This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rowing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RowingWikipedia:WikiProject RowingTemplate:WikiProject Rowingrowing articles
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles
Look, this will not do. A piece of rubbish placed in the official boat race programme in 2015 is still a piece of rubbish. There are no contemporary reports which mention "dead heat to Oxford". The phrase doesn't appear in print until after the Second World War. The real story of the 1877 dead heat, researched by a real historian, is here: http://heartheboatsing.com/2014/04/17/lies-damned-lies-and-the-1877-boat-race/ This is the one accepted in the main article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't used the 2015 programme. I've used other sources. As for referring to the appalling main Boat Race article, that's just silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And please, stop edit warring until we have reached some kind of consensus here. Could you also demonstrate how heartheboatsing.com is a WP:RS? That would be particularly helpful for other articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Blacketer it would be helpful if you could provide reliable sources to dispute those reliable sources, including journalist and author Chris Dodd's book, rather than continue this crusade. Plus, as I asked above, if you can demonstrate how Koch's blog is an RS, that would be very helpful too as there are lots of interesting things he's written there. By the way, Koch himself acknowledges that contemporary reports stated that Oxford had won. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Let me give you some background. The 1877 dead heat is a tricky subject because of several factors. 1) The boat race is a very high profile and highly antagonistic contest. Partisans of either side are very ready to argue the toss over it and to complain if they were cheated. Certainly the Oxford crew of 1877 felt cheated of a victory. 2) Many of the stories told about the 1877 race are funny. It's amusing to think that the finish judge was drunk under a bush when the race was going on. It's hilarious to think the job of judging the race was given to someone who was actually blind. It's a massive joke to think that the judge actually said something as obviously contradictory as "dead heat to Oxford". The fact that the stories are amusing means no-one's going to like anyone who researches the real story and finds that these stories are fables which have no basis in truth. In fact, if someone does so, that's not going to stop the stories being told - because they're so amusing that the facts barely matter. 3) Not many people are going to bother going back to check the real story when it's just for telling amusing stories about the race's history.
Given that background, it's very important not to get mislead by the fact that these fables appear even in otherwise reliable sources. It does reinforce the need to look closely at bias, and that an otherwise reliable source is not simply repeating fables. For instance, the "dead heat to Oxford" quote does not appear in print until after the Second World War. I have checked the contemporary newspapers in the BL online archive and none of them mention it, which is not what one would expect if it had actually been said. The obvious conclusion is that it was not said. We also need extraordinary evidence before in any way implying in Wikipedia's voice that the official result recorded for a sporting event was wrong - and that is what your wording does. It is fine to say that Oxford believed they had won; it is true to say that many observers said Oxford had won, but it is not right to say or to imply that they were actually ahead at the finish line. Wikipedia's voice should not be used to cast doubt on the official result.
The source that I linked to is to an article specifically commissioned from a rowing historian for the official 2014 programme. It happens also to be online at the author's blog but that is neither here nor there; the source is an article from a rowing historian in an official programme. I was confused by your referencing earlier because other programmes have included the fables about 1877. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point, from a policy perspective. The article makes it clear that the result was documented in Oxford's favour at the time. I have a reliable source that states that. Koch says that the result was erroneously documented in Oxford's favour at the time. I'm not seeing anything reliable that you've provided other than a self-published blog from a self-appointed historian of rowing. The article says "A "dead heat" in the 1877 race (which was reported as a victory to Oxford by several feet in numerous contemporary reports)" which is backed by a couple of reliable sources, and even by your Koch source. I appreciate the lesson on the significance of the 1877 race, but it's really not necessary. There remains little else to discuss. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were other contemporary sources which said the 'dead heat' finding was absolutely right, and they were actually more numerous. Would you accept an amendment to "which was erroneously reported as a victory to Oxford"? Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the official result is a dead heat, I think that's implicitly obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't agree. The way it's worded at the moment has the words 'dead heat' in quotes, which implies they are opinion, and then immediately casts doubt on it, and reinforces that doubt by referring to the "numerous" reports. That wording implies the official result was incorrect. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, life's too short for this. I have a reliable source backing that statement 100%, dead heat is in quotes because it's not universally understood and is often published in quotes, you have a self published blog and came in guns blazing making false accusations. Change the text to whatever you want, remove the sources I have added and then enjoy the rest of your day. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you've taken it personally. I just want to make an accurate, neutral article and in good faith, I think it isn't entirely there yet. I will check other sources when able. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me next time should I have the unpleasant task of having to deal with you and your bile that you started a discussion with an edit summary starting "Rubbish." and a comment on an article talk page starting "Look, this will not do" and a false accusation, followed by edit warring and repeated ignoring of reliable sources. Oh, and the mini-lecture on the significance of the 1877 race. Thanks for that. And then ask yourself if you'd take that kind of thing personally. You started with no good faith and we are where we are. As I said earlier, feel free to tailor this to your personal preference, including the sources you have (such as the self-published blog which you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate as reliable, despite being asked several times) but please make sure remove the references that I added when doing so. I'll just get on with something else, plenty more to fix around here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting, for the fifth or so time of asking, for evidence that the self-published blog meets WP:RS. Please do that before continually edit warring and forcing your own personal point of view on this article. Disgraceful behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the statement to bare fact, much to the detriment of the encyclopedia, but perhaps it will stop you forcing your own way on the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had an opportunity to find a copy of Dodd, and I regret to report that you have misinterpreted it. What Dodd does is quote one newspaper (Bell's Life in London), which remarks that when the dead heat decision was announced "the unusual circumstance was not readily believed, because most of the newspapers had recorded a victory for Oxford". But Dodd lets the quotation run on: "Those who had been in such a hurry to be first in the field with their information were evidently engaged on a matter with which they were not thoroughly conversant, for instead of waiting to hear the decision of the judge, which is always necessary in the case of a close finish, they wired off their own version of the affair, and not only misled their readers but caused no end of confusion and suspense."
In other words, the very point being made there is that these newspapers were wrong. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it all. Better that way so it's not contentious in any way. Your awful bad faith and aggressive behaviour has not gone un-noticed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, please provide some evidence that Koch's self-published blog is a WP:RS. I think this is maybe the sixth time I've asked you to do so. Why won't you do that as you continually insist on attempting to include it? Are you being deliberately disruptive? And no, the newspapers weren't "wrong", they just reported the result they saw before it was "officially" announced. You need to really start to get a grip here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The blog isn't the source. The source is an article in the 2014 official programme. The official programme is a reliable source. Because it also happens to be reprinted on a blog, it's an assistance to the reader to give a link. And anyhow, you've removed it. For my part I do hope your own conduct is looked at in a more favourable way than some might do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, your approach has been disgraceful. Edit warring, using blogs, ignoring talk page discussions, pushing your OR, lecturing me... And then this revelation: suddenly declaring the "official programme is a reliable source" after stating "A piece of rubbish placed in the official boat race programme in 2015 is still a piece of rubbish"... incredible. Absolutely astonishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Takes two sides to have an edit war, m'dear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, for the seventh time of asking, where is the RS for the blog? And next time you start an interaction with someone with "Rubbish", think twice. With your appalling bad faith behaviour and edit warring issues, I'm not surprised you're former Arbcom. Good riddance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, are articles in the official programme "a piece of rubbish" or "a reliable source"? I'm not clear from what you've said, seemingly using your own original research? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the results list says that there was no race in 1850 or 1851, but whilst looking for something else I came across an account in a newspaper of an eight-oared boat race between Oxford and Cambridge in 1851. it was on Tue 17 Jun 1851, the first day of the Henley Regatta, and is listed in the Morning Herald as "Grand Challenge Cup for Eight-oared Boats." there are only two entrants, Oxford and Cambridge. historians might not (I don't know) consider it to be part of the official series, but is it not at least worth a mention. for the record, Cantabs broke a thwart and Oxford won easily. source: Morning Herald (London), Wed 18 Jun 1851 p.\ 7Cottonshirtτ 06:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
