Talk:Joseph M. Papp

Authorship

• • • This page sounds like he wrote it himself. I definitely would not be surprised if this were found to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihcnaib (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Health

>>>>I heard from an acquaintance that Papp committed suicide today (3 May 08)??? Any truth to this???Azx2 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<<Papp didn't commit suicide. That's ridiculous. Juandvd.trrs (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, I have done more research into historical record and spoken to subject and others and spent some time editing the entry today to clarify factual information, provide additional references and lessen effect of subjective content intended to distort subject matter and which may reveal an author's possible bias for/against subject. It seems like there is consistent effort to draw some distinction between Papp's status as a racer and that of, for example, Juan Torres (ex-teammate of Papp's) in 2007 season. Papp competed on teams that were "professional" but also teams that were (elite) "amateur". The deciding factor should be what type of license he held (UCI international elite) and the races in which he competed (UCI 2.2's, 2.5's, etc). The distinction between UCI-registered and non-UCI registered teams is salient from a technical perspective, but if it is included in the entry in an attempt to lessen subject's credibility, then there should also be a full explanation of the relevance of the multi-tiered system for classifying teams and an explanation of the actual distinction between a T3 and non-T3 team (with respect to the purchase of UCI license as opposed to any significant or relative technical support difference); and also an explanation of the categorization of UCI events. Azx2 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • One of the difficulties of the UCI system is that the level of team doesn't necessarily assert the status of the rider. As the regs currently stand, all riders in PT and PC teams are professionals (and PT riders at least covered by a minimum wage), but riders below can be professional in a team of otherwise amatuer riders. Many riders as they come towards the end of their career drop to Continental teams, still waged as professionals, where they can pass on their experience to new, young riders who aren't necessarily professional. To assert a rider is of lesser status because of the team they rode for is false; to imply it within the article is NPOV as it isn't weighting the significance of being in a lesser team properly. Assert what they did do; the reader can figure out the rest. Severo^TC 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Univest GP

• • In respect of restoration of redlink for Univest GP I tried to create brief entry for Univest GP race. Race website has good content but it would be copyright-protected and not available for pasting into Wikipedia. Does anyone know owner of content at the website http://www.univestgrandprix.com/univestgp/history.html who could authorize more detailed history, which would validate inclusion of redlink for Univest GP?Azx2 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Class

Having been watching this article evolve for some time, I'm wondering how it progressed to the class-rating it has now, and what the requirements are to move it into the next level? The subject is certainly doing his best to retain notoriety, so what do contributors here have to do to leverage that and turn this into something comprehensive?98.236.51.204 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No Missed Tests

The article includes (appropriately) the sentence, "Papp is also a member of UCI’s Whereabouts Testing Pool, and had no "Missed Tests" declared against him during the period in which he was ineligible to compete." However, the article was edited to reflect a contributor's belief that a citation was needed for this statement. Papp's not having missed any tests during his period of ineligibility can be inferred from the fact that his sanction ran only from July 31, 2006 to July 31, 2008, after which time he became eligible to compete. If Papp HAD missed a test, his sanction would have been extended. It was not, which - in the absence of accusations of a conspiracy or backroom-deal of some sort - would indicate that he complied with all the requirements of his sanction and did not miss any tests. Furthermore, an athlete returning from a sanction will receive from USADA (at least in the USA) confirmation of the completion of their term of ineligibility, including a statement that they neither missed tests nor were guilty of a whereabouts or filing failure. Check page 32 of the USADA handbook for more details on failings. HZ4w0uYd (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So it's original research then? As per WP:BLP, all contentious (and if someone has challenged it it is contentious) material must have a reliable source to back it up. Severo^TC 12:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When the subject is on record having said something, for example, "During my sanction I had no missed-tests or other violations of the terms of my sanction, and am therefore eligible to request a license from USA Cycling," if the quote appears in their personal site, can it be cited as a legitimate source? What if the same quote is published on another site, like Joe Lindsey's column (or is his Bicycling thing a blog?)? Does that make a difference? Papp has been quite open in his interactions with the media, and if he hasn't written about this already, he'd probably have no problem testifying to it for the record if he was to be queried on it by the editor(s) who are concerned about source validity. My intent here is simply to understand in practical terms how to secure the source that will satisfy anyone who believes the material is contentious because of insufficient source citation. I don't have a problem contacting him, but then what would I do with the information he gives me? I can't publish it in a magazine or somewhere like VeloNews b/c that's not what I do.HZ4w0uYd (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not in possession of or undertaking original research. Secondly, to clarify, my qualifier about the subject's being on record assumes that the material described by some as being contentious (trying to be courteous yet factual here) is addressed by the subject in a reliable source such that any doubt about it's authenticity is eliminated (absent a documented accusation of behavior contrary to that claimed). If an editor/contributor to Wikipedia finds an interview or transcript of a speech, for example, in which the words appear, and then links to it to provide the citation, that's not original research, correct? They're just offering up a reliable source where the information appeared. For the record, I personally don't see the factual validity - the truthiness - of the no missed tests claim to be something contentious in an of itself. But I can acknowledge that what is contentious for another is the insertion of material that very well may be factual but which comes without a source annotation. In matters like these, dealing the minutiae of compliance with esoteric sporting regulations that aren't reported-on or even of interest to the main stream media absent some other contributing factor, what do you do if the information is relevant (it provides an example of changed behavior in the athlete who previously was a cheater - he or she for two years followed a strict protocol to ensure compliance with anti-doping rules, requirements and expectations that had to be met for a return to eligibility - this becomes evidence of a demonstrated effort to act differently, and given that part of Papp's spiel is that he is reformed and crusading for clean sport, that would be important behavior to want to be able to identify and verify.HZ4w0uYd (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)