Jump to content

Talk:Armand Duplantis

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

1.81 meter vs 5'11

[edit]

Math? E.Polti (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an automatic conversion that gives the same as {{Convert|1.81|m|ftin}} i.e."1.81 metres (5 ft 11 in)". What's the problem exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5 ft 11 in corresponds to the interval 70.5″ to 71.5″, witch, in SI units, is 179.07 cm to 181.61 cm. Therefore 5′11″ is quite consistent with 181 cm. —Wasell(T) 18:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 NCAA Division 1 Outdoor Track and Field Championship

[edit]

Should his runner-up finish at the 2019 NCAA Division 1 Outdoor Track and Field Championship be listed? 2601:3C8:427F:5060:8871:B403:9295:DEA9 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usonian?

[edit]

I’m sorry what? 2001:4643:1E4C:0:50B8:F66C:9017:D6C1 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:4643:1E4C:0:50B8:F66C:9017:D6C1 Yeah well, Usaian is hard to pronounce, with those three consecutive vowels. -- CRConrad (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usonian?

[edit]

I see this is a term invented by Frank Lloyd Wright. I’m assuming this guy updated the article himself to take out the word American? He seems to disdain his American roots. Is that why this bizarre word is used in this article? 162.84.200.66 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some gibberish IP user(s) just want to disrupt or vandalize the article, it was now reverted. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "jump" with "vault"?

[edit]

I see the word "jump" is used 30 times in the article, e.g. "with a jump of 6.00 m", "Duplantis jumped 5.75 m", etc. I thought the correct term was "vault"/"vaulted" etc. Or is this a difference between English/Australian usage (I'm Australian) and American. Adpete (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Consensus appears to be that "Mondo" has not yet surplanted "Armand" to the point that we should prefer it. Obviously it is implicit in that that "Mondo" might yet prevail over "Armand" in future, so this may be revisited in the future. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Duplantis → Mondo Duplantis – He uses his nickname instead of his full name on all the major social media sites and Mondo Duplantis seems very common in news coverage as well. The combination of these two factors prompted me to start a discussion on how to name the article. Killuminator (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. He competes under his given name. Marbe166 (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question That his full name is used in official contexts is not reason alone for it to be the title, nor is the fact that he uses the nickname for his social media channels a reason alone to change it. Instead, the question is what appears more often in reliable sources per the WP:COMMONNAME policy. This is not a !vote so much as a question on if anything has been dug up to point to an answer one way or another?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per the reason given by Marbe166 above. /Julle (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as he is far and away more widely known in popular culture as Mondo. Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: After looking more closely at different RS, I can no longer support my own justification. I looked at NYTimes, BBC, Reuters, AP News, Reuters, and CNN, and NYTimes and CNN are the only sources that have more mentions of results for "Mondo Duplantis" than for "Armand Duplantis". This parallels what Jähmefyysikko said below. Thus, I think status quo should be maintained.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 06:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Showing sources and references to Wikipedia guidelines can help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Louisiana, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject Athletics, WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Biography have been notified of this discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relist, to give !voters the opportunity to provide sources to support their positions BilledMammal (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable Grammar

[edit]

I'm aware I could just go in and edit but wanted to point out that I found some questionable grammar points while skimming this article. For example:

"Duplantis eventually chose to represent the Swedish Olympic national team instead of the US team, that was after an intervention the Swedish Olympic Pole Vault youth coach, Jonas Anshelm, who had offered and gave a job to Armand's father to be the Swedish national pole vault team coach." Tofflenheim (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tofflenheim: Please do feel empowered to fix them! /Julle (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and moved! Minorstab (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, I will make sure to dive in and edit in the future. Tofflenheim (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Greatest-ever' claim in Lead

[edit]

There is absolutely no justification for claiming that this man is the best ever when he's still active and has a long way to go to match the achievements of Sergei Bubka. Even cited sources making thus claim cannot be relied on (yet). Hence, do not revert without discussion here first Billsmith60 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why is the Diamond League listed ahead of the European Championships, when it is an invitational event? Why is it in the Infobox at all? Billsmith60 (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it is not a championship which awards medals. I'll remove it. Marbe166 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Page protection has been requested Billsmith60 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls refer to the list of Diamond League Winners in the diamond league wikipedia page. Almost all winners of the different track and field events have diamond league title listed under the medal records of their individual wikipedia page. This is already a common practice and nobody has objected to it until you come about. I seek your cooperation to review the DLW list and their wiki pages. No right no wrong but accept it as a common practise and do not remove DL titles from Mondo infobox again Globallycz (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mondo's achievement has surpassed all others. That is the justification. Before Mondo, many held Sergey Bubka as GOAT but he has been surpassed satisfactorily in terms of quality and consistency of dominance.
Removing the diamond league record from the listing inevitably erases part of his significant achievement as consecutive diamond league final winner for 3 seasons. It doesnt have to be a championship or an event with actual medals awarded to be listed there. Many wikioedia pages including the wikipedia page for diamond league list similarly the 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions as Gold, Silver and Bronze respectively — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.64.127 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your unilateral action to protect the page shows that there is lack of open discussion and democracy here. You claimed there is no just justificastion that Mondo qualifies for the GOAT status, but you also did not explain or justify why he doesnt or why in your position someone else does. In the next four years, unless serious injury prevents him or he decides to take a break from his professional career, we will see the same level of consistency and dominance by Mondo that will unlikely be threatened. By then, he will have his 3rd Olympic title and another five World Championship titles including indoors and outdoors. The writing is clear on the wall. Are you goinh to deny him that accolade again by then? The phrased widely regarded is justified as substantial majority of people has after his 2nd Olympic Gold and his 10th world records considered him to have surpassed Sergey and is the undisputed greatest ever. It allows for a small minority of people who disagreed. It is not as if the edit is saying there is absolute agreement by everyone, i.e. He is regarded as GOAT. Hence there is no issue of absolutism here except for the authoritarian way you have treated me. 115.66.64.127 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia editors don't decide whether or not Duplantis is the "greatest ever" pole-vaulter compared to Sergey Bubka. They just reflect what has been claimed in WP:RS sources. As the claim seems to be contentious, I'd suggest that the sources should remain in the lead section. At the moment there are three such sources, but I suspect more could be found if needed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi one or two persons have tried to accord Mondo a limited GOAT status. For example, instead of greatest of all time (greatest ever), these individual edit the text as greatest vaulter of modern sports or greatest of his generation.
I have replaced one of the citation with no mention of his GOAT status with an article from Olympics.com that described Mondo as GOAT. There is another recent Time.Magazine article that described similarly his GOAT title. It will be included to replaced the citation that described him as the greatest of his generation. Globallycz (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Globallycz “Greatest of his generation” doesn't mean greatest of all time, though. Strictly speaking, it's actually pretty much the opposite. -- CRConrad (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule requiring an athlete to be inactive before he is accorded GOAT title. Katie Ledecky is still active but has already been widely regarded as the greatest female swimmer of all time. Globallycz (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes to this claim. Unless, and until, there is consensus here, please do not revert back in the meantime Billsmith60 (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that this account was registered after the page protection was added in late August and appears to be the person who edited extensively from the IP
"115.66.64.127" up until then. If the page keeps being reverted without further discussion, I will ask an administrator if that is the case. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is me. There is nothing to hide. I am a relatively new editor and register for an account to be more formal after involving myself for a few weeks. It just happen that the registration during the protection period Globallycz (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GOAT : I have provided justifcation for Mondo GOAT status by citing more apprppriate references. There are more available which i have found and will find the time to add. The citations shows that increasingly after his 2nd Olympic title and 9th world record, many reliable news outlet sports editors have already regarded Mondo as GOAT in their news report. One specifically said that Mondo has overtaken Bubka. I urged that you read all 3 of them posted. Otherwise provide justification which Mondo do not deserve the GOAT. I will revert your changes unless there is good justification saying otherwise from you. Globallycz (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have cited several references but you are not adhering to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV As noted, there is no consensus here so I will revert any further non-discussed changes if I have to and report you for breaching the 3RR rule. You are a new editor and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. Billsmith60 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you have applied the NPOV policy correctly. The sources provided all supported the claim and if you follows the chatter messages in Youtube Instagram Facebook etc, many agreed Mondo is already GOAT. Of course there are minority who thinks Sergey is still GOAT or Mondo is not ready due to his relative young age but this group of people formed minority and are getting smaller. Globallycz (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i am trying to engage in a meaningful polite and respectful discussion by providing you valid and verifiable references and supporting explanation. You have not acknowledged any except quoting inappliacble policies. I dont see you supporting your claim with any source at all other than your personal opinion. I wonder who is violating the so called rules. Please go ahead and do what you need to do. Globallycz (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone is also only 24 and many news articles have already considered her as GOAT of her 400 m H discipline. We need a mindset change here and not always have this stigma that only retired athletes can be considered. Look at the winning margins Mondo had over his competitors at major championships. The winning margin is at least 20 cm on average for Mondo while those for Sergey is not as significant. Mondo has broken 3 WRs at major championships (WC, WC indoor & Olympics). This is something Sergey didnt do at all in his career. His WRs were set outside majot championships where the competition is less intense. Just sharing my two cents thoughts. Globallycz (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond League: I shared before that almost all diamond league champion have their DL title listed in their wikipedia pages. Also there are good reason why a diamond league title is placed ahead of Area Championship, e.g European Championship.
From a common sense approach, area championships is restricted to athletes from a single continent and not all the best athletes are concentrated in one continent. In a DLM meeting, athletes above a certain ranking are invited irrespective of continent. These athletes compete for points over a few meetings to get into the DL final. The DL final involved higher ranked athletes from other continents who are in many occasion better than area representative unless the area rep is top ranked athlete.
Secondly, the world athletics ranking system accords DL final more placing score over area championships. I extracted relevant portion of the ranking criteria on placing scores from the world athletics website. Placing score is added to the result score to obtain the performance score for each competition.
The 10 category or 10 level of competitions are OW, DF, GW, GL, A to F. OW is the highest category or level and it refers to Olympic And World Championship, DF is next level and refers to Diamond League Final, GW is next and refers to World Indoor Championship and GL refers to Area Outdoor Championships and Diamond League meeting (not final). Continent Tour Gold and Area Indoor Championships are under Cat A and so on so forth. Those in the lower category attract lower placing scores. Examples of points for first positon is as follows

OW - 350 Points DF - 240 Points GW - 200 Points GL - 170 Points Globallycz (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.2.2. Placing Score (Extracted from World Athletics Website)
Placing Score is awarded for the placing achieved by the athlete at a competition.
Competitions are categorised, and the Placing Scores are different in each Category. There are 10 different categories for the purposes of Placing Scores. The Placing Scores obtainable at each competition vary according to the level and significance of the competition. The category “OW” reflects the strongest competitions and consequently awards the most points. Globallycz (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sole concern here is to ensure neutrality and Wikipedia remaining a credible encyclopedia. Duplantis' achievements most certainly mark him out as a pole vaulter of distinction but "widely regarded" and "greatest of all time" are not justified. As I noted above, succinctly, he has a way to go to match the career of Sergei Bubka. In time, Duplantis may be judged the greatest ever. What we have with the sources cited is a 'bandwagon' effect whereby publications replicate what others say and write. When Bubka was in his prime the internet was new and there was nothing like the frenzy that is associated with Duplantis. As user user:Martinevans123 noted, too, it's not for us to determine whether Bubka or Duplantis is the greatest ever. Wikipedia has numerous problems with this issue. Take the Nadal/Federer/Djokivic triangle, for instance. The point about the Diamond League is that it is an invitational event, not a championship one. If it is to appear at all in an infobox, it should come *after championship events. As you breached the three-revert rule without waiting for a consensus here I felt I had no choice but to escalate the matter. Of course, I will abide by whatever consensus is reached here. In that regard, I'll add a "neutrality" tag to the page which should encourage wider discussion Billsmith60 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Diamond League issue, could you change all affected wikipedia pages of the various diamond league winners to reflect the same as your desire for MONDO? If you do that, then it is consistent for all athletes and i will agree to go along with your view. Otherwise, diamond lesgue as far as how it is being widely regarded now is of a higher category of competition that area senior outdoor competition and also should remain in the medal table. I asked that if you strongly believe and are convinced that diamond league title should not be in the medal table, then please dont act in isolation for just Mondo's wikipedia page. So if you feel strongly about your point of view, do the change for all affected athletes. Since you claimed many wrong doesnt make one right, then "correct all the wrongs" at one go. They are not many , i.e. about a 100 - 200 pages or so. The changes requires minimum effort. Will you do that? Or you are just going to harp on Mondo's case. By doing so, it clearly exhibit your biased attitude towards me and towards your issue at hand. Globallycz (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Globallycz : Just FYI, you're coming off as much more of a rabid fanboi than a neutral encyclopedist in this discussion. Sure, that's just the subjective impression of a single reader of your argumentation, but still... Food for thought? -- CRConrad (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i substantiated the views i put forth. It is not done blindly. Thats the crux of the matter Globallycz (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the NPOV tag and 3RR, to me, you are abusing your privileges to push your views. Then again, it is your rights to do what you feel is right. Globallycz (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of Mondo's GOAT status, the reporting by various news agency including Olympics.com homepage is not a result of bandwagon effort. Each agency reported it independently after Mondo claimed his 2nd Olympic Gold and broke his 9th world record. If they have replicated other's work, there would ve obvious similarity but that isnnot the case. I have also pointed out Mondo has surpassed Sergey in terms of the quality and consistemcy of dominance. Sergey had participated in four Olympic Games but only medal once. Thats not a dominant record. He only stood out for his World Championshipship winnings. If you bother to google, prior to Paris Olympics or before 2024, you wont find news agency according Mondo the GOAT status while reporting on his achievement. At most, some publication would say before 2024 is that Mondo is on his way to surpass Bubka as greatest ever. These are independant publications with independant columnist and you are accusing them of plagarism when you say they replicate what each say and write. Do some google search to find out what i mean. Globallycz (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added few more sources to support Mondo's status as greatest ever pole vaulter. Amongst them are AFP and AP which according to Wikipedia are deemed as reliable sources but perhaps not by you. Globallycz (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i just like to point out that you have not totally understood Martinevans123's entire message when you previously quoted him saying "As user user:Martinevans123 noted, too, it's not for us to determine whether Bubka or Duplantis is the greatest ever." I think you left out the main point of what Matinevans123 had said which is if there are WP:RS sources which support that claim, Mondo's GOAT status can be supported. Globallycz (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

From a neutrality viewpoint, is it appropriate to claim, in any part of this article, that the subject is the greatest ever? Please see the four contributions to date above Billsmith60 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes If there are WP:RS sources which support that claim, even if attribution needs to be given to those sources. Any other candidate(s) might also be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) the RS currently cited in the article not only consistently use the phrase "greatest of all time" to describe Duplantis, they further substantiate and devote attention to their reasons for doing so. That having been said, I do agree with the spirit of the NPOV critique laid out in the prior section: it is a WP:DUE issue to state in Wikipedia voice in the second sentence of the lead Widely regarded as the greatest pole vaulter of all time--we do not have RS to back "widely regarded", only a handful of English language newspaper articles themselves asserting that he's the greatest. Particularly considering Duplantis's age and the recency of his accomplishments, this emphasis on what is essentially an aspect of the subject's legacy is excessive, and should only be included much later in the lead (if included in the lead at all). signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - You are allowed to put out that claim as long as it is in WP:ATTRIBUTE and WP:WIKIVOICE, as it currently stands, it looks like a mess to state "greatest of all time" I am also concerned about the usage of WP:REFBOMB to try to prove a point. It ruins the readability of the article to try to win a wikiwar by using 12 sources like this, please trim. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i purposely added more than usual number of references (total 7 now) to substantiate two key points:

1. That there is a wide acceptance on Mondo's status as GOAT particularly only after his 2nd Olympic Gold and 9 world records.Many news agencies accorded and proclaimed him as GOAT without hesitancy right after his Paris victory and not before that.

2. That there exists reliable and independent sources such as credible news agencies Associsted Press and AFP claiming Mondo as GOAT. The sources are not from tabloid journalism.

  • I think recency of achievement should not be a factor of consideration or use as an excuse as Mondo has a good track record of dominance and consistency over 5 years from 2020 to 2024. He is much more dominant than Sergey Bubka if you examine the margin of victory he has in major competitions over his nearest competitor. He broke WRs in three major competitions including in Paris 2024. Bubka didnt manage to break any WR in the 6 Wotld Cgampionsgips and 1 Olympic he won. Also with due respect we shouldnt disagree just because there is more than usual number of citations. The citations are there because someone claimed the sources are not reliable and news agency listed replicate what each other reported. I can easily remove 3 or 4 of them to keep the number down to an acceptable level. Globallycz (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My approach is solely based on common sense. I dont quote the rules like NPOV, 3RR, WP:Due, WP:refbomb, etc. Some editors quote rules not in the right spirit thereby misusing it. Globallycz (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hi, why did you say there was 12 sources? There was only 7. I took one out and now there is only 6 sources. Globallycz (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source has been removed. There remains only 5 now. I will remove 2 more when a consensus is reached on this issue so that editors are aware that Mondo's GOAT status is widely reported after has victory in Paris. Globallycz (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    References supporting Mondo's GOAT status has been disrespectfully erased without any regards. Your tag on excessive citation was also removed together by the same editor. I have restored the 5 deleted references. 3 of the 5 references have been used by this same editor as inline references in other locations of the leading paragraph though i feel one or two were inserted or done so inappropriately. It is not for me to accuse this editor of inappropriate behavior or practice or single him out but i feel he should not have erase the valid supporting references anyhow. I thought i should highlight this here for awareness. Globallycz (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guideline from WP:Lead states that for complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Globallycz (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO, for the reasons I have given in the prior discussion above. In particular, this is the thin edge of the wedge with regard to other sports Billsmith60 (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing Duplantis here, not "other sports". If you think this venue is too limited, perhaps you should open a discussion elsewhere? The notion of any "thin end of a wedge" is wholly speculative. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that surely there needs to be a common approach throught Wikipedia regarding that tiresome and never-ending argument about who is 'the greatest': in itself scarcely an encyclopaedic term Billsmith60 (talk) Billsmith60 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to observe with regard to Sergey Bubka, whose achievements more than match those of Duplantis, was denied the opportunity to win the Olympic gold medal in 1984 due to the Soviet Union's boycott of the Los Angeles games, where he'd have been an overwhelming favourite. That point, however, is much less important than the overall question of what a sportsperson page should look like. I would commend the Bubka page as a model of neutrality Billsmith60 (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bubka's performance at the 1984 games is also wholly speculative, and will remain ever so? But why can't his article say that many people thought he was the best. Or that some still do? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post just missed mine, where I address that point Billsmith60 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So does Bubka's page say that some people think he is/was the best? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, for that is not the point of an encyclopaedia Billsmith60 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "point" of this encyclopaedia is to report what WP:RS sources say? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly if Bubka had won a 2nd gold from any of his three other Olympics participation other than 1988 in which he won, I would agree with you that Mondo has yet to surpass Bubka's achievement and we shouldnt accord him GOAT now until he won a 3rd Olympic Gold but that is not the case. We should not harp on the 1984 Olympic which Bubka missed because of political reason (boycott) but leave out of consideration his dismal performance in 1992, 1996 and 2000 Olympics which he participarted and didnt medal. He didnt even qualify for the finals in 2000 Olympics and registered two no marks in two of them: one in 1992 finals and the other in 2000 qualification round. He was injured in 1996 Olympics and didnt attempt any jump but keeping oneself heatlhy and injury free is a hallmark of greatness. In short, you cannot do a piecemeal argument speculating what he could have won in 1984 if he didnt miss it but conveniently leave out his poor track record in his other Olympic outings. Doing so in a piecemeal fashion is not a fair assessment. Globallycz (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Therefore, let us afford Duplantis the same opportunity to produce one or more of those "dismal" performances towards the end of his career before he is crowned the 'greatest' Billsmith60 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think he's already wearing the crown. But you're suggesting we can't mention that, just in case he fails in the future? That's a whole new spin on WP:CRYSTAL that I hadn't even thought of. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All along your arguments are either scarce or lopsided and you have not been entirely fair in your assessment. By putting forth the frivolous argument above about Mondo, you have shown beyond doubt that you are not a fair minded person.
There is nothing more Mondo has to do to cement his GOAT status as the various sources have attributed or supported.
It is easy to be frivolous. I can also say unless Bubka come out of his retirement to win another Olympic gold, Mondo has surpassed him permanently. Globallycz (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(You're forgetting the future doping scandal where Duplantis gets stripped of all his records and titles.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Nice joke... cheers Globallycz (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Sergey Bubka possible relevation in his autobiography released before his passing that he was under state doping sponsorship during his tenure with USSR....thereby erasing all his records and titles? Globallycz (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that does seem more plausible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as it is repeatedly stated by reliable sources and is an understood neutral term in the world of Olympic sports. That being said, I think Billsmith60 has a valid concern in regards to MOS:CURRENT. I think an easy solution would be to specify something like, "As of the Summer 2024 Olympics," to make this article evergreen content. That way if someone comes along and is crowned prince, this article doesn't immediately become invalid. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, I think some bits of it might remain quite valid! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In all the wikipedia pages for athletes accorded GOAT status in their respective discipline that i sampled e.g. Usain Bolt, Jan Zelensky, Michael Phelps, Katie Ledecky to name a few, there was not a single one that qualify their GOAT status with a "time stamp" i.e. As of 2024 Summer Olympics. If in the future Mondo is surpassed, the current description can easily be amended accordingly. Anyway, I dont think the proposed solution will placate the singular opposer or the minority who feels otherwise. These few are just not convinced because they feel Mondo is still too young at 24. They probably hold on "old belief or dated understanding" whereby GOAT status should only be accorded to an athlete after he or she has retired or is close to retirement. I suspect for them, even if Mondo wins the next two World Championships titles (indoor & outdoor included), it wont be enough to convince them. I dare say that even a 3rd Oltmpic gold or breaking 6.30 barrier may not swing these people too. They believed Mondo jumps higher not because he is better but because of modern methods or equipment. Some of them are probably life long diehard fans of Bubka who would never accept anyone else as better and a few of them will claim to uphold NPOV for wikipedia if their views are contradicted. There will always be nitpickers or a small number of opposers no matter how well phrased the GOAT description is made or qualified. I would rather keep it simple as per present norm or practice rather introduce a new style of description just to satisfy one person or a minority view. "Widely considered" or "Widely regarded" as GOAT are common terms found in the few examples that i sampled. I dont feel there is any basis to change them. Globallycz (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point. I like looking to other pages for best practices, as you've done here. Even then, I think it's a balance between policy and practical use. So I'll point out that MOS:CURRENT does state, "What is current today may not be tomorrow; situations change over time. Instead, use date- and time-specific text. To help keep information updated use As of, which will allow editors to catalog and update dated statements."
    That being said, there are no firm rules, so what will ultimately improve this page the most? What offers the most value? Why does it matter if GOAT is time-stamped? How does eliminating a time stamp improve the article? Questions to consider. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the references provide a time frame when Mondo cemented his GOAT status. Globallycz (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, reliable sources back up the claim. The exact phrasing of the sentence may be up for debate, but being named GOAT by so many sources is plain and simple attested and sourced fact without any disputes that I can see. Unfortunately, timegating the statement would be Original Research, so we can't do that. Fieari (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the five sources presently on the page to support the claim, one says Duplantis has passed the rarefied height of retired Ukrainian pole vaulter Sergey Bubka, his main competition in the argument for the greatest pole vaulter of all time , one says Duplantis is now next to, if not above, Sergei Bubka as the greatest ever in this event, and one says a place among the greatest athletes of all time. Two of the sources represent some sort of competition with Sergey Bubka, and a third source doesn't specify that he is THE greatest pole vaulter of all time. While the article should reflect the sources, we should also remember MOS:PEACOCK, which seems to indicate that the statement should probably be attributed. Looking at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, for instance, which says he has been called the greatest basketball player of all time by many of his contemporaries such as Pat Riley, Isiah Thomas, and Julius Erving. Consequently, following MOS:PEACOCK's advice the article should represent who has declared him the greatest. Also, per MOS:LEAD, the lead of the article should only summarize the body, so it should be written and covered in the body, should it not? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, i just want to highlight that there are many other news articles that accorded Mondo GOAT status in pole vault without ambiguity after his Paris Olympic victory. They are not included to avoid excessive citations. As it is now, five sources was already deemed too many by some editors. An example is https://www.runblogrun.com/2024/08/mondo-duplantis-and-the-jump-that-made-him-the-greatest-of-all-time.html. Globallycz (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no further comments from other editors for two weeks. There should be sufficient feedback to arrive at a decision on this topic and remove the NPOV tag. I will remove 3 citations from the lead paragraph to reduce it to 2 to further address the comment by one editor of excessive citation. Globallycz (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not entitled to remove the neutrality tag. Only an editor with no conflict of interest can do so, as per the instructions at the top of the page Billsmith60 (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say i will remove the neutrality tag. I dont even know how to. Please read carefully. You like to blow groundless whistle on me and now you are attenpting to tarnish my reputation. I merely commented that there should be enough discussion to arrive at a decision or a consemsus has already been reached to close this topic and thereafter remove the neutrality tag. I think your response was not objective or written in good faith. Was your intent to create an unfair and skewed impression of me by specifically pointing out only an editor with "no conflict of interest" is able to remove the tag. Are you trying to frame me as some who is controversial with those words. Dont forget you are the one that said that you will honor or abide by the consensus or decision arrived at this Talk page. Thus far other than yourself, all those who commented have supported that the according of Mondo GOAT status was justified as it was supported by reliable sources. By responding the way you did, it was not only unhelpful but came across as vindictive. Please honor your words like a gentlemen. Globallycz (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Mondo has passed the rarefied height of a retired athlete, doesnt that mean he has surpassed the acheivements of that retired athlete? Also doesnt "if not above" means he is considered better. We should avoid picking bones from eggs.

Also the article from Pulse Sport thats says "a place among the greatest athletes of all time" was referring to David Rudisha and not to Mondo. The article from Pulse Sport referred to Mondo as GOAT of Athletics with Ten World Records in its heading. Mondo's current PB of 6.26 m is his 10th World Record. Please double check. Globallycz (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wrong to claim that Mondo has a place among the greatest athletes of all time even though that was quoted in error in the context of the above discussion. Nevertheless the sources are according him the status as Greatest of all Time in his discipline. Globallycz (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, making three responses to my single post comes across as WP:BLUDGEONING your point. Firstly, I am not voting on the topic, I commented on it to discuss what the sources are actually saying since we can only represent what they explicitly say and to point out the Manual of Style issues. MOS:PEACOCK specifically calls for peacock terms like "GOAT" to be attributed. I have provided an example of another athlete who is considered the "greatest" which demonstrates how the statements are attributed. Secondly, I am noting that the body of the article doesn't mention Duplantis being the "GOAT" at all. Per MOS:LEAD, the Lead of the article should only summarize what is in the body of the article. I.E, if the body of the article doesn't discuss Duplantis being the "GOAT", the lead should not either. Whatever decision is made regarding what should be in the lead, the body needs to be updated to reflect this. Thirdly, saying 'if not above' implies the possibility of being above, it is not a definitive statement. Fourthly,the article from Pulse Sport thats says "a place among the greatest athletes of all time" was referring to David Rudisha and not to Mond that is the only time the word 'greatest' appears in that article. I did not search for "GOAT", which is the source of that problem. Finally, a blog is generally not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia so "runblogrun" seems dubious. Cheers! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 21:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Areas of the Pulse Sports article that amplified the heading which you somehow inexplicably "missed out" includes
1. With ten amazing World Records, Armand Duplantis is in the rare league of the GOAT's of athletics - one which Usain Bolt equally occupies the list.
2. Armand Duplantis is a special athlete who belongs in the rare league of 'generational talents', having set 10 consecutive world records from 2020 to date and is now regarded as the Usain Bolt of Pole Vaulting.
3.Duplantis supremacy in the pole vault is so overwhelming that he has forgotten how to lose. He mostly breaks the world record in every meet he competes in, and he has now sealed his status as the GOAT in the event.
Points 7 and 8 in the body of the article on his gold medal collection and world record legacy illustrated his greatness or GOAT status too.
So i have really no idea how you arrived at what you said. I shall provide brief comments on your other points.
The soutce in question is written like a news report though it is named runblogrun. Luckily, it was not cited as a source in the wkikpage. Otherwise it would be nitpicked by others too. But the main point is there are many other independant and reliable sources that accorded GOAT status to Mondo right after his victory in Paris Olympics and they were not cited to avoid excessive references.
Yes, being called greatest of all time by contemporaries and being reported as such is a valid example but it is just one of the ways to illustrate an athlete's GOAT status. It is not the only way (and therefore not a must). If you look at other athletes who have been accorded GOAT in their wikipages, they dont neccessarily have that kind of example included. We need to be fair to Mondo and not imposed uncommon practice found in another athlete's page on him. Otherwise it would be too onerous and no athlete would ever qualify. Neverthlesess, not having such an example, I am sure does not mean their contemporaries didnt consider them GOAT. For Mondo's case, Chris Nelsen a fellow top pole vaulter from USA considered Mondo the Lionel Messi of pole vault and is quoted in his wIkipage, i.e. He compared the competition against Duplantis that evening as being a regular footballer "trying to emulate Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo" and that his superiority over the world's best pole vaulters was "impressive and ridiculous". Sam Kendricks, another of his peers, was quoted by New York Times as saying Mondo has God's hand in his back, i.e.“He’s got God’s hands on his back,” Kendricks said. “He’s the fastest pole vaulter out there.” Globallycz (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not without being discussed in the body of the article - it is clearly stated in WP:LEAD "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts, if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", and also citations generally do not belong in the lead. If the article has a section discussing it (with references, and with a range of opinions if differing opinions exist), then yes, it is ok to summarise that in the lead. But the lead as it stands now - 5 references, no discussion, and no mention in the body - no, that is against WP policy and should be removed, or at least moved out of the lead. Adpete (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can be easily rectified (if it is an issue) with one or two statement in the body under his 2024 career milestones. But i think we will find that kind of practice lacking in other athletes wikipage too where they are accorded GOAT status in the leading section. What is important is to support the claim with reliable sources.Globallycz (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional, with specific attribution to the best sources, and with close adherence to the wording in those sources. "Widely regarded" should generally not be used as the attribution without a high quality secondary source synthesising the sources that say that they are the greatest explicitly stating so. Additionally, if some sources say "among the greatest" and some say "greatest" without any qualifier, the former would be preferable unless there is a clear advantage for the latter sources in quantity or quality. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources say "among the greatest" and are these sources current or reported in the past? Please cite some reliable sources to support it. The phrase "widely regarded" or widely considered have been commonly used in wikipages of other athletes accorded GOAT status way before Mondo. For these other athletes, did you also question whether their supporting sources used the words "widely regarded" in their reporting at all? If so, please cite some examples. Let us not impose universal requirement on Mondo and subject him to unequal and unfair treatment. The editors of the various sources would bot have accorded Mondo the GOAT status if they did not feel that it was timely and widely accepted by most people who follow sports.

The issue is never about the phrase widely regarded. Of he is accorded as widely regarded as one of the greatest in his event, there would not have been objection by those few here. Globallycz (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armand_Duplantis&oldid=1251931681"