Talk:Marion Jones

Update Ms. Jones recent married Oba Thompson( Barbados olympic sprinter)70.107.10.17 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to be confused as to exactly what she was convicted for. The article needs to state the exact, legal, name of the crime for which she pled guilty to and was subsequently convicted of. "guilty plea to steroid use" and "convicted of lying" are not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.68.235 (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Marion_Jones#Guilty_plea_to_steroid_use

This whole section looks like a copyvio. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's gone. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Medals

But she hasn't been stripped of medals as yet. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR mean we have to leave it as is, because she's still officially the champion for those years. I don't like it either, but until such time as she is stripped of medals, she's the 2000 Olympic champion. SixBellsChime —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

She returned her medals today: AP story. Do we still wait for IOC to resequence finishes in all these categories, or do we put pink color in her medal table now? --Mareklug ^talk 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some already stripped it from the page. Don't add them back. She gave them up and its no surprise what the IOC will do. Alyeska 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now it's really down to the IOC to decide how to re-award the medals to the rest of the field. Regardless, Jones' results are to be DSQ-ed. --Madchester 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear - the medals are still awarded to Marion Jones. She has voluntarily returned them, but she has yet to be officially disqualified. As of this moment she is still the winner of three Oly golds and two Oly Bronzes. --Fizbin 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's down as medals revoked which is incorrect - she's not (yet) had them taken away by the IOC. If admins are going to fully protect this page, please make sure you get things spot on --Jw2034 07:55, 9 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw2034 (talk • contribs)

WHat happens to the other people on her relay teams, are the DSQ as well? 67.62.75.193 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the governing bodies (USOC and IOC) are looking at diqualifying the entire squad. No action has been taken yet. --Fizbin 18:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Under IAAF rule 39, if one member of a relay team has an anti-doping rule violation, the whole relay team is disqualified and must forfeit awards and medals. The rule is pretty clear on that.

As to the current status, I agree that until the IOC/IAAF revoke her medals, this article can't say that they were revoked. - Eron ^Talk 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The IAAF rule concerning teammates is not always applied. Jerome Young tested positive for PEDs at the 2000 Oly Games, yet the US 4x400 relay team he was on (including Michael Johnson) was able to keep their medals. http://www.redorbit.com/news/sports/181945/michael_johnson_keeps_gold_after_court_ruling/ --Fizbin 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the USADA has stripped her of the medals. So she's no longer the recipient of them. Right now they're in limbo as to who they'll finally belong to until the IOC makes a ruling. But Jones is no longer the winner. Infact she's been stripped of all medals and awards from 9/1/00 to the present as of today. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can the USADA strip medals that they didn't award? (That's a genuine question; if so, I'd love to see the rule.) - Eron ^Talk 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in lead

Many other articles at Wikipedia mention a person's college affiliation in the lead, why is it considered unacceptable here? The alternative form of mentioning it under 'personal life' just does not fit well here. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, Jones's college affiliation is not what she is primarily known for. For another thing, your attempts to add it to the lede come across as an effort to link her current disgrace to UNC, which is the arch-rival of your beloved Duke University. You have made similar edits in the past to other articles in order to make UNC look bad. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of partisanship. (I am entirely neutral on the Duke-UNC rivalry, for what it's worth.) Please also be aware that you are on the verge of a WP:3RR violation by the letter of the rule, and by the spirit of it have already broken it by making the same edit 4 times now over various other editors' objections. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave out. The Article Lead is supposed to "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is notable, and briefly describe any controversies" — seeWP:LEAD. As such, the college she attended hardly fits in the Lead Section, much less the lead sentence. Unfortunately, many Wikipedia articles fall short of the ideal, but that is no reason to abandon this principle of good editing here. JGHowes ^talk - 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice attempt at exaggeration! What was the objection when I initially added this info, which I consider important? Adding the information is now a reversion in your book? Feh. Check the times and dates of my edits here. Your warning holds no water, it just appears that you still have an axe to grind with me personally; is that suitable for an encyclopedia?

My mentioning Jones' affiliation with unc-ch makes them look bad? Hmm ... they were more than willing to take credit for Jones and her accomplishments when she was America's sweetheart; they may wish to take her off their distinguished alumni rolls now, but it seems that some of the behavior (cheating, drugging, etc.) she will now MOST remembered for was learned while a student at unc-ch ... they must take the bitter with the batter. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit was not a revert but you have restored it three times since, after three different editors removed it. That's edit warring. Find a blog somewhere to blast away at Duke's rivals to your heart's content, but please keep that particular brand of obnoxiousness away from here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So, 3 = 4 = 5 ? Save your exaggerations and misleading statements for someone else.

Is your 'brand of obnoxiousness' somehow more fitting? Duke53 | ^Talk 17:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal bests section

I am confused by the notes column in the personal bests section. It indicates bests from 1998 (100 and 200 m) were "steroid aided" however prior sections state she began using the steroids in 1999. I don't want to make any changes on a whim so I thought I'd ask if there was a source for this or if I am misinterpreting the table. I think it is important to meet WP:BLP and not accuse her of using steroids except where she has admitted it herself or it has been otherwise stated in the press. Maybe the table just needs to be formatted more clearly though? Stardust8212 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal - fixed.--Fizbin 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. Thanks for clearing it up. Stardust8212 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Financial troubles section

Why is this even relevant? Her financial troubles are, first of all, not the concern of an encyclopedia, and second of all, more of a trivia section than anything else. This section should be removed from the article unless someone finds a reason why her bank account balance is important information to a biographical article.

To quote from the policy on Biographies of living person, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." --Glacialfury 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would keep the section if it had relevance (IE: motive) to her drugging/cheating, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Should be dumped, but let’s see if anyone else agrees. Ashinn11 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be a tabloid. Even if it did go toward a drugging/cheating motive, it should be integrated into that section, and not left as its own. Glacialfury 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think it should perhaps be edited in a less sensationalistic tone, but it has been reported by the mainstream media and appears relevant in that one of the 2 counts to which she pled guilty was the check-fraud case (that section should be updated as well). JGHowes ^talk - 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)