Talk:Gabby Douglas

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabbygrigsby1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Woman of Color

It is either wrong to say she is the first woman of color to become the all around champion, as the definition of a person of color is widely considered to be anyone not "white", of which many persons under this definition have accomplished this. If it is not wrong, then it is redundant, because it is already noted that she is the first "African-American" to become the world all around champion. It is my understanding that both terms are out of date and politically incorrect now anyway, and that the accepted term is "black". I could be missing something here but that part of the article reads awfully. --[[User:|''''']]

You are wrong. There are no non white ladies who have won the all around at the olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.96.17 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Douglas is, in fact, the first non-white to win all-around (SOURCE: Gymnastics all-around champions by age). This is a notable fact in world Olympic history. The fact that she is the first African-American to win is also notable in American Olympic history. Lastly, woman of color is an appropriate term currently. PYRSMIS 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

To the unsigned user who started this thread, the sources use the term "woman of color". And they do so because it's absolutely accurate. She is the first African-American AND the first woman of color to win the individual all-around gold. You can't argue with facts. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by Evans1982, who had changed woman of color to non-Caucasian female. I thought this was wordier than necessary but otherwise fine. I then did a bit of wikipedia learning about Caucasian vs. Person of Color and decided that Wikipedia itself provides ample justification for preferring person of color. See Caucasian versus Person of color. -- PYRSMIS 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That said, I would appreciate it if someone could cite a WP guideline for race terms like this. It's a delicate subject. And person of color seems to be primarily an American term. Perhaps that's appropriate in this case because Gabby Douglas is American. There is probably not a single term that is inoffensive to everyone in the world. -- PYRSMIS 20:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Woman of color" is not only the appropriate term, it's also the term that has actually been used, along with "African-American," by the almost every source referring to the accomplishment, including the ones cited in the article. African-American is a sub-category of "person of color," so person of color is the most accurate and complete description. Editors who attempted to change "woman of color" to "non-white" or "non-caucasion" were editing disruptively IMHO. There are thousands of sources using either "woman of color" and/or "African-American", but literally only a couple that have used "non-white" or "non-caucasian" or anything similar. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the term the journalist Allison Corneau used for the US Weekly. Do we need more sources that use the same term? AngusWOOF (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think 'woman of color' is the appropriate term. Though, as a wikipedian (and an anthropologist), I recognize that this appears to be an American idiom not widely used in the world (See Caucasian versus Person of color). Elsewhere in the world, it is viewed as a racist term, no different than saying 'colored person'. I am sure Americans can appreciate that this subtle difference is enormously important in American racial discourse, but no doubt you can appreciate that others in the world (especially non-english speakers) view them as equivalent. Again, my rationale here is that Gabby Douglas is American and so an American racial term seems appropriate. I am guessing this would be a more controversial issue if she were non-American. Can anyone point me to a Wikipedia policy about race terms? It's an interesting and important issue. PYRSMIS 01:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

I've added the notability tag because I am not sure if this is that important. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

As a member of the Women's Olympic Gymnastics team for the USA, I have no notability concerns. I understand that the article may well have been questionable last year, however. --IShadowed 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Importance rating

I've classified Gabrielle Douglas as an article of high importance due to the following criteria; Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. This notability is due to her position on the US Women's Gymnastics team for London 2012 in addition to the sheer amount of press coverage in the US (Today Show, TIMES, Sports Illustrated, Rock Center with Brian Williams). This individual does not appear to merit top importance status, however, due to the criteria stating that the subject must be crucial to their field--in this case, artistic gymnastics. Top status is usually reserved for exercise apparatus as well as gymnastics skills, as the notability of gymnasts themselves is inherently location-biased. If anyone does not agree with this evaluation (as I suspect might be the case during and after the Olympic games, dependent upon performance/results), please discuss your concerns here before changing the importance evaluation. This will allow the community to reach consensus in an organized fashion instead of an edit war, which is a relevant fear with the traffic this article will be receiving very soon. Thanks! IShadowed (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that she's the Olympic champion, I'd say she's achieved international notability, merits top importance status, and is crucial to her field. Not to mention that she's the first woman of color ever to win the all-around gold, and the first American gymnast to win both the the individual and team all-around gold at one Olympics. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

She is not crucial to her field. She possess no eponymous skills that would merit top status, and the sport of gymnastics would continue normally if she suddenly moved to mars. I'm under the impression that BLPs cannot possibly constitute top article status in this field. IShadowed (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shadowed. I was only being half-serious with you, thus the ;) at the end of my comment. I was just making a little fun of the fact that a week ago, most of the world didn't even know who this young girl was, but now she'll be famous forever for winning that gold medal. Even if she dropped out of the sport tomorrow. I'm not even sure what an importance rating is. Haha. Thanks for the reply, though. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out Template:Importance scheme or Template:Articles by Quality and Importance. Zepppep (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks. She obviously is now internationally famous because her accomplishment was at one of the most prominent internationally-televised events in the world, but does that also make her interntationally "notable", per Top level? I don't see her as "crucial" to her field, but winning the all-around gold at the Olympics is clearly the highest achievement in her sport. So, out of curiosity, which level do you think she is on the importance scheme? I can't figure it out. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Shes the jackie robinson of gymnastics for Gods sakes.

No she isn't. Robinson was the first black player in MLB. Douglas, although she will certainly inspire many black children, is not the first black athlete in her sport. He broke the color barrier in his sport. She didn't. There have been others. How about Dominique Dawes? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Change article title to Gabby Douglas?

I don't have a preference between Gabrielle Douglas and Gabby Douglas, but I was curious to see how often each name is used in the media. Almost every reference to her on the TV coverage of the Olympics - orally and displayed on-screen - has been Gabby, not Gabrielle. This includes when they've posted her scores during her events. A Google search for "Gabrielle Douglas" (with quotes) returns 807,000 results, while a search for "Gabby Douglas" (with quotes) returns 1,910,000. That's 70% for Gabby. More importantly, a Google News search for "Gabrielle Douglas" (with quotes) returns 32,200 results, while a search for "Gabby Douglas" (with quotes) returns 53,300. That's 62% for Gabby. Her official website, gabrielledouglas.com, obviously uses Gabrielle for the domain name and site title, but the majority of references about her throughout the site are Gabby. Regardless of whether or not the article title is changed, the reference to the name Gabby in the lead (Gabrielle Christina Victoria "Gabby" Douglas) should never be changed. (It hasn't always remained there.) Now that she's guaranteed herself permanent fame (because of her Olympic all-around gold), I thought I'd bring this up. So, should the title be her birth name? Or the name to which she's most commonly referred? Thoughts? --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice is to name the article by one's birth name unless they are overwhelmingly known by a pseudonym (for example, Lady Gaga as opposed to Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta). This is not the case with Ms. Douglas, whose nickname is not a stage name. Appropriate redirects have been created to redirect those who search for Gabby Douglas to this page. IShadowed (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree with that explanation. Stage names, pen names, etc. are completely different than what is being discussed here. Nolan Ryan was born Lynn Nolan Ryan. Jimmy Carter was born James Earl Carter, Jr. But in both instances, the articles are named after what the two men are overwhelmingly referred to as in popular culture. If Douglas is known overwhelmingly in the press and pop culture as "Gabby" then then the article name should be "Gabby Douglas." We should allow redirects from Gabrielle Douglas. And of course the article should continue to mention her birth name. On a separate note, when putting "Gabrielle Douglas" or "Gabby Douglas" into the search box, the only suggestions that come up are Douglas with two S's. The article's going to get a lot of redirects if the correct spelling of her name doesn't even show up as a search suggestion. Zepppep (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that really is the standard practice. We commonly use diminutives in the titles of people's biographies, if that is what they are commonly known by. WP:COMMONNAME gives the example of Bill Clinton - not "William Clinton". It would be wrong to move the page to something like "Flying Squirrel", but "Gabby Douglas" is perfectly natural. Zagalejo^^^ 04:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Zepppep (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great replies. Yeah, I was thinking about her name in terms of WP:COMMONNAME because there are obviously many articles where the title is not the person's formal birth name. And of course talking about entertainers who use stage names is not a good comparison. We of course would always use their stage names because that's the name under which they are famous. For many of them, most people don't even know their real names. (Unless they look it up on Wikipedia. Haha.) How many people would know the birth names of Lady Gaga, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Katy Perry, Tom Cruise, Martin Sheen or John Wayne? Anyway, when I realized over the past week that I've heard this girl referred to on TV as Gabby almost all the time - apparently, the TV networks made a deliberate decision to use Gabby in their reporting - it made me wonder. That's why I did my little Google research and wasn't very surprised when I discovered the Gabby usage was 65-70 percent ;) A good comparison to Douglas would be Magic Johnson. Most people familiar with him know his birth name is Earvin, but he's of course most commonly referred to as Magic, and that's the title of his article. Or Spud Webb and Duff McKagan. Like Gabby, those are all nicknames, not stage names. And Gabby is even less a nickname because it's just an alternate version of Gabrielle, just as Mike is for Michael (Mike Tyson), Joe is for Joseph (Joe Biden), Jimmy is for James (Jimmy Kimmel), Bobby is for Robert (Bobby Brown) and Jack is for John (Jack Nicholson), etc. So how does a decision like this get made? As I said, I'm fine with either name. I just want to see it done whichever way is correct. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Using the talk page to discuss and hopefully reach a consensus is the starting point. Since the article is relatively new, there might be others who would like to weigh in on the item. As I already stated above, I support the article being "Gabby Douglas" with "Gabrielle Douglas" as a redirect. Zepppep (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, "Gabby Douglas" is the most commonly used name, just like "Jimmy Carter" and loads of other examples given above. I suggest either boldly moving it or making a formal RM if we think it needs more attention first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Great feedback so far. What does "boldly moving it" and "RM" mean? I'll let one of you guys handle those since you obviously know more about this whole thing than I do. ;) Btw, can someone fix the search suggestions when you're searching for Gabby Douglas? It comes up incorrectly as Douglass instead of Douglas. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the 04:10 3 August comment I left (above). (Also, I have made jargon terms linkable, such as below. Just click on the blue text and it will take you to the exact place on Wikipedia that explains what I am referring to (or what others have by now, as well). Zepppep (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the jargon. Boldly moving it means to just go ahead and, without further ado, move the article (that is, rename it). "RM" means requested moves, where (potentially) controversial moves are listed for discussion. As for search suggestions, I don't know if there's a way to fix that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Page moved. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. Can someone change it at the top of the infoxbox. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done ... and de-watchlisting. Happy editing! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Philosopher. I trust you like the WikiProject Iowa add? Zepppep (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

NOT FAIR.

I dont understand WHY ALY Raismans WIKI page is soo much larger then our Heroine, Gabrielle Douglas's Page. Its not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.232.195 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Noone is stopping you from making Gabby's article TWICE as large as Aly's.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who you're referring to when you say "our," but anyways...Be bold! No one is stopping you from creating valuable articles or working to provide valuable contributions! Sometimes article subjects who have been in a certain field longer have more sources and more users interested in contributing; sometimes an article might generate a lot of controversy or for whatever reason be on someone's mind quite a bit more than someone else who it could be argued is more "critical" to that field. Wikipedia's articles aren't generated by any one person or authoritative body deciding how much content an article might have; so if you're not satisfied, work to plug away! Zepppep (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@70.187.232.195 While I can appreciate your support for Gabby Douglas, just keep in mind that this is not a fan page, nor are any articles on Wikipedia. This is an encylopedia and all articles must be edited with a neutral, unbiased standpoint. :) So if you have sourced content that is worthy of being included in the article, go for it! Enjoy. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian

In her NBC interview she was pretty effusive about thanking God for her success. We should add this.– Lionel ^(talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Cite a source and be bold if you feel it's something that belongs in the article! Zepppep (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do! It is incredibly widely reported. This quote, "I give all the glory to God. It's kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to Him and the blessings fall down on me." [1] Has been trending and I feel we should do a quote box on it. Ryan Vesey 23:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it being "incredibly widely reported" at all. Google News returned only a couple results about it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So Ryan Vesey, can you cite sources and the number of them? Also, the article states "Douglas is a devout Christian." Rather than debating what constitutes "devout," how about putting what faith she ascribes to instead? Zepppep (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed two unreferenced quotes. Zepppep (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Zep. I found zero sources saying shes a "devout Christian", so it violates WP:ORIGINAL. That sentence should be removed or at least have a "citation needed" tag on it. It may be true, based on the quotes, but it's an assumption. And assumptions cannot be added to an encylopedia. But overall, Ryan is claiming this religious angle has received huge coverage, but the facts simply don't support his claim. A Google News search still brings up only a couple results. And none from any major, reliable sources. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the mention was unreferenced and deals with BLP's personal faith, I removed it. Kept one quote up there (with punctuation mistake) even though I'm having trouble getting that particular site and article to come up. I had put citation needed tags up several hours ago regarding some of the previous quotes but also realized, unsourced, they should come down. Zepppep (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Zep. And btw, the one source that's used for the religious quote is CNS (Cybercast News Service), which is very controversial and not considered reliable. It's a division of the Media Research Center. It's known to be a very biased/very conservative site and should not be used. It's interesting that the editor failed to note the name of the source in the citation. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just number them as I find them [2], [3], [4], [5], religion referenced in a meme, [6], [7], [8] Ryan Vesey 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of CNS. First, I had not heard of the news service before; however, I skimmed through RSN and haven't found anything in the archives that definitively stated that it was unreliable. It may have a bias, but the same goes for Fox news and msnbc. In addition, the reason I used that link was because it contained a video of Gabby actually making that quote. Ryan Vesey 14:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's clear that she is indeed a faithful Christian, which no one is really disputing. However "devout" is not used in any sources. That term "devout" violates WP:NPOV and WP:ORIGINAL. It's interesting, though, that all your sources are religious or Christian websites, some a pretty sketchy. No major or mainstream sites were included. Well, maybe one. But as you have shown, this issue has NOT been "incredibly widely reported." And as far as CNS, it can't be compared to Fox News and certainly not to MSNBC, which have clear oversight and checks and balances. Fox obviously leans right. Much more than MSBNC leans left. But they're both legitimate, reliable sources. CNS is not reliable. It's extreme. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that MSNBC leans to the left more than Fox leans to the right, but I refuse to watch either unless I have to. In any case, I never argued that we should state that she is a devout Christian. My point is that religion has clearly had an impact on her life and she quoted it after winning Gold so we should include that information. It is pretty sad that it hasn't been picked up much by mainstream sources. Ryan Vesey 15:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked out all of the links. None of them state she's a Christian, nor a "devout" one and most of them are from the same line that she stated (and some of them also mention her tweets). There is one that quotes Agence France Press as "Douglas, a devout Christian." Rather than making a declarative statement, that for now would be unreferenced, it might be better to state (if in the case she does) attends any religious services of any kind, for example, and what particular type of faith is associated with that service. As it stands now, the GD article mentions one statement she made, which did include a praise, and I am OK with it being included. CSN may not be the world's most reputable source, but a stronger source can be found if one wants to dig. If one reads the sources Ryan linked to, at least one of them goes in depth into bashing established news organizations for not mentioning her faith. A lot of the other ones seemed to talk very little about her gymnastics career and instead focused on what she recently tweeted and how many times it mentioned "God." There are lots of folks, athletes included, out there stating "praise ___". That does not put them in the category of "devout." It would categorize them as "someone that has openly praised" or "someone that has openly talked about their faith," but I wouldn't conflate that with devout. And also, there needs to be a source that quotes GD as stating which belief she espouses to, otherwise something factual (mentioned above, such as "she attends _____ services" or "was baptized at the age of 10" is as far as I would go. Zepppep (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream sources may not have mentioned it is as much, or as often, because winning the gold is the story for their readers/viewers, not the post-competition comments. Additionally, I would say that if she's been on mainstream TV networks giving praises, that's not exactly them hiding it under the carpet. Zepppep (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan... Many, many athletes in sports history have thanked or praised God after victories, etc. It's been going on forever. As I said previously, no one's disputing God is important to her. But I've never seen religious quotes like the ones in this article in any other athlete articles. Can you show us any other examples where quotes like that are included in articles for athletes? Why do the religious quotes need to be in the article? And while I appreciate you acknowledging that it is NOT being reported by mainstream media, it makes me wonder why you initially said, "It is incredibly widely reported." No point in debating CNS. It is in a completely different league compared to Fox News and MSNBC, which are both major, legitimate news sources, even if they lean one way or the other. CNS is highly controversial because of their extreme bias. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I read that CNS had such an awful reputation that it changed its name from Conservative News Service to Cybercast News Service, its current name. Haha. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Why does Gabriella Douglas wikipedia article not have her picture? bfarring 8/3/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.75 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is waiting for someone like you to add one! See this beginner guide to see how you can get started on adding one! Zepppep (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no such person as Gabriella Douglas :P --76.189.114.163 (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Family she lived with in Iowa is white

Yeah. Why was this left out of the article? Accident? C'mon Wikipedians--the world is watching... – Lionel ^(talk) 02:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection. As a Wikipedian, you are just as free to add to the article as anyone else. The host family is mentioned. They didn't get her involved with Olympics, or introduce her to Liang Chow, or help her pick out your dance routine music, so not sure how much more attention they need. Zepppep (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the connection? This story is second only to Obama's election as a milestone in post-racial relations in America. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So be bold if you feel the article could be improved/expanded. Keep in mind not everyone may be reading or listening to the same sources as you. Wikipedia is a global community. No one article belongs to any one reader, user, editor. Zepppep (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As a veteran editor my function these days is one of guidance, inspiration and supervision. Are you inspired? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check the contributions I've made to this particular article and talk page for yourself. Zepppep (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank me.– Lionel ^(talk) 12:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to specify that the family she stayed with was white. That being said, Time Magazine did a large section on her and her host family. I think we could include some more information in that regard. Specifically, the host family has a daughter training with Liang Chow. They left an open ended offer with Chow saying they could take in a girl who wanted to train there. Douglas' family could not afford to move to Iowa so she went alone. I believe she bounced around a couple of houses before connecting with her host family. This is all off of the top of my head. I'll try to find where I put the magazine later. It might be online. Ryan Vesey 05:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, it's because race is completely irrelevant. And with all due respect, to say "This story is second only to Obama's election as a milestone in post-racial relations in America" is not only extreme, it's not even factually correct. At all. The Gabby Douglas story has nothing to do with race relations in the United States. I have no idea where you got that from. She is the first African-American to win the all-around gold in gymnastics, which is great, but she is certainly not the first to participate in the sport, or even close. As far as not including that the host family is white, she lives with a great family, not a great white family. The only way racism would be inferred from a lot of editors is if "white" WAS included. Editors would be asking, "Why do you have to say the family is white?? It sounds like you're saying Gabby chose a white family because she didn't want to live with an African-American family." So far, you're the only person who has questioned why the family's race is not included. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw Ryan, I added the last sentence in the 2010 section about her moving to Des Moines to train with Chow, along with a cite to a great Des Moines Register story about it, but someone deleted the "host family" reference I had included. So I cited a source that's all about the host family, yet "host family" was inexplicably deleted from the sentence. The sentence I had written was, "At age 14, Douglas moved from her home in Virginia Beach, Virginia, to live with a host family in West Des Moines, Iowa, so she could train with Liang Chow, who was the coach of former world and Olympic champion Shawn Johnson." Also, in the "Personal life" section, someone recently added the sentence "When Douglas moved to Iowa to train under Liang Chow, Douglas and her sister had to convince their mother to let Douglas leave Virginia and live with a host family in West Des Moines"; it's not needed because it's saying the exact same thing as what's in the 2010 section (and not as well haha). Someone should just get rid of that sentence in the Personal life section and just relocate the two citations to the sentence in the 2010 section. There's a very good editor that I asked to do it, but he may be busy. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Check the article's edit history and you'll see I never removed "host family" from the article. Also, before a few days ago, the entire move to train was in the personal life section (which you state used to the Early life section). 1)Her leaving VA to train under Chow was a professional decision, hence my putting it in 2010. 2)The move occurred in 2010; since there is a section titled "2010" it makes sense to put it there. 3)I added the specific time frame of Oct. 2010, which was not in the article before. I believe knowing the time of year she made the move makes the article stronger. 4) The current sentence in Personal life reads: "When Douglas left Virginia to live with a host family, she and older sister Arielle worked together to gain their mother's reluctant approval." (Ref) 5) This sentence is important because her sister helped convince her mother to get involved in gymnastics more than 10 years ago, and this helps solidify the impact of her sister's involvement in her life. 6) From the sources provided thus far, I don't believe anything about her host family is important enough to be put into the article. Douglas was obviously already committed to the sport before she got there -- otherwise she wouldn't have moved half way across the country at such a young age. I'm sure her actual parents were extremely influential -- how much weight is given to that in the article? If you want to go dig for sources that state how influential the host family was in her professional career or personal life, then by all means, be bold! Zepppep (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a WP:CENSORship thing? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I, and the other editors, wrote? It's simply content that's not worthy of inclusion. If she lived with a latino family, would we mention the family is latino? No. The race of the family absolutely does not matter. Honestly, I don't even know if you're being serious because what you're saying makes no sense. Your question shouldn't be "Why ISN'T it included?", it should be "Why SHOULD it be included?" --76.189.114.163 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This video actually shows Gabby's mother stating that it is not a race thing. Ryan Vesey 14:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, that's an incredible video. And there was an extremely interesting revelation in it, which is the fact that Gabby got so homesick in Des Moines that she told her mom that she wanted to return home to Virginia. But her mom said no way! She told her she couldn't stop after working so hard to reach her dream. And clearly, the race of that wonderful family had absolutely no part in the story. It was all about the family itself. IMO, the part about Gabby getting homesick and her mom not letting her come home is worthy of inclusion in the article. Because imagine if the mom had said yes and let her come home! It would've changed Olympic history. And of course they would never have known that she was going to go on to be the Olympic champion. And how interesting that originally it was Gabby who pleaded with her mom to let her move to Iowa, and then it turns out that it's the mom who convinces Gabby to stay in Iowa. Haha. Great video. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It really is, I was surprised because throughout the Olympics the announcers stated that her sister convinced her to stay. Which is it? Or did her mom tell her to stay and then a conversation with her sister convinced her? Ryan Vesey 17:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It was both of them that told her she needed to stay. In the video, the mom is just talking about her own role in it. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If I say pretty please can we add that the host family is white? – Lionel ^(talk) 21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, others have already weighed in on the subject. You have not other than making accusations (strong ones) and dropping by every once in a while asking a loaded question, which begs the question as to what your true intentions are. You stated earlier to "thank me." I had never even come across your user handle until you starting leaving tracks on this talk page (which occurred after I had already started working on the article and talk page, so not sure why you are giving yourself credit for something you didn't contribute to, other than to perhaps ruffle feathers of someone who may not be able to stay as calm as me). Your objective seems focused on stirring up a pot that isn't even there. State reasons based upon Wikipedia policies, precedent, and consensus, all which "a veteran editor" should certainly be well-versed in. Consensus has already been built so no one is going to look to change the wording based upon you asking "please." Strong articles come about because of standards and consensus, not because of favors or what mood someone's in that day. You asked earlier if people were "inspired." It seems a silly question to ask, considering the amount of involvement several who've contributed to the article and others who've followed the talk page and while talking about content, abstained from making baseless accusations that do nothing but distract. Zepppep (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Significant African American First?

There is a debate on the List of African-American firsts page about whether winning the individual all-around gold medal is a significant enough first to be included on this list. Please contribute if you have an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcusa (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I commented in that discussion. A lot, as you will see. Haha. I think others should also participate in the discussion. Here is the direct link to the discussion. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this is certainly a "White American First." This is the first time a white family has cared for a Black All around gold medal winning gymnast at the Olympics. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Inside full pirouette

What is the reasoning behind removing what type of maneuver Douglas made a timing mistake in, twice? I have sourced the content. Also, I am not the one who added the quote post-last place uneven bars finish. I already left a post on that user's talk page, asking what was particularly revelatory about the quote the user had inserted. Zepppep (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Zep. Yeah, that user has been putting lots of unimportant/non-notable quotes and unnecessary scores into the articles of all of Douglas's peers. The particular manuever mistake is of no importance. Who cares if she missed a pirouette? Haha. All that's needed is what place she finished in. Apparently, I'm not the only editor who thinks this. If someone wants to know small details, they can always go to the sourced material. And all those minor, random quotes are not encyclopedic. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree on the non-notable quotes and scores. Regarding the maneuver, I believe it's important. If an athlete gets injured, it's often stated how the injury occurred. A race car who crashes will have what caused it in the text. If Douglas fell off her feet on the landing, I believe this would be pertinent. If she forgot the next sequence during a dance routine, the same. I don't think it's trivial to list what she did that at least in part led to her last-place finish. I do believe her score would be, because the reader has no idea where the score falls in compared to other scores. Also, scores are a combination of execution, degree of difficulty, and penalties, so it would be unnecessary to go into the details of a score. Zepppep (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if she got injured, then saying how she got injured of course would not only be appropriate to include, but vital. But she didn't get injured. She simply didn't do well. Unless there's something you know that I don't. ;) Finishing in last place obviously tells readers that she didn't do well. Haha. Now if it was something extraordinary that caused her to come in last, then, yes, include it. But that wasn't the case. Yeah, all those scores... 15.21, 16.44, etc., are pointless. They don't mean anything because they're totally out of context and most readers have no idea what they mean anyway. Again, all that's needed is what place she finished. But that editor put those scores in a lot of other gymnast articles. Btw, her big mistake was stalling on a handstand. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually what is the purpose of saying she placed last/eighth? For one thing its talking about a non-event, for another it fails to mention that this 8th/last placement was for the finals so its without context. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean what's the point of mentioning both "last" AND "eighth"? And saying she finished 8th (or last) without mentioning it was the finals, means that it was the finals. It goes without saying. If I say Zep finished 4th in balance beam, it means Zep finished 4th in that event. But I'm not sure he even knows how to use a balance beam. :P --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the only way alluding to a score would make sense would be if someone won a medal (or lost a medal) by an extremely small amount of points. For example, "Douglas won the gold medal by just 3/10 of point over (competitor's name)." Or "Douglas finished in fourth place, missing the bronze medal by just 3/10 of a point." --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two things: how or why she may have gotten a particular score, and details about her routine. I'm not conflating an injury or crash with an uneven bars routine, but I see no harm in stating any particulars to her routine. And if you have a source that states her mistake came during a handstand, cite it and put it in the article. The one I had from Martin Rogers of Yahoo!Sports stated it was during the pirouette. Re: details of placement/last/first, etc., it is good to include her finishing place as long as the total number of participants in the finals is also mentioned so the reader has context. Simply stating "eighth place" when there could be 8 or 80 finalists is pointless; stating she finished eighth out of 8 finalists is OK as the reader can then draw the conclusion she finished last; stating she finished "in last place, eighth," is also OK -- it lets the readers know there were 8 total participants. Zepppep (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear IP editor, I do suggest you read up how the articles on other atheletes are written. We strive for clarity rather than ambiguity, and the purpose of wikipedia is for non gymnasts as well to easily read it, not just trained gymnasts. You're not editing the Gynastics wiki here. That's way over at gymnastics.wikia.com. So, wrong wiki ;) Zhanzhao (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, I'm not sure who your sarcastic comment was directed to, but that was exactly my point. It's written for everyone. So out-of-context details are unnecessary. And I don't know who you're referring to when you say "we," but all editors are part of the WP community. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the way it was written previously, she might have finished 8th/last on a quarter or semi finals, because it was written THAT ambiguously. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Zep, here's one of a number of sources that say her goof was stalling on a handstand. Why are you harping on the 8th/last issue? We both agree. Haha. Mentioning she finished last is even more important than 8th, but both are needed for context. Don't stress yourself over tiny details. ;) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The context is actually the fact that she placed 8th/last in the finals, rather than earlier, which carries quite a different meaning. Don't tell me I was the only one that noticed that crucial point being left out... Zhanzhao (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I never saw the 8th/last sentence written in an ambiguous manner. She finished 8th/last. Period. Adding "overall" and "finals" is pointless. Those kinds of details would only be needed if it wasn't the finals. Saying she "finished" in such and such place says it all. Read the 2011 section. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, IP, I follow you. We are in fact in agreement as to eighth/last mention. What we differ on is the inclusion of the particular maneuver she was attempting to complete. Like I said, if you have a source (which you do) that states she made her mistake during a handstand, that is completely OK. Whatever the maneuver, I simply think it is warranted in the article. Zhanzhao, I just edited your word. I do think you helped improve its readability. However, it is perfectly decent to include how many finalists there were so the reader doesn't have to click on the 2012 uneven bars finals to know what eighth place means (again, most readers aren't going to know how many finalists there were...particularly in 20 years when they read this article and the 2012 Olympics are not in the forefront of their brain). If you look at athletes who compete for place, you'll see their overall standings quite often. In tennis, this is done by stating "quarterfinals" etc. It is assumed the reader will understand that means "one of the last 8 to make it." For something like the Tour de France, the number of riders is not known for the most part by an overwhelming no. of readers. Thus, you'll see Thomas Voeckler's overall finish on his article. Granted, he has a charte that describes this but he has been competing for a longer time than Douglas, and it's also apparent someone has devoted time to creating a table for his overall finishes, whereas no one has as of yet for Douglas. Thus, it's perfectly warranted to place the finish in the prose. Cheers. Zepppep (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zepppep, thanks. I just wanted to make it absolutely clear for people who got confused by the omission. Not every wikipedia reader keeps track of the subjects progress to catch on that it was talking about the finals. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, agree. One participates in prelims and has to earn a place in the finals, correct? So if that's the case, I have no issue with having "finals" in there. I just want to make sure the reader has an idea of what eighth place means; eighth in this instance would equate to last. Simply stating "eighth" without any context as to how many competitors she was up against is ambiguous. Zepppep (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a slight edit on that sentence to clarify that she was last among the finalists, not last overall in the event. So it now says, "Douglas finished eighth in uneven bars, which was last place among the finalists." And you can read the 2010 and 2011 sections to see how her finishes have been listed. :) --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good edit. Zepppep (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll throw in the results sheet that confirms only eight people participate in the finals AngusWOOF (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Floor Exercise Music

Her floor music is 'Bon Bon' by Pitbull not 'We no Speak Americano'.

Can the song be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ, at least from these sources. Bon Bon samples We no Speak Americano.

* Bon Bon claim from Milwaukee Courier: http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2012/08/11/gabby-douglas-our-champion-and-pioneer-of-womens-gymnastics/

* Bon Bon claim from Gabrielle Douglas tweets: http://sports.creamsocial.com/gabrielle-douglas.tweets

* We No Speak Americano: Fox Sports (Associated Press): http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/gymnastics/story/gabrielle-douglas-aly-raisman-victoria-komova-deng-linlin-womens-all-around-080212 (CBC Sports was same article)

* We No Speak Americano: Philly Magazine: http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/08/03/gabby-douglas-americas-favorite-olympian/

I gave this some more thought; it might be good to credit both. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

On the same page you mentioned above http://sports.creamsocial.com/gabrielle-douglas.tweets

Gabby Retweets Pitbull thanking her for using Bon Bon. If that is not confirmation, then I dont know what is. The version that Gabby Douglas sampled is the Pitbull version not the Yolanda Be Cool version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.244.164 (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll add the references and the note AngusWOOF (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked on the YouTube, the floor exercise version sounds closer to the "We No Speak Americano" one since "Bon Bon" has the rapper say "Bon Bon ...." for the main part and the original is more instrumental.

* Pitbull Bon Bon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O72RLP5fF4

* We no Speak Americano: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR8logunPzQ

* Gabby Douglas Olympic Trials Day 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmbE2pr-ms

* Gabby Douglas Olympics Floor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hoz61c0bjw

So unless Pitbull has an instrumental version, I will change it back to We No Speak Americano and condense the note. AngusWOOF (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Angus woof I dont agree with your note. The version used in her floor excercise is the instrumental version of Bon Bon. I have linked to the instrumental version of Bon Bon(DJ Alvaros remixed We No Speak Americano for Pitbull's song). The Instrumental in Pitbulls version is the same as Gabby Douglas' floor music, the version in we speak Americano is not .

• DJ Alvaro remix of We No Speak Americano which is the instrumental version of Bon Bon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txq-2Z1xwAY

I have also reverted the song to Bon Bon as I think this proves that this is version used in Gabby's Performance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.244.164 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another link that claims Pitbull used DJ Alvaro's version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJaJ59pysEs AngusWOOF (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reworked the note so all three are mentioned. AngusWOOF (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

egg mcmuffin

Does that really have to be in there? It looks like product placement. :( 67.122.211.84 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not convinced of the relevance of this info.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-written so if it does stay, at least it looks a bit better (and more accurate). I wouldn't consider it routine and considering the number of eyeballs who watched the show and the fellow guest, I don't have a big issue with it remaining. It a one-sentence mention and isn't suspect as far as NPOV goes. It sort of humanizes her. It might eventually be more appropriate in a "personal life" section or something along those lines (which might very well be coming up, because you know a book isn't too far around the corner and perhaps some TV appearances). Zepppep (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems like advertising to me. While it may be true, I don't think it is particularly relevant to her biography. Ryan Vesey 16:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I second what both 67.122.211.84 and Ryan Vesey mention. It's trivial data, completely irrelevant for the sake of the article. - Holothurion (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's her first post-Olympic national talk show appearance, and the First Lady just happened to be the other guest booked that night, but it did hit all the major news media. http://www.eonline.com/news/337641/olympian-gabby-douglas-talks-meeting-kate-middleton-egg-mcmuffins-and-rio-2016 I've moved her McMuffin comment to the footnote, and added that her appearance was good for Leno's ratings. Also Leno mentioned that Douglas is an anagram for USA Gold. Silly little details. AngusWOOF (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistake?

In the section "In popular culture" the following sentence does not make sense to me: "whose name has not yet been confirmed but which if known to appear in the seventh episode." I am not a native speaker but something is amiss here. 81.10.151.214 (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks --Musdan77 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gabby Douglas. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716031538/http://www.nbcolympics.com/wwbt/local-athletes/athlete=gabrielle-douglas/index.html to http://www.nbcolympics.com/wwbt/local-athletes/athlete=gabrielle-douglas/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203020333/http://www.indystar.com/article/D2/20120715/NEWS/307150059/ to http://www.indystar.com/article/D2/20120715/NEWS/307150059/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabby Douglas. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207223339/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/do/gabby-douglas-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/do/gabby-douglas-1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gabby Douglas. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbcolympics.com/wwbt/local-athletes/athlete%3Dgabrielle-douglas/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/phil_taylor/08/02/gabby-douglas-olympic-gymnastics/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t12_a0
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6B5vfyQQw?url=http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/07/18/gabby-douglas-gymnastics-team-make-sports-illustrated-cover to http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/07/18/gabby-douglas-gymnastics-team-make-sports-illustrated-cover/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Gabby learned how to do a cartwheel at the age of 2 years old 2601:8D:8900:4F40:8157:E9BF:637B:DC95 (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)