Jump to content

Talk:Justin Gatlin

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

Where is there an article on drug doping?

[edit]

Both Landis and Gatlin have same problem. Bona Fides 01:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They actually have different problems. Gatlin, high teststerone, and Landis low epitestosterone. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but he didn't do it - his disgruntled ex-trainer rubbed him down with some testosterone cream or some other such fantasy, didn't you know?!? Geezzzzzzzzz. jkm 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenn degree

[edit]

Did he get a degree in Tennessee or did he drop out? Mike H. [[User talk2005 (UTC)

Not sure, but Tennessee is sure hot. Drdr1989 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: request protect

[edit]

Due to going on the main page, the article has received a great many anon vandalisms. Could an admin please sprotect the page against anon editors for a few days? Kasreyn 05:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this--Zoso Jade 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. We don't protect articles on the Main Page. It sends the wrong message. Superm401 - Talk 02:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

world record template

[edit]

anyone else think this is a good idea? Yonatanh 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

185.42 cm

[edit]

Where does this value come from? You can't reasonably measure a man's height with that accuracy... If somebody "calculated" it from the measurement in feet/inches, I suggest rounding to three digits... 185.42 is the exact measurement in cm of 6'1, which is what Gatlin was listed as. According to his combine results however he is in reality 5'11 7/8, ie. about 3mm under 6'. Just shows that these athletes boost their heights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.181.130 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is old, but while we should use listed heights when they are the only piece of information available, Justin was actually measured by the NFL during his suspension when he was playing around with potentially trying out for a team. In this case, the 6'1" is usual thing where an athlete supplies an inch or two to his height. Since he's measured at just below 6'0", it'd probably better to list him at 6'0" since we have an actual measurement (http://speedendurance.com/2008/04/04/justin-gatlin-442-40-yard-dash/). --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this back up since it's been changed again. We have an actual measured height for him, which is kind of rare for this sport (https://speedendurance.com/2008/04/04/justin-gatlin-442-40-yard-dash/). He was measured at 5'11 and 7/8ths. I wouldn't say to put that specific figure, but what's clear is that he should be listed at his actual height instead of his sports/reported one. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The track and field ban

[edit]

I'm sure there's some reason for this, but I think this article needs to clarify his agreement on an eight year ban, and now just recently it have been announced that he has received a four year ban. I've checked sources on this recent announcement and they indeed talk of a four year ban. So I wonder about the discrepency, and think the article needs to explain that.—Northgrove 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Justin Gatlin. 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) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to semi-protect the page

[edit]

Request to semi-protect the page to limit editing it to long-term users and above for vandalism. -Mardus /talk 20:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already requested at WP:RPP - Arjayay (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@talk: +1 for the request. -Mardus /talk 21:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simuliid talk 21:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^?? I mean, the article was at last protected anyway. -Mardus /talk 21:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2017

[edit]

I wanted to remove the spam on the page. Dhonions (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two-time doper

[edit]

A user doesn't let 'two-time doper' in the article even though it appears in reliable sources (see BBC, The Independent, Politico etc.). I know this is highly sensitive per WP:BLP but reliable sources are pretty convincing in this case, so there's no reason to pardon him for his behaviour in the past. Also, the paragraph In 2001, he incurred a two-year ban from athletics for testing positive for amphetamines, later reduced to one year because of an appeal. In 2006, he incurred a further four-year ban for testing positive for testosterone, with this sanction erasing his then-world-record time of 9.77 seconds in the 100 metres. would benefit from an introductory sentence indicating that he's a two-time doper before moving to the two cases for which he was banned.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is not traditionally how articles are done on atheletes, and I don't see a convincing argument for the redundancy. In fact, the opening paragraph is already too long and would benefit from serve revision. And I'm "the user." Use my name. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the intro is too long and should be revised, but the paragraph on his two bans is important enough to stay because that’s one of the things he’s known for. And my apologies for not using your username (to the contrary, some users complain when they’re pinged by username, so it’s difficult to know someone’s preference in advance).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this is really sensitive for a living person, ‘doper’ is certainly a derived adjective for someone who failed a doping test and ‘two-time doper’ is what should be logically used for someone who failed twice (the alternative is ‘drug cheat’, which sounds colloquial and too harsh). And when the term is used in news articles published by reputable media like the BBC, then there’s clearly nothing wrong in using it. To call someone who failed a doping test twice a ‘two-time doper’ is equivalent to calling someone who won two Olympic medals a ‘two-time Olympic medalist’.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Gatlin&oldid=1224927349"