Talk:Michelle Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

book[edit]

Her book with Cathal Dervan explains her side of the doping accusations and that of her husband--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 08:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key facts in Michelle Smith's career for article lead[edit]

I've reverted to my previous version because the article as it stood did not make clear three key things which are obviously linked in her career. 1) She is Ireland's most successful Olympian, but at the time of the Olympic Games there were concerns raised by the US Olympic coach (and not just by another competitor) that her performance might have been artificially enhanced. 2)She was convicted by sporting authorities of taking illegal substances a relatively short time after. 3) Her coach and subsequent husband had himself been banned for taking illegal substances.

These are facts which obviously must be in the lead to the article. asnac (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted most of your again for a number of reasons, one of which is WP:BRD which is to say that you discuss first, not revert and discuss. In response to your reasons above
(1) can you find a reference for the US officials - the only references I can find relate to comments made by Evans. But your phrasing is nicer so I've no probs with that.
(2) She was not convicted of taking illegal substances. But you didn't add that in any case.
(3) Your sentence starting with "This was in the context..." I've reverted. It's WP:OR for you to draw this conclusion without a supporting reference that states this formed part of the reason for the objections by Evans. But I'd go so far as to say that even with a reference, it doesn't belong in the lede but in the subsequent sections. It's adds too much weight to justifying the suspicions - to be properly balanced you'd also need to add the reasons why the suspicions were unjustified. This would simply make the lede too long.
Your change of sentence to state "apologised to Michelle Smith for the implications of what she had said" is not also supported by the reference. The reference simply says that Smith received an apology. I've changed the text to reflect that. --HighKing (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, and I've done some searching for sources and provided a few more refs - maybe too many for the lede now, I don't know. The "American officials" bit I got from the Janet Evans article, but on looking again, it's not sourced there and I can't find any other reference to it, so I suspect it may be incorrect and I've got rid of it. Every article that I've found online highlights the association with Erik de Bruin so I've put that back (sourced) in the lede. I don't suppose you could help standardise the presentation of the refs could you? I always struggle with these, and for some reason don't have a 'cite' button. asnac (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making progress, but I'm reverting (again) the big about Erik de Bruin in the lede. The first, and the most important reason, is that *no* article I've seen links Evans accusations with de Bruin's previous association with doping. None. The might mention it as part of the history of Michelle - from aging swimmer to Euro champ to Olympics - but none state that there was poolside talk about doping after her olympic swim due to her husband. And this is now how the article reads. It is WP:OR for you to link these, unless there's a reference. The other reason is that the lede is intended to be a summary. Erik's association with doping can be properly positioned in other sections, and since it is background info, it doesn't need be in the lede. Finally, the "Sports Illustrated" article also doesn't belong in the lede, and does not represent a balanced view. If you want to write an opinion piece, or be controversial, perhaps a different article like Michelle Smith Controversy would make a good title. Also, I've fixed up the refs. --HighKing (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "Controversy" section. Feel free to add controversial material there and we can sort it our as we go. --HighKing (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised opening has moved away from the guidance in WP:LEDE. "The lead should... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." My emphasis. To say "Significant controversy followed her 1996 victories" doesn't achieve this and needs to be looked at again - I haven't got the time now but will try to in due course, unless someone else has a go. Also the way it reads at present, concluding with "The allegations were never proven and today she remains Ireland's most successful Olympian",it would sound to the reader who might not read the whole article as if the controversy was a flash in the pan and that all was and is rosy. Actually the controversy was a really big deal, people had suspicions even before the Olympics got under way, and of course it has been recalled to the news this week because of the controversy over the young Chinese swimmer in London. People whose views deserve to be taken seriously presumed (rightly or wrongly) that Smith's performance was artificially enhanced, so skimming over the facts in this way means there's an NPOV issue to be addressed in the lede too, as well as the problem that the main reason for Smith's lasting fame is practically ignored in the opening. Thanks for your help with the refs. By the way I think that there are articles that link the US swimmers' accusations (it wasn't just Evans) to de Bruin, this one for example. asnac (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the revised opening is exactly in line with WP:LEDE. The key word is "summarize", and the controversy is summarized - with the detail in subsequent paragraphs. I agree that the sentence "The allegations were never proven" could do with some better wording. Hard to see also how "Significant controversy" could be taken to be a flash in the pan. Also, if you're using the Britannica reference to bolster an argument to extend the lede, I'd point out that it's not till the 4th para in that article that any hint of a controversy is even mentioned, and even then it simply states facts without trying to imply guilt or innocence. We need to be mindful on NPOV means. For example, are there references to back up a statement that there were suspicions before the olympics? Or are they quotes and opinions that were voiced afterwards post her ban, with the benefit of hindsight? And how much space is being denoted to those who maintained she was innocent, including her own protestations and book - this would be important for balance in order to main neutral coverage. And the biggest question - are we trying to conclude guilt or innocence in the article by presenting a specific viewpoint? --HighKing (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not using Britannica ref to bolter anything - you said that you had seen no articles linking the poolside controversy with de Bruin so I found you one! sorry if I didn't make its purpose clear. Problem with article remains that the serious allegations need a measure of exploration at the start in order to fulfil the need to "summarize controversies". I've made some changes which achieve this without unnecessarily lengthening the lede or going into the areas about which you are concerned. What do you think? asnac (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's really very good. I believe though she now goes by "Michelle Smith de Bruin" --HighKing (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have made the change to Smith de Bruin. asnac (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot Court Award[edit]

The reference to winning a legal prize is not substantiated. Why is it there? Where did it come from? CillianMcGrattan (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Smith&oldid=1209490717"