![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article strikes me as being a WP:BLP nightmare. Inclusion on this list is inherently negative, and potential candidates for inclusion are on the whole unlikely to be notable enough for an article in their own right. If the incident is an allegation rather than proven fact, then that is doubly concerning. If an incident is truly notable, then it would seem logical to include it in the article for that event, with no need for a separate list. I see that this has already been done in Boston Marathon. Alleged course cutting in a small event with a few hundred participants might make local news, but its hardly Ben Johnson. While these events are not criminal matters, I think WP:BLPCRIME may be of relevance here in terms of being analogous. Oldelpaso ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocks may be handed out if further reverts occur without discussion. -- NeilN talk to me 21:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the evidence in Mike Rossi's case is/was overwhelming. Experts in the matter, ie. running coaches and race directors have weighed in and found the evidence conclusive that Mike Rossi has cheated. The fact the Lehigh Marathon did not disqualify Mike Rossi is inconsequential. Kip Litton wasn't DQd from every race that he was suspected of cheating either. That just shows incompetence on the Race Director's side, not the fact that Mike Rossi did not cheat. The entry about Mike Rossi clearly stated both sides of the story with sources and references. There is not a single source that stood up for Mike Rossi's side of the truth. I think the Rossi incident should stand and stay as is and shall only be updated if there is new information, evidence or performance surfaces. GregTakacs ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Weldon and Roger Johnson are respected and accomplished runners who have clearly proven Mike Rossi cheated. Removal of the Mike Rossi edits from this page from IPs instead of registered accounts indicate further obfuscation of the facts. The RD has refused to show any evidence to vindicate Rossi and refuses to communicate on this subject. It should be noted that Mike Rossi promoted himself with a viral message he posted on social media that resulted in national television interviews and some initial public support before the facts emerged as to his cheating. --iiagdtr 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sub-heading for "Marathon course-cutting" is entitled "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results." If Mike Rossi's cheating at the Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon does not meet the definition of "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results", then I do not know what does. There have been numerous articles and stories written and aired about the cheating and disputed marathon results by the national, regional and local media. The cheating has been highly publicized and continues to be. In fact, Weldon and Roger Johnson, mentioned above, wrote an extensive and comprehensive article on the incontrovertible evidence against Rossi and have offered $100,000 to Mike Rossi if he can repeat his supposed race time. That is more money than a winner at most marathons receives.
In regards to the assertion that "Alleged course cutting in a small event with a few hundred participants might make local news, but its hardly Ben Johnson", I would add that the cheating by Rossi in the Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon was done for sole purpose (which was clearly documented by Mike Rossi) of gaining entry (referred to as a BQ) into arguably the most prestigious marathon of them all, the Boston Marathon. Cheating by definition is inherently negative, so I am not sure why negativity is an issue. Inconvenient Veracity ( talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Much of Mike Rossi's initial coverage focused on pulling his children from school, but since the original allegation of cheating arose, the cheating has been the focus. With that said, one reason you may think much of the coverage centered on the school issue is that many times when anything is written about Mike Rossi, the writer invariably mentions the school issue or refers to him as the viral school letter dad giving the impression that pulling of children from school is the focus of the article. The same thing happens regarding professional athletes, politicians, celebrities, etc. Articles written about individuals in those categories almost always will mention the most salacious or infamous piece from their pasts even if it occurred one, five, ten or twenty years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inconvenient Veracity ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Kolektengo: Please do not re-add the content previously removed from the article. The reason why this was removed was because these posed huge BLP issues. Some of these incidents only received a smattering of coverage, others maybe a little more so but only for a shorter amount of time. This means that we have to worry about whether the coverage for this would be major enough to warrant inclusion. In cases where there's a possibility of it being harmful to the persons involved (ie, meaning that they could come back and potentially sue Wikipedia), inclusion in negative pages of this nature should be limited to people who would warrant their own article. There was a huge issue with people arguing for inclusion out of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS type of deal: that these people broke rules and as such, should be listed if they got any sort of news coverage. That's not what Wikipedia is for - we don't list everyone who may have allegedly (or confessed to) cheating, as that's considered to be a bit to indiscriminate. I'm going to ping @ Collect: about this since they made some of the previous edits to the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Collect, NeilN, and HangingCurve: I happened to notice that someone added unsourced content to the article and I then noticed the addition of other alleged cheating incidents by HangingCurve. HangingCurve, adding these names poses a BLP concern because if they're not notable enough for an article, then this poses whether or not a smattering of coverage would justify posting their name on Wikipedia. There's an issue here of if this would pose any real world harm to the individuals, who are otherwise considered to be relatively low profile persons. If either would be notable enough for an article then that would be something, but otherwise this is a case of a possible isolated incident. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article strikes me as being a WP:BLP nightmare. Inclusion on this list is inherently negative, and potential candidates for inclusion are on the whole unlikely to be notable enough for an article in their own right. If the incident is an allegation rather than proven fact, then that is doubly concerning. If an incident is truly notable, then it would seem logical to include it in the article for that event, with no need for a separate list. I see that this has already been done in Boston Marathon. Alleged course cutting in a small event with a few hundred participants might make local news, but its hardly Ben Johnson. While these events are not criminal matters, I think WP:BLPCRIME may be of relevance here in terms of being analogous. Oldelpaso ( talk) 20:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Blocks may be handed out if further reverts occur without discussion. -- NeilN talk to me 21:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the evidence in Mike Rossi's case is/was overwhelming. Experts in the matter, ie. running coaches and race directors have weighed in and found the evidence conclusive that Mike Rossi has cheated. The fact the Lehigh Marathon did not disqualify Mike Rossi is inconsequential. Kip Litton wasn't DQd from every race that he was suspected of cheating either. That just shows incompetence on the Race Director's side, not the fact that Mike Rossi did not cheat. The entry about Mike Rossi clearly stated both sides of the story with sources and references. There is not a single source that stood up for Mike Rossi's side of the truth. I think the Rossi incident should stand and stay as is and shall only be updated if there is new information, evidence or performance surfaces. GregTakacs ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Weldon and Roger Johnson are respected and accomplished runners who have clearly proven Mike Rossi cheated. Removal of the Mike Rossi edits from this page from IPs instead of registered accounts indicate further obfuscation of the facts. The RD has refused to show any evidence to vindicate Rossi and refuses to communicate on this subject. It should be noted that Mike Rossi promoted himself with a viral message he posted on social media that resulted in national television interviews and some initial public support before the facts emerged as to his cheating. --iiagdtr 20:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sub-heading for "Marathon course-cutting" is entitled "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results." If Mike Rossi's cheating at the Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon does not meet the definition of "Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results", then I do not know what does. There have been numerous articles and stories written and aired about the cheating and disputed marathon results by the national, regional and local media. The cheating has been highly publicized and continues to be. In fact, Weldon and Roger Johnson, mentioned above, wrote an extensive and comprehensive article on the incontrovertible evidence against Rossi and have offered $100,000 to Mike Rossi if he can repeat his supposed race time. That is more money than a winner at most marathons receives.
In regards to the assertion that "Alleged course cutting in a small event with a few hundred participants might make local news, but its hardly Ben Johnson", I would add that the cheating by Rossi in the Lehigh Valley Health Network Via Marathon was done for sole purpose (which was clearly documented by Mike Rossi) of gaining entry (referred to as a BQ) into arguably the most prestigious marathon of them all, the Boston Marathon. Cheating by definition is inherently negative, so I am not sure why negativity is an issue. Inconvenient Veracity ( talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Much of Mike Rossi's initial coverage focused on pulling his children from school, but since the original allegation of cheating arose, the cheating has been the focus. With that said, one reason you may think much of the coverage centered on the school issue is that many times when anything is written about Mike Rossi, the writer invariably mentions the school issue or refers to him as the viral school letter dad giving the impression that pulling of children from school is the focus of the article. The same thing happens regarding professional athletes, politicians, celebrities, etc. Articles written about individuals in those categories almost always will mention the most salacious or infamous piece from their pasts even if it occurred one, five, ten or twenty years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inconvenient Veracity ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Kolektengo: Please do not re-add the content previously removed from the article. The reason why this was removed was because these posed huge BLP issues. Some of these incidents only received a smattering of coverage, others maybe a little more so but only for a shorter amount of time. This means that we have to worry about whether the coverage for this would be major enough to warrant inclusion. In cases where there's a possibility of it being harmful to the persons involved (ie, meaning that they could come back and potentially sue Wikipedia), inclusion in negative pages of this nature should be limited to people who would warrant their own article. There was a huge issue with people arguing for inclusion out of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS type of deal: that these people broke rules and as such, should be listed if they got any sort of news coverage. That's not what Wikipedia is for - we don't list everyone who may have allegedly (or confessed to) cheating, as that's considered to be a bit to indiscriminate. I'm going to ping @ Collect: about this since they made some of the previous edits to the page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Collect, NeilN, and HangingCurve: I happened to notice that someone added unsourced content to the article and I then noticed the addition of other alleged cheating incidents by HangingCurve. HangingCurve, adding these names poses a BLP concern because if they're not notable enough for an article, then this poses whether or not a smattering of coverage would justify posting their name on Wikipedia. There's an issue here of if this would pose any real world harm to the individuals, who are otherwise considered to be relatively low profile persons. If either would be notable enough for an article then that would be something, but otherwise this is a case of a possible isolated incident. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)