one thinks he is, regardless of if he was conceded or not. His ego is not means for giving him a bigger section on his DUI. Respectfully, --wpktsfs 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I said that at the front was that i thought that the whole DUI section was a little too descriptive. I"m sorry, I apologize to anyone offended. Sincerely, Meldshal42 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In Phelps' home country (the United States) swimmers are generally not celebrities in the way that American football, basketball, and baseball players are. He is virtually the only recognizable figure from the swimming community; perhaps only Amanda Beard for her physical attractiveness and among the older generations Mark Spitz are remembered for swimming. At the time of his arrest he was basically the only "superstar", and the only representative of swimming as a part of popular culture. His social influence is understated in this article. The significance of his drunk driving is one of the few incidents in swimming history that will be remembered in the general American population (mostly non-swimmming-fans). It is moderately disturbing to see comments like "I can't believe Michael did such a crime!" and "In no way does this tarnish his character. " The seriousness of the act of drunk driving is considerable, especially when noting his age and the presence of passengers in his vehicle. Perhaps Americans don't take drunk driving seriously, but when the only person from a sport that people know about is caught drunk underage and driving, it seems notable in spite of his major accomplishments as an athlete. In other sports and among actors this sort of behaviour is normalized and reaction is mellowed by the desensitization from frequency. If an American baseball player does this, or other illegal/immoral things then it appears in the news for a few days until the next player is found with something. Actors are constantly followed by media and substance abuse and criminal conduct seem to have become intertwined with the notion of Hollywood. But in swimming the was only him. If you ask people about actors, musicians, professional athletes that have been caught drunk driving, there could be a long list of Americans that have done this. In the context of all sports his incident is certainly not the worst (OJ Simpson), but he is basically the only famous swimmer to Americans. And even within the world of swimming, he stands out as having been a drunk driver. I'm sure we can google drunk swimmers and find others who have been caught, but no one as famous in the sport as him. Anecdotally I watch the show with Jay Leno (a very mainstream and popular television show) and have for many years. The only time I can remember a swimmer being included in the opening monologue/sketch was when Michael Phelps was arrested. It is hereby proposed that the section detailing the incident be reinstated.--Swimmtastic (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what needs to be "reinstated". This is an old thread from last year. For some time now, the article has included a couple of sentences detailing the DUI arrest and sentence, which seems about right and not WP:UNDUE. Because there doesn't seem to be any edit war over this nowadays, I've removed the tag. JGHowes talk - 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doping?

3 WRs in 3 day?! and nothing about it in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.2.93.168 (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neutrality?

Why does this article say "Unfortunately, his [relay team only got bronze" or "Unfortunately, [he only placed for bronze in the 200 m freestyle]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I edited the term. Gacggt 13:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fix the page

Someone screwed with the page putting in all this crap about sailing and playing with Phelp's age. I don't have the time to fix it myself, but someone should. I would report it to wikipedia but I don't know how. Help me out here? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcman411 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] REMOVE EDITTING

I just spent about 45 minutes fixing the page only for it to all revert back to sailing and dumb jokes. Please fix it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcman411 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] World Records Overview

i think it would be interestimg to get an overview of all world records he has set, may be 22 or something right now. does anyone have a table or list of them?

[edit] Webbed feet?!

Can we cite or remove the claim that Mr. Phelps has "slightly webbed feet"? --Legomancer (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fix table

can someone fix the table, it's a bit wonked. 71.164.134.119 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)