| Revision as of 11:25, 14 July 2006 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →Deletions and intimidation: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:30, 14 July 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 editsm →Deletions and intimidation: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| ] deleted factual information from this article and threatened to block me on my talk page even though nothing was presented to cast any doubt on what I wrote. Please use talk if there is anything to discuss. ] 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | ] deleted factual information from this article and threatened to block me on my talk page even though nothing was presented to cast any doubt on what I wrote. Please use talk if there is anything to discuss. ] 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Translation: admin JzG removed content which was stated in POV terms and included guilt-by-association, and instructed the editor in question to bring it to Talk to find a consensus form of words before reinserting content into the article. | :Translation: admin JzG removed content which was stated in POV terms and included guilt-by-association, and instructed the editor in question to bring it to Talk to find a consensus form of words before reinserting content into the article, as per normal practice. | ||
| :Here is the diff: . | :Here is the diff: . | ||
| :Problematic phrases include: ''The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the ] scandal or those like ] who were members of the ] team, in which Armstrong had also cycled.'' - this is irrelevant unless it is associated only or primarily with doping riders. What proportion of supposedly clean riders also have this indicator? Where is the evidence that the UCI, a ''French'' dominated body (read: cheese eating surrender monkeys) would bend the rules for Armstrong when they wouldn't do it for Basso or Ullrich? A French body beinding the rules to let an ''American'' off the hook? An American the French cycling fans hate like poison? Yeah, right. ] 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | :Problematic phrases include: ''The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the ] scandal or those like ] who were members of the ] team, in which Armstrong had also cycled.'' - this is irrelevant unless it is associated only or primarily with doping riders. What proportion of supposedly clean riders also have this indicator? Where is the evidence that the UCI, a ''French'' dominated body (read: cheese eating surrender monkeys) would bend the rules for Armstrong when they wouldn't do it for Basso or Ullrich? A French body beinding the rules to let an ''American'' off the hook? An American the French cycling fans hate like poison? Yeah, right. ] 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:30, 14 July 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/Discovery_Channel_Pro_Cycling_Team#1992-1994_.E2.80.93_Subaru-Montgomery pls see link that verifies .. for two yrs 92- and 93 lance was a member of subaru montgomery racing team prior to motorola..
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lance Armstrong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
- /Archive 1: creation of article - August 2005
- /Archive 2: August 2005 - November 2005
Stuff
Didn't see it mentioned, so I will: in the course of 6 TdF wins, Lance won 20 solo stages. (I heard that someplace or other...) Trekphiler 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
你食蕉啦
refereing to the last comment - we do not eat s**t
Request for Comment
During a dispute over the content of the 'Allegations of drug use' section, an anonymous editor created a Lance Armstrong/proposal article in an attempt to settle the argument. The dispute has died down, but the 'proposal' article remains, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I have not tagged these two articles for merging yet because I want to hear other viewpoints first.
For purposes of this discussion, 'original entry' refers to Lance Armstrong and 'proposal' refers to Lance Armstrong/proposal.
Options:
- Delete the proposal without modifying the original entry at all.
- Rename the proposal as the main article and delete the original entry.
- Merge the two by making the 'allegations' section of the original entry into a new article named 'Allegations of drug use against Lance Armstrong', linking that article to the original entry, then moving the 'allegations' section of the proposal into the original entry as its new 'allegations' section.
- Merge the two articles in some other fashion.
- Start all over from scratch and delete the proposal completely.
I look forward to hearing your comments. Any and all suggestions are welcome. ddlamb 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article had 4 edits:
- 12 November 2005 Mike Selinker m (cleaning up Category:Cyclists)
- 7 September 2005 Gero (→Allegations of drug use)
- 26 August 2005 Warofdreams m (Lance Armstrong 2 moved to Lance Armstrong/proposal)
- 26 August 2005 69.231.50.25 (new proposed page)
Given the lack of recent activity, I would assume that any relevant material has been merged and nominate the 'proposal' article for deletion. There seems no justification for a breakaway article.--A Y Arktos 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I think the proposed artical looks better, however, I don't think that working it a seperate artical is going to work in this case...I'm not going to touch the controversy section myself (I can't spend all my time on wikipedia), but if you think that it's better then go for it... --T-rex 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As suggested, I have merged the two 'Allegations of drug use' sections' and did not create a separate 'allegations of 2005' entry. Thanks everyone! - ddlamb 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
A study on Armstrong
Seeing how the entire "Reasons for success" section is unsourced, this might be a useful article: A study on Armstrong: Texas professor discusses cyclist's success Poulsen 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Allegations of drug use
"Armstrong is a somewhat controversial athlete in parts of Europe." Who was the Author? Armstrong Public Relation Inc.?? Maybe there is no evidence for drug use, but surely he is the most controversial athlete in the world! American Fan-Nonsense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.193.2.200 May 12 2006
- Come on people, lets be honest here. Of course he doped himself. That explanation that he used ointment cream to treat a rash is just bull... this guy probably does everything he can do to enhance his performance in ways that are hard to detect. His cancer then, if he really has cancer and it is not just a marketing stunt, is probably the result of him injecting himself with everything he can think of.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Afmenguesd June 1 2006
- Nah, some Europeans are just pissed that they got owned by an American in their own event - especially one with cancer. Seven years in a row. Sweet.
- You're a real jerk, asserting that Armstrong's cancer was the result of a marketing stunt. I hope you get cancer.
- The section is not neutral. First of all, cycling is one of the sports were doping is know to be most widespread, Armstrong is not the only one accused, and it is rather ridiculous to blame it on anti-Americanism. Secondly, he is known to be good friends with an Italian doctor who helped cyclists with doping, and he even humiliated an Italian cyclist in his last tour by not letting him escape from the crowd because that guy had publicly spoken out against the doctor. This was unique as a team leader would always send one of his mates to stop escape attempts of cyclists of other teams who pose no threat. Añoranza 10:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you: this section is not neutral. Regarding the whole article, we could add, around the title, a tag like "this article, written by LA's fan club, and sponsored by Nike and Sport Illustrated, is not neutral". Every people with common sense knows that this story of "he fought cancer and won seven Tour de France without any drug use helping" is nothing but a fairy tale. Everybody can trust it, but, personnaly, I don't believe in Santa since I'm 5 years old... By the way, Armstrong had never bring any action against those -including the French newspaper L'Equipe- who wrote he used doping treatment. To be more precise, it would be necessary to add at the "Reason for success" section, that he never won a major race (Milan-San Remo, Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Tours, Liège-Bastogne-Liège...) the same years he won the Tour de France. Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, for instances, did it. That is the hallmark of great champions: being able to existing without a team around and not winning nothing but the same stages race.Do Espirito 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that Armstrong's 1996 cancer diagnosis (3 years before his first Tour win) was a marketing stunt is utterly ignorant. He was an average cyclist in '96. A marketing stunt for whom?
- Armstrong was the #1 ranked cyclist in the world in 1996 Landwalker 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The facts are clear. Armstrong has always maintained that he never took drugs. He's been tested dozens of times. And he's never once tested positive on anything that could be considered an official and legitimate test. It's French sour grapes about their growing inferiority. Armstrong is so much better than any of their cyclists that the only logical explanation is that he has to be on drugs. Sorry you white-flag-waving deodorant-shunning Frenchies. He's just better than you. Supposition and insinuation is evidence of nothing.
- actually he wasn't even ranked in the top 10 in 1996, number one of that year was Laurent Jalabert
- You're right, facts are clear. For instance, he has gotten a positive test to corticosteroides on the Tour de France '99. He then has produced a prescription (this dermatologic ointment is only authorized with prescription). But he has done it after the test, and for that would have been punished regarding the Cycling Rules (UCI Rules, Title XIV, Chapter 4, Section 43). Regarding your comments about the Frenchs, you'd better watching another channel than Fox News and travelling from time to time few meters away from your backyard... And next time, don't forget to sign your lines. Thank you in advance Do Espirito 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, facts are clear. Armstrong has been tested positive on a legitimate test. It's all about Americans trying to defend their nationals. Sorry you American liars and torturers. Armstrong is not the clean athlete you might think.--195.68.44.148 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. I'd have to say nothing in the article strikes me as particularly biased or untrue. Comments like his success without the help of drugs is "nothing but a fairly tale" are pure opinion and don't belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the debate about his historical place in cycling and the differences between him and Merckx, however, as Armstrong's sole focus on the Tour De France is an interesting discussion.
- I'm wary of biographies who looks like fairy tales, no more. Your proposal about his historial place in cycling is a good one. I'd participate with pleasure. Do Espirito 09:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. I'd have to say nothing in the article strikes me as particularly biased or untrue. Comments like his success without the help of drugs is "nothing but a fairly tale" are pure opinion and don't belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning the debate about his historical place in cycling and the differences between him and Merckx, however, as Armstrong's sole focus on the Tour De France is an interesting discussion.
Just added some more on his alleged doping use. Links to document this: http://www.vrtnieuws.net/sport_master/wielrennen/hoofdpunten/060623_armstrong_epo/index.html http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0%402-3242,36-787190%4051-778298,0.html Terrapin2001 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your link is to a newspaper published in French so I am removing your addition to the article because this is the en wiki. If you can post a link to an English version of that Le Monde page, then fine, go for it. Moriori 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Expanded the section with more citations. I think my section on the most recent "Andreu" allegations is overly verbose. Made the part about the UCI investigation stand out as it is rather exceptional that a 3rd party investigator is endorsed by an official agency and then ends up levelling serious charges against them. Landwalker 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- there was a link that had his initial 1998 steroid treatment "admission" which helped establish a timeline and possibly started all the suspicions. it'd be nice to have it worked back in somewhere.
- Expanded the section with more citations. I think my section on the most recent "Andreu" allegations is overly verbose. Made the part about the UCI investigation stand out as it is rather exceptional that a 3rd party investigator is endorsed by an official agency and then ends up levelling serious charges against them. Landwalker 23:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Objective presentation of Andreu testimony
The section regarding the Andreu testimony needed to be changed to eliminate the strong POV and to correct statements that were factually wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Truthiness
- Stop complaining, the article's neutrality is great. I don't see a prejudice anywhere. Stop overreacting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.253.118.223
The Sunday Times settlement
Has anyone seen details of the settlement between Armstrong and The Sunday Times? Moriori 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Lance as a teenager
I just wanted to tell you guys, My dad knew Lance Armstrong as a teenager in the 80s. They raced almost everyday, And, My dad always lost because how good he was. They met in 85' during the "President's Triathlon Dallas" Wich lasted from June 8-9th 1985. They parted either in 1992 0r 1990 or maybe even 1991. My dad's not sure. Maybe we should mention this somewhere?-68.113.192.98 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me to be something relevant enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --CaptainGetts 20:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Deletions and intimidation
JzG deleted factual information from this article and threatened to block me on my talk page even though nothing was presented to cast any doubt on what I wrote. Please use talk if there is anything to discuss. Socafan 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Translation: admin JzG removed content which was stated in POV terms and included guilt-by-association, and instructed the editor in question to bring it to Talk to find a consensus form of words before reinserting content into the article, as per normal practice.
- Here is the diff: .
- Problematic phrases include: The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the Festina scandal or those like David Millar who were members of the Cofidis team, in which Armstrong had also cycled. - this is irrelevant unless it is associated only or primarily with doping riders. What proportion of supposedly clean riders also have this indicator? Where is the evidence that the UCI, a French dominated body (read: cheese eating surrender monkeys) would bend the rules for Armstrong when they wouldn't do it for Basso or Ullrich? A French body beinding the rules to let an American off the hook? An American the French cycling fans hate like poison? Yeah, right. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)