Jump to content

Talk:John Coughlin (figure skater)

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on John Coughlin (figure skater). 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:

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) 11:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Coughlin (figure skater). 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:

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) 11:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate for bio article

[edit]

Text from the article: In the same Facebook post where Namiotka made her accusation, she wrote that Coughlin had "hurt a lot of people", and "had hurt at least 10 girls".

That FB post is a fact, but is including the accusation in a bio appropriate? (I think not.) Coughlin denied the basis for the investigation, and the investigation did not complete or make any results known. Sticking this allegation in the article certainly makes for interesting reading, but technically amounts to hearsay, & this is an encyclopedia article, not Twitter or FB or a tabloid. Another argument: Assume for a moment that John's statement of denial of the basis of the official investigation is in fact correct & true. In making his denial, he smeared no one, no individual. But this article text is very different. Can anyone tell me they can prove, or argue that it must be true, or argue that it must probably be true, that the allegations in the FB post were not based in some interpersonal conflict or resentment unrelated that no one outside of their personal relationship circle could or would know? (She also posted this glorious example of reasoning, will someone be including it in the bio article too?: "Nobody innocent hangs themself", which to me smacks of resentment, but we do not certainly know why, do we? Perhaps Coughlin was a skating artist, his life was devoted to his art & had little meaning outside it, and to be tentatively stripped of the ability to skate again was too great a threat that removed his reason for living.) No, you can't. So if that possiblity were true, then what we have here is damning/smearing tabloid text in an encyclopedia article. That is a possibility. (Do you like to keep it? Good reading, huh?) --IHTS (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're up to two accusers now. Methinks this won't stop any time soon. Once the dam bursts, well, look at anything from the relatively innocent Tiger Woods to the seemingly rather guilty Bill Cosby.
The term "more than ten" sounds pretty darn specific to me. The fact that he was under investigation is not a point in his favor. The fact that it had not been revealed that he was under investigation when he committed suicide is certainly not a point in his favor. With Ashley Wagner signing on, I think the FB post from Accuser #1 deserves a mention as an allegation, which is how it appeared before being removed.
Vcuttolo (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably not have to remind you experienced editors that it's not our job to decide guilt or innocence. Making judgments about notability is hard enough.
The question of which accusations to include here is not easy. If 20 notable figure skaters stepped forward with accusations, would we put all 20 in Coughlin's bio? Right now we are at 2; that's manageable, I guess. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did neither. (I rmv'd text that included allegation not from the alleged victims, but was second-hand & therefore hearsay.) My too-long arguments above were theoretical/academic, designed to help make it obvious why the hearsay allegation text s/n be in this bio. (Sorry for any confusion.) --IHTS (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my two bits: Harvey Weinstein was a pig and molested/raped over 80 women. But Weinstein payed them off ($75,000 to $150,000) and they signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA's) so nobody would find out about the sexual assaults. Why didn't the women in this figure skating scandal come forth? I don't think Coughlin had money to pay them off. Both these guys looked ugly so maybe that's the only way they could get girls, by molesting them. Also, lady figure skaters are supreme athletes, tough as nails. Why didn't the girls beat the heck out of Coughlin?75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong authority figure effect in figure skating since instruction is much more often one-on-one (private) than in many other sports, particularly team sports like football. When a coach is very respected, they tend to hold a lot of sway in their rink community. The skating community is a close-knit one, so choosing the wrong side of a conflict often does not go well. Thus it shouldn't be surprising that many are afraid to report abuse. This is a very common problem in the skating world that folks have begun speaking out about recently. Anyways, it's not our job to speculate. We have to go with what reliable sources say, especially in this article on a living person. So it's not our place to judge the credibility of the accusations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Coughlin_(figure_skater)&oldid=1206806313"